Supreme Court Yearly Civil Digest 2022

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

5 Feb 2023 5:36 AM GMT

  • Supreme Court Yearly Civil Digest 2022

    AadhaarAadhaar Act 2016 - UIDAI directed to issue Aadhaar cards to sex workers without insisting proof of residence. Budhadev Karmaskar v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 525Act of GodAct of God - Meaning - When nothing of any external natural force had been in operation in a violent or sudden manner, the event of the fire in question could be referable to anything but to an act of God...

    Aadhaar

    Aadhaar Act 2016 - UIDAI directed to issue Aadhaar cards to sex workers without insisting proof of residence. Budhadev Karmaskar v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 525

    Act of God

    Act of God - Meaning - When nothing of any external natural force had been in operation in a violent or sudden manner, the event of the fire in question could be referable to anything but to an act of God in legal parlance. (Para 53-55) State of U.P. v. Mcdowell and Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 13 : (2022) 6 SCC 223

    Administrative Law

    Administrative Law - Administrative/executive orders or circulars, as the case may be, in the absence of any legislative competence cannot be made applicable with retrospective effect. Only law could be made retrospectively if it was expressly provided by the Legislature in the Statute. (Para 30) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Tata Communications Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 792 : 2022 (14) SCALE 1

    Administrative Law - Appeal challenging adverse Remarks made in the Allahabad HC judgment regarding a Statutory authority - Allowed - Even if the High Court found that the impugned actions of the authorities concerned, particularly of the appellant, had not been strictly in conformity with law or were irregular or were illegal or even perverse, such findings, by themselves, were not leading to an inference as corollary that there had been any deliberate action or omission on the part of the Assessing Authority or the Registering Authority; or that any 'tactics' were adopted. Chandra Prakash Mishra v. Flipkart, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 359 : 2022 (6) SCALE 40

    Administrative Law - Every erroneous, illegal or even perverse order/action by a Statutory authority, by itself, cannot be termed as wanting in good faith or suffering from malafide - For imputing motives and drawing inference about want of good faith in any person, particularly a statutory authority, something more than mere error or fault ought to exist. (Para 13, 16) Chandra Prakash Mishra v. Flipkart, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 359 : 2022 (6) SCALE 40

    Administrative Law - For holding the action of the Executive to be arbitrary, there must be a factual basis. (Para 13) State of Maharashtra v. Shaikh Mahemud, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 363 : 2022 (6) SCALE 104

    Administrative Law - Inter-departmental communications cannot be relied upon as a basis to claim any right - Merely writing something on the file does not amount to an order. Before something amounts to an order of the State Government, two things are necessary. First, the order has to be expressed in the name of the Governor as required by clause (1) of Article 166 and second, it has to be communicated. (Para 14-15) Mahadeo v. Sovan Devi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 730 : AIR 2022 SC 4071

    Administrative Law - The decision of the State in its executive power cannot be contradictory to the express provision of the statutory Rules, but where the statute and Rules are silent, the State Government, in exercise of its executive power, is competent to supplement the rules. The executive power of the State is to supplement and not supplant. Director of Teacher's Training Research Education v. OM Jessymol, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 759

    Administrative Law - The requirement to give reasons is satisfied if the concerned authority has provided relevant reasons. Mechanical reasons are not considered adequate. (Para 23) Ram Chander v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 401 : AIR 2022 SC 2017

    Accountability

    Administrative Law - Accountability - Three essential constituent dimensions. (i) responsibility, (ii) answerability and (iii) enforceability. (Para 33-35) Vijay Rajmohan v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 832 : AIR 2022 SC 4974

    Central Administrative Tribunal

    Central Administrative Tribunal - Punishment for contempt imposed on Advocate for alleged intemperate behaviour in court- SC sets aside CAT order as no trial was conducted - We would think that in the facts of this case, denial of a right of trial which is contemplated also under Section 14(1)(c) of the Act as also Rule 15 of the Rules has resulted in miscarriage of justice. (Para 26) Mehmood Pracha v. Central Administrative Tribunal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 692 : AIR 2022 SC 3933

    Doctrine of "Unreasonableness"

    Administrative Law - Doctrine of "unreasonableness" - It is the intention of a legislature, when using statutory language that confers broad choices on the administrative agencies, that courts should not lightly interfere with such decisions, and should give considerable respect to the decision-makers when reviewing the manner in which discretion was exercised. However, discretion must still be exercised in a manner that is within a reasonable interpretation of the margin of manoeuvre contemplated by the legislature, in accordance with the principles of the rule of law. (Para 78) Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 798 : 2022 (14) SCALE 270

    Judicial Review

    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 : 2022 (10) SCALE 42

    Maternity Leave

    Maternity Leave - A woman cannot be declined maternity leave under the Central Services (Leave Rules) 1972 with respect to her biological child on the ground that her spouse has two children from his earlier marriage. Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 718 : AIR 2022 SC 4108

    Natural Justice

    Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Importance of natural justice and an opportunity of hearing to be afforded to the affected party in any administrative or quasi­ judicial proceedings. (Para 28) Esteem Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Chetan Kamble, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 226 : 2022 (4) SCALE 284

    Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Importance of natural justice and an opportunity of hearing to be afforded to the affected party in any administrative or quasi­judicial proceedings. (Para 28) Esteem Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Chetan Kamble, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 226 : 2022 (4) SCALE 284

    Administrative Tribunal Act, 1986

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

    Section 17 - Power to punish for Contempt

    Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985; Section 17 - Power of CAT to punish for contempt - Central Administrative Tribunal Rules 13 & 15 - CAT cannot punish for contempt committed in the face of it without trial when the alleged contemnor denies charges - Procedure under Section 14(1)(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act to be followed- CAT has no power of the Supreme Court under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution of India. (Paras 14, 15 & 24) Mehmood Pracha v. Central Administrative Tribunal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 692 : AIR 2022 SC 3933

    Section 25 - Power of Chairman to transfer cases from one Bench to another

    Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985; Section 25 - Any decision of Tribunal, including the one passed under Section 25 of the Act could be subjected to scrutiny only before a Division Bench of a High Court within whose jurisdiction the Tribunal concerned falls. (Para 16) Union of India v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 12 : AIR 2022 SC 499 : (2022) 3 SCC 133

    Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 25 - Chairman could pass an order of transfer under Section 25 of the Act suo motu. (Para 8) Union of India v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 12 : AIR 2022 SC 499 : (2022) 3 SCC 133

    Section 26 - Decision to be by majority

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

    Admiralty

    Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017; Section 12, 14 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order 1 Rule 10(2), Order XLIII Rule 1 - Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - An order for addition of a party under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the CPC is not appealable under section 14 of the Admiralty Act - An appeal does not lie to the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court from an order of the Commercial Division (Single Bench) of the same High Court for addition of a party in an admiralty suit governed by the Admiralty Act - An intra-court appeal under the Admiralty Act to the Commercial Division of the High Court would lie from any judgment, decree or final order under the Admiralty Act or an interim order under the Admiralty Act relatable to the orders specified in Order 43, Rule 1 - An order for addition of a party under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the CPC is not appealable under section 14 of the Admiralty Act - It could not possibly have been the legislative intent of the Admiralty Act to make all interim orders appealable. (Para 81-88) Owners and Parties Interested in the Vessel M.V. Polaris Galaxy v. Banque Cantonale De Geneve, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 793

    Admission and Fee

    Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee (for Professional Courses offered in Private Un­Aided Professional Institutions) Rules, 2006 (Andhra Pradesh); Rule 4 - The education is not the business to earn profit. The tuition fee shall always be affordable. Determination of fee/review of fee shall be within the parameters of the fixation rules and shall have direct nexus on the factors mentioned in Rule 4 of the Rules, 2006, namely, (a) the location of the professional institution; (b) the nature of the professional course; (c) the cost of available infrastructure; (d) the expenditure on administration and maintenance; (e) a reasonable surplus required for growth and development of the professional Institution; (f) the revenue foregone on account of waiver of fee, if any, in respect of students belonging to the reserved category and other Economically Weaker Sections of the society. All the aforesaid factors are required to be considered by the AFRC while determining/reviewing the tuition fees. (Para 5) Narayana Medical College v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 929 : AIR 2022 SC 5686

    Admissions

    Admissions - While generally admissions of fact by counsel are binding, neither the client nor the court is bound by admissions as to matters of law. (Para 24-25) Employees State Insurance Co. v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 78 : AIR 2022 SC 1017

    Adverse Possession

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

    Advocate

    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

    Advocate Commissioners - The Advocate Commissioner is not a new concept. The advocates are appointed as Court Commissioner to perform diverse administrative and ministerial work as per the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure and Code of Criminal Procedure. (Para 36) NKGSB Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Subir Chakravarty, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 212 : AIR 2022 SC 1325 : (2022) 10 SCC 286

    Advocates - Role of the advocate as being an officer of the court - An advocate is a guardian of constitutional morality and justice equally with the Judge. He has an important duty as that of a Judge. He bears responsibility towards the society and is expected to act with utmost sincerity and commitment to the cause of justice. He has a duty to the court first. As an officer of the court, he owes allegiance to a higher cause and cannot indulge in consciously misstating the facts or for that matter conceal any material fact within his knowledge - An advocate should be diligent and his conduct should conform to the requirements of the law by which he plays a vital role in the preservation of society and justice system. As an officer of the court, he is under a higher obligation to uphold the rule of law and justice system. (Para 37 - 39) NKGSB Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Subir Chakravarty, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 212 : AIR 2022 SC 1325 : (2022) 10 SCC 286

    Advocates Act 1961 - Disciplinary action against striking lawyers - Bar Council of India to take appropriate action against all the executive members of different Bar Associations on strike contrary to directions of this Court and logically we would expect their licences to be suspended at least till the work is resumed and further action against the members of the Action Committee. PLR Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1006

    Advocates Act 1961 - Supreme Court Rules - Advocates-on-Record System - Supreme Court has authority to prescribe who can act or plead in the court as per Article 145 of the Constitution read along with Section 52(b) of The Advocates Act, 1961 - Challenge against AoR system dismissed. Nandini Sharma v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1018

    Advocates Act, 1961; Section 32 - The enabling provision of Section 32, whereby any Court, authority or person may permit any non-advocate to appear before it or him in any particular case is difficult to be read as creating a corresponding bar in giving permission to a GPA holder of a party to represent that party as such, if the said GPA holder, during pendency of the proceedings in the Court, gets enrolled as an advocate. (Para 14) S. Ramachandra Rao v. S. Nagabhushana Rao, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 861 : AIR 2022 SC 5317

    Affidavits

    Affidavits - Once an affidavit has been filed which is on the face of it false to the knowledge of the executants, no benefit can be claimed on the ground that delivery of possession was given. (Para 16) New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. Ravindra Kumar Singhvi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 184 : AIR 2022 SC 928 : (2022) 5 SCC 591

    Affidavits - Therefore, affidavits filed were not mere sheets of paper but a solemn statement made before a person authorized to administer an oath or to accept affirmation. The plaintiff had breached such a solemn statement made on oath. (Para 17) New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. Ravindra Kumar Singhvi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 184 : AIR 2022 SC 928 : (2022) 5 SCC 591

    Agriculture

    Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (Rajasthan) - Section 9 - It cannot be said to be a mandatory statutory obligation of the Market Committees to provide shop/land/platform on rent/lease. (Para 9) Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti v. Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 203 : AIR 2022 SC 1234 : (2022) 5 SCC 62

    All India Services

    All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 - Civil servants should maintain the highest ethical standards of integrity and honesty; political neutrality; fairness and impartiality in the discharge of duties, courtesy, accountability and transparency - Integrity, impartiality, neutrality, transparency and honesty are non-negotiable. Ethical standards necessarily have to be enforced and stringent action taken against the concerned officer whenever there is any breach of ethical standards as laid down in the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968. Vivek Krishna v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 436

    All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 - Writ petition seeking to impose restrictions to prevent Civil Servants from contesting elections immediately after retirement or resignation from service, by imposing a "Cooling off Period" - Dismissed - It is not for this Court to decide whether or not there should be any rules/guidelines for a bureaucrat to contest elections - Whether there should be any "Cooling off Period" for civil servants for them to contest elections or not is best left to the concerned Legislature - The allegations of bureaucrats deviating from strict norms of political neutrality with a view to obtaining party tickets to contest elections, is vague, devoid of particulars and unsupported by any materials which could justify intervention of this Court. Vivek Krishna v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 436

    Amendment

    Amendment - If power to amend or modify or relax a notification and/or order exists, the notification and/or order may be amended and/or modified as many times, as may be necessary. A statement made by counsel in Court would not prevent the authority concerned from making amendments and/or modifications provided such amendments and/or modifications were as per the procedure prescribed by law. (Para 47) Pahwa Plastics Pvt. Ltd. v. Dastak NGO, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 318 : 2022 (5) SCALE 353

    Amendment - Whenever the challenge is to the amended provisions, the scope of enquiry, inter alia, ought to be as to whether the same is in consonance with the Principal Act, achieve the object and purpose of the Principal Act and are otherwise just, rational and reasonable. (Para 21) Noel Harper v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 355 : 2022 (5) SCALE 775

    Ancient Monuments

    Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958; Sections 20A, 20C, 20D -The repairs and renovation of the buildings, which are existing and the constructions which are necessary for providing basic facilities like drainage, toilets, water supply and distribution of electricity are kept out of the rigour of requirement of statutory permissions. (Para 51) Ardhendu Kumar Das v. State of Odisha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 539 : AIR 2022 SC 2695

    Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958; Sections 20A, 20C, 20D - When sub­section (4) of Section 20A of the said Act is read in harmony with clause (dc) of Section 2 and the provisions of Sections 20C and 20D of the said Act, we find that the submission that no construction at all can be made in the prohibited area or the regulated area, would be unsustainable. (Para 41) Ardhendu Kumar Das v. State of Odisha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 539 : AIR 2022 SC 2695

    Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958; Section 2(dc) - Definition of "Construction" - The legislative intent is clear that the re­construction,repair, renovation of the existing buildings has been excluded from the definition. Similarly, the construction, maintenance etc. of drains, drainage works, public latrines and urinals; the construction and maintenance of works meant for providing supply of water to public; and construction etc. for distribution of electricity, which could be construed to be essential services for catering to the needs of the public at large, have consciously been kept out of the definition of "construction". (Para 41, 42) Ardhendu Kumar Das v. State of Odisha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 539 : AIR 2022 SC 2695

    Anganwadi

    Anganwadi workers (AWW) and Anganwadi helpers (AWH) - It is high time that the Central Government and State Governments take serious note of the plight of AWWs and AWHs who are expected to render such important services to the society - They are being paid very meagre remuneration and paltry benefits under an insurance scheme of the Central Government. (Para 20) Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya v. District Development Officer Dahod, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 408 : AIR 2022 SC 2119

    Anticipatory Bail

    Anticipatory Bail - SLP Against Madras HC Judgment dismissing anticipatory bail with some observations about requirement of custodial interrogation- Dismissed - High Court, after having found no case for grant of pre-arrest bail, has otherwise not given any such direction of mandatory nature - Observations are essentially of the reasons assigned by the High Court in declining the prayer of the petitioner for pre-arrest bail. S. Senthil Kumar v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 314

    Anticipatory bail granted to Trinamool Congress leader Sheikh Sufiyan in a case relating to the murder of a BJP supporter during the West Bengal post -poll violence. Sk. Supiyan @ Suffiyan @ Supisan v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 146 : 2022 (3) SCALE 42

    Arbitration

    Arbitration Act, 1940

    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 : (2022) 9 SCC 593

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Can a person who is ineligible to be an arbitrator nominate another arbitrator? Supreme Court refers issue to larger bench. JSW Steel Limited v. South Western Railway, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 693

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Appeal against Bombay HC judgment which dismissed appeal against interim award of the Arbitral tribunal holding that JDIL was not a party to the arbitration agreement and must be deleted from the array of parties - Allowed - The interim award of the Arbitral Tribunal stands vitiated because of: (i) The failure of the arbitral tribunal to decide upon the application for discovery and inspection filed by ONGC; (ii) The failure of the arbitral tribunal to determine the legal foundation for the application of the group of companies doctrine; and (iii) The decision of the arbitral tribunal that it would decide upon the applications filed by ONGC only after the plea of jurisdiction was disposed of. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Discovery Enterprises Pvt. Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 416 : AIR 2022 SC 2080 : (2022) 8 SCC 42

    Arbitrator’s fee

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Arbitrator’s fee cap is Rs 30 lakhs, ceiling limit applicable to individual arbitrators, not tribunal as a whole. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Afcons Gunanusa JV, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 723 : AIR 2022 SC 4413

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Arbitrators cannot unilaterally fix their fee as it violates party autonomy. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Afcons Gunanusa JV, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 723 : AIR 2022 SC 4413

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Arbitrators entitled to charge separate fee for claim & counter claim in arbitration proceedings. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Afcons Gunanusa JV, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 723 : AIR 2022 SC 4413

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - 'Hold preliminary hearings to fix arbitrator's fee': Supreme Court issues directives to govern fees of arbitrators. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Afcons Gunanusa JV, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 723 : AIR 2022 SC 4413

    Interest

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Interest - Party not entitled to interest for the period during which the proceedings were deliberately delayed-A party cannot be permitted to derive benefits from its own lapses. [Para 12 to 14] Executive Engineer (R and B) v. Gokul Chandra Kanungo, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 824 : AIR 2022 SC 4857

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Appeal against Bombay HC judgment which dismissed appeal against interim award of the Arbitral tribunal holding that JDIL was not a party to the arbitration agreement and must be deleted from the array of parties - Allowed - The interim award of the Arbitral Tribunal stands vitiated because of: (i) The failure of the arbitral tribunal to decide upon the application for discovery and inspection filed by ONGC; (ii) The failure of the arbitral tribunal to determine the legal foundation for the application of the group of companies doctrine; and (iii) The decision of the arbitral tribunal that it would decide upon the applications filed by ONGC only after the plea of jurisdiction was disposed of. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation v. Discovery Enterprises, 2022 LiveLaw SC 416 : AIR 2022 SC 2080

    Jurisdiction

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Jurisdiction - When two or more Courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes arising out of an arbitration agreement, the parties might, by agreement, decide to refer all disputes to any one Court to the exclusion of all other Courts, which might otherwise have had jurisdiction to decide the disputes. The parties cannot, however, by consent, confer jurisdiction on a Court which inherently lacked jurisdiction. (Para 47) Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 329 : 2022 (5) SCALE 372

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Only if the agreement of the parties was construed to provide for seat/place of arbitration in India, would Part-I of the 1996 Act be applicable. If the seat/place were outside India, Part-I would not apply, even though the venue of a few sittings may have been in India, or the cause of action may have arisen in India. (Para 36) Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 329 : 2022 (5) SCALE 372

    Revocation of Arbitration Clauses and Reopening of Awards Act, 1998 (Kerala)

    Arbitration - Revocation of Arbitration Clauses and Reopening of Awards Act, 1998 (Kerala) - 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 : (2022) 9 SCC 593

    Seat and Venue

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Seat and Venue - Sittings at various places are relatable to venue. It cannot be equated with the seat of arbitration or place of arbitration, which has a different connotation. (Para 44, 45) Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 329 : 2022 (5) SCALE 372

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Special leave petition against an order of the Calcutta High Court, allowing an Arbitration Petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an Arbitrator - Allowed - Calcutta High Court inherently lacks jurisdiction to entertain the application. Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 329 : 2022 (5) SCALE 372

    Section 2(e) - “Court”

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11(6) and 2(1)(e) - An application under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act for appointment of an Arbitrator/Arbitral Tribunal cannot be moved in any High Court in India, irrespective of its territorial jurisdiction. Section 11(6) of the A&C Act has to be harmoniously read with Section 2(1)(e) of the A&C Act and construed to mean, a High Court which exercises superintendence/supervisory jurisdiction over a Court within the meaning of Section 2(1)(e) of the A&C Act. It could never have been the intention of Section 11(6) of the A&C Act that arbitration proceedings should be initiated in any High Court in India, irrespective of whether the Respondent resided or carried on business within the jurisdiction of that High Court, and irrespective of whether any part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of that Court, to put an opponent at a disadvantage and steal a march over the opponent. Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 329 : 2022 (5) SCALE 372

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996; Section 2(1)(e), 34 - In the absence of the High Court of Orissa having original jurisdiction, the concerned District Court can be said to be `Court' - The proceedings under Section 34 against the award passed by the Arbitrator shall lie before the concerned District Court, as defined under Section 2(e). Yashpal Chopra v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 900

    Section 2(h) - “Party”

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 2(h), 7, 8, 16 - Group of companies doctrine - An arbitration agreement entered into by a company within a group of companies, can bind its non-signatory affiliates or sister concerns if the circumstances demonstrate a mutual intention of the parties to bind both the signatory and affiliated, non-signatory parties - A non-signatory may be bound by the arbitration agreement where: (i) There exists a group of companies; and (ii) Parties have engaged in conduct or made statements indicating an intention to bind a non-signatory - In deciding whether a company within a group of companies which is not a signatory to arbitration agreement would nonetheless be bound by it, the law considers the following factors: (i) The mutual intent of the parties; (ii) The relationship of a non-signatory to a party which is a signatory to the agreement; (iii) The commonality of the subject matter; (iv) The composite nature of the transaction; and (v) The performance of the contract. (Para 18, 23, 26) Oil and Natural Gas Corporation v. Discovery Enterprises, 2022 LiveLaw SC 416 : AIR 2022 SC 2080

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 2(h), 7, 8, 16 - Group of Companies Doctrine - An arbitration agreement entered into by a company within a group of companies, can bind its non-signatory affiliates or sister concerns if the circumstances demonstrate a mutual intention of the parties to bind both the signatory and affiliated, non-signatory parties - A non-signatory may be bound by the arbitration agreement where: (i) There exists a group of companies; and (ii) Parties have engaged in conduct or made statements indicating an intention to bind a non-signatory - In deciding whether a company within a group of companies which is not a signatory to arbitration agreement would nonetheless be bound by it, the law considers the following factors: (i) The mutual intent of the parties; (ii) The relationship of a non-signatory to a party which is a signatory to the agreement; (iii) The commonality of the subject matter; (iv) The composite nature of the transaction; and (v) The performance of the contract. (Para 18 , 23, 26) Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Discovery Enterprises Pvt. Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 416 : AIR 2022 SC 2080 : (2022) 8 SCC 42

    Section 7 - Arbitration Agreement

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 2(h), 7, 8, 16 - Group of companies doctrine - An arbitration agreement entered into by a company within a group of companies, can bind its non-signatory affiliates or sister concerns if the circumstances demonstrate a mutual intention of the parties to bind both the signatory and affiliated, non-signatory parties - A non-signatory may be bound by the arbitration agreement where: (i) There exists a group of companies; and (ii) Parties have engaged in conduct or made statements indicating an intention to bind a non-signatory - In deciding whether a company within a group of companies which is not a signatory to arbitration agreement would nonetheless be bound by it, the law considers the following factors: (i) The mutual intent of the parties; (ii) The relationship of a non-signatory to a party which is a signatory to the agreement; (iii) The commonality of the subject matter; (iv) The composite nature of the transaction; and (v) The performance of the contract. (Para 18, 23, 26) Oil and Natural Gas Corporation v. Discovery Enterprises, 2022 LiveLaw SC 416 : AIR 2022 SC 2080

    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; Section 7 - Principles governing what constitutes an arbitration agreement - Arbitration agreement should disclose a determination and obligation on behalf of parties to refer disputes to arbitration - mere use of the word "arbitration" or "arbitrator" in a clause will not make it an arbitration agreement, if it requires or contemplates a further or fresh consent of the parties for reference to arbitration. (Para 8-9) Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. IVRCL AMR Joint Venture, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 657

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 7, 11 - Section 7 of the Act does not mandate any particular form for the arbitration clause - Even if we were to assume that the subject­clause lacks certain essential characteristics of arbitration like "final and binding" nature of the award, the parties have evinced clear intention to refer the dispute to arbitration and abide by the decision of the tribunal. The party autonomy to this effect, therefore, deserves to be protected - The deficiency of words in agreement which otherwise fortifies the intention of the parties to arbitrate their disputes, cannot legitimise the annulment of arbitration clause - Courts to give greater emphasis to the substance of the clause, predicated upon the evident intent and objectives of the parties to choose a specific form of dispute resolution to manage conflicts between them. (Para 14-28) Babanrao Rajaram Pund v. Samarth Builders & Developers, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 747 : AIR 2022 SC 4161 : (2022) 9 SCC 691

    Section 8 - Power to refer parties to arbitration where there is an arbitration agreement

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 2(h), 7, 8, 16 - Group of companies doctrine - An arbitration agreement entered into by a company within a group of companies, can bind its non-signatory affiliates or sister concerns if the circumstances demonstrate a mutual intention of the parties to bind both the signatory and affiliated, non-signatory parties - A non-signatory may be bound by the arbitration agreement where: (i) There exists a group of companies; and (ii) Parties have engaged in conduct or made statements indicating an intention to bind a non-signatory - In deciding whether a company within a group of companies which is not a signatory to arbitration agreement would nonetheless be bound by it, the law considers the following factors: (i) The mutual intent of the parties; (ii) The relationship of a non-signatory to a party which is a signatory to the agreement; (iii) The commonality of the subject matter; (iv) The composite nature of the transaction; and (v) The performance of the contract. (Para 18, 23, 26) Oil and Natural Gas Corporation v. Discovery Enterprises, 2022 LiveLaw SC 416 : AIR 2022 SC 2080

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 8, 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 : (2022) 8 SCC 1

    Section 9 - Interim measures, etc., by Court.

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 9 - Proof of actual attempts to deal with, remove or dispose of the property with a view to defeat or delay the realisation of an impending Arbitral Award is not imperative for grant of relief under Section 9 - A strong possibility of diminution of assets would suffice - The power under Section 9 should not ordinarily be exercised ignoring the basic principles of procedural law as laid down in the CPC, but the technicalities of CPC cannot prevent the Court from securing the ends of justice - If a strong prima facie case is made out and the balance of convenience is in favour of interim relief being granted, the Court exercising power under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act should not withhold relief on the mere technicality of absence of averments, incorporating the grounds for attachment before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 of the CPC. (Para 39-50) Essar House Pvt. Ltd. v. Arcellor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 765 : AIR 2022 SC 4294

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Sections 2(1)(e), 9, 14 and 34 - State Government can confer jurisdiction to hear applications under Sections 9, 14 and 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, upon Commercial Courts which are subordinate to the rank of the Principal Civil Judge in the District - All applications or appeals arising out of arbitration under the provisions of Act, 1996, other than international commercial arbitration, shall be filed in and heard and disposed of by the Commercial Courts, exercising the territorial jurisdiction over such arbitration where such commercial courts have been constituted. (Para 6-11) Jaycee Housing Pvt. Ltd. v. Registrar (General), Orissa High Court, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 860 : AIR 2022 SC 5239

    Section 16 - Competence of Arbitral Tribunal to rule on its Jurisdiction

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 16, 34, 37 - An appeal lies to the Court from the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal that it lacks jurisdiction - Parliament has not specifically constricted the powers of the court while considering an appeal under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 37 by the grounds on which an award can be challenged under Section 34 - In the exercise of the appellate jurisdiction, the court must have due deference to the grounds which have weighed with the tribunal in holding that it lacks jurisdiction having regard to the object and spirit underlying the statute which entrusts the arbitral tribunal with the power to rule on its own jurisdiction - The decision of the tribunal that it lacks jurisdiction is not conclusive because it is subject to an appellate remedy under Section 37(2)(a). However, in the exercise of this appellate power, the court must be mindful of the fact that the statute has entrusted the arbitral tribunal with the power to rule on its own jurisdiction with the purpose of facilitating the efficacy of arbitration as an institutional mechanism for the resolution of disputes. (Para 34 - 39) Oil and Natural Gas Corporation v. Discovery Enterprises, 2022 LiveLaw SC 416 : AIR 2022 SC 2080

    Section 11 - Appointment of Arbitrators

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

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11 - Court can undertake preliminary inquiry to ascertain if the dispute is arbitrable or falls under the excepted category in the agreement. (Para 7) Emaar India Ltd. v. Tarun Aggarwal Projects LLP, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 823 : AIR 2022 SC 4678

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

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11 - While dealing with petition under Section 11, the Court by default would refer the matter when contentions relating to non arbitrability are plainly arguable. In such case, the issue of non arbitrability is left open to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal. (Para 11) Mohammed Masroor Shaikh v. Bharat Bhushan Gupta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 120 : AIR 2022 SC 1126 : (2022) 4 SCC 156

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 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 : AIR 2022 SC 2193 : (2022) 10 SCC 235

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11(5), 11(6) - Delay in appointment of arbitrators - If the arbitrators are not appointed at the earliest and the applications under Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration Act are kept pending for a number of years, it will defeat the object and purpose of the enactment of the Arbitration Act and it may lose the significance of an effective Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanism. If the Commercial disputes are not resolved at the earliest, not only it would affect the commercial relations between the parties but it would also affect economy of the country. Shree Vishnu Constructions v. Engineer in Chief Military Engineering Service, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 523

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11(5), 11(6) - Directions issued to High Courts to dispose pending applications within 6 months - Ensure that all pending applications under Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration Act and/or any other applications either for substitution of arbitrator and/or change of arbitrator, which are pending for more than one year from the date of filing, must be decided within six months from today. Shree Vishnu Constructions v. Engineer in Chief Military Engineering Service, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 523

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11(6) - A party to the arbitration agreement can appoint an arbitrator even after an Arbitration Petition has been filed by the other party before the High Court for appointment of an arbitrator if the party has not been given due notice of the same. (Para 16) Durga Welding Works v. Chief Engineer, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 9 : (2022) 3 SCC 98

    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 : AIR 2022 SC 2193 : (2022) 10 SCC 235

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11(6) - The court at the referral stage can interfere only when it is manifest that the claims are ex facie time­barred and dead, or there is no subsisting dispute. In the context of issue of limitation period, it should be referred to the Arbitral Tribunal for decision on merits. Similar would be the position in case of disputed "no-­claim certificate" or defence on the plea of novation and "accord and satisfaction". Meenakshi Solar Power Pvt. Ltd. v. Abhyudaya Green Economic Zones Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 988

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11(6) - Unless on the facet it is found that the dispute is not arbitrable and if it requires further/deeper consideration, the dispute with respect to the arbitrability should be left to the arbitrator. (Para 5.3) VGP Marine Kingdom Pvt. Ltd. v. Kay Ellen Arnold, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 914 : AIR 2022 SC 5474

    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

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11(6) and 2(1)(e) - An application under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act for appointment of an Arbitrator/Arbitral Tribunal cannot be moved in any High Court in India, irrespective of its territorial jurisdiction. Section 11(6) of the A&C Act has to be harmoniously read with Section 2(1)(e) of the A&C Act and construed to mean, a High Court which exercises superintendence/supervisory jurisdiction over a Court within the meaning of Section 2(1)(e) of the A&C Act. It could never have been the intention of Section 11(6) of the A&C Act that arbitration proceedings should be initiated in any High Court in India, irrespective of whether the Respondent resided or carried on business within the jurisdiction of that High Court, and irrespective of whether any part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of that Court, to put an opponent at a disadvantage and steal a march over the opponent. Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 329 : 2022 (5) SCALE 372

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11(6), 7 - High Court order proceeds on an understanding that the Counsel for both the sides did not dispute the fact that a clause of the Contract Agreement provided for appointment of an arbitrator - An understanding of counsel, cannot be regarded as a binding statement of law on the existence of an arbitration agreement. (Para 18) Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. IVRCL AMR Joint Venture, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 657

    Section 12 - Grounds for Challenge

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 12(5) read with Seventh Schedule - An arbitral tribunal constituted as per an arbitration clause before the 2015 amendment to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 will lose its mandate if it violates the neutrality clause under Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule, which were incorporated through the 2015 amendment. (Para 8, 9) Ellora Paper Mills Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 8 : AIR 2022 SC 280 : (2022) 3 SCC 1

    Section 14 - Failure or Impossibility to Act

    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 : AIR 2022 SC 2193 : (2022) 10 SCC 235

    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

    Section 15 - Termination of Mandate and Substitution of Arbitrator

    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 : AIR 2022 SC 2193 : (2022) 10 SCC 235

    Section 16 - Competence of Arbitral Tribunal to rule on its Jurisdiction

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 16 - Party taking the plea of absence of jurisdiction is required to establish the grounds on which it set about to establish its plea. (Para 49) Oil and Natural Gas Corporation v. Discovery Enterprises, 2022 LiveLaw SC 416 : AIR 2022 SC 2080

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 2(h), 7, 8, 16 - Group of companies doctrine - An arbitration agreement entered into by a company within a group of companies, can bind its non-signatory affiliates or sister concerns if the circumstances demonstrate a mutual intention of the parties to bind both the signatory and affiliated, non-signatory parties - A non-signatory may be bound by the arbitration agreement where: (i) There exists a group of companies; and (ii) Parties have engaged in conduct or made statements indicating an intention to bind a non-signatory - In deciding whether a company within a group of companies which is not a signatory to arbitration agreement would nonetheless be bound by it, the law considers the following factors: (i) The mutual intent of the parties; (ii) The relationship of a non-signatory to a party which is a signatory to the agreement; (iii) The commonality of the subject matter; (iv) The composite nature of the transaction; and (v) The performance of the contract. (Para 18, 23, 26) Oil and Natural Gas Corporation v. Discovery Enterprises, 2022 LiveLaw SC 416 : AIR 2022 SC 2080

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 16 - Party taking the plea of absence of jurisdiction is required to establish the grounds on which it set about to establish its plea. (Para 49) Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Discovery Enterprises Pvt. Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 416 : AIR 2022 SC 2080 : (2022) 8 SCC 42

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 16, 34, 37 - An appeal lies to the Court from the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal that it lacks jurisdiction - Parliament has not specifically constricted the powers of the court while considering an appeal under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 37 by the grounds on which an award can be challenged under Section 34 - In the exercise of the appellate jurisdiction, the court must have due deference to the grounds which have weighed with the tribunal in holding that it lacks jurisdiction having regard to the object and spirit underlying the statute which entrusts the arbitral tribunal with the power to rule on its own jurisdiction - The decision of the tribunal that it lacks jurisdiction is not conclusive because it is subject to an appellate remedy under Section 37(2)(a). However, in the exercise of this appellate power, the court must be mindful of the fact that the statute has entrusted the arbitral tribunal with the power to rule on its own jurisdiction with the purpose of facilitating the efficacy of arbitration as an institutional mechanism for the resolution of disputes. (Para 34 - 39) Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Discovery Enterprises Pvt. Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 416 : AIR 2022 SC 2080 : (2022) 8 SCC 42

    Section 17 - Interim Measures ordered by Arbitral Tribunal

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 17 - Appeal against Delhi HC order which confirmed the interim order passed by Arbitral Tribunal directing the appellant to deposit the rental amount from March, 2020 onwards and up to December, 2021 - Partly allowed - No order could have been passed by the Tribunal by way of interim measure on the applications filed under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act in a case where there is a serious dispute with respect to the liability of the rental amounts to be paid, which is yet to be adjudicated upon and/or considered by the Arbitral Tribunal - The appellant will therefore have to deposit the entire rental amount except the period for which there was complete closure due to lockdown. Evergreen Land Mark Pvt. Ltd. v. John Tinson and Company Pvt. Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 389 : AIR 2022 SC 1930 : (2022) 7 SCC 757

    Section 20 - Place of Arbitration

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 20 - The appointment of a new arbitrator who holds the arbitration proceedings at a different location would not change the jurisdictional 'seat' already fixed by the earlier or first arbitrator. The place of arbitration in such an event should be treated as a venue where arbitration proceedings are held - Once the jurisdictional 'seat' of arbitration is fixed in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act, then, without the express mutual consent of the parties to the arbitration, 'the seat' cannot be changed. (Para 29) BBR (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. S.P. Singla Constructions, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 493 : AIR 2022 SC 2673

    Section 21 - Parties to suit may apply for order of reference

    Arbitration Act, 1940; Section 21 - The word 'agree' in Section 21 of the Act refers to consensus ad idem between the parties who take a considered decision to forego their right of adjudication before a court where the suit is pending, and mutually agree to have the subject matter of the suit or part thereof adjudicated and decided by an arbitrator. (Para 17) M.P. Rajya Tilhan Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Maryadit v. Modi Transport Service, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 471 : 2022 (7) SCALE 762

    Arbitration Act, 1940; Section 21 - Distinction between the scope and functions of an arbitral tribunal and a commissioner - For submission to arbitration, there must be an arbitration agreement or an agreement in terms of Section 21 of the Act that the difference or dispute between the parties for which they intend to be determined in a quasi-judicial manner. Commissioners are appointed by the court. Appointment may be with consent of the parties, or even when there is objection to the appointment. Preexisting agreement or the requirement that the parties agree before the court, as is mandatory in case of arbitration, is not necessary when a court directs appointment of a commissioner. In the case of a reference to a commissioner, all that the parties expect from the commissioner is a valuation/ examination of the subject matter referred, which he would do according to his skill, knowledge and experience, which may be without taking any evidence or hearing argument. (Para 32) M.P. Rajya Tilhan Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Maryadit v. Modi Transport Service, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 471 : 2022 (7) SCALE 762

    Section 23 - Statements of Claim and Defence

    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 : 2022 (10) SCALE 429

    Section 30 - Grounds for setting aside award

    Arbitration Act, 1940; Section 30, 33 - Scope of interference by courts - A Court does not sit in appeal over an Award passed by an Arbitrator and the only grounds on which it can be challenged are those that have been specified in Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, namely, when there is an error on the face of the Award or when the learned Arbitrator has misconducted himself or the proceedings. (Para 10-15) Atlanta Ltd. v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 63 : (2022) 3 SCC 739

    Section 31 - Form and Contents of Arbitral Award

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 31 - Post-award interest can be granted by an Arbitrator on the interest amount awarded. (Para 4-6) UHL Power Company Ltd. v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 18 : (2022) 4 SCC 116

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

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 31(7) - The arbitrator has the discretion to award post-award interest on a part of the 'sum' - The arbitrator has the discretion to determine the rate of reasonable interest, the sum on which the interest is to be paid, that is whether on the whole or any part of the principal amount, and the period for which payment of interest is to be made - whether it should be for the whole or any part of the period between the date on which the cause of action arose and the date of the award - The arbitrator must exercise the discretionary power to grant post award interest reasonably and in good faith, taking into account all relevant circumstances - The purpose of granting post-award interest is to ensure that the award debtor does not delay the payment of the award. (Para 18-22) Morgan Securities and Credits Pvt. Ltd. v. Videocon Industries Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 728 : AIR 2022 SC 4091

    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 : AIR 2022 SC 2165 : (2022) 9 SCC 286

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 31(7)(a) - the section itself requires interest to be at such rate as the arbitral tribunal deems reasonable. When a discretion is vested to an arbitral tribunal to award interest at a rate which it deems reasonable, then a duty would be cast upon the arbitral tribunal to give reasons as to how it deems the rate of interest to be reasonable - When the arbitral tribunal is empowered with such a discretion, the arbitral tribunal would be required to apply its mind to the facts of the case and decide as to whether the interest is payable on whole or any part of the money and also as to whether it is to be awarded to the whole or any part of the period between the date on which the cause of action arose and the date on which the award is made. Executive Engineer (R and B) v. Gokul Chandra Kanungo, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 824 : AIR 2022 SC 4857

    Section 33 - Arbitration agreement or award to be contested by application

    Arbitration Act, 1940; Section 30, 33 - Scope of interference by courts - A Court does not sit in appeal over an Award passed by an Arbitrator and the only grounds on which it can be challenged are those that have been specified in Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, namely, when there is an error on the face of the Award or when the learned Arbitrator has misconducted himself or the proceedings. (Para 10-15) Atlanta Ltd. v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 63 : (2022) 3 SCC 739

    Section 34 - Application for setting aside Arbitral Awards

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34 - An error in interpretation of a contract in a case where there is valid and lawful submission of arbitral disputes to an Arbitral Tribunal is an error within jurisdiction. (Para 45) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Shree Ganesh Petroleum Rajgurunagar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 121 : (2022) 4 SCC 463

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34 - Appeal against Punjab & Haryana HC order which allowed to proceed under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 without insistence for making pre-deposit of 75% of the awarded amount - Order passed by the High Court permitting the proceedings under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 without insistence for making pre­deposit of 75% of the awarded amount is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. Tirupati Steels v. Shubh Industrial Component, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 383 : AIR 2022 SC 1939 : (2022) 7 SCC 429

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34 - Arbitral award can be set aside by the court if the court finds the award is vitiated by patent illegality appearing on the face of the award - The award shall not be set aside merely on the ground of erroneous application of law or by misappreciation of evidence. (Para 15) Haryana Urban Development Authority, Karnal v. M/s. Mehta Construction Company, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 348 : (2022) 5 SCC 432

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34 - Limitation Act, 1961; Section 5 - Section 5 of Limitation Act is not applicable to condone the delay beyond the period prescribed under Section 34(3) of Act 1996. Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. v. Maheshbhai Tinabhai Rathod, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 5 : (2022) 4 SCC 162

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34 - Patent Illegality - An Arbitral Tribunal being a creature of contract, is bound to act in terms of the contract under which it is constituted. An award can be said to be patently illegal where the Arbitral Tribunal has failed to act in terms of the contract or has ignored the specific terms of a contract. (Para 44) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Shree Ganesh Petroleum Rajgurunagar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 121 : (2022) 4 SCC 463

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34 - The Court does not sit in appeal over the award made by an Arbitral Tribunal. The Court does not ordinarily interfere with interpretation made by the Arbitral Tribunal of a contractual provision, unless such interpretation is patently unreasonable or perverse. Where a contractual provision is ambiguous or is capable of being interpreted in more ways than one, the Court cannot interfere with the arbitral award, only because the Court is of the opinion that another possible interpretation would have been a better one. (Para 46) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Shree Ganesh Petroleum Rajgurunagar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 121 : (2022) 4 SCC 463

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34 - The court may condone delay of a period up to thirty days in filing of the objections if it is satisfied that the applicant is prevented by sufficient cause from making an application under Section 34(1) of the Act. (Para 10) Haryana Urban Development Authority, Karnal v. M/s. Mehta Construction Company, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 348 : (2022) 5 SCC 432

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

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34(4) - A harmonious reading of Section 31, 34(1), 34(2A) and 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, make it clear that in appropriate cases, on the request made by a party, Court can give an opportunity to the arbitrator to resume the arbitral proceedings for giving reasons or to fill up the gaps in the reasoning in support of a finding, which is already rendered in the award. But at the same time, when it prima facie appears that there is a patent illegality in the award itself, by not recording a finding on a contentious issue, in such cases, Court may not accede to the request of a party for giving an opportunity to the Arbitral Tribunal to resume the arbitral proceedings. (Para 21) I-Pay Clearing Services Pvt. Ltd. v. ICICI Bank Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 2 : AIR 2022 SC 301 : (2022) 3 SCC 121

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34(4) - If there are no findings on the contentious issues in the award or if any findings are recorded ignoring the material evidence on record, the same are acceptable grounds for setting aside the award itself. Under guise of either additional reasons or filling up the gaps in the reasoning, the power conferred on the Court cannot be relegated to the Arbitrator. In absence of any finding on contentious issue, no amount of reasons can cure the defect in the award. (Para 21) I-Pay Clearing Services Pvt. Ltd. v. ICICI Bank Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 2 : AIR 2022 SC 301 : (2022) 3 SCC 121

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34(4) - Merely because an application is filed under Section 34(4) of the Act by a party, it is not always obligatory on the part of the Court to remit the matter to Arbitral Tribunal. The discretionary power conferred under Section 34(4) of the Act, is to be exercised where there is inadequate reasoning or to fill up the gaps in the reasoning, in support of the findings which are already recorded in the award. Under guise of additional reasons and filling up the gaps in the reasoning, no award can be remitted to the Arbitrator, where there are no findings on the contentious issues in the award. (Para 21) I-Pay Clearing Services Pvt. Ltd. v. ICICI Bank Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 2: AIR 2022 SC 301 : (2022) 3 SCC 121

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34(4) - The discretion vested with the Court for remitting the matter to Arbitral Tribunal to give an opportunity to resume the proceedings or not. The words “where it is appropriate” itself indicate that it is the discretion to be exercised by the Court, to remit the matter when requested by a party. When application is filed under Section 34(4) of the Act, the same is to be considered keeping in mind the grounds raised in the application under Section 34(1) of the Act by the party, who has questioned the award of the Arbitral Tribunal and the grounds raised in the application filed under Section 34(4) of the Act and the reply thereto. (Para 21) I-Pay Clearing Services Pvt. Ltd. v. ICICI Bank Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 2 : AIR 2022 SC 301 : (2022) 3 SCC 121

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 16, 34, 37 - An appeal lies to the Court from the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal that it lacks jurisdiction - Parliament has not specifically constricted the powers of the court while considering an appeal under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 37 by the grounds on which an award can be challenged under Section 34 - In the exercise of the appellate jurisdiction, the court must have due deference to the grounds which have weighed with the tribunal in holding that it lacks jurisdiction having regard to the object and spirit underlying the statute which entrusts the arbitral tribunal with the power to rule on its own jurisdiction - The decision of the tribunal that it lacks jurisdiction is not conclusive because it is subject to an appellate remedy under Section 37(2)(a). However, in the exercise of this appellate power, the court must be mindful of the fact that the statute has entrusted the arbitral tribunal with the power to rule on its own jurisdiction with the purpose of facilitating the efficacy of arbitration as an institutional mechanism for the resolution of disputes. (Para 34 - 39) Oil and Natural Gas Corporation v. Discovery Enterprises, 2022 LiveLaw SC 416 : AIR 2022 SC 2080

    Section 37 - Appealable Orders

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 16, 34, 37 - An appeal lies to the Court from the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal that it lacks jurisdiction - Parliament has not specifically constricted the powers of the court while considering an appeal under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 37 by the grounds on which an award can be challenged under Section 34 - In the exercise of the appellate jurisdiction, the court must have due deference to the grounds which have weighed with the tribunal in holding that it lacks jurisdiction having regard to the object and spirit underlying the statute which entrusts the arbitral tribunal with the power to rule on its own jurisdiction - The decision of the tribunal that it lacks jurisdiction is not conclusive because it is subject to an appellate remedy under Section 37(2)(a). However, in the exercise of this appellate power, the court must be mindful of the fact that the statute has entrusted the arbitral tribunal with the power to rule on its own jurisdiction with the purpose of facilitating the efficacy of arbitration as an institutional mechanism for the resolution of disputes. (Para 34 - 39) Oil and Natural Gas Corporation v. Discovery Enterprises, 2022 LiveLaw SC 416 : AIR 2022 SC 2080

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34, 37 - An award can be set aside only if the award is against the public policy of India. The award can be set aside under Sections 34/37 of the Arbitration Act, if the award is found to be contrary to, (a) fundamental policy of Indian Law; or (b) the interest of India; or (c) justice or morality; or (d) if it is patently illegal - High Court cannot enter into the merits of the claim in an appeal under Section 37. (Para 8) Haryana Tourism Ltd. v. Kandhari Beverages Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 38 : (2022) 3 SCC 237

    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 : 2022 (9) SCALE 823

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34, 37 - While examining the award within the parameters permissible under Section 34 of 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 : 2022 (9) SCALE 823

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34, 37 - Reference to wrong provision, as long as power exists would not matter. Premier Sea Foods v. Caravel Shipping Services, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 54

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34, 37 - The jurisdiction conferred on Courts under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is fairly narrow, when it comes to the scope of an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, the jurisdiction of an Appellate Court in examining an order, setting aside or refusing to set aside an award, is all the more circumscribed - if there are two plausible interpretations of the terms and conditions of the contract, then no fault can be found, if the learned Arbitrator proceeds to accept one interpretation as against the other. (Para 15-21) UHL Power Company Ltd. v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 18 : (2022) 4 SCC 116

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

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

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

    Section 42 - Jurisdiction

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 42 - The Section has obviously been enacted to prevent the parties from being dragged into proceedings in different Courts, when more than one Court has jurisdiction. Where with respect to any arbitration agreement, any application under Part I of the A&C Act has been made in a Court, that Court alone would have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement, and the arbitral proceedings, would have to be made in that Court and in no other Court, unless, of course, the Court in which the first application had been instituted, inherently lacked jurisdiction to entertain that application. The Section which starts with a non obstante clause, is binding irrespective of any other law for the time being in force, and irrespective of any other provision in Part I of the A&C Act. (Para 31) Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 329 : 2022 (5) SCALE 372

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 42 and 11(6) - Section 42 cannot possibly have any application to an application under Section 11(6), which necessarily has to be made before a High Court, unless the earlier application was also made in a High Court. (Para 32) Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 329 : 2022 (5) SCALE 372

    Architects

    Architects Act, 1972 - Section 21, 45 - Minimum Standards of Architectural Education Regulations, 2017 - The Council of Architecture may prescribe minimum standards of architectural education, either by way of regulations issued under Section 45(2) or even otherwise. It is only in cases where the Council chooses to prescribe standards in the form of regulations that the requirement of approval of the Central Government under Section 45(1) would become necessary. (Para 15) Council of Architecture v. Academic Society of Architects (TASA), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 172 : (2022) 5 SCC 161

    Armed Forces

    Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) dismissed applications challenging the denial of Permanent Commission (PC) in the Indian Navy observing that there was no gender bias or mala fides in the grant of PC - Whether the AFT could have adjudicated on the validity of the selection proceedings when relevant material was disclosed only to the AFT in a sealed cover? The failure to disclose relevant material has caused substantial prejudice to the appellants. This case exposes the danger of following a sealed cover procedure - AFT to reconsider the entire matter afresh. Cdr Amit Kumar Sharma v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 951

    Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007; Section 15 - AFT would be justified in interfering with the finding of the court martial where its finding is legally not sustainable due to any reason whatsoever. It would be permissible to interfere with such a finding when it involves a wrong decision on a question of law - AFT would be justified in allowing an appeal against conviction by a court­martial when there was a material irregularity in the course of the trial resulting in miscarriage of justice. (Para 27) Union of India v. Major R. Metri No. 08585N, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 343 : AIR 2022 SC 1661 : (2022) 6 SCC 525

    Army

    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

    Army Act, 1950 - Section 125 - Section 125 not only recognizes that an element of discretion has been vested in the designated officer, but it also postulates that the designated officer should have decided that the proceedings be instituted by the court -martial in which event the court -martial would take place. (Para 44) State of Sikkim v. Jasbir Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 116 : (2022) 7 SCC 287

    Army Act, 1950 - Section 70 - The ingredients of Section 70 are: (i) The offence must be committed by a person subject to the Army Act; (ii) The offence must be committed against a person who is not subject to military, naval or air force law; and (iii) The offence must be of murder, culpable homicide not amounting to murder or rape. (Para 43) State of Sikkim v. Jasbir Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 116 : (2022) 7 SCC 287

    Army Act, 1950; Section 122 - For the purpose of Section 122, the two dates will be relevant i.e., the date when the alleged offence comes to the knowledge of the person aggrieved and the date on which the authority competent to initiate action comes to know about the alleged offence - In this case, a letter dated 13.08.2015 written by the aggrieved person to the concerned authority which showed that he was aware of the alleged offence - The date 13.08.2015 would be the crucial date on which the aggrieved person had the knowledge about the commission of the alleged offence. Therefore the time had started running from the said date for the purpose of Section 122 - The contention that the date of aggrieved person's knowledge about the commission of the alleged offence should be construed as the date when the authority prima facie concluded after the Court of Inquiry that the offence was committed, cannot be accepted - The Convening Authority having directed the trial by General Court Martial vide order dated 22.11.2018, the same was clearly beyond three years and therefore barred under Section 122 of the Act. Col. Anil Kumar Gupta v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 931 : AIR 2022 SC 5626

    Army Law - Appeal against Armed Forces Tribunal order of conviction and dismissal from service of former Lt Gen SK Sahni for allegations relating to procurement of ration by Army purchase organisation - Allowed - AFT has specifically come to a finding that the respondent has not committed any fraud or did not commit any act which resulted in actual loss or wrongful gain to any person. We are unable to appreciate as to on what basis the learned AFT comes to a conclusion that the acts lead to an inference that the attempts were made to cause a wrongful gain. Union of India v. Lt. Gen SK Sahni, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 310 : (2022) 6 SCC 544

    Atiyat Enquiries

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

    Award of Tender

    Award of Tender - Contractor cannot be blacklisted for life - One cannot be blacklisted for life. The order of blacklisting to the extent that it has not specified the period cannot be sustained. Chauhan Builders Raibareli v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 694

    Award of Tender - There is no public duty on the part of the State to indicate the HSN code for GST rates in the tender document - Para 56- We are at a loss to further understand how in the name of producing a level playing field, the State, when it decides to award a contract, would be obliged to undertake the ordeal of finding out the correct HSN Code and the tax applicable for the product, which they wish to procure. This is, particularly so when the State is not burdened with the liability to pay the tax. The liability to pay tax, in the case before us, is squarely on the supplier. (Para 47) Union of India v. Bharat Forge Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 691 : AIR 2022 SC 3821

    B

    Banking

    Banking - The Bank employee always holds the position of trust where honesty and integrity are the sine qua non. (Para 11) United Bank of India v. Bachan Prasad Lall, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 164 : AIR 2022 SC 943 : (2022) 4 SCC 358

    Banking Law - Bank’s Liability for acts of employees - Acts of bank/post office employees, when done during their course of employment, are binding on the bank/post office at the instance of the person who is damnified by the fraud and wrongful acts of the officers of the bank/post office. Post office / bank, can and is entitled to proceed against the officers for the loss caused due to the fraud etc., but this would not absolve them from their liability if the employee involved was acting in the course of his employment and duties. (Para 37) Pradeep Kumar v. Post Master General, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 139 : (2022) 6 SCC 351

    Banking Law - Bank’s Liability for acts of employees - What is relevant is whether the crime, in the form of fraud etc., was perpetrated by the servant/employee during the course of his employment. Once this is established, the employer would be liable for the employee’s wrongful act, even if they amount to a crime. Whether the fraud is committed during the course of employment would be a question of fact that needs to be determined in the facts and circumstances of the case. (Para 38) Pradeep Kumar v. Post Master General, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 139 : (2022) 6 SCC 351

    Banking Regulation (Amendment) Act, 2020 - Transfer Petitions filed by RBI - All the writ petitions which have been filed before the High Courts challenging the validity of the Banking Regulation (Amendment) Act 2020 and/or the circular dated 25 June 2021 shall stand transferred to the High Court of Madras. Reserve Bank of India v. Big Kancheepuram Cooperative Town Bank Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 850

    Bar Council

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

    Basic Structure Doctrine

    Basic Structure Doctrine - It is therefore, inaccurate to say that provisions that enable, exercise of power, would not violate the basic structure of the Constitution. The enabling provision in question's basic premise, its potential to overbear the constitutional ethos, or overcome a particular value, would be in issue. The court's inquiry therefore, cannot stop at the threshold, when an enabling provision is enacted. Its potential for violating the basic structure of the Constitution is precisely the power it confers, on the legislature, or the executive. (Para 157) Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 922

    Blacklisting

    Blacklisting - "Debarment" is recognised and often used as an effective method for disciplining deviant suppliers/contractors who may have committed acts of omission and commission. It is for the State or appropriate authority to pass an order of blacklisting/debarment in the facts and circumstances of the case - "Debarment" is never permanent and the period of debarment would invariably depend upon the nature of the offence committed by the erring contractor. (Para 8.7 and 9.1) State of Odisha v. Panda Infraproject, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 206 : (2022) 4 SCC 393

    Blacklisting - Guidelines issued by Odisha Government that blacklisting period per offence shall be limited to three years subject to an overall maximum cumulative period of ten years for multiple offences - Disapproved - Duration of blacklisting cannot be solely per offence. Seriousness of the lapse and the incident and/or gravity of commission and omission on the part of the contractor which led to the incident should be the relevant considerations. In a given case, it may happen that the commission and omission is very grave and because of the serious lapse and/or negligence, a major incident would have taken place. In such a case, it may be the contractor's first offence, in such a case, the period/duration of the blacklisting/banning can be more than three years. However, as the said guidelines are not under challenge, we rest the matter there and leave it to the State Government to suitably amend and/or modify the said office memorandum. However, what we have observed above can be a guide while determining the period of debarment/blacklisting. (Para 9.1) State of Odisha v. Panda Infraproject, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 206: (2022) 4 SCC 393

    Blacklisting - Show cause notice was issued upon the contractor by which the contractor was called upon to show cause why he be not blacklisted; the show cause notice was replied to by the contractor and thereafter, after considering the material on record and the reply submitted by the contractor and having found the serious lapses which led to a serious incident in which one person died and eleven others were injured, the State Government took a conscious decision to blacklist the contractor. Therefore, it cannot be said the order blacklisting the contractor was in violation of principles of natural justice. (Para 8.5) State of Odisha v. Panda Infraproject, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 206 : (2022) 4 SCC 393

    Bonded Labour

    Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976; Sections 16-17- For attracting the provision of Section 16 of the Act, the prosecution must establish that an accused has forced and compelled the victim to render bonded labour. This force and compulsion must be at the instance of the accused and the prosecution must establish the same beyond reasonable doubt. Similarly, under Section 17 of the Act, there is an obligation on the prosecution to establish that the accused has advanced a bonded debt to the victim. (Para 11) Selvakumar v. Manjula, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 786

    Buildings

    Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (Andhra Pradesh); Section 10 - Bonafide Requirement - The landlord was carrying on business and that he had children for whom he wanted to set-up a business - Rent Control Appellate Authority passed Eviction Order - Andhra Pradesh HC, while allowing Revision Petition observed that the eldest son of the Landlord was still pursuing studies and therefore the requirement of the land lord was not bona fide - Allowing the appeal, the SC observed: There is no bar for someone who is pursuing higher studies, to start a business. The High Court, for a moment did not realize that it was dealing with a revision, where its jurisdiction was limited. Mohammed Sadiq v. Deepak Manglani, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 957

    C

    Carriage by Air

    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

    CBSE

    CBSE is only a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the school affiliated to it is not a creature of the statute and hence not a statutory body - CBSE itself is not a statutory body nor the regulations framed by it has any statutory force. Secondly, the mere fact that the Board grants recognition to the institutions on certain terms and conditions itself does not confer any enforceable right on any person as against the Committee of Management - Thus, where a teacher or non ­teaching staff challenges action of Committee of Management that it has violated the terms of contract or the rules of the Affiliation Byelaws, the appropriate remedy of such teacher or employee is to approach the CBSE or to take such other legal remedy available under law. It is open to the CBSE to take appropriate action against the Committee of Management of the institution for withdrawal of recognition in case it finds that the Committee of Management has not performed its duties in accordance with the Affiliation Byelaws. (Para 28-33) St. Mary's Educational institute v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 708

    Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Teachers' Cadre) Act, 2019

    Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Teachers' Cadre) Act, 2019 - Supreme Court directs Centre and IITs to follow the reservation and act as per the reservations provided under the Act. Sachchida Nand Pandey v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1037

    Central Electricity Authority

    Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010 - Regulation 116 - The width and amplitude of Regulation 116 cannot be restricted by interpreting the word 'deviation' as having lesser scope than exemption. 'Deviation' from the Regulations would amount to either exemption or relaxation. Therefore, we are in agreement with the Division Bench that the order dated 13.02.2019 cannot be said to have been issued beyond the power conferred by Regulation 116 of 2010 Regulations. Muhammed A.A. v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 188 : AIR 2022 SC 1251

    Central Excise

    Central Excise Act, 1944; Section 11B - Central Excise Rules, 2002 ; Rule 18 - While making claim for rebate of duty under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, the period of limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 shall have to be applied and applicable. (Para 15) Sansera Engineering Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner, Large Tax Payer Unit, Bengaluru, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 997

    Central Excise Act, 1944; Section 173L - For the purpose of considering the value for refund under Section 173­L what is required to be considered is the value of the returned goods - "value" means the market value of the excisable goods and not the ex­duty value thereof. Therefore, the submission on behalf of the assessee that the returned goods may be treated as a raw material and therefore the "value" of the raw material can be considered for the purpose of "value" while determining the refund under Section 173­L cannot be accepted. (Para 5) Peacock Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 740 : AIR 2022 SC 4132

    Central Excise and Customs Commissionerates Inspector (Central Excise, Preventive Officer and Examiner) Group ‘B’ Posts Recruitment Rules 2016 - The absence of a provision for filling up a post in the Commissionerate by absorption of persons belonging to the cadre of another Commissionerate clearly indicates that the cadre is treated as a posting unit and there is no occasion to absorb a person from outside the cadre who holds a similar or comparable post. (Para 32) S.K. Nausad Rahman v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266 : AIR 2022 SC 1494

    Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise could not have invoked the powers under Rule 173Q(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on 26.03.2007 and 29.03.2007 for confiscation of land, buildings etc., when on such date, the said Rule 173Q(2) was not in the Statute books, having been omitted by a notification dated 12.05.2000. (Para 47) Punjab National Bank v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 208 : AIR 2022 SC 1475 : (2022) 7 SCC 260

    Central Excise Tariff Act, 1988 - Modified Vapour Absorption Chiller Machines cannot be categorized as a Heat Pump to avail concessional tariff benefits - The end use of MVAC is to produce Chilled Water. The use of heat as one of the sources in the airconditioning system would not take away the primary or basic function of the MVAC, which is to cool and not heat water - Definition of a product given in the HSN should be given due weightage in the classification of a product for the purpose of levying excise duty. Thermax Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-1, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 881 : AIR 2022 SC 5067

    Central Goods and Services

    Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Section 174(2)(c) - Whether the Union of India can be directed to adhere to the representation as made by it in the Office Memorandum dated 7th January 2003 even after the enactment of the CGST Act ? - Proviso to Section 174(2)(c) provides therein that any tax exemption granted as an incentive against investment through a notification shall not continue as privilege if the said notification is rescinded - If the contention is accepted, it will amount to enforcing a representation made in the said O.M. of 2003 and 2003 Notification contrary to the legislative incorporation in the proviso to Section 174(2)(c) of the CGST Act. Hero Motocorp Ltd. v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 852 : AIR 2022 SC 5572

    Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Section 56 - In terms of the principal part of Section 56 of the CGST Act, the interest would be awarded at the rate of 6 per cent. The award of interest at 9 per cent would be attracted only if the matter was covered by the proviso to the said Section 56 - Wherever a statute specifies or regulates the interest, the interest will be payable in terms of the provisions of the statute - Wherever a statute, on the other hand, is silent about the rate of interest and there is no express bar for payment of interest, any delay in paying the compensation or the amounts due, would attract award of interest at a reasonable rate on equitable grounds. (Para 18-19) Union of India v. Willowood Chemicals, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 398 : AIR 2022 SC 3009 : (2022) 9 SCC 341

    Central Sales Tax

    Central Sales Tax Act 1956 - Court directed the state of Andhra Pradesh to transfer to Jharkhand the amount of central sales tax deposited by Tata Motors with respect to the sale of buses to the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) -transaction in question, namely, sales effected through RSO, Vijayawada with respect to vehicles/buses sold to APSRTC, the sale/s is/are found to be in the nature of inter-state sale/s. In that view of the matter, the appellant – Tata Motors Limited was liable to pay central sales tax to the State of Jharkhand. However, treating the sale as stock transfer, the appellant/its representative had paid the tax on the aforesaid transaction to the State of Andhra Pradesh which is not leviable by the State of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, the amount of central sales tax recovered by the State of Andhra Pradesh is required to be transferred to the State of Jharkhand and the same is required to be adjusted towards the amount of tax to be paid to the State of Jharkhand. Tata Motors Ltd. v. Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 847

    Central Sales Tax Act 1956 - Prior to insertion of Section 22(1B) to the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, there was no provision by which the Appellate Authority could have issued directions for refund of the tax collected by the State which has been held by the Appellate Authority to be not due to that State, or alternatively, direct that State to transfer the refundable amount to the State to which central sales tax is due on the same transaction. However, by the Finance Act, 2010, Section 22(1B) has been inserted to Act 1956 providing for refund-in line with Section 22(1B) of the Act 1956, the State of Andhra Pradesh is directed to transfer to the State of Jharkhand the amount of central sales tax deposited by the appellant with the State of Andhra Pradesh with respect to transaction in question. Tata Motors Ltd. v. Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 847

    CETSTAT

    CETSTAT judgments overruled - Some judgments relied upon by the assessee and the CESTAT have limited precedential value - the Apex Court had merely affirmed the ruling of CESTAT in these judgements without providing independent reasoning - Overruled Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Pune-I; Computer Sciences Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax; SRF Ltd. v. Commissioner and Commissioner of Central Excise v. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. [Para 59] C.C. C.E. & S.T. Bangalore (Adjudication) Etc. v. M/s. Northern Operating Systems Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 526 : AIR 2022 SC 2450

    Child Custody

    Child Custody - Income and/or the age and/or the bigger family cannot be the sole criteria to tilt the balance in custody matters - One should not doubt the capacity and/or ability of the paternal grandparents to take care of their grandson - Grand Parents are more attached emotionally with grandchildren. (Para 7.2) Swaminathan Kunchu Acharya v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 547 : AIR 2022 SC 2774 : (2022) 8 SCC 804

    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 : AIR 2022 SC 3511

    Cinematograph

    Cinematograph Act, 1952 - An injunction action can be initiated even after a certificate is issued under the Cinematograph Act. The Court may examine the film and judge whether its public display, breaches the norms of decency or contravenes the law. A film which is defamatory or indecent or breaches copyright cannot be allowed to be exhibited only because a certificate has been issued. The examples are of course illustrative. (Para 10) Shri Babuji Rawji Shah v. S. Hussain Zaidi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 213 : 2022 (4) SCALE 440

    Cinematograph Act, 1952 - Guidelines for certification of films - A book or a film that illustrates the consequences of a social evil must necessarily show that social evil. A film that carries a message and depicts social circumstances of a group of underprivileged women is not impermissible. (Para 11) Shri Babuji Rawji Shah v. S. Hussain Zaidi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 213 : 2022 (4) SCALE 440

    Cinematograph Act, 1952 - SLP Against Bombay High Court order refusing to grant interim injunction against release of the film "Gangubai Kathiawadi" - Dismissed - The film certificate issued by the CBFC prima facie shows that the film is not defamatory. Prima facie, it appears that the movie is an artistic expression within the parameters of law. (Para 25) Shri Babuji Rawji Shah v. S. Hussain Zaidi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 213 : 2022 (4) SCALE 440

    Cinematograph Act, 1952 - The fact that the film has been certified by CBFC, which comprises of a body of experts prima facie shows compliance with the requirements of the guidelines. (Para 13) Shri Babuji Rawji Shah v. S. Hussain Zaidi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 213 : 2022 (4) SCALE 440

    CISF

    CISF Rules, 2001; Rule 52 - Appellate power under Rule 52 of the CISF Rules, 2001, cannot be equated with power of judicial review exercised by constitutional courts. (Para 9) Union of India v. Managobinda Samantaray, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 244 : 2022 (4) SCALE 667

    Civil Cases

    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 : AIR 2022 SC 3544

    Civil Litigation

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

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

    Civil Suit

    Civil Suit - If a party to a suit does not appear in the witness box to state their own case and does not offer themselves to be cross-examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up is not correct. (Para 12) Seethakathi Trust Madras v. Krishnaveni, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 58 : AIR 2022 SC 558 : (2022) 3 SCC 150

    Civil Suit - If the title to the property was the basis of the relief of possession, the relief for permanent injunction can be said to be a consequential relief. (Para 11) Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji v. Maniben Jagmalbhai, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 241 : 2022 (4) SCALE 352

    Civil Suit - Injunction - Once the dispute with respect to title is settled and it is held against the plaintiff, the suit by the plaintiff for permanent injunction shall not be maintainable against the true owner. (Para 9) Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji v. Maniben Jagmalbhai, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 241 : 2022 (4) SCALE 352

    Civil Suit - The rights of the parties have to be determined on the date when lis commences i.e., on the date of filing of the suit. The plaintiff is entitled to decree on that day when he initiated the proceedings, therefore, rights of the parties have to be examined as on the said day. Shankarlal Nadani v. Sohanlal Jain, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 367 : AIR 2022 SC 1813

    Civil Trial

    Civil Trial - Once a document has been admitted in evidence, such admission cannot be called in question at any stage of the suit or proceedings on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped. Objection as to admissibility of a document on the ground of sufficiency of stamp, has to raised when the document is tendered in evidence. Thereafter, it is not open to the parties, or even the court to reexamine the order or issue. Sirikonda Madhava Rao v. N. Hemalatha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 970

    Coal Mines

    Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973; Section 3 - What was transferred to and vested in the Central Government were the coal mines - The ownership of the land was immaterial. If the land fell within the definition of the expression “mine” under the Nationalisation Act, the same stood transferred to and vested in the Central Government under Section 3(1). (Para 13) Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Mahendra Pal Bhatia, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 350 : AIR 2022 SC 1646 : (2022) 6 SCC 99

    Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973; Sections 2(h) and 3(1) - Focus is on the property and not on who the owner of the property is - Even the lands and buildings used solely for the location of the management, sale or liaison offices or for the residence of officers and staff were also included in the definition of the word “mine”. (Para 15) Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Mahendra Pal Bhatia, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 350 : AIR 2022 SC 1646 : (2022) 6 SCC 99

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; The rules of procedure are essentially intended to subserve the cause of justice and are not for punishment of the parties in conduct of the proceedings. (Para 26.1) Prakash Corporates v. Dee Vee Projects Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 162 : AIR 2022 SC 946 : (2022) 5 SCC 112

    Dominus Litus

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Plaintiff is dominus litus, and they cannot be compelled to seek relief against anyone. (Para 8.16) Small Industries Development Bank of India v. Sibco Investment Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 7 : (2022) 3 SCC 56

    Execution

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Execution Proceedings - It is an old saying that the difficulties of the litigant in India begin when he has obtained a decree. The evil was noticed as far back in 1872 by the Privy Council in relation to the difficulties faced by the decree holder in execution of the decree. After more than a century, there has been no improvement and still the decree holder faces the same problem what was being faced in the past. A litigant coming to Court seeking relief is not interested in receiving a paper decree when he succeeds in establishing his case. What he primarily wants from the Court of Justice is the relief and if it is a money decree, he wants that money what he is entitled for in terms of the decree, must be satisfied by the judgment debtor at the earliest possible without fail keeping in view the reasonable restrictions/rights which are available to the judgment debtor under the provisions of the statute or the code, as the case may be. (Para 3) Griesheim GmbH v. Goyal MG Gases Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 95 : AIR 2022 SC 696

    Procedural Defect

    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 : (2022) 7 SCC 678

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - While procedure is said to be the handmaiden of justice and substantial justice must prevail and the former may take the backseat, failure to follow the procedure laid down by law can result in grave miscarriage of justice to the judgment debtor and delay in the decree holder realising the fruits of the decree. (Para 1) Rajbir v. Suraj Bhan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 255 : 2022 (5) SCALE 321

    Section 2(12) - “Mesne Profits”

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 2(12) - Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 111(a) - Tenant while continuing in possession after the expiry of the lease liable to pay mesne profits - A tenant at sufferance is not a tenant by holding over. While a tenant at sufferance cannot be forcibly dispossessed, that does not detract from the possession of the erstwhile tenant turning unlawful on the expiry of the lease. (Para 60) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Sudera Realty Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 744 : AIR 2022 SC 5077

    Section 9 - Courts to try all civil suits unless barred.

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 9 - Civil Courts to determine all disputes of civil nature unless the same is barred under statute either expressly or by necessary implication and such a bar is not to be readily inferred. The provision seeking to bar jurisdiction of a Civil Court requires strict interpretation and the Court would normally lean in favour of construction which would uphold the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. (Para 43) Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. v. VCK Shares & Stock Broking Services Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 941

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 9 - Law on ouster of jurisdiction of civil courts - The jurisdiction of the civil courts to try suits of a civil nature is expansive and the onus to prove the ouster of the jurisdiction is on the party that asserts it. The court observed that even in cases where the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred by a statute, the test is to determine if the authority or tribunal constituted under the statute has the power to grant reliefs that the civil courts would normally grant in suits filed before them. (Para 15) Rajani v. Smita, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 702

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 9 - Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976; Sections 71, 177 - The reliefs sought in the plaint are: (i) the removal of the unauthorized construction; (ii) a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from constructing over the open site and causing 'nuisance'; and (iii) restoration of the water connection as it was prior to the construction - The reliefs claimed are beyond the scope of the Act - A suit of this nature will be maintainable before the civil court and would not be barred by Section 71 or Section 177 of the Act. (Para 16) Rajani v. Smita, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 702

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 9 - Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993; Section 17, 18, 19 - Jurisdiction of a Civil Court to try a suit filed by a borrower against a Bank or Financial Institution is not ousted by virtue of the scheme of the RDB Act in relation to the proceedings for recovery of debt - There is no provision in the RDB Act by which the remedy of a civil suit by a defendant in a claim by the bank is ousted, but it is the matter of choice of that defendant. Such a defendant may file a counterclaim, or may be desirous of availing of the more strenuous procedure established under the Code, and that is a choice which he takes with the consequences thereof. (Para 45, 56) Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. v. VCK Shares & Stock Broking Services Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 941

    Section 10 - Stay of Suit

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 10 - Application under Section 10 CPC , by its very nature, requires immediate consideration and before any other steps in the suit - If the prayer made in the application moved under Section 10 were to be granted, the trial of the subject suit is not to be proceeded with at all. (Para 26) Prakash Corporates v. Dee Vee Projects Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 162 : AIR 2022 SC 946 : (2022) 5 SCC 112

    Section 11 - Res Judicata

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 11 - Res Judicata - Doctrine of res judicata is attracted not only in separate subsequent proceedings but also at the subsequent stage of the same proceedings. Moreover, a binding decision cannot lightly be ignored and even an erroneous decision remains binding on the parties to the same litigation and concerning the same issue, if rendered by a Court of competent jurisdiction. Such a binding decision cannot be ignored even on the principle of per incuriam because that principle applies to the precedents and not to the doctrine of res judicata. (Para 10) S. Ramachandra Rao v. S. Nagabhushana Rao, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 861 : AIR 2022 SC 5317

    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 11 - The principle of constructive res judicata has no application when there was no formal adjudication between the parties after full hearing. (Para 52) Life Insurance Corporation v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 729 : AIR 2022 SC 4256

    Section 24 - General power of transfer and withdrawal

    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 : AIR 2022 SC 4318

    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 : AIR 2022 SC 4318

    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 : AIR 2022 SC 4318

    Section 25 - Power of Supreme Court to transfer suits, etc.

    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

    Section 34 - Interest

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 34 - S. 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), award of interest is a discretionary exercise, steeped in equitable considerations. Interest is payable for different purposes such as compensatory, penal, etc. (Para 12.1) Small Industries Development Bank of India v. Sibco Investment Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 7 : (2022) 3 SCC 56

    Section 38 - Court by which decree may be executed

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Sections 38, 39 - For the effective working of Section 39 of CPC, in other words, there must be a Court which has passed a decree - When Sections 38 and 39 of the CPC are not as such applicable, the decree holder may seek to execute the decree in any Court which otherwise has jurisdiction. (Para 24) Bhagyoday Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Ravindra Balkrishna Patel, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1020

    Section 44A - Execution of decrees passed by Courts in reciprocating territory

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 44A - Delhi High Court Act, 1966 - Section 5 - The expression “District Court” in Section 44A for execution of foreign decree, will be construed to be a Court holding ordinary original civil jurisdiction in terms of its pecuniary limits as being notified under Section 5(2) of the Act 1966. (Para 27) Griesheim GmbH v. Goyal MG Gases Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 95 : AIR 2022 SC 696

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 44A - Delhi High Court Act, 1966 - Section 5 - The High Court of Delhi in exercise of its original jurisdiction is a competent Court to entertain a petition for executing a money decree (in excess of Rs.20 lakhs) of a foreign Court which is notified as a superior Court of reciprocating territory under Section 44A of the Code. (Para 28) Griesheim GmbH v. Goyal MG Gases Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 95 : AIR 2022 SC 696

    Section 64 - Private alienation of property after attachment to be void

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

    Section 96 - Appeal from Original Decree

    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 : (2022) 7 SCC 678

    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 : (2022) 7 SCC 678

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 96, 105 and Order IX Rule 13 - The appellant, while challenging ex parte decree by filing an appeal, can always point out from the record of the trial court that the order passed to proceed with the suit ex parte against him was illegal - Only when the application made by a defendant under Rule 13 of Order IX of CPC is dismissed that such a defendant cannot agitate in the appeal against ex parte decree that the order directing that the suit shall proceed ex parte was illegal or incorrect - Though the appellant would not be entitled to lead evidence in appeal for making out a sufficient cause for his absence before the trial court, he can always argue on the basis of the record of the suit that either the suit summons was not served upon him or that even otherwise also, the trial court was not justified in proceeding ex parte against him. (Para 8) G.N.R. Babu @ S.N. Babu v. Dr. B.C. Muthappa, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 748 : AIR 2022 SC 4213

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Sections 96-100 - Any aggrieved party can prefer an appeal with the leave of the Court - A person who is affected by a judgment but is not a party to the suit, can prefer an appeal with the leave of the Court. The sine qua non for filing an appeal by a third party is that he must have been affected by reason of the judgment and decree which is sought to be impugned. (Para 29-31) My Palace Mutually Aided Cooperative Society v. B. Mahesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 698 : 2022 (12) SCALE 230

    Section 100 - Second Appeal

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 100 - Electricity Act, 2003; Section 125 - For determining whether a case involves substantial question of law, the test is not merely the importance of the question, but its importance to the case itself necessitating the decision of the question. The appropriate test for determining whether the question of law raised in the case is substantial would be to see whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties. If it is established that the decision is contrary to law or the decision has failed to determine some material issue of law or if there is substantial error or defect in the decision of the case on merits, the court can interfere with the conclusion of the lower court or tribunal. The stakes involved in the case are immaterial as long as the impact or effect of the question of law has a bearing on the lis between the parties - In a second appeal, the appellant is entitled to point out that the order impugned is bad in law because it is de hors the pleadings, or it was based on no evidence or it was based on misreading of material documentary evidence or it was recorded against the provision of law or the decision is one which no Judge acting judicially could reasonably have reached. Once the appellate court is satisfied, after hearing the appeal, that the appeal involves a substantial question of law, it has to formulate the question and direct issuance of notice to the respondent. (Para 30-31) BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. v. Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 857 : 2022 (15) SCALE 588

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 100 - Second Appeal - Perversity in arriving at a factual finding gives rise to a substantial question of law, attracting intervention of the High Court under Section 100 of the CPC - There is no prohibition on entertaining a second appeal even on a question of fact provided the court is satisfied that the findings of fact recorded by the courts below stood vitiated by non -consideration of relevant evidence or by showing an erroneous approach to the matter i.e. that the findings of fact are found to be perverse. Azgar Barid v. Mazambi @ Pyaremabi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 193 : AIR 2022 SC 1304 : (2022) 5 SCC 334

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 100 - Second Appeal - Question of law ought to have been framed under Section 100 of the said Code. Even if the question of law had not been framed at the stage of admission, at least before the deciding the case the said question of law ought to have been framed. (Para 22) Seethakathi Trust Madras v. Krishnaveni, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 58 : AIR 2022 SC 558 : (2022) 3 SCC 150

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 100 - In the State of Haryana a court in second appeal is not required to formulate a substantial question of law, as what is applicable in Haryana is Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 and not Section 100 of CPC - But only such decisions are to be considered in second appeal which are contrary to law or to some custom or usage having the force of law or the court below have failed to determine some material issue of law or custom or usage having the force of law - Second appeal is not a forum where court has to re-examine or re-appreciate questions of fact settled by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. (Para 10-15) Satyender v. Saroj, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 679 : AIR 2022 SC 4732

    Section 114 - Review

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 114, Order XLVII - Distinction between an erroneous decision as against an error apparent on the face of the record - An erroneous decision can be corrected by the Superior Court, however an error apparent on the face of the record can only be corrected by exercising review jurisdiction - A judgment can be open to review if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record, but an error that has to be detected by a process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise its powers of review. (Para 26) S. Madhusudhan Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 685 : 2022 (12) SCALE 261

    Section 144 - Application for Restitution

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 144 - Appeal against Division Bench direction that the State shall be at liberty to recover the excess amount paid to the original writ petitioners - Dismissed - By applying Section 144 CPC also, the amount paid pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge which has been set aside by the Division Bench is required to be refunded/returned by the original writ petitioners. Mekha Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 324 : AIR 2022 SC 1591

    Section 151 - Saving of inherent powers of Court

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 151 - Consent Decree - The Court can entertain an Application under Section 151 of the CPC for alterations/ modification of the consent decree if the same is vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation, or misunderstanding. (Para 13) Ajanta LLP v. Casio, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 127 : (2022) 5 SCC 449

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 151 - Order XXIII Rule 3 - Even assuming there is a mistake, a consent decree cannot be modified/ altered unless the mistake is a patent or obvious mistake. Or else, there is a danger of every consent decree being sought to be altered on the ground of mistake/ misunderstanding by a party to the consent decree. (Para 13) Ajanta LLP v. Casio, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 127 : (2022) 5 SCC 449

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 151 - Order XXIII Rule 3 - Consent Decree - A judgment by consent is intended to stop litigation between the parties just as much as a judgment resulting from a decision of the Court at the end of a long drawn out fight. A compromise decree creates an estoppel by judgment. A consent decree would not serve as an estoppel, where the compromise was vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake. (Para 12) Ajanta LLP v. Casio, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 127 : (2022) 5 SCC 449

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 151 - Section 151 of the CPC can only be applicable if there is no alternate remedy available in accordance with the existing provisions of law - It cannot be said that the civil courts can exercise substantive jurisdiction to unsettle already decided issues. A Court having jurisdiction over the relevant subject matter has the power to decide and may come either to a right or a wrong conclusion. Even if a wrong conclusion is arrived at or an incorrect decree is passed by the jurisdictional court, the same is binding on the parties until it is set aside by an appellate court or through other remedies provided in law - Such inherent power cannot override statutory prohibitions or create remedies which are not contemplated under the Code. Section 151 cannot be invoked as an alternative to filing fresh suits, appeals, revisions, or reviews. A party cannot find solace in Section 151 to allege and rectify historic wrongs and bypass procedural safeguards inbuilt in the CPC. (Para 26-28) My Palace Mutually Aided Cooperative Society v. B. Mahesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 698 : 2022 (12) SCALE 230

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 151, Order VII Rule 10 - Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993; Section 19, 31 - An independent suit filed by the borrower against the bank or financial institution cannot be transferred to be tried along with application under the RDB Act, as it is a matter of option of the defendant in the claim under the RDB Act - Since there is no such power, there is no question of transfer of the suit whether by consent or otherwise - Proceedings under the RDB Act will not be impeded in any manner by filing of a separate suit before the Civil Court - It is not open to a defendant, who may have taken recourse to the Civil Court, to seek a stay on the decision of the DRT awaiting the verdict of his suit before the Civil Court as it is a matter of his choice. (Para 49- 56) Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. v. VCK Shares & Stock Broking Services Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 941

    Section 153A - Power to amend decree or order where appeal is summarily dismissed

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

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

    Order 1 Rule 9 - Misjoinder and nonjoinder

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1973; Order I Rule 9 - A "necessary party" is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the court. It has been held that if a "necessary party" is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed - For being a necessary party, the twin test has to be satisfied. The first one is that there must be a right to some relief against such party in respect of the controversies involved in the proceedings. The second one is that no effective decree can be passed in the absence of such a party. (Para 17-20) Moreshar Yadaorao Mahajan v. Vyankatesh Sitaram Bhedi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 802 : AIR 2022 SC 4710

    Order 1 Rule 10 - Court may strike out or add parties

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order I Rule 10 - Plaintiffs are the domius litis - Unless the court suo motu directs to join any other person not party to the suit for effective decree and/or for proper adjudication as per Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, nobody can be permitted to be impleaded as defendants against the wish of the plaintiffs - In case the counter-claim is allowed, it will not be open for the plaintiffs to contend that no decree in the counter-claim be passed in absence of the subsequent purchasers - Non-impleading the subsequent purchasers as defendants on the objection raised by the plaintiffs shall be at the risk of the plaintiffs. (Para 5 - 7) Sudhamayee Pattnaik v. Bibhu Prasad Sahoo, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 773 : AIR 2022 SC 4304

    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 : AIR 2022 SC 3322 : (2022) 8 SCC 145

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order I Rule 3 - Non-joining of necessary parties is fatal. (Para 18) B.R. Patil v. Tulsa Y. Sawkar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 165 : 2022 (4) SCALE 122

    Order 2 Rule 2 - Suit to include the whole claim

    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 II Rule 2 - Order II Rule 2 of the CPC cannot apply to an amendment which is sought on an existing suit - It applies only for a subsequent suit. (Para 49-50, 70) Life Insurance Corporation v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 729 : AIR 2022 SC 4256

    Order 2 Rule 3 - Joinder of causes of action

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order II Rule 2, 3 - Joinder of causes of action - Order II Rule 3 does not compel a plaintiff to join two or more causes of action in a single suit. The failure to join together all claims arising from a cause of action will be visited with consequences proclaimed in Order II Rule 2 - The Code of Civil Procedure indeed permits a plaintiff to join causes of action but it does not compel a plaintiff to do so. (Para 16, 17) B.R. Patil v. Tulsa Y. Sawkar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 165 : 2022 (4) SCALE 122

    Order 6 Rule 17 - Amendment of Pleadings

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VI Rule 17 - All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side - The prayer for amendment is to be allowed (i) if the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties, and (ii) to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided (a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side, (b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side and (c) the amendment does not raise a time barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations) - A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless (i) by the amendment, a time barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration, (ii) the amendment changes the nature of the suit, (iii) the prayer for amendment is malafide, or (iv) by the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence - In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hyper technical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs. (Para 70) Life Insurance Corporation v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 729 : AIR 2022 SC 4256

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VI Rule 17 - Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision. (Para 70) Life Insurance Corporation v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 729 : AIR 2022 SC 4256

    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 : AIR 2022 SC 3322 : (2022) 8 SCC 145

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VI Rule 17 - Where the amendment would enable the court to pin-pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed. - Where the amendment merely sought to introduce an additional or a new approach without introducing a time barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation - Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint - Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed. Where, however, the amendment sought is only with respect to the relief in the plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is required to be allowed - Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court is required to be liberal in its approach. The court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment. As such, where the amendment does not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite party of an advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be allowed. Equally, where the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between the parties, the amendment should be allowed. (Para 70) Life Insurance Corporation v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 729 : AIR 2022 SC 4256

    Order 7 Rule 10 - Return of Plaint

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 151, Order VII Rule 10 - Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993; Section 19, 31 - An independent suit filed by the borrower against the bank or financial institution cannot be transferred to be tried along with application under the RDB Act, as it is a matter of option of the defendant in the claim under the RDB Act - Since there is no such power, there is no question of transfer of the suit whether by consent or otherwise - Proceedings under the RDB Act will not be impeded in any manner by filing of a separate suit before the Civil Court - It is not open to a defendant, who may have taken recourse to the Civil Court, to seek a stay on the decision of the DRT awaiting the verdict of his suit before the Civil Court as it is a matter of his choice. (Para 49- 56) Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. v. VCK Shares & Stock Broking Services Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 941

    Order 7 Rule 11 - Rejection of Plaint

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VII Rule 11 - A mere clever drafting would not permit the plaintiff to make the suit maintainable which otherwise would not be maintainable and/or barred by law. It has been consistently held by this Court that if clever drafting of the plaint has created the illusion of a cause of action, the court will nip it in the bud at the earliest so that bogus litigation will end at the earlier stage. (Para 10) Sree Surya Developers and Promoters v. N. Sailesh Prasad, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 143 : AIR 2022 SC 1031 : (2022) 5 SCC 736

    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 : AIR 2022 SC 2193 : (2022) 10 SCC 235

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VII Rule 11 - Averments in the plaint alone are to be examined while considering an application for rejection of plaint - No other extraneous factor can be taken into consideration. H.S. Deekshit v. Metropoli Overseas Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 703

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VII Rule 11 - M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959; Sections 250, 257 - Appeal against High Court which allowed application filed by defendants seeking rejection of plaint on the ground that the suit before the Civil Court would be barred in view of Section 257 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 - Allowed - High Court did not appreciate the fact that the plaintiff had earlier approached the Revenue Authority / Tehsildar where he was nonsuited on the ground that Revenue Authority / Tehsildar had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute with respect to title to the suit property - Defendants cannot be permitted to take two contradictory stands before two different authorities/courts. Premlata @ Sunita v. Naseeb Bee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 317 : AIR 2022 SC 1560 : (2022) 6 SCC 585

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VII Rule 11 - Order VII Rule 11 does not provide that the court is to discharge its duty of rejecting the plaint only on an application - The power under Order VII Rule 11 is available to the court to be exercised suo motu - It would take a clear case where the court is satisfied. The Court has to hear the plaintiff before it invokes its power besides giving reasons under Order VII Rule 12. (Para 68) Patil AutomationPvt. Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers Private Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 678 : AIR 2022 SC 3848 : (2022) 10 SCC 1

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VII Rule 11 - Order XXIII Rule 3A - At the stage of deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the only thing which was required to be considered is whether the suit would be maintainable or not and that the suit challenging the Compromise Decree would be maintainable or not in view of Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC - Court is not required to consider on merits the validity of the Compromise Decree. (Para 6) Sree Surya Developers and Promoters v. N. Sailesh Prasad, 2022 LiveLaw SC 143 : AIR 2022 SC 1031 : (2022) 5 SCC 736

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VII Rule 11 - Rejection of Plaint - While considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court has to go through the entire plaint averments and cannot reject the plaint by reading only few lines/passages and ignoring the other relevant parts of the plaint - Only in a case where on the face of it, it is seen that the suit is barred by limitation, then and then only a plaint can be rejected - The plaint cannot be rejected partially. (Para 7, 7.1, 7.4) Biswanath Banik v. Sulanga Bose, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 280 : AIR 2022 SC 1519 : (2022) 7 SCC 731

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VII Rule 11 - Rejection of Plaint - The case on behalf of the petitioner is that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief in the suit. The aforesaid cannot be a ground to reject the plaint at the threshold in exercise of powers under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. Gurdev Singh v. Harvinder Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 963

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VII Rule 11 - Suit seeking declaration that the cheque issued in the name of the appellant was a security and the appellant had no right to encash it - In essence, the suit attempts to frustrate the possibility of the appellant initiating action under the provision of the NI Act for dishonour of cheque - Such reliefs are barred by law - Revisional court was just in allowing application under Order VII Rule 11 seeking rejection of plaint. Frost International Ltd. v. Milan Developers & Builders, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 340 : (2022) 8 SCC 633

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VII Rule 11 - Suit seeking declaration that the cheque issued in the name of the appellant was a security and the appellant had no right to encash it - In essence, the suit attempts to frustrate the possibility of the appellant initiating action under the provision of the NI Act for dishonour of cheque - Such reliefs are barred by law - Revisional court was just in allowing application under Order VII Rule 11 seeking rejection of plaint. Frost International Ltd. v. Milan Developers & Builders, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 340 : (2022) 8 SCC 633

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - A mere clever drafting would not permit the plaintiff to make the suit maintainable which otherwise would not be maintainable and/or barred by law. It has been consistently held by this Court that if clever drafting of the plaint has created the illusion of a cause of action, the court will nip it in the bud at the earliest so that bogus litigation will end at the earlier stage. (Para 10) Sree Surya Developers and Promoters v. N. Sailesh Prasad, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 143 : AIR 2022 SC 1031 : (2022) 5 SCC 736

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - At the stage of deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the only thing which was required to be considered is whether the suit would be maintainable or not and that the suit challenging the Compromise Decree would be maintainable or not in view of Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC - Court is not required to consider on merits the validity of the Compromise Decree. (Para 6) Sree Surya Developers and Promoters v. N. Sailesh Prasad, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 143 : AIR 2022 SC 1031 : (2022) 5 SCC 736

    Order 8 Rule 1 - Written Statement

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VIII Rule 1 - The time limit for filing of the written statement is not mandatory - Delay in filing of the written statement could very well be compensated with costs. (Para 3-4) Bharat Kalra v. Raj Kishan Chabra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 465

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VIII Rule 1 proviso and Order V Rule 1(1) second proviso - Time limit for filing written statement not mandatory when the suit was instituted before the normal Civil Court and transferred to a Commercial Court after the expiry of 120 days. Raj Process Equipments and Systems v. Honest Derivatives Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 928

    Order 8 Rule 1A - Duty of Defendent to produce Documents upon which Relief is claimed or Relief upon by him

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VIII Rule 1A (3) - To deprive a party to the suit not to file documents even if there is some delay will lead to denial of justice - Trial Court should have imposed some costs rather than to decline the production of the documents itself - Rules of procedure are hand-maid of justice. Levaku Pedda Reddamma v. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 533

    Order 8 Rule 6A - Counter-claim by Defendant

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VIII Rule 6A - A counter claim can be set up only "against the claim of the plaintiffs" - Since there was no claim of the plaintiffs regarding the property, the defendants were barred to raise any counter claim on these properties as it has nothing to do with the plaintiffs - A counter claim can be made by the defendant, even on a separate or independent cause of action. (Para 16) Satyender v. Saroj, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 679 : AIR 2022 SC 4732

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VIII Rule 6A CPC - Counter-claim in question could not have been removed out of consideration merely because it was presented after a long time since after filing of the written statement - No bar for taking the belatedly filed counter-claim on record, which was indeed filed before framing of issues. (Para 13-14) Mahesh Govindji Trivedi v. Bakul Maganlal Vyas, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 836

    Order 9 Rule 13 - Setting aside decrees ex parte

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order IX Rule 13 - Appeal against judgment of High Court that affirmed the Trial Court order setting aside the ex parte decree but held that the defendants cannot be permitted to file their written statement - Allowed - It should have been left to the Trial Court to consider the prayer of defendants whether to allow them to file written statement or not. Sudhir Ranjan Patra v Himansu Sekhar Srichandan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 492 : AIR 2022 SC 2881

    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 IX Rule 13 - When an ex­parte decree is set aside and the suit is restored to file, the defendants cannot be relegated to the position prior to the date of hearing of the suit when he was placed ex­parte. He would be debarred from filing any written statement in the suit, but then he can participate in the hearing of the suit inasmuch cross-examine the witness of the plaintiff and address arguments. (Para 6) Sudhir Ranjan Patra v Himansu Sekhar Srichandan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 492 : AIR 2022 SC 2881

    Order 12 Rule 6 - Judgment on Admissions

    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 : (2022) 10 SCC 496

    Order 14 Rule 2 - Court to pronounce judgment on all issues

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XIV Rule 2 - If the determination of the issue of limitation is not a pure question of law, it cannot be decided as preliminary issue. (Para 15) Mongia Realty and Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. v. Manik Sethi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 148 : 2022 (3) SCALE 270

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XIV Rule 2 - The plea of res judicata in appropriate cases may be determined as preliminary issue when it is neither a disputed question of fact nor a mixed question of law and fact - Preliminary issues can be those where no evidence is required and on the basis of reading of the plaint or the applicable law, if the jurisdiction of the Court or the bar to the suit is made out, the Court may decide such issues with the sole objective for the expeditious decision. (Para 20, 30) Sathyanath v. Sarojamani, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 458 : AIR 2022 SC 2242 : (2022) 7 SCC 644

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XIV Rule 2 - To avoid the possibility of remanding back the matter after the decision on the preliminary issues, it is mandated for the trial court under Order XIV Rule 2 and Order XX Rule 5, and for the first appellate court in terms of Order XLI Rules 24 and 25 to record findings on all the issues. (Para 33) Sathyanath v. Sarojamani, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 458 : AIR 2022 SC 2242 : (2022) 7 SCC 644

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XIV, Rule 2(2)(b) - Issue of limitation can be framed and determined as a preliminary issue in a case where it can be decided on admitted facts - Though limitation is a mixed question of law and facts it will shed the said character and would get confined to one of question of law when the foundational fact(s), determining the starting point of limitation is vividly and specifically made in the plaint averment - Tthe provisions under Order XIV Rule 2(1) and Rule 2(2)(b) permit to deal with and dispose of a suit in accordance with the decision on the preliminary issue. (Para 18, 26) Sukhbiri Devi v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 810 : AIR 2022 SC 5058

    Order 15 Rule 5 - Striking off Defence on failure to deposit admitted Rent[1]

    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

    Order 20 Rule 5 - Court to state its Decision on each Issue

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XX Rule 5 - To avoid the possibility of remanding back the matter after the decision on the preliminary issues, it is mandated for the trial court under Order XIV Rule 2 and Order XX Rule 5, and for the first appellate court in terms of Order XLI Rules 24 and 25 to record findings on all the issues. (Para 33) Sathyanath v. Sarojamani, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 458 : AIR 2022 SC 2242 : (2022) 7 SCC 644

    Order 20 Rule 18 - Decree in Suit for Partition of Property

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XX Rule 18 - Partition Suits - Trial Courts to list the matter for taking steps under Order XX Rule 18 of the CPC soon after passing of the preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of the property, suo motu and without requiring initiation of any separate proceedings - The courts should not adjourn the matter sine die. (Para 32-34) Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan v. Kattukandi Edathil Valsan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 549 : AIR 2022 SC 2841

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XX Rule 18 - Partition Suits - The distinction between preliminary and final decree - A preliminary decree merely declares the rights and shares of the parties and leaves room for some further inquiry to be held and conducted pursuant to the directions made in preliminary decree and after the inquiry having been conducted and rights of the parties being finally determined, a final decree incorporating such determination needs to be drawn up. (Para 29-30) Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan v. Kattukandi Edathil Valsan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 549 : AIR 2022 SC 2841

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XX Rule 18 - Partition Suits - Final decree proceedings can be initiated at any point of time. There is no limitation for initiating final decree proceedings. Either of the parties to the suit can move an application for preparation of a final decree and, any of the defendants can also move application for the purpose. By mere passing of a preliminary decree the suit is not disposed of. Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan v. Kattukandi Edathil Valsan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 549 : AIR 2022 SC 2841

    Order 21 - Execution of Decrees and Orders

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXI - Appeal against High Court judgment which upheld the procedure adopted by the Execution Court that did not invite objections under Order XXI Rule 34 from Judgment debtor to draft sale deed produced by Decree holder - Allowed - Clearly contravenes the salutary provisions of Order XXI Rule 34 - The objections of the appellant to the draft sale deed to be considered. Rajbir v. Suraj Bhan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 255 : 2022 (5) SCALE 321

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXI - Execution - While it is true that the court must be diligent in the matter of executing a decree passed after adjudication which spans a long period of time, it is also the duty of the court to execute the decree as it is and in accordance with law - Though, it is indeed open to the executing court to construe the decree; it cannot go beyond the decree. (Para 11, 14) Rajbir v. Suraj Bhan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 255 : 2022 (5) SCALE 321

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXI - Execution - While it is true that the court must be diligent in the matter of executing a decree passed after adjudication which spans a long period of time, it is also the duty of the court to execute the decree as it is and in accordance with law - Though, it is indeed open to the executing court to construe the decree; it cannot go beyond the decree. (Para 11, 14) Rajbir v. Suraj Bhan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 255 : 2022 (5) SCALE 321

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXI - Execution Proceedings - Execution Court must dispose of the execution proceedings within six months from the date of filing - It is duty bound to record reasons in writing when it is unable to dispose of the matter - Direction issued in Rahul S. Shah Vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi (2021) 6 SCC 418 is meant to be observed. Bhoj Raj Garg v. Goyal Educational and Welfare Society, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 976

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXI - Execution Proceedings - The woes of a decree holder begin after obtaining a decree. It is in execution that a decree holder is confronted with an unimaginably large number of obstacles. (Para 1) Bhagyoday Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Ravindra Balkrishna Patel, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1020

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXI - Order XXI is exhaustive and in the nature of a complete Code as to how the execution proceedings should take place. This is the second stage after the success of the party in the civil proceedings. It is often said in our country that another legal battle, more prolonged, starts in execution proceedings defeating the right of the party which has succeeded in establishing its claim in civil proceedings - There cannot be a licence to prolong the litigation ad infinitum. (Para 39) Jagan Singh & Co. v. Ludhiana Improvement Trust, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 733

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXI - The mere dismissal of the first application on the ground of default may not result in the decree holder being precluded from filing a fresh execution petition provided it is within time. (Para 21) Bhagyoday Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Ravindra Balkrishna Patel, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1020

    Order 21 Rule 34 - Decree for execution of document

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Appeal against High Court judgment which upheld the procedure adopted by the Execution Court that did not invite objections under Order XXI Rule 34 from Judgment debtor to draft sale deed produced by Decree holder - Allowed - Clearly contravenes the salutary provisions of Order XXI Rule 34 - The objections of the appellant to the draft sale deed to be considered. Rajbir v. Suraj Bhan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 255 : 2022 (5) SCALE 321

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXI Rule 34 - It is the duty of the court to cause the draft to be served upon the judgment debtor and to apply its mind and to make alterations in the draft, if needed, when objections are filed - It will be thereafter that the decree holder is to deliver it to the court with the alterations if any made by the court, on proper stamp paper, if required and the execution of the document is effected by the court or the officer appointed. (Para 10 -11) Rajbir v. Suraj Bhan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 255 : 2022 (5) SCALE 321

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXI Rule 34 - It is the duty of the court to cause the draft to be served upon the judgment debtor and to apply its mind and to make alterations in the draft, if needed, when objections are filed - It will be thereafter that the decree holder is to deliver it to the court with the alterations if any made by the court, on proper stamp paper, if required and the execution of the document is effected by the court or the officer appointed. (Para 10-11) Rajbir v. Suraj Bhan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 255 : 2022 (5) SCALE 321

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXI Rule 34 - Order XXI Rule 34 cannot be diluted and any such departure from the provisions can have highly deleterious consequences not merely qua the parties in question but also persons who come to deal with those parties in future. It can lead to further litigation. (Para 14) Rajbir v. Suraj Bhan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 255 : 2022 (5) SCALE 321

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXI Rule 34 - Order XXI Rule 34 cannot be diluted and any such departure from the provisions can have highly deleterious consequences not merely qua the parties in question but also persons who come to deal with those parties in future. It can lead to further litigation. (Para 14) Rajbir v. Suraj Bhan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 255 : 2022 (5) SCALE 321

    Order 21 Rules 46 - Attachment of debt, share and other property not in possession of judgment-debtor

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXI Rules 46, 46A - Execution Court should have first attached the debt under Order 21 Rule 46 before proceeding to pass the order under Order 21 Rule 46A - Order 21 Rule 46A in the case of debt must be understood as a debt spoken of in Order 21 Rule 46 of CPC and the debt must have been attached under Order 21 Rule 46 - Order 21 Rule 46A excepts, debt secured by a mortgage or a charge. Once these conditions are fulfilled, then upon an application being made by the 'attaching creditor' a notice may be issued to the garnishee. (Para 27- 28) Bhagyoday Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Ravindra Balkrishna Patel, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1020

    Order 21 Rules 46A - Notice to Garnishee

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXI Rules 46, 46A - The exception is in regard to 'such other property' which though not in the possession of the judgment debtor, is property deposited or is in the custody of any Court - In regard to such property Order 21 Rule 46 and therefore Order 21 Rule 46A will not apply. (Para 25) Bhagyoday Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Ravindra Balkrishna Patel, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1020

    Order 21 Rule 58 - Adjudication of claims to, or objections to attachment of property

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

    Order 21 Rule 90 - Application to set aside sale on ground of irregularity or fraud

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXI Rule 90(3) - The twin conditions of material irregularity of fraud and substantial injury has to be satisfied before an auction sale can be set aside under Order XXI Rule 90(3) -No sale could be set aside unless the Court is satisfied that the applicant has sustained substantial injury by reason of irregularity or fraud in completing or conducting the sale. (Para 11, 38) Jagan Singh & Co. v. Ludhiana Improvement Trust, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 733

    Order 21 Rule 97 - Resistance or obstruction to possession of immovable property

    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

    Order 22 Rule 1 - No abatement by party's death, if right to sue survives

    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 : (2022) 10 SCC 428

    Order 22 Rule 2 - Procedure where one of several plaintiffs or defendants dies and right to sue survives

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXII Rule 2 - When the legal representative has been brought on record in appeal though from an interlocutory order, such impleadment will enure towards the proceedings in the suit itself. (Para 11 - 12) Maringmei Acham v. M. Maringmei Khuripou, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 958

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXII Rule 2 - Where there are more than one plaintiffs, the entire suit cannot be held to be abated on the death of one of the plaintiffs. (Para 8-9) Siravarapu Appa Rao v. Dokala Appa Rao, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 845

    Order 22 Rule 10 - Procedure in case of assignment before final order in suit

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXII Rule 10 - The death of one of the partners does not foreclose the continuation of the civil proceedings initiated by the firm - Where two persons have sued in the name of a partnership firm and if one of such persons dies during the pendency of the proceedings, it is not necessary to join the legal representatives of the deceased as a party to such proceedings, which shall continue in accordance with law. (Para 6-11) Sumer Singh Galundia v. Jeevan Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1041

    Order 22 Rule 11 - Application of Order to appeals

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXII Rule 2, 11 - A second appeal does not abate on death of one of the respondents when the right to sue survives against the surviving respondent - Abatement occurs only when the cause of action does not survive upon or against the surviving party. (Para 6-9) Sakharam v. Kishanrao, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 722

    Order 23 Rule 3 - Compromise of Suit

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order 23 Rule 3 - 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

    Order 23 Rule 3A - Bar to Suit

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXIII Rule 3A - At the stage of deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the only thing which was required to be considered is whether the suit would be maintainable or not and that the suit challenging the Compromise Decree would be maintainable or not in view of Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC - Court is not required to consider on merits the validity of the Compromise Decree. (Para 6) Sree Surya Developers and Promoters v. N. Sailesh Prasad, 2022 LiveLaw SC 143 : AIR 2022 SC 1031 : (2022) 5 SCC 736

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXIII Rule 3A - A party to a consent decree based on a compromise to challenge the compromise decree on the ground that the decree was not lawful i.e., it was void or voidable has to approach the same court, which recorded the compromise and a separate suit challenging the consent decree has been held to be not maintainable. (Para 8) Sree Surya Developers and Promoters v. N. Sailesh Prasad, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 143 : AIR 2022 SC 1031 : (2022) 5 SCC 736

    Order 26 Rule 9 - Commissions to make local investigations

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXVI Rule 9, 11 - The commissioners' reports are 'non-adjudicatory in nature', and the courts adjudicate upon the rights of the parties - It is only an opinion or noting, as the case may be with the details and/or statement to the court the actual state of affairs. Such a report does not automatically form part of the court's opinion, as the court has the power to confirm, vary or set aside the report or in a given case issue a new commission. (Para 33) M.P. Rajya Tilhan Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Maryadit v. Modi Transport Service, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 471 : 2022 (7) SCALE 762

    Order 26 Rule 11 - Commission to examine or adjust Accounts.

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXVI Rule 11 - Arbitration Act, 1940; Section 21 - Distinction between the scope and functions of an arbitral tribunal and a commissioner - For submission to arbitration, there must be an arbitration agreement or an agreement in terms of Section 21 of the Act that the difference or dispute between the parties for which they intend to be determined in a quasi-judicial manner. Commissioners are appointed by the court. Appointment may be with consent of the parties, or even when there is objection to the appointment. Preexisting agreement or the requirement that the parties agree before the court, as is mandatory in case of arbitration, is not necessary when a court directs appointment of a commissioner. In the case of a reference to a commissioner, all that the parties expect from the commissioner is a valuation/ examination of the subject matter referred, which he would do according to his skill, knowledge and experience, which may be without taking any evidence or hearing argument. (Para 32) M.P. Rajya Tilhan Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Maryadit v. Modi Transport Service, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 471 : 2022 (7) SCALE 762

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXVI Rule 11 - We would like to introduce the principle of a 'facilitator' which a court may appoint, be it a commissioner or an expert, for a specific purpose and cause for ascertainment of a fact which may be even disputed. In some cases, the commissioner may even hear the parties and give his expert opinion based on the material or evidence produced by the parties before the commissioner. (Para 32) M.P. Rajya Tilhan Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Maryadit v. Modi Transport Service, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 471 : 2022 (7) SCALE 762

    Order 30 Rule 4 - Right of suit on death of partner

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXX Rule 4 - The death of one of the partners does not foreclose the continuation of the civil proceedings initiated by the firm - Where two persons have sued in the name of a partnership firm and if one of such persons dies during the pendency of the proceedings, it is not necessary to join the legal representatives of the deceased as a party to such proceedings, which shall continue in accordance with law. (Para 6-11) Sumer Singh Galundia v. Jeevan Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1041

    Order 33 Rule 1 - Suits by Indigent Persons

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXXIII Rule 1 - When having prima facie found that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and the suit is barred by res judicata it cannot be said that the Trial Court committed any error in rejecting the application to sue as indigent persons - However, observations that the suit is barred by res judicata and/or on no cause of action shall be treated confine to deciding the application to sue as indigent person only. (Para 6.4 - 6.6) Solomon Selvaraj v. Indrani Bhagawan Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1004

    Order 33 Rule 7 - Procedure at hearing

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXXIII Rules 1, 7, 8 - If the application to sue as indigent person is granted thereafter the suit shall be numbered and registered - Till then the plaint/suit shall be at pre-numbered and pre-registered stage. (Para 6.2) Solomon Selvaraj v. Indrani Bhagawan Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1004

    Order 33 Rule 8 - Procedure if application admitted

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXXIII Rules 1, 7, 8 - If the application to sue as indigent person is granted thereafter the suit shall be numbered and registered - Till then the plaint/suit shall be at pre-numbered and pre-registered stage. (Para 6.2) Solomon Selvaraj v. Indrani Bhagawan Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1004

    Order 37 Rule 3 - Procedure for the appearance of defendant

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXXVII Rule 3 - Summary Suit - Grant of leave to defend (with or without conditions) is the ordinary rule; and denial of leave to defend is an exception - Even if there remains a reasonable doubt about the probability of defence, sterner or higher conditions as stated above could be imposed while granting leave but, denying the leave would be ordinarily countenanced only in such cases where the defendant fails to show any genuine triable issue and the Court finds the defence to be frivolous or vexatious. (Para 17) B.L. Kashyap and Sons v. JMS Steels & Power, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 59 : AIR 2022 SC 785 : (2022) 3 SCC 294

    Order 39 - Temporary Injunctions and Interlocutory Orders

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXXIX - Interim injunctions - While considering the question of grant of interim injunction, the courts are required to consider the three tests of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury .(Para 36) Shyam Sel and Power Ltd. v. Shyam Steel Industries Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 282 : 2022 (4) SCALE 720

    Order 39 Rule 2A - Consequence of disobedience or breach of injunction

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXXIX Rule 2A - contempt of a civil nature can be made out under Order XXXIX Rule 2­A CPC not when there has been mere “disobedience”, but only when there has been “wilful disobedience”. The allegation of wilful disobedience being in the nature of criminal liability, the same has to be proved to the satisfaction of the court that the disobedience was not mere “disobedience” but “wilful” and “conscious” - The power must be exercised with caution rather than on mere probability. Future Coupons Pvt. Ltd. v. Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 114 : (2022) 6 SCC 121

    Order 41 Rule 11 - Power to dismiss appeal without sending notice to Lower Court

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

    Order 41 Rule 24 - Where evidence on record sufficient, Appellate Court may determine case finally

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XLI Rule 24 - To avoid the possibility of remanding back the matter after the decision on the preliminary issues, it is mandated for the trial court under Order XIV Rule 2 and Order XX Rule 5, and for the first appellate court in terms of Order XLI Rules 24 and 25 to record findings on all the issues. (Para 33) Sathyanath v. Sarojamani, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 458 : AIR 2022 SC 2242 : (2022) 7 SCC 644

    Order 41 Rule 25 - Where Appellate Court may frame issues and refer them for trial to Court whose decree appealed from

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XLI Rule 25 - If evidence is recorded by the learned Trial Court on all the issues, it would facilitate the first Appellate Court to decide the questions of fact even by reformulating the issues - It is only when the first Appellate Court finds that there is no evidence led by the parties, the first Appellate Court can call upon the parties to lead evidence on such additional issues, either before the Appellate Court or before the Trial Court. (Para 32) Sathyanath v. Sarojamani, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 458 : AIR 2022 SC 2242 : (2022) 7 SCC 644

    Order 41 Rule 27 - Production of Additional Evidence in Appellate Court

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order 41 Rule 27 - High Court dismissed an application for additional evidence filed by the appellant to bring on record certain sale deeds and certified copy of the judgments and awards passed in other land acquisition cases, which he contended, were relevant for the purpose of determining the fair market value -Allowed - It was a case of awarding of fair compensation to the land owner whose land has been acquired for public purpose - There was no other material available on record to arrive at a fair market value of the acquired land. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court ought to have allowed the application for additional evidence. Sanjay Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 268 : AIR 2022 SC 1372 : (2022) 7 SCC 247

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order 41 Rule 27 - The appellate court to take additional evidence in exceptional circumstances - Where the additional evidence sought to be adduced removes the cloud of doubt over the case and the evidence has a direct and important bearing on the main issue in the suit and interest of justice clearly renders it imperative that it may be allowed to be permitted on record, such application may be allowed - The admissibility of additional evidence does not depend upon the relevancy to the issue on hand, or on the fact, whether the applicant had an opportunity for adducing such evidence at an earlier stage or not, but it depends upon whether or not the appellate court requires the evidence sought to be adduced to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause - The true test, therefore is, whether the appellate court is able to pronounce judgment on the materials before it without taking into consideration the additional evidence sought to be adduced. (Para 4) Sanjay Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 268 : AIR 2022 SC 1372 : (2022) 7 SCC 247

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order 41 Rule 27 - Though a party can produce additional evidence at the appellate stage, the same has to be within the four corners of law - The party has to establish that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within its knowledge or could not even after due diligence, be produced by it at the time when the decree appealed against was passed. (Para 10) Sunil Kumar Maity v. State Bank of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 77 : AIR 2022 SC 577

    Order 41 Rule 33 - Power of Court of Appeal

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order 41 Rule 33 - The Rule clothes the appellate court with an extra ordinary power, which however is a rare jurisdiction. It is to reach justice in the special facts of a case. It is not an ordinary rule to be applied across the board in all the appeals. In fact, the principle is interalia no doubt that even if there is no appeal by any of the parties in the proceedings, an order can be passed in his favour in the appeal carried by the other side. (Para 13) Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Rabindra Kumar Bharti, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 374 : 2022 (6) SCALE 228

    Order 43 Rule 1A - Right to challenge Non-Appealable Orders in Appeal against Decrees

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; 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

    Order 47 - Review

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 114, Order XLVII - Distinction between an erroneous decision as against an error apparent on the face of the record - An erroneous decision can be corrected by the Superior Court, however an error apparent on the face of the record can only be corrected by exercising review jurisdiction - A judgment can be open to review if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record, but an error that has to be detected by a process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise its powers of review. (Para 26) S. Madhusudhan Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 685 : 2022 (12) SCALE 261

    Order 47 Rule 1 - Application for Review of Judgment

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XLVII Rule 1 - A review application would be maintainable on (i) discovery of new and important matters or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, were not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him when the decree was passed or the order made; (ii) on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or (iii) for any other sufficient reason - Scope of review jurisdiction discussed. (Para 11- 25) S. Madhusudhan Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 685 : 2022 (12) SCALE 261

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 114, Order XLVII Rule 1 - "for any other sufficient reason" means "a reason sufficient on grounds, at least analogous to those specified in the rule". (Para 26) S. Madhusudhan Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 685 : 2022 (12) SCALE 261

    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XLVII Rule 1 - In order to satisfy the requirements prescribed in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, it is imperative for a party to establish that discovery of the new material or evidence was neither within its knowledge when the decree was passed, nor could the party have laid its hands on such documents/evidence after having exercised due diligence, prior to passing of the order. (Para 33) S. Madhusudhan Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 685 : 2022 (12) SCALE 261

    Commercial Courts Act, 2015

    Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Mediation lightens the load of the judges- Section 12A contemplated only for a class of suits not requiring urgent relief- suits which contemplate urgent interim relief, the Law-giver has carefully vouch-safed immediate access to justice as contemplated ordinarily through the courts. The carving out of a class of suits and selecting them for compulsory mediation, harmonises with the attainment of the object of the law. The load on the Judges is lightened. They can concentrate on matters where urgent interim relief is contemplated and, on other matters, which already crowd their dockets. (Para 54) Patil AutomationPvt. Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers Private Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 678 : AIR 2022 SC 3848 : (2022) 10 SCC 1

    Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Order excluding period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 for the purposes of limitation in Re: Cognizance of Extension of Limitation 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 31 - Applicable with respect to the limitation prescribed under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 also. Babasaheb Raosaheb Kobarne v. Pyrotek India Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 520

    Commercial Courts Act, 2015; Section 3 - State Government can confer jurisdiction to hear applications under Sections 9, 14 and 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, upon Commercial Courts which are subordinate to the rank of the Principal Civil Judge in the District - All applications or appeals arising out of arbitration under the provisions of Act, 1996, other than international commercial arbitration, shall be filed in and heard and disposed of by the Commercial Courts, exercising the territorial jurisdiction over such arbitration where such commercial courts have been constituted. (Para 6-11) Jaycee Housing Pvt. Ltd. v. Registrar (General), Orissa High Court, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 860 : AIR 2022 SC 5239

    Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Pre-institution mediation - Section 12A not a procedural provision- Exhausting pre-institution mediation by the plaintiff, with all the benefits that may accrue to the parties and, more importantly, the justice delivery system as a whole, would make Section 12A not a mere procedural provision. The design and scope of the Act, as amended in 2018, by which Section 12A was inserted, would make it clear that Parliament intended to give it a mandatory flavour. (Para 43) Patil AutomationPvt. Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers Private Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 678 : AIR 2022 SC 3848 : (2022) 10 SCC 1

    Commercial Courts Act, 2015; Section 12A - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VII Rule 11 - In a clear case, where on allegations in the suit, it is found that the suit is barred by any law, as would be the case, where the plaintiff in a suit under the Act does not plead circumstances to take his case out of the requirement of Section 12A, the plaint should be rejected without issuing summons. (Para 68) Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers Private Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 678 : AIR 2022 SC 3848 : (2022) 10 SCC 1

    Commercial Courts Act, 2015; Section 12A - Pre-institution mediation declared to be mandatory- any suit instituted violating the mandate of Section 12A must be visited with rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11. This power can be exercised even suo moto by the court- Declaration with effect from 22.08.2022. (Para 84) Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers Private Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 678 : AIR 2022 SC 3848 : (2022) 10 SCC 1

    Commercial Courts Act, 2015; Section 16 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order V Rule 1, Order VIII Rule 1 and Order VIII Rule 10 CPC - The orders passed by the Supreme Court on 23.03.2020, 06.05.2020, 10.07.2020, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021 in SMWP No. 3 of 2020 applies in relation to the period prescribed for filing the written statement - Unrealistic and illogical to assume that while the Court has provided for exclusion of period for institution of the suit and therefore, a suit otherwise filed beyond limitation (if the limitation had expired between 15.03.2020 to 02.10.2021) could still be filed within 90 days from 03.10.2021 but the period for filing written statement, if expired during that period, has to operate against the defendant - the period envisaged finally in the order dated 23.09.2021 is required to be excluded in computing the period of limitation even for filing the written statement and even in cases where the delay is otherwise not condonable - The orders in SMWP No. 3 of 2020 were of extraordinary measures in extraordinary circumstances and their operation cannot be curtailed with reference to the ordinary operation of law. (Para 20.2) Prakash Corporates v. Dee Vee Projects Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 162 : AIR 2022 SC 946 : (2022) 5 SCC 112

    Commercial Courts Act, 2015; Section 16 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order V Rule 1, Order VIII Rule 1 and Order VIII Rule 10 CPC - In the ordinary circumstances,On expiry of 120th day from the date of service of summons, the defendant forfeits the right to file the written statement and no Court can make an order to extend such time beyond 120 days from the date of service of summons. (Para 16) Prakash Corporates v. Dee Vee Projects Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 162 : AIR 2022 SC 946 : (2022) 5 SCC 112

    Commercial Courts Act, 2015; Section 16 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 10, Order V Rule 1, Order VIII Rule 1 and Order VIII Rule 10 CPC - These provisions are intended to provide the consequences in relation to a defendant who omits to perform his part in progress of the suit as envisaged by the rules of procedure and are not intended to override all other provisions of CPC like those of Section 10. (Para 26.1) Prakash Corporates v. Dee Vee Projects Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 162 : AIR 2022 SC 946 : (2022) 5 SCC 112

    Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952

    Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 - In respect of criminal charges, an accused can be tried by a Court of law and not merely on the basis of the report of the Commissioner under the Inquiry Act. Such a report is not conclusive and an independent action has to be taken by the State or by the victims against the Organizers before the competent court of law to prove the criminal offences said to be committed by certain accused. (Para 49) Sanjay Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 368 : (2022) 7 SCC 203

    Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 - The Commission under the Act shall be appointed either by the Executive or by the Legislature but not by the Judiciary in terms of the provisions of Inquiry Act. (Para 46, 50) Sanjay Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 368 : (2022) 7 SCC 203

    Companies Act, 1956

    Companies Act, 1956 - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Appeal against NCLAT order which dismissed appeals against NCLT order denying relief to appellant workmen/employees with regard to their claim relating to salary, which they claimed for the period involving CIRP- Partly allowed - (i) That the wages/salaries of the workmen/employees of the Corporate Debtor for the period during CIRP can be included in the CIRP costs provided it is established and proved that the Interim Resolution Professional/Resolution Professional managed the operations of the corporate debtor as a going concern during the CIRP and that the concerned workmen/employees of the corporate debtor actually worked during the CIRP and in such an eventuality, the wages/salaries of those workmen/employees who actually worked during the CIRP period when the resolution professional managed the operations of the corporate debtor as a going concern, shall be paid treating it and/or considering it as part of CIRP costs and the same shall be payable in full first as per Section 53(1)(a) of the IB Code; (ii) considering Section 36(4) of the IB code and when the provident fund, gratuity fund and pension fund are kept out of the liquidation estate assets, the share of the workmen dues shall be kept outside the liquidation process and the concerned workmen/employees shall have to be paid the same out of such provident fund, gratuity fund and pension fund, if any, available and the Liquidator shall not have any claim over such funds. Sunil Kumar Jain v. Sundaresh Bhatt, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 382 : AIR 2022 SC 1985 : (2022) 7 SCC 540

    Companies Act, 1956 - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Legislative History with respect to workmen/employee's dues towards the wages/salaries including the amount due and payable towards provident fund, gratuity and pension fund - discussed. (Para 8.2) Sunil Kumar Jain v. Sundaresh Bhatt, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 382 : AIR 2022 SC 1985 : (2022) 7 SCC 540

    Section 10F - Appeals against the order of the Company Law Board

    Companies Act, 1956; Section 10F - Re­appraisal of entire evidence by the High Court is not permissible - Has to restrict its determination to the purported questions of law arising from the order of CLB. (Para 24) Mahima Datla v. Renuka Datla, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 479 : (2022) 10 SCC 258

    Section 397 - Application to Company Law Board for relief in cases of oppression

    Companies Act, 1956; Section 397 - An order could be made on application made under sub­section (1), if the Court is of the opinion that (i) the Company's affairs are being conducted in a manner prejudicial to public interest or in a manner oppressive of any member or members, and; (ii) the facts would justify the making of a winding up order on the ground that it was just and equitable that the Company should be wound up, and; (iii) the winding up order would unfairly prejudice the Petitioners - An application for relief can be brought by any member who complain that the 25 affairs of the Company are being conducted in a manner prejudicial to public interest or in a manner oppressive to any member or members. The intention of the legislature is that majority shareholders who oppress the minority shareholders and conduct the affairs of the company prejudicial to public interest may invoke the jurisdiction of CLB. (Para 39) Mahima Datla v. Renuka Datla, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 479 : (2022) 10 SCC 258

    Companies Act, 2013

    Companies Act, 2013 - Centre directed to ensure that the term of NCLT members appointed in future is 5 years as per Section 413 - We however direct that in making appointments to the NCLT in the future, the Union Government shall be bound by the statutory provisions embodied in Section 413 of the Companies Act 2013. (Para 27, 28) National Company Law Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 665

    Companies Act, 2013 - Term of members of National Company Law Tribunal - Section 413- Appointment of persons as members of the NCLT for a period of three years is not contemplated by the provisions of Section 413(1). An administrative notification for appointment has to be consistent with the statute which governs appointments to the Tribunal. (Para 17) National Company Law Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 665

    Companies Act, 2013 - Advertisement of winding up petition - The power to dispense with any advertisement, is now made available specifically under the statutory regime of 2013. (Para 7) Devas Multimedia v. Antrix Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 57 : 2022 (1) SCALE 474

    Companies Act, 2013 - Appeal filed by Devas Multimedia challenging the orders passed by the NCLT and NCLAT allowing the winding up on a petition filed by ISRO's commercial arm Antrix Corporation - Dismissed. Devas Multimedia v. Antrix Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 57 : 2022 (1) SCALE 474

    Memorandum of Association

    Companies Act, 2013 - Memorandum of Association - A company’s MOA is its charter and outlines the purpose for which the company has been created. The object clause in an MOA is considered to be representative of the purpose of a company and it is expected that the company will fulfill/attempt to fulfill the objects it has laid out in its MOA. (Para. 52) Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd. v. Hitro Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 129 : (2022) 7 SCC 164

    Section 170 - Register of directors and key managerial personnel and their shareholding.

    Companies Act, 2013; Section 170 - Companies Act, 1956; Section 394 (1)(a) - Amalgamation - Amalgamation is unlike the winding up of a corporate entity. In the case of amalgamation, the outer shell of the corporate entity is undoubtedly destroyed; it ceases to exist. Yet, in every other sense of the term, the corporate venture continues – enfolded within the new or the existing transferee entity. In other words, the business and the adventure lives on but within a new corporate residence, i.e., the transferee company. It is, therefore, essential to look beyond the mere concept of destruction of corporate entity which brings to an end or terminates any assessment proceedings - Upon amalgamation, the cause of action or the complaint does not per se cease – depending of course, upon the structure and objective of enactment - The quest of legal systems and courts has been to locate if a successor or representative exists in relation to the particular cause or action, upon whom the assets might have devolved or upon whom the liability in the event it is adjudicated, would fall. (Para 18) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) – 2 v. Mahagun Realtors (P) Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 346 : AIR 2022 SC 1672

    Section 188 - Related party transactions

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

    Section 196 - Appointment of managing director, whole-time director or manager

    Companies Act, 2013; Section 196, Schedule V - No person shall be eligible to be a whole­time Director of a Company after attaining the age of 70 years unless such appointment is approved by a special resolution of the Company. (Para 35) Mahima Datla v. Renuka Datla, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 479 : (2022) 10 SCC 258

    Section 271 - Circumstances in which company may be wound up by Tribunal

    Companies Act, 2013; Section 271 - Companies Act, 1956 - Distinguishing features between the 1956 Act and the 2013 Act, with regard to the question of availability of fraud as a ground for the winding up of a company discussed - In contrast to the 1956 Act, the 2013 Act provides 2 different routes for the winding up of a company on the ground of fraud - (i) winding up under clause (c) of Section 271 (directly on the ground of fraud) by any person authorised by the Central Government by notification; or (ii) winding up under clause (e) of Section 271 (on the ground that it is just and equitable to wind up) in terms of Section 224(2)(a) on the basis of a report of investigation under Section 213(b). (Para 6) Devas Multimedia v. Antrix Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 57 : 2022 (1) SCALE 474

    Companies Act, 2013; Section 271 - If the conduct of the affairs of the company in a fraudulent manner is a continuing process, the right to apply for winding up becomes recurring. (Para 8.22) Devas Multimedia v. Antrix Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 57 : 2022 (1) SCALE 474

    Company Secretaries Regulations, 1982

    Company Secretaries Regulations, 1982; Regulation 92(2) - There is a distinction between the absence and the post fallen vacant. Regulation 92(2) shall be applicable only in a case of absence and not in a case where the post of Chairman and/or office bearer has fallen vacant. (Para 4.4) Institute of Company Secretaries of India v. Biman Debnath, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 945

    Company Secretaries Regulations, 1982; Regulations 117(2), 119(2) - Regulation 117(2) shall be applicable in a case where the elected member of the Regional Council has been disqualified on he being found guilty of any professional or other misconduct and awarded penalty of fine. Therefore, in case of a vacation of office as per Regulation 117(2), such post fallen vacant is required to be filled in by election by electing another person from amongst its members to hold the office for the remaining period of a year (Regulation 119(2)). (Para 4.4) Institute of Company Secretaries of India v. Biman Debnath, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 945

    Competition Act, 2002

    Competition Act, 2002; Section 3 - Lotteries - If in the tendering process there is an element of anti-competition which would require investigation by the CCI, that cannot be prevented under the pretext of the lottery business being res extra commercium, more so when the State Government decides to deal in lotteries. (Para 39) Competition Commission v. State of Mizoram, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 75 : (2022) 7 SCC 73

    Competitive Examinations

    Competitive examinations - Merit - Merit cannot be reduced to narrow definitions of performance in an open competitive examination which only provides formal equality of opportunity. Competitive examinations assess basic current competency to allocate educational resources but are not reflective of excellence, capabilities and potential of an individual which are also shaped by lived experiences, subsequent training and individual character. Crucially, open competitive examinations do not reflect the social, economic and cultural advantage that accrues to certain classes and contributes to their success in such examinations. (Para 59(ii)) Neil Aurelio Nunes v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 73 : (2022) 4 SCC 1

    Conflict of Laws

    Conflict of Laws - If there is any inconsistency between two legislations, the later law, even if general in nature, would override an earlier special law. (Para 18) Vodafone Idea Cellular Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar Agarwal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 221 : (2022) 6 SCC 496

    Constitution of India

    Constitution of India, 1950 - After a period of 10 years from the date of execution of the Sale Deed with NOIDA, the petitioner made a representation to it requesting to allot a plot as agreed in terms of the Sale Deed - High Court directed NOIDA to consider the representation - NOIDA rejected it - This was again challenged before High Court by the Petitioner - High Court dismissed writ petition - SLP challenging the said High Court judgment dismissed. Surjeet Singh Sahni v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 232 : 2022 (4) SCALE 280

    Constitution of India, 1950 - Appeal against High Court order that set aside order issued by Municipality cancelling work order to appellant - Allowed - In absence of any evidence and material on record and there being disputed questions of facts the High Court ought not to have passed the impugned judgment and order directing the Council to continue the work order. Municipal Corporation Gondia v. Divi Works & Suppliers HUF, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 225 : 2022 (4) SCALE 262

    Constitution of India, 1950 - Court's duty to protect constitutional values - Court is charged with the duty to protect the fundamental rights and also preserve the constitutional values and the secular democratic character of the nation and in particular, the rule of law. Shaheen Abdullah v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 872

    Constitution of India, 1950 - Governor's Powers -Schedule 5 cannot be read as conferring upon the Governor absolute power and/or unfettered power, notwithstanding the provisions contained in Part III of the Constitution. Satyajit Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 651

    Constitution of India, 1950 - Judicial Interference in policy matters - APM Terminals B.V. v. Union of India and anr. - consistent view of the Court - a change in policy by the Government can have an overriding effect over private treaties between the Government and a private party, if the same was in the general public interest - provide such change in policy was guided by reason - in case of conflict between public interest and personal interest, public interest should prevail - when a policy is changed by the State, which is in the general public interest, such policy would prevail over the individual rights/interests - in the present case, the policy change was not only in the larger public interest but also in the interest of the respondents/original allottees of plots of land [Para 61 - 63 & 65] Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority v. Shakuntla Education and Welfare Society, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 536 : 2022 (8) SCALE 470

    Constitution of India, 1950 - Levy of Excise Duty - Appeal against High Court order which set aside demand notice issued to pay excise duty on the weak spirit, which was more than 2% allowable wastage - Dismissed - Wastage generated has been found to be unfit and unsafe for potable purpose - the State has power to levy excise duty only in respect of the alcoholic liquor for human consumption. State of Orissa v. Utkal Distilleries Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 240 : (2022) 5 SCC 326

    Constitution of India, 1950 - Levy of Excise Duty - State Legislature has no authority to levy duty or tax on alcohol, which is not for human consumption as that could be levied only by the Centre - State only empowered to levy excise duty on alcoholic liquor for human consumption. State of Orissa v. Utkal Distilleries Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 240 : (2022) 5 SCC 326

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

    Constitution of India, 1950 - Part IXB inserted by the Constitution (97th Amendment) Act, 2011 would not be applicable to the local co-operative societies, whereas the same would be applicable to the multi-State co-operative societies and the societies within the Union territories. (Para 45A-45C) Bengal Secretariat Cooperative Land Mortgage Bank and Housing Society Ltd. v. Aloke Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 849

    Constitution of India, 1950 - Permissibility of sub-classification amongst backw ard classes as has been done in the 2021 Act cannot be contested. Reasonableness of sub-classification is a separate question. (Para 33) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333 : AIR 2022 SC 1865

    Constitution of India, 1950 - Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004 (Madhya Pradesh) - Appeal against High Court order refusing to interfere with confiscation order passed by District Magistrate despite acquittal in connected criminal case under MP Cow Slaughter Prohibition Act - Allowed - The order of acquittal was passed as evidence was missing to connect the accused with the charges. The confiscation of the appellant's truck when he is acquitted in the Criminal prosecution, amounts to arbitrary deprivation of his property and violates the right guaranteed to each person under Article 300A - The District Magistrate's order of Confiscation (ignoring the Trial Court's judgment of acquittal), is not only arbitrary but also inconsistent with the legal requirements. Abdul Vahab v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 243 : 2022 (4) SCALE 401

    Constitution of India, 1950 - Supreme Court upholds Haryana Sikh Gurudwara (Management) Act, 2014 - Holds that Haryana State legislature has competence to enact the said Act - The Act does not violate the rights of Sikhs under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution - Since the affairs of the Sikh minority in the State are to be managed by the Sikhs alone, therefore, it cannot be said to be violative of any of the fundamental rights conferred under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. Harbhajan Singh v. State of Haryana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 782

    Constitution of India, 1950 - Tamil Nadu Special Reservation of seats in Educational Institutions including Private Educational Institutions and of appointments or posts in the services under the State within the Reservation for the Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities Act, 2021 declared unconstitutional - Upheld the Madras High Court judgment holding that there is no substantial basis for classifying the Vanniakula Kshatriyas into one group to be treated differentially from the remaining 115 communities within the MBCs and DNCs, and therefore, the 2021 Act is in violation of Articles 14, 15 and 16. (Para 74) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333 : AIR 2022 SC 1865

    Constitution of India, 1950 - The conclusion of the High Court that determining the extent of reservation amongst the ‘Backward Classes of citizens’ can be done only by amending the 1994 Act in view of Article 31-B is unsustainable - State Legislature did not lack competence to enact a legislation for determining the extent of reservation amongst the MBCs and DNCs. (Para 46) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333 : AIR 2022 SC 1865

    Constitution of India, 1950 - The High Court has committed an error in holding that the 2021 Act is violative of Article 342-A. (Para 31) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333 : AIR 2022 SC 1865

    Constitution of India, 1950 - The State’s competence to enact the 2021 Act with the Governor’s assent cannot be faulted with nor can the State be compelled by the courts to reserve the 2021 Act for assent of the President. (Para 51) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333 : AIR 2022 SC 1865

    Constitution of India, 1950 - There is no bar on the legislative competence of the State to enact the 2021 Act. (Para 71) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333 : AIR 2022 SC 1865

    Constitution of India, 1950 - Under the Xth Schedule of the Constitution, the Speaker of a Legislative Assembly does not have power to deny pension and other benefits available to a former MLA while deciding a disqualification plea against him. Gyanendra Kumar Singh v. Bihar Legislative Assembly Patna, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 808

    Constitution of India, 1950 - Writ Petition Challenging Bihar Government notification approving issuance of caste certificate to Lohar community - Allowed - Lohars were not included as members of the Scheduled Tribe right from the beginning and they were, in fact, included as members of the OBCs in the State of Bihar - Lohar is not same as Lohara. Including Lohars alongside 'Lohara' is clearly illegal and arbitrary - State to pay costs of Rs. 5 Lakhs to the petitioners. Sunil Kumar Rai v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 219 : 2022 (4) SCALE 199

    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

    Article 2 - Admission or establishment of new States

    Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 2, 3 13, 19(1)(e) - Andhra Pradesh State Reorganisation Act, 2014 - There is only one domicile i.e. domicile of the country and there is no separate domicile for a State -The Reorganization Act or any guidelines framed thereunder cannot take away from citizens, the right to reside and settle in any part of the country - When a State is divided and the employees and officers of the State Government have to be allotted to the two states, such allocation has to be done on the basis of the Rules and Regulations and by guidelines - However they have to be construed harmoniously with the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. (Para 59-68) State of Telangana v. B. Subba Rayadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 767 : AIR 2022 SC 4373

    Article 12 - Fundamental Rights - Definition

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

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

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 12 - While exercising its functions on the administrative side, the High Court would also be a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. (Para 39) Ms. X v. Registrar General, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 150 : 2022 (3) SCALE 99

    Article 14 - Equality before law

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - Appeal filed by power distribution companies assailing the order of Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, New Delhi which had directed the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission to dispose of two applications filed by the parties before it. Displeased with the conduct of the appellants in the dispute the Court imposed a cost of Rs. 5,00,000 (five lakhs) on them. Southern Power Distribution Power Company Ltd. v. Hinduja National Power Corporation Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 117 : (2022) 5 SCC 484

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - Classification Test - When there is a reasonable basis for a classification adopted by taking note of the exigencies and diverse situations, the Court is not expected to insist on absolute equality by taking a rigid and pedantic view as against a pragmatic one - When the differentiation is clearly distinguishable with adequate demarcation duly identified, the object of Article 14 gets satisfied. Social, revenue and economic considerations are certainly permissible parameters in classifying a particular group - Courts could not act like appellate authorities especially when a classification is introduced by way of a policy decision clearly identifying the group of beneficiaries by analysing the relevant materials - When a classification is made on the recommendation made by a body of experts constituted for the purpose, courts will have to be more wary of entering into the said arena as its interference would amount to substituting its views, a process which is best avoided. (Para 14-18) State of Uttarakhand v. Sudhir Budakoti, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 354 : AIR 2022 SC 1767

    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 14 - Equal Protection of Law - Atypical families which are different from traditional family units also entitled to equal protection of law- Familial relationships may take the form of domestic, unmarried partnerships or queer relationships. A household may be a single parent household for any number of reasons, including the death of a spouse, separation, or divorce. These manifestations of love and of families may not be typical but they are as real as their traditional counterparts. Such atypical manifestations of the family unit are equally deserving not only of protection under law but also of the benefits available under social welfare legislation. (Para 26) Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 718 : AIR 2022 SC 4108

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - Every action of a State is required to be guided by the touchstone of non­arbitrariness, reasonableness and rationality. Every action of a State is equally required to be guided by public interest. Every holder of a public office is a trustee, whose highest duty is to the people of the country. The Public Authority is therefore required to exercise the powers only for the public good. (Para 100) Southern Power Distribution Power Company Ltd. v. Hinduja National Power Corporation Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 117 : (2022) 5 SCC 484

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - Inter­play between the plea of legitimate expectation and Article 14 - For a decision to be non ­arbitrary, the reasonable/legitimate expectations of the claimant have to be considered. However, to decide whether the expectation of the claimant is reasonable or legitimate in the context, is a question of fact in each case. Whenever the question arises, it is to be determined not according to the claimant's perception but in larger public interest wherein other more important considerations may outweigh what would otherwise have been the legitimate expectation of the claimant. (Para 14)] State of West Bengal v. Gitashree Dutta (Dey), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 527

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - Non-consideration of the relevant material and consideration of the extraneous material would come into the realm of irrationality. An action which is arbitrary, irrational and unreasonable would be hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (Para 66) Ms. X v. Registrar General, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 150 : 2022 (3) SCALE 99

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - Policy Decision - The policy of the State of Rajasthan is that while selecting Nurse Compounder Junior Grade, the bonus marks are to be given to such employees who have done similar work under the State Government and under the various schemes - Whether such bonus marks would also be available to the contractual employees working under the NHM/NRHM schemes in other States - The policy of the State of Rajasthan to restrict the benefit of bonus marks only to such employees who have worked under different organizations in the State of Rajasthan and to employees working under the NHM/NRHM schemes in the State of Rajasthan, cannot be said to be arbitrary. (Para 22) Satya Dev Bhagaur v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 177 : (2022) 5 SCC 314

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - Reasonable Classification - It is well within the power and authority of the statutory authorities to reasonably classify different sets of employees and categorise them for the nature of benefits they might get from an existing scheme-classification of the employees made by the authorities on the basis of the salary drawn in the 2014 amendment meets the test of reasonable classification contemplated in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (Para 30, 32) Employees Provident Fund Organization v. B. Sunil Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 912 : AIR 2022 SC 5634

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - Right to equality - The right against unfair State action is part of Article 14. Unequals being treated equally is tabooed under Article 14 of the Constitution. (Para 8) Sunil Kumar Rai v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 219 : 2022 (4) SCALE 199

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - The differential treatment for different classes would not be hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The only requirement would be, as to whether such a classification has a nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the Act. (Para 31) Dental Council of India v. Biyani Shikshan Samiti, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 366 : AIR 2022 SC 1799 : (2022) 6 SCC 65

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - There is a presumption of validity of the State action and the burden is on the person who alleges violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India to prove the assertion - Where no plausible reason or principle is indicated nor is it discernible and the impugned State action appears to be arbitrary, the initial burden to prove the arbitrariness is discharged, thereby shifting onus on the State to justify its action as fair and reasonable. If the State is unable to produce material to justify its action as fair and reasonable, the burden on the person alleging arbitrariness must be held to be discharged. (Para 55) Ms. X v. Registrar General, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 150 : 2022 (3) SCALE 99

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - There is no negative equality - If there has been a benefit or advantage conferred on one or a set of people, without legal basis or justification, that benefit cannot multiply, or be relied upon as a principle of parity or equality. (Para 24) R. Muthukumar v. Chairman and Managing Director Tangedco, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 140 : 2022 (3) SCALE 241

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 and 16 - Service Law - An amendment having retrospective operation which has the effect of taking away the benefit already available to the employee under the existing rule indeed would divest the employee from his vested or accrued rights and that being so, it would be held to be violative of the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. (Para 47) Punjab State Co. Agri. Bank Ltd. v. Registrar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 42 : AIR 2022 SC 1349 : (2022) 4 SCC 363

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14, 15, 16 - Differentia which is the basis of classification must be sound and must have reasonable relation to the object of the legislation. If the object itself is discriminatory, then explanation that classification is reasonable having rational relation to the object sought to be achieved is immaterial. (Para 71-72) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333 : AIR 2022 SC 1865

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14, 15, 16 - While caste can be the starting point for providing internal reservation, it is incumbent on the State Government to justify the reasonableness of the decision and demonstrate that caste is not the sole basis. (Para 54) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333 : AIR 2022 SC 1865

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14, 226 - Arbitrariness - When an act is to be treated as arbitrary? The court must carefully attend to the facts and the circumstances of the case. It should find out whether the impugned decision is based on any principle. If not, it may unerringly point to arbitrariness. If the act betrays caprice or the mere exhibition of the whim of the authority it would sufficiently bear the insignia of arbitrariness. In this regard supporting an order with a rationale which in the circumstances is found to be reasonable will go a long way to repel a challenge to state action. No doubt the reasons need not in every case be part of the order as such. If there is absence of good faith and the action is actuated with an oblique motive, it could be characterised as being arbitrary. A total non-application of mind without due regard to the rights of the parties and public interest may be a clear indicator of arbitrary action. A wholly unreasonable decision which is little different from a perverse decision under the Wednesbury doctrine would qualify as an arbitrary decision under Article 14. Ordinarily visiting a party with the consequences of its breach under a contract may not be an arbitrary decision. (Para 48) MP Power Management Company Ltd. v. Sky Power Southeast Solar India Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 966

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - 16 - Substantial Equality - Discrimination both direct and indirect is contrary to the vision of substantive equality -The true aim of achieving substantive equality must be fulfilled by the State in recognizing the persistent patterns of discrimination against women once they are in the work place. (Para 46-48) S.K. Nausad Rahman v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266 : AIR 2022 SC 1494

    Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 14, 15 - Appointment to the heirs of the employees on their retirement and/or superannuation shall be contrary to the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds and is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India - Appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be extended to the heirs of the employees on their superannuation and/or retirement - Appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be extended to the heirs of the employees on their superannuation and/or retirement. If such an appointment is permitted, in that case, outsiders shall never get an appointment and only the heirs of the employees on their superannuation and/or retirement shall get an appointment and those who are the outsiders shall never get an opportunity to get an appointment though they may be more meritorious and/or well educated and/or more qualified. (Para 8) Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika v. Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika Kamgar Union, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 739 : AIR 2022 SC 4101 : (2022) 10 SCC 172

    Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 14, 15(1), 341 and 342 - Furthermore, the duty to provide clarity and protection, generally speaking has to be consistent - i.e., in the case of one states' reorganization, the protection should not be greater than in the case of reorganization of another state. That would defeat the command of Articles 14 and 15 (1) (i.e., in the latter case, there can possibly be discrimination on the ground of place of birth). In my opinion, this duty stems from a co-joint reading of Part I (Articles 1 to 4), Articles 14, 15(1), 341, and 342 of the Constitution, and the overarching concern that the individual should not be worse off, due to disruption not of her or his making. The duty of Parliament in such cases, is a Constitutional obligation, to ensure that no one individual or group is disadvantaged. (Justice Bhat, Para 10) Akhilesh Prasad v. Jharkhand Public Service Commission, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 434

    Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 14, 15, 16 - Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act, 2019 - Constitution validity of EWS Quota upheld - Reservation structured singularly on economic criteria does not violate any essential feature of the Constitution of India and does not cause any damage to the basic structure of the Constitution of India - Exclusion of the classes covered by Articles 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4) from getting the benefit of reservation as economically weaker sections, being in the nature of balancing the requirements of non-discrimination and compensatory discrimination, does not violate Equality Code and does not in any manner cause damage to the basic structure of the Constitution of India. (Para 102) Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 922

    Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 14, 15, 16 - Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act, 2019 - The total and absolute exclusion of constitutionally recognised backward classes of citizens - and more acutely, SC and ST communities, is nothing but discrimination which reaches to the level of undermining, and destroying the equality code, and particularly the principle of nondiscrimination - The insertion of Article 15(6) and 16(6) is struck down, is held to be violative of the equality code, particularly the principle of nondiscrimination and non-exclusion which forms an inextricable part of the basic structure of the Constitution - While special provisions based on objective economic criteria (for the purpose of Article 15), is per se not violative of the basic structure the same is not true for Article 16, the goal of which is empowerment, through representation of the community. (Para 189-193) Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 922

    Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 14, 15, 16 - Reservation for economically weaker sections of citizens up to ten per cent. in addition to the existing reservations does not result in violation of any essential feature of the Constitution of India and does not cause any damage to the basic structure of the Constitution of India on account of breach of the ceiling limit of fifty per cent. because, that ceiling limit itself is not inflexible and in any case, applies only to the reservations envisaged by Articles 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4) of the Constitution of India. (Para 102) Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 922

    Article 15 - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 15 - Articles 15(4) and 15 (5) are not an exception to Article 15 (1), which itself sets out the principle of substantive equality (including the recognition of existing inequalities). Thus, Articles 15 (4) and 15 (5) become a restatement of a particular facet of the rule of substantive equality that has been set out in Article 15 (1). (Para 59(i)) Neil Aurelio Nunes v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 73 : (2022) 4 SCC 1

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 15 - Practices or rules or norms are rooted in historical prejudice, gender stereotypes and paternalism - Such attitudes have no place in our society; recent developments have highlighted areas hitherto considered exclusive male "bastions" such as employment in the armed forces, are no longer so. (Para 48) Hotel Priya A Proprietorship v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 186 : 2022 (3) SCALE 663

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 15 (1) and Article 19 (1) (g) - Gender cap as to the number of women or men, who can perform in orchestras and bands, in licenced bars is void - This restriction directly transgresses Article 15 (1) and Article 19 (1) (g) - the latter provision both in its effect to the performers as well as the license owners. While the overall limit of performers in any given performance cannot exceed eight, the composition (i.e., all female, majority female or male, or vice versa) can be of any combination. (Para 47, 49) Hotel Priya A Proprietorship v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 186 : 2022 (3) SCALE 663

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 15 (1) and Article 19 (1) (g) - Gender-cap (i.e. four females and four males, in any performance) appears to be the product of a stereotypical view that women who perform in bars and establishments, belong to a certain class of society Such measures – which claim protection, in reality are destructive of Article 15 (3) as they masquerade as special provisions and operate to limit or exclude altogether women's choice of their avocation. (Para 42, 46) Hotel Priya A Proprietorship v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 186 : 2022 (3) SCALE 663

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 15(6) - Unaided private educational institutions would be bound under Article 15(6) to provide for EWS reservations. (Para 194) Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 922

    Article 16 - Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment

    Constitution of India 1950; Article 16(3), 35 - Under Article 16(3) of the Constitution of India, it is the Parliament alone, which is authorized to make any law prescribing, in regard to a class or classes of employment or appointment to an office under the Government of, or any local or other authority within, a State of Union Territory, any requirement as to residence within the State or Union territory prior to such employment or appointment. As per Article 35 of the Constitution of India, notwithstanding anything contained in the Constitution, the Parliament shall have and the Legislature of a State shall not have the power to make laws with respect to any of the matters which, under clause (3) of Article 16 may be provided for law made by Parliament. Therefore, impugned Notification/Order making 100% reservation for the local resident of the concerned Scheduled Area/Districts (reservation on the basis of resident) is ultra vires to Article 35 r/w Article 16(3) of the Constitution of India. (Para 24) Satyajit Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 651

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 16 - 100% reservation is discriminatory and impermissible -quashes Jharkhand Govt notification providing 100% reservation for local residents in Scheduled Districts for Govt Posts in Class III & Class IV. Satyajit Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 651

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 16 - Railways LARGESS Scheme - Scheme provided an avenue for backdoor entry into service and was contrary to the mandate of Article 16 which guarantees equal opportunity in matters of public employment. Chief Personnel Officer v. A. Nishanth George, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 277 : 2022 (2) SCALE 357

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 16 - Railways LARGESS Scheme - Appeal against High Court judgment which held that though the LARGESS Scheme was terminated, since the respondent’s father superannuated on 1 January 2015 prior to 27 January 2017, the benefit of the scheme could be extended to him in terms of the notification dated 28 September 2018- Allowed - The impugned judgment issuing a mandamus for the appointment of the respondent cannot be sustained. Chief Personnel Officer v. A. Nishanth George, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 277 : 2022 (2) SCALE 357

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 16 - Reservation in Promotion - No yardstick can be laid down by the Court for determining the adequacy of representation of SCs and STs in promotional posts for the purpose of providing reservation. (Para 16) Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 94 : 2022 (2) SCALE 494

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 16 - Reservation in Promotion - The judgment of M. Nagaraj & Ors. v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 212 should be declared to have prospective effect- Making the principles laid down in M. Nagaraj (supra) effective from the year 1995 would be detrimental to the interests of a number of civil servants and would have an effect of unsettling the seniority of individuals over a long period of time. (Para 42) Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 94 : 2022 (2) SCALE 494

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 16 - Reservation in Promotion - Before providing for reservation in promotions to a cadre, the State is obligated to collect quantifiable data regarding inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs. Collection of information regarding inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs cannot be with reference to the entire service or ‘class’/‘group’ but it should be relatable to the grade/category of posts to which promotion is sought. Cadre, which should be the unit for the purpose of collection of quantifiable data in relation to the promotional post(s), would be meaningless if data pertaining to representation of SCs and STs is with reference to the entire service. (Para 29) Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 94 : 2022 (2) SCALE 494

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 16 - Reservation in Promotion - It is for the State to assess the inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs in promotional posts, by taking into account relevant factors. (Para 30) Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 94 : 2022 (2) SCALE 494

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 16 - Reservation in Promotion - We are not inclined to express any view on discontinuation of reservations in totality, which is completely within the domain of the legislature and the executive. As regards review, we are of the opinion that data collected to determine inadequacy of representation for the purpose of providing reservation in promotions needs to be reviewed periodically. The period for review should be reasonable and is left to the Government to set out. (Para 31) Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 94 : 2022 (2) SCALE 494

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 16 - Reservation in Promotion - The conclusion in B.K. Pavitra & Ors. v. Union of India (2019) 16 SCC 129 approving the collection of data on the basis of ‘groups’ and not cadres is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in M. Nagaraj & Ors. v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 212 and Jarnail Singh & Ors. v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Ors.(2018) 10 SCC 396 – The State should justify reservation in promotions with respect to the cadre to which promotion is made. Taking into account the data pertaining to a ‘group’, which would be an amalgamation of certain cadres in a service, would not give the correct picture of the inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs in the cadre in relation to which reservation in promotions is sought to be made. Rosters are prepared cadre-wise and not group-wise. Sampling method which was adopted by the Ratna Prabha Committee might be a statistical formula appropriate for collection of data. However, for the purpose of collection of quantifiable data to assess representation of SCs and STs for the purpose of providing reservation in promotions, cadre, which is a part of a ‘group’, is the unit and the data has to be collected with respect to each cadre. (Para 47) Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 94 : 2022 (2) SCALE 494

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 16(2) - 100% reservation provided for the local residents of the concerned Scheduled Districts / Areas only would be violative of Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India and affecting rights of the other candidates / citizens of non­scheduled areas / Districts guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India. (Para 20, 23) Satyajit Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 651

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 16(2) - Compassionate Appointment Policy - Descent cannot be a ground for denying employment under the scheme of compassionate appointments - A policy for compassionate appointment, which has the force of law, must not discriminate on any of the grounds mentioned in Article 16(2), including that of descent by classifying children of the deceased employee as legitimate and illegitimate and recognizing only the right of legitimate descendant. (Para 9, 10) Mukesh Kumar v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 205 : 2022 (4) SCALE 103

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 16(2) - Descent - 'Descent' must be understood to encompass the familial origins of a person. Familial origins include the validity of the marriage of the parents of a claimant of compassionate appointment and the claimant's legitimacy as their child. (Para 9) Mukesh Kumar v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 205 : 2022 (4) SCALE 103

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 16(2) - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 16 - Compassionate Appointment - The condition imposed by the Railway Board circular that compassionate appointment cannot be granted to children born from the second wife of a deceased employee - Rules of compassionate appointment cannot violate the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. Once Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act regards a child born from a marriage entered into while the earlier marriage is subsisting to be legitimate, it would violate Article 14 if the policy or rule excludes such a child from seeking the benefit of compassionate appointment. The circular creates two categories between one class, and it has no nexus to the objects sought to be achieved. Once the law has deemed them legitimate, it would be impermissible to exclude them from being considered under the policy. Exclusion of one class of legitimate children would fail to meet the test of nexus with the object, and it would defeat the purpose of ensuring the dignity of the family of the deceased employee. (Para 2,7) Mukesh Kumar v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 205 : 2022 (4) SCALE 103

    Article 19 - Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 19 - Fundamental rights under Article 19 cannot be restricted through executive instructions -citizen cannot be deprived of the said right except in accordance with law. It has further been held that the requirement of law for the purpose of clause (6) of Article 19 of the Constitution can by no stretch of imagination be achieved by issuing a circular or a policy decision in terms of Article 162 of the Constitution or otherwise. [Para 43] Pharmacy Council of India v. Rajeev College of Pharmacy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 768 : AIR 2022 SC 4321

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 19 - Supreme dismissed a batch of appeals filed by the Pharmacy Council of India against the judgments of certain High Courts which set aside the moratorium imposed on starting new Pharmacy colleges for 5 years. Pharmacy Council of India v. Rajeev College of Pharmacy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 768 : AIR 2022 SC 4321

    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 : AIR 2022 SC 3649

    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 19(1)(g) - Right to establish an educational institution can be regulated. However, such regulatory measures must, in general, be to ensure the maintenance of proper academic standards, atmosphere and infrastructure and the prevention of maladministration. (Para 40-41) Dental Council of India v. Biyani Shikshan Samiti, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 366 : AIR 2022 SC 1799 : (2022) 6 SCC 65

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 19(1)(g) - The right to establish an educational institution is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and reasonable restrictions on such a right can be imposed only by a law and not by an execution instruction. [Para 54, 55] Pharmacy Council of India v. Rajeev College of Pharmacy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 768 : AIR 2022 SC 4321

    Article 20 - Protection in respect of conviction for offences

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 20 (2) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 300 - Principle of Double Jeopardy - The accused-respondent No. 2 having gone through the trial in relation to offences under Sections 504 and 506 IPC and having been acquitted, cannot be subjected to another trial for the same charges on the same facts. Any such process would be in blatant disregard of the settled principles which disapprove double jeopardy and are precisely contained in Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India as also Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Ms. P XXX v. State of Uttarakhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 554 : AIR 2022 SC 2885

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 20(2) - Articles 20 to 22 deal with personal liberty of citizens and others. Article 20(2) expressly provides that no person shall be prosecuted or punished for the same offence, more than once. The protection against double jeopardy is also supplemented by statutory provisions contained in Section 300 of the CrPC, Section 40 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 71 of the IPC and Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. T.P. Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1039

    Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty

    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 : 2022 (7) SCALE 256

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - By following the procedure established by law, the personal liberty of the citizens can be dealt with. (Para 8) Devadassan v. Second Class Executive Magistrate, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 260 : AIR 2022 SC 1406

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 313 - Section 313 CrPC confers a valuable right upon an accused to establish his innocence and can well be considered beyond a statutory right, as a constitutional right to a fair trial under Article 21. (Para 19) Jai Prakash Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 658 : AIR 2022 SC 3601

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - Exhumation - Once buried, a body should not be disturbed - the Union Government should consider enacting an appropriate legislation on exhumation. The right to dignity and fair treatment under Article 21 of the Constitution is not only available to a living man but also to his body after his death - Family members also have a right to perform the last rites in accordance with the religious traditions. Mohammed Latif Magrey v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 756

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - Failure of State to maintain law and order led to riots- victims have right to seek compensation - If the citizens are forced to live in an atmosphere of communal tension, it affects their right to life guaranteed by Article 21. The violence witnessed by Mumbai in December 1992 and January 1993 adversely affected the right of the residents of the affected areas to lead dignified and meaningful life. There was a failure on the part of the State Government to maintain law and order and to protect the rights of the people guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the affected persons had a right to seek compensation from the State Government. (Para 10) Shakeel Ahmed vs Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 910

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21- Fair Trial - An accused is entitled for a fair trial which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (Para 13) Bhagwani v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 60 : AIR 2022 SC 527

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - Justice is not to be done but the justice is seen to have been done also - Free and fair trial is sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution. If the criminal trial is not free and fair and if it is biased, judicial fairness and the criminal justice system would be at stake, shaking the confidence of the public in the system. (Para 14) Suneetha Narreddy v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 996

    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 : 2022 (7) SCALE 256

    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 : AIR 2022 SC 3649

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - Preservation of family life is an incident of Article 21. (Para 51) S.K. Nausad Rahman v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266 : AIR 2022 SC 1494

    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 - Right to reproduction and child rearing important facets of one's right to privacy and dignity (Para 21) Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 718 : AIR 2022 SC 4108

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - Rights of Sex Workers - Basic Protection of human decency and dignity extends to sex workers and their children - Directions issued to States/UTs for conditions conducive to sex workers to live with dignity in accordance with the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India - Police should not abuse them physically or verbally - Press Council of India to issue guidelines to media to protect their anonymity during raid and rescue operations - Various other directions issued. Budhadev Karmaskar v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 525

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - Supreme Court's duty to protect personal liberty - No case is too small for the Court -The history of this Court indicates that it is in the seemingly small and routine matters involving grievances of citizens that issues of moment, both in jurisprudential and constitutional terms, emerge. The intervention by this Court to protect the liberty of citizens is hence founded on sound constitutional principles embodied in Part III of the Constitution. The Court is entrusted with judicial powers under Article 32 and Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The right to personal liberty is a precious and inalienable right recognised by the Constitution. In attending to such grievances, the Supreme Court performs a plain constitutional duty, obligation and function; no more and no less. Iqram v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1032

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - The dignity of person, which is an intrinsic element of Article 21 of the Constitution, cannot be left to the vagaries of insensitive procedures and a hostile environment. Access to justice mandates that positive steps have to be adopted to create a barrier free environment. These barriers are not only those which exist within the physical spaces of conventional courts but those which operate on the minds and personality of vulnerable witnesses. (Para 3) Smruti Tukaram Badade v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 80

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - The right to health is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. Without health, the faculties of living have little meaning. (Para 5) Baiju K.G. v. Dr. V.P. Joy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 517 : 2022 (8) SCALE 275

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - The sweep of Article 21 is expansive enough to govern the action of dismembering a member from the House of the Legislative Assembly in the form of expulsion or be it a case of suspension by directing withdrawal from the meeting of the Assembly for the remainder of the Session. (Para 49) Ashish Shelar v. Maharashtra Leg. Assembly, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 91 : AIR 2022 SC 721

    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 : AIR 2022 SC 3386 : (2022) 10 SCC 51

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - Where life and personal liberty have been violated, the absence of any statutory provision for compensation in the statute is of no consequence. Right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is the most sacred right preserved and protected under the Constitution, violation of which is always actionable and there is no necessity of statutory provision as such for preserving that right. Article 21 of the Constitution of India has to be read into all public safety statutes, since the prime object of public safety legislation is to protect the individual and to compensate him for the loss suffered. Duty of care expected from State or its officials functioning under the public safety legislation is, therefore, very high. (Para 21) Sanjay Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 368 : (2022) 7 SCC 203

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - While liberty is a dynamic concept capable of encompassing within it a variety of Rights, the irreducible minimum and at the very core of liberty, is freedom from unjustifiable custody. (Para 8) Sunil Kumar Rai v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 219 : 2022 (4) SCALE 199

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - Fair Trial - It must be emphasized that prosecution by the State ought to be carried out in a manner consistent with the right to fair trial, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. (Para 27) S.P. Velumani v. Arappor Iyakkam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 507

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21, 32, 226 - Infringement of Article 21 may be an individual case such as by the State or its functionaries; or by the Organizers and the State; or by the Organizers themselves have been subject matter of consideration before this Court in a writ petition under Article 32 or before the High Court under Article 226. (Para 22) Sanjay Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 368 : (2022) 7 SCC 203

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21, 39A - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 304 - Right to a fair trial - Right to fair and speedy trial applies as much to the victim as the accused - While expediting the trial, it is imperative on the Court to see that the due procedure is followed during the course of trial. (Para 33) Mohd Firoz v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 390 : AIR 2022 SC 1967 : (2022) 7 SCC 443

    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

    Article 22 - Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 22 - Preventive Detention - the powers to be exercised under this law are exceptional powers which have been given to the government for its exercise in an exceptional situation -A law and order situation can be dealt with under the ordinary law of land. (Para 12 & 13) Shaik Nazneen v. State of Telangana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 559

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 22(5) - Right to make representation is a fundamental right of the detenu under Article 22(5) - Refusal to supply the documents requested by the detenu or supply of illegible or blurred copies of the documents relied upon by the detaining authority amounts to violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution - Whether an opportunity has been afforded to make an effective representation always depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. (Para 17-21) State of Manipur v. Buyamayum Abdul Hanan @ Anand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 862

    Article 31B - Validation of certain Acts and Regulations

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 31B - No express prohibition stems from Article 31-B on the powers of the State Legislature to legislate on matters incidental to statutes placed within the Ninth Schedule - State has the power to amend or repeal a statute which has been placed under the Ninth Schedule - Any amendment made to a statute placed under the Ninth Schedule does not get protection under Article 31-B, unless the said amendment is also included in the Ninth Schedule. (Para 44) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333 : AIR 2022 SC 1865

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 31B - Tamil Nadu Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of seats in Educational Institutions and of appointments or posts in the Services under the State) Act, 1993 - Placing of the 1994 Act under the Ninth Schedule cannot operate as a hurdle for the State to enact legislations on matters ancillary to the 1994 Act. Legislative competence of the State Legislature can only be circumscribed by express prohibition contained in the Constitution itself and Article 31-B does not stipulate any such express prohibition on the legislative powers of the State. (Para 75) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333 : AIR 2022 SC 1865

    Article 32 - Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 - Clubbing of FIRs - Plea of accused seeking consolidating of all existing and future cases or FIRs/chargesheets to a particular Court or police station - Such direction, if given, would override the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure on jurisdictional provisions without notifying the existing as also potential complainants in any manner whatsoever - The alleged cheating and connected offences have occurred at different parts of the country and each victim under the existing provisions of law has a right to prosecute his complaints against the accused through the law enforcement agency under normal circumstances having power to conduct investigation in the particular territory where complaint is lodged - A person who has lost money in, for instance, the State of Telangana cannot be compelled to lodge an F.I.R. only in the Surajpur police station in Uttar Pradesh. We have to consider his inconvenience as well. It is not our opinion that consolidation of F.I.Rs. or cases cannot be directed at all, but such exercise can be undertaken in a given case depending upon the facts and circumstances of such case. Present case does not warrant invoking such powers. Anubhav Mittal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 980

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

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

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 - Delay by itself cannot be used as a weapon to Veto an action under Article 32 when violation of Fundamental Rights is clearly at stake. (Para 9) Sunil Kumar Rai v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 219 : 2022 (4) SCALE 199

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 - In a given case, the Court may refuse to entertain a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is solely a part of self -restraint which is exercised by the Court having regard to various considerations which are germane to the interest of justice as also the appropriateness of the Court to interfere in a particular case. The right under Article 32 of the Constitution remains a Fundamental Right and it is always open to a person complaining of violation of Fundamental Rights to approach this Court. This is subject to the power of the Court to relegate the party to other proceedings. (Para 7) Sunil Kumar Rai v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 219 : 2022 (4) SCALE 199

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 - Mandamus - A mandamus cannot be issued to the legislature to enact or amend legislation - Writ petition seeking direction to amend the Hindu Succession Act 1956 as recommended by the Law Commission of India in its 204th report - Dismissed. S. Venkatesh v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 752

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 - Ordinarily, the Court may insist on a cause of action and therefore, a person must be an aggrieved party to maintain a challenge - A person cannot be said to be aggrieved merely upon the issuance of an instrument or of a law by itself. In fact, the Court may refuse to examine the legality or the validity of a law or order on the basis that he may have no locus standi or that he is not an aggrieved person. No doubt, the Courts have recognized challenge to even a legislation at the hands of a public interest litigant. (Para 9) Sunil Kumar Rai v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 219 : 2022 (4) SCALE 199

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 - The court has power of grant of compensation in the case of violation of Fundamental Rights. (Para 29) Sunil Kumar Rai v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 219 : 2022 (4) SCALE 199

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 - Writ petition maintainable on the ground that earlier judgment does not lay down the correct law-though the concept of finality of judgment has to be preserved, at the same time, the principle of ex debito justitiae cannot be given a go­bye. If the Court finds that the earlier judgment does not lay down a correct position of law, it is always permissible for this Court to reconsider the same and if necessary, to refer it to a larger Bench. (Para 41) HDFC Bank v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 811

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 - Writ Petition seeking directions for expeditious hearing of a petition which is already pending before the High Court - Dismissed - Ignorance of law is no defence - Such kind of petitions seem to be leading the litigant up the garden path. Nepal Das v. High Court of Calcutta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 946

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 - Writ petition seeking transfer of criminal trial - Murder of former AP Minister YS Vivekananda Reddy from Andhra Pradesh - For transfer of a criminal case, there must be a reasonable apprehension on the part of the party to a case that justice may not be done - However the Court has to see whether the apprehension alleged is reasonable or not. The apprehension must not only be imaginary, but must appear to the court to be a reasonable apprehension - Petitioners being daughter and wife of the deceased have a fundamental right to get justice as victim and they have a legitimate expectation that criminal trial is being conducted in a fair and impartial manner and uninfluenced by any extraneous considerations - This is a fit case to transfer the trial and further investigation on larger conspiracy and destruction of evidence to the State other than the State of Andhra Pradesh - Trial Transferred to CBI Special Court at Hyderabad. Suneetha Narreddy v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 996

    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 and 226 - Judicial Review - The scope of judicial review of a decision of the Full Court of a High Court is extremely narrow and we cannot sit in an appeal over the decision of the Full Court of a High Court. (Para 29) Ms. X v. Registrar General, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 150 : 2022 (3) SCALE 99

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 and 226 - Judicial Review - The principle of fairness has an important place in the law of judicial review and that unfairness in the purported exercise of power can be such that it is abuse or excess of power. The court should interfere where discretionary power is not exercised reasonably and in good faith. (Para 40) Ms. X v. Registrar General, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 150 : 2022 (3) SCALE 99

    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 : 2022 (10) SCALE 42

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Appeal against High Court Judgment allowing PIL in the matter of a title claim between a private party and the State - Allowed - The State clearly indicated that they do not have any interest in pursuing the ownership of the land in question and have admitted to the title of the appellants - Institution of the public interest litigation was nothing more than an abuse of the process. Esteem Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Chetan Kamble, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 226 : 2022 (4) SCALE 284

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 432 - Judicial Review - Remission - The Court has the power to review the decision of the government regarding the acceptance or rejection of an application for remission under Section 432 of the CrPC to determine whether the decision is arbitrary in nature. The Court is empowered to direct the government to reconsider its decision. (Para 14) Ram Chander v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 401 : AIR 2022 SC 2017

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - In judicial review proceedings, the Courts are concerned with the decision-making process and not the decision itself. (Para 8.4) Sushil Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 64 : (2022) 3 SCC 203

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Judicial Review - The dialogic process of judicial review can provide effective solutions which provide acceptable outcomes which promote harmony. (Para 9) Surat Parsi Panchayat Board v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 149 : (2022) 4 SCC 534

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Judicial Review - Policy Matters - Court in the exercise of judicial review cannot direct the executive to frame a particular policy. Yet, the legitimacy of a policy can be assessed on the touchstone of constitutional parameters. Moreover, short of testing the validity of a policy on constitutional parameters, judicial review can certainly extend to requiring the State to take into consideration constitutional values when it frames policies. The State, consistent with the mandate of Part III of the Constitution, must take into consideration constitutional values while designing its policy in a manner which enforces and implement those values. (Para 43) S.K. Nausad Rahman v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266 : AIR 2022 SC 1494

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Judicial Review - Unless the Court is satisfied that the decision which has been taken by the authorities is without application of mind to relevant circumstances or was manifestly arbitrary, there would be no reason for the Court to interfere. (Para 13) Dr. R. Dinesh Kumar Reddy v. Medical Counselling Committee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 486 : AIR 2022 SC 2306

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Judicial Review - Constitutional Courts can test constitutionality of legislative instruments (statute and delegated legislations) - The Courts are empowered to test both on procedure as well as substantive nature of these instruments - The test should be based on a combined reading of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution - doctrine of manifest arbitrariness. (Para 15.7 -15.8) Union of India v. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 700 : AIR 2022 SC 4558

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Judicial Review in Policy Matters - Most questions of policy involve complex considerations of not only technical and economic factors but also require balancing competing interests for which democratic reconciliation rather than adjudication is the best remedy. Further, an increased reliance on judges to solve matters of pure policy diminishes the role of other political organs in resolving contested issues of social and political policy, which require a democratic dialogue. This is not to say that this Court will shy away from setting aside policies that impinge on constitutional rights. Rather it is to provide a clear-eyed role of the function that a court serves in a democracy. (Para 46) Indian Ex Servicemen Movement v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 289 : (2022) 7 SCC 323

    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 : 2022 (7) SCALE 256

    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 : 2022 (7) SCALE 256

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Public Interest Litigation - Locus Standi - One of the measures to ensure that frivolous or private interests are not masqueraded as genuine claims, is to be cautious when examining locus standi. Generally, PIL, being a summary jurisdiction, has limited powers to examine the bonafides of parties. It is usually on the pleadings that the Court should take a prima facie view on the bonafides of the party. If the Court concludes that the litigation was initiated under the shadow of reasonable suspicion, then the Court may decline to entertain the claims on merits. In these cases, Courts have multiple options – such as dismissing the PIL or appointing an amicus curiae, if the cause espoused in the case requires the immediate attention of the Court. (Para 22) Esteem Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Chetan Kamble, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 226 : 2022 (4) SCALE 284

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Public Interest Litigation - PIL litigation has had a beneficial effect on the Indian jurisprudence and has alleviated the conditions of the citizens in general - Thousands of frivolous petitions are filed, burdening the docket of both this Court and the High Courts - Many claims filed in the Courts are sometimes immature. Noble intentions behind expanding the Court's jurisdiction to accommodate socially relevant issues, in recent decades, have been critically analyzed. (Para 21) Esteem Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Chetan Kamble, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 226 : 2022 (4) SCALE 284

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Public Interest Litigation - Locus Standi -One of the measures to ensure that frivolous or private interests are not masqueraded as genuine claims, is to be cautious when examining locus standi. Generally, PIL, being a summary jurisdiction, has limited powers to examine the bonafides of parties. It is usually on the pleadings that the Court should take a prima facie view on the bonafides of the party. If the Court concludes that the litigation was initiated under the shadow of reasonable suspicion, then the Court may decline to entertain the claims on merits. In these cases, Courts have multiple options – such as dismissing the PIL or appointing an amicus curiae, if the cause espoused in the case requires the immediate attention of the Court. (Para 22) Esteem Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Chetan Kamble, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 226 : 2022 (4) SCALE 284

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Public Interest Litigation - PIL litigation has had a beneficial effect on the Indian jurisprudence and has alleviated the conditions of the citizens in general - Thousands of frivolous petitions are filed, burdening the docket of both this Court and the High Courts - Many claims filed in the Courts are sometimes immature. Noble intentions behind expanding the Court's jurisdiction to accommodate socially relevant issues, in recent decades, have been critically analyzed. (Para 21) Esteem Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Chetan Kamble, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 226 : 2022 (4) SCALE 284

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Public Interest Litigation - Appeal against High Court Judgment allowing PIL in the matter of a title claim between a private party and the State - Allowed - The State clearly indicated that they do not have any interest in pursuing the ownership of the land in question and have admitted to the title of the appellants - Institution of the public interest litigation was nothing more than an abuse of the process. Esteem Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Chetan Kamble, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 226 : 2022 (4) SCALE 284

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Reservation - No mandamus can be issued by the Court directing the State Government to provide for reservation - Even no writ of mandamus can be issued directing the State to collect quantifiable data to justify their action not to provide for reservation- Even if the under-representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in public services is brought to the notice of the Court, no mandamus can be issued by the Court to the State Government to provide for reservation. (Para 8) State of Punjab v. Anshika Goyal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 84 : AIR 2022 SC 918 : (2022) 3 SCC 633

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Supreme Court allowed writ petition filed by a convict whose application for remission was rejected - Special Judge, Durg directed to provide an opinion on the application for remission afresh accompanied by adequate reasoning. Ram Chander v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 401 : AIR 2022 SC 2017

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Writ of Mandamus - Mandamus will not be issued to command Legislature to enact a law, which it is competent to enact - It cannot even issue a Mandamus to the Government for enforcement of a Cabinet decision - When an administrative order confers rights or creates estoppel against the Government, that Mandamus can be issued to enforce the circular. Similarly a Mandamus may be issued to cancel an administrative order, which violates the rules of fairness. Vivek Krishna v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 436

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Writ Of Quo Warranto - The jurisdiction to issue a writ of quo warranto is a limited one, which can only be issued when a person is holding the public office does not fulfill the eligibility criteria prescribed to be appointed to such an office or when the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules. (Para 9, 9.1) Gambhirdhan K Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 242

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 and 14 - Judicial Review - Arbitrariness - The limited scope of judicial review is only to satisfy that the State action is not vitiated by the vice of arbitrariness and no more - It is not for the courts to recast the policy or to substitute it with another which is considered to be more appropriate - The attack on the ground of arbitrariness is successfully repelled by showing that the act which was done, was fair and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. (Para 55) Ms. X v. Registrar General, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 150 : 2022 (3) SCALE 99

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 and 14 - Policy matters - Policy matters are never interfered with, unless patently arbitrary, unreasonable or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Vivek Krishna v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 436

    Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 32, 226 and 227 - The power of judicial review under Articles 226, 227, and 32 are part of the basic structure of our constitution and the same is inviolable. (Para 12) Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 495 : AIR 2022 SC 2713

    Article 72 - Power of President to grant pardons, etc., and to suspend, remit or commute sentences in certain cases.

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

    Article 73 - Extent of executive power of the Union.

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 73, 162 - A policy decision taken in terms of the power conferred under Article 73 of the Constitution on the Union and Article 162 on the States is subservient to the recruitment rules that have been framed under a legislative enactment or the rules under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. (Para 29) S.K. Nausad Rahman v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266 : AIR 2022 SC 1494

    Article 129 - Supreme Court to be a court of record

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 129 - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Power of the Supreme Court to punish for contempt is not confined to the procedure under the Contempt of Courts Act - It is within the constitutional power of this Court to consider the contumacious acts of a contemnor and to punish him/her for the same. (Para 11-14) In Re Perry Kansangra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 905

    Article 136 - Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - A pure question of law may be permitted to be raised in an appeal generated by the grant of special leave. (Para 22) Bhagyoday Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Ravindra Balkrishna Patel, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1020

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - An order granting bail to an accused, if passed in a casual and cryptic manner, de hors reasoning which would validate the grant of bail, is liable to be set aside by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Kamla Devi v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 272 : AIR 2022 SC 1524 : (2022) 6 SCC 725

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Appeal By Special Leave is not a regular appeal - The Court would not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact based on pure appreciation of evidence nor it is the scope of these appeals that this Court would enter into reappreciation of evidence so as to take a view different than that taken by the Trial Court and approved by the High Court. (Para 20) Pappu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 144 : 2022 (3) SCALE 45

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Appeal by Special Leave - In an appeal by special leave, where the Trial Court and the High Court have concurrently returned the findings of fact after appreciation of evidence, each and every finding of fact cannot be contested nor such an appeal could be dealt with as if another forum for reappreciation of evidence - If the assessment by the Trial Court and the High Court could be said to be vitiated by any error of law or procedure or misreading of evidence or in disregard to the norms of judicial process leading to serious prejudice or injustice, the Court may, and in appropriate cases would, interfere in order to prevent grave or serious miscarriage of justice but, such a course is adopted only in rare and exceptional cases of manifest illegality. (Para 20) Pappu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 144 : 2022 (3) SCALE 45

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Bail - The application filed by the petitioner having been dismissed as not pressed, the question of interference by this Court in exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India cannot and does not arise. Santo Devi v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 133

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Circumstances under which an appeal would be entertained by the Supreme Court from an order of acquittal passed by a High Court - Summarized. (Para 30) Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 33 : (2022) 3 SCC 471

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - When an accused is absconding and is declared as proclaimed offender, there is no question of giving him the benefit of Section 438 CrPC. What has been observed and said in relation to Section 438 CrPC applies with more vigour to the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. (Para 21) Abhishek v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 516 : AIR 2022 SC 2488 : (2022) 8 SCC 282

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 394 - Principles of Section 394, Cr.P.C. would apply to appeals filed before the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. (Para 14) Gurmail Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 854 : AIR 2022 SC 5258

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Criminal Appeal - Circumstances under which an appeal would be entertained by Supreme Court from an order of acquittal passed by a High Court summarised. (Para 45 - 46) Subramanya v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 887 : AIR 2022 SC 5110

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Criminal Appeal - In cases of concurrent findings of fact this Court will not ordinarily interfere with the said findings, in exceptional circumstances, this Court is empowered to do so. If this Court finds that the appreciation of evidence and findings is vitiated by any error of law or 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, this Court would not be powerless to reappreciate the evidence. (Para 26) Khema @ Khem Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 689 : AIR 2022 SC 3765

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Criminal appeal - The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all. (Para 8) State of Rajasthan v. Kistoora Ram, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 663

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Criminal Appeal - Though in cases of concurrent findings of fact, this Court will ordinarily not interfere with the said findings, this Court is empowered to do so if in case it finds inter alia, misreading of the evidence or where the conclusions of the High Court are manifestly perverse. (Para 55) Md. Jabbar Ali v. State of Assam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 856 : AIR 2022 SC 5420

    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 - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; Section 25F - Whether a workman was gainfully employed or not is again a question of fact, and the finding of the Tribunal as upheld by the High Court, cannot be interfered with by the Supreme Court in exercising its power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. (Para 18) Armed Forces Ex Officers Multi Services Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Rashtriya Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 674 : AIR 2022 SC 3783 : (2022) 9 SCC 586

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Principles governing interference in a criminal appeal by special leave. (Para 7) Bhagwani v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 60 : AIR 2022 SC 527

    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 : AIR 2022 SC 3378 : (2022) 8 SCC 253

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Special Leave Petition against a review order alone is not maintainable. (Para 3) R.K. Singh vs General Manager, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 119

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Special Leave Petition - A mere dismissal of the Special Leave Petition would not mean that the view of the High Court has been approved by this Court. (Para 37) State of Odisha v. Sulekh Chandra Pradhan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 393 : AIR 2022 SC 2030 : (2022) 7 SCC 482

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Special Leave to appeal - Unless it is shown that exceptional and special circumstances exist; that substantial and grave injustice have been done and the case and question present features of sufficient gravity to warrant a review of the decision appealed against, this Court would not exercise its overriding powers under Article 136(1) of the Constitution. The wide discretionary power with which this Court is invested under Article 136 is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases only. (Para 75) Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 798 : 2022 (14) SCALE 270

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Supreme Court exercising power under Article 136 of the Constitution may not refuse to interfere in a case where three Courts have gone completely wrong. The jurisdiction generated in an appeal under Article 136 is undoubtedly rare and extraordinary. Article 136 of the Constitution only confers a right to obtain special leave in rare and extraordinary cases. (Para 11) Tedhi Singh v. Narayan Dass Mahant, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 275 : (2022) 6 SCC 735

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - The discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 should not ordinarily be exercised to interfere with an otherwise just and reasonable order by recourse to hyper technicality upon a narrow, rigid and pedantic interpretation of the guidelines. (Para 55) State of Telangana v. B. Subba Rayadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 767 : AIR 2022 SC 4373

    Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 136, 225 and 227 - Even when a direct appeal to the Supreme Court is provided by a statute against the decision of a tribunal, the remedy under Article 226 or 227 before the High Court remains unextinguished. (Para 24) Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 495 : AIR 2022 SC 2713

    Article 139A - Transfer of certain cases

    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

    Article 141 - Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on all courts

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 141 - Executive Decisions - When it comes to taking decisions which affect the rights of the citizens, it is the paramount duty of the Executive to enquire carefully about the implications of its decisions. At the very minimum, it must equip itself with the law which is laid down by the Courts and find out whether the decision will occasion a breach of law declared by the highest Court of the land - Respect for the decisions of the Courts holding the field are the very core of Rule of Law. Disregard or neglecting the position at law expounded by the Courts would spell doom for a country which is governed by the Rule of Law. (Para 22, 23) Sunil Kumar Rai v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 219 : 2022 (4) SCALE 199

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 141 - High Court is not a Court to subordinate to the Supreme Court. However, when the High Court deals with judgments of this Court, which are binding on everyone under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, it is expected that the judgments have to be dealt with due respect. Ramachandra Barathi @ Sathish Sharma V.K. v. State of Telangana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 986

    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 : (2022) 10 SCC 461

    Article 142 - Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court and orders as to discovery, etc.

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 142 - Affirmed the judgment of the High Court but refused to grant a decree of dissolution on the ground of cruelty - Invoking Article 142 of the Constitution the marriage declared as dissolved. N. Rajendran v. S. Valli, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 224 : 2022 (3) SCALE 275

    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 142 - In a catena of decisions of this Court, this power has been recognised and exercised, if need be, by issuing necessary directions to fill the vacuum till such time the legislature steps in to cover the gap or the executive discharges its role. Budhadev Karmaskar v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 525

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 142 - Irretrievable breakdown of marriage - Consent of the parties is not necessary to declare a marriage dissolved. (Para 29-31) N. Rajendran v. S. Valli, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 224 : 2022 (3) SCALE 275

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 142 - Irretrievable breakdown of marriage - Affirmed the judgment of the High Court but refused to grant a decree of dissolution on the ground of cruelty - Invoking Article 142 of the Constitution the marriage declared as dissolved. N. Rajendran v. S. Valli, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 224 : 2022 (3) SCALE 275

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 142 - Powers under Article 142 can be exercised to reduce the amount of interest awarded. [Para 18] Executive Engineer (R and B) v. Gokul Chandra Kanungo, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 824 : AIR 2022 SC 4857

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

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

    Article 145 - Rules of Court, etc

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 145(3), 239AA(3)(a) and Entry 41 of List II of Seventh Schedule - interpretation of the phrases: “in so far as any such matter is applicable to Union Territories” and “Subject to the provisions of this Constitution” as contained in Article 239AA(3)(a) of the Constitution - Referred for an authoritative pronouncement by a Constitution Bench in terms of Article 145(3) of the Constitution. (Para 8-10) Govt of NCT Delhi v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 459 : 2022 (7) SCALE 507

    Article 161 - Power of Governor to grant pardons, etc., and to suspend, remit or commute sentences in certain cases.

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 161 - Grant of Remission - Governor, in the matter of remission of an appellant convicted under Section 302, was bound by the advice of the State Cabinet. R.P. Ravichandran v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 954

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 161 - Non-exercise of the power by Governor under Article 161 is not immune from judicial review -Given petitions under Article 161 pertain to the liberty of individuals, inexplicable delay not on account of the prisoners is inexcusable as it contributes to adverse physical conditions and mental distress faced by a prisoner, especially when the State Cabinet has taken a decision to release the prisoner by granting him the benefit of remission / commutation of his sentence. (Para 20) A.G. Perarivalan v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 494 : AIR 2022 SC 2608

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 161 - The advice of the State Cabinet is binding on the Governor in matters relating to commutation / remission of sentences under Article 161. (Para 19) A.G. Perarivalan v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 494 : AIR 2022 SC 2608

    Article 173 - Qualification for membership of the State Legislature

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 173 (b) - Supreme Court upholds decision of Allahabad High Court to disqualify Azam Khan's son for not meeting age criteria. Mohd. Abdullah Azam Khan v. Nawab Kazim Ali Khan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 925

    Article 194 - Powers, privileges, etc., of the Houses of Legislatures and of the members and committees thereof.

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

    Article 226 - Power of High Courts to issue certain writs

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - "Person aggrieved" - Despite adequate opportunity, if a person has not lodged any objection at an appropriate stage and time, he could not be said to have been in fact, grieved. (Para 8.1) K. Kumara Gupta v. Sri Markendaya and Sri Omkareswara Swamy Temple, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 182 : AIR 2022 SC 1220 : (2022) 5 SCC 710

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - An order of the Registrar directing the registration of a document is amenable to a challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution - The mere existence of the remedy available before a civil court, under Section 9 of the CPC to avoid the document or to seek a declaration in regard to its invalidity, will not divest a person, who complains that the order passed by Registrar for the registration of the document was contrary to statutory provisions, of the remedy which is available in the exercise of a court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. (Para 30) Veena Singh v. District Registrar / Additional Collector, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 462 : (2022) 7 SCC 1

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Appeal against Bombay HC judgments dismissing writ petitions reopening of the assessment/re-assessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act - Allowed - Orders are bereft of reasoning as diverse grounds were urged/raised by the parties which ought to have been examined by the High Court in the first place and a clear finding was required to be recorded upon analysing the relevant documents - Remanded. Vishal Ashwin Patel v. Assistant Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 322 : 2022 (5) SCALE 392

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Appeal against high Court set aside the orders passed by authorities refusing to confirm auction in favour of highest bidder - Allowed - The High Court was not supposed to interfere in the opinion of the executive who were dealing on the subject, unless the decision is totally arbitrary or unreasonable, and it was not open for the High Court to sit like a Court of Appeal over the decision of the competent authority and particularly in the matters where the authority competent of floating the tender is the best judge of its requirements, therefore, the interference otherwise has to be very minimal. State of Punjab v. Mehar Din, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 235 : AIR 2022 SC 1413 : (2022) 5 SCC 648

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Appeal against Karnataka High Court judgment which set aside the judgment of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal directing the compulsory retirement of the respondent employee from service following a disciplinary enquiry on charges of bribery - Allowed - High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 226 and trenched upon a domain which falls within the disciplinary jurisdiction of the employee - The acquittal of the respondent in the course of the criminal trial did not impinge upon the authority of the disciplinary authority or the finding of misconduct in the disciplinary proceeding. State of Karnataka v. Umesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 304 : (2022) 6 SCC 563

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Appeal against Uttarakhand HC order which disposed a writ petition filed without deciding it on merits - Allowed and remanded - The order is bereft of reasoning as diverse grounds were urged/raised by the parties which ought to have been examined by the High Court in the first place and a clear finding was required to be recorded upon analysing the relevant documents. State of Uttarakhand v. Mayan Pal Singh Verma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 388 : AIR 2022 SC 1916

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - CISF Rules, 2001; Rule 52 - Appellate power under Rule 52 of the CISF Rules, 2001, cannot be equated with power of judicial review exercised by constitutional courts. (Para 9) Union of India v. Managobinda Samantaray, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 244 : 2022 (4) SCALE 667

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - CISF Rules, 2001; Rule 52 - Appellate power under Rule 52 of the CISF Rules, 2001, cannot be equated with power of judicial review exercised by constitutional courts. (Para 9) Union of India v. Managobinda Samantaray, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 244 : 2022 (4) SCALE 667

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 432 - Judicial Review - Appeal against the High Court judgment which allowed the request for remission itself on the premise that it is covered by the policy - It was not within the domain of judicial review for the learned judge to have himself exercised the power of remission - Though we do not find the exercise of power in the impugned judgment in accordance with law, we would not like to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution of India insofar as now the respondent having been given the benefit of remission, it would not be appropriate to put him back in custody. State of Haryana v. Daya Nand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 948

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Company Secretaries Regulations, 1982; Regulation 114(4) - Calcutta High Court set aside election of office bearers of EIRC of ICSI allowing a writ petition filed by a person who did not contest the election - In view of Regulation 114(4) of the Regulations, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition challenging the validity of the election. Even otherwise, even as per Regulation 114(4), the election can be challenged by the candidate concerned - The High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition challenging the election at the instance of the respondent no.1 who even did not contest the election of the office bearers. Institute of Company Secretaries of India v. Biman Debnath, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 945

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Disciplinary Proceedings - Scope of judicial review and interference of the courts in the matter of disciplinary proceedings and on the test of proportionality discussed. Anil Kumar Upadhyay v. Director General, SSB, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 392 : AIR 2022 SC 2008

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Disciplinary Proceedings - Courts ought to refrain from interfering with findings of facts recorded in a departmental inquiry except in circumstances where such findings are patently perverse or grossly incompatible with the evidence on record, based on no evidence. However, if principles of natural justice have been violated or the statutory regulations have not been adhered to or there are malafides attributable to the Disciplinary Authority, then the courts can certainly interfere - Being fact finding authorities, both the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are vested with the exclusive power to examine the evidence forming part of the inquiry report. On finding the evidence to be adequate and reliable during the departmental inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority has the discretion to impose appropriate punishment on the delinquent employee keeping in mind the gravity of the misconduct. However, in exercise of powers of judicial review, the High Court or for that matter, the Tribunal cannot ordinarily reappreciate the evidence to arrive at its own conclusion in respect of the penalty imposed unless and until the punishment imposed is so disproportionate to the offence that it would shock the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal or is found to be flawed for other reasons, as enumerated in Union of India vs. P. Gunasekaran ((2015) 2 SCC 610). If the punishment imposed on the delinquent employee is such that shocks the conscience of the High Court or the Tribunal, then the Disciplinary/Appellate Authority may be called upon to re-consider the penalty imposed. Only in exceptional circumstances, which need to be mentioned, should the High Court/Tribunal decide to impose appropriate punishment by itself, on offering cogent reasons therefor. (Para 15-22) Union of India v. Subrata Nath, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 998

    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 - Execution of Arbitration awards against NHAI - If the High Courts convert itself to the Executing Court and entertain the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to execute the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal/Court, the High Courts would be flooded with the writ petitions to execute awards passed by the learned Arbitrator/Arbitral Tribunal/Arbitral Court - We disapprove the entertaining of such writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to execute the award passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal/Court, without relegating the judgment creditor in whose favour the award is passed to file an execution proceeding before the competent Executing Court. (Para 6-7) National Highways Authority of India v. Sheetal Jaidev Vade, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 705 : AIR 2022 SC 3980

    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 : AIR 2022 SC 3511

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Habeas Corpus Petition - Custody Petition - The issue of custody of a minor, whether in a petition seeking habeas corpus or in a custody petition, has to be decided on the touchstone of the principle that the welfare of a minor is of paramount consideration. The Courts, in such proceedings, cannot decide where the parents should reside as it will affect the right to privacy of the parents - A writ Court while dealing with the issue of habeas corpus cannot direct a parent to leave India and to go abroad with the child. If such orders are passed against the wishes of a parent, it will offend her/his right to privacy. A parent has to be given an option to go abroad with the child. It ultimately depends on the parent concerned to decide and opt for giving a company to the minor child for the sake of the welfare of the child. It will all depend on the priorities of the concerned parent. (Para 33) Vasudha Sethi v. Kiran V. Bhaskar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 48 : AIR 2022 SC 476

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - High Court cannot issue direction to the State to form a new policy. Krishan Lal v. Vini Mahajan Secretary, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 68

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction while issuing a writ of mandamus directing the State to provide a particular percentage of reservation for sports persons, namely, in the present case, 3% reservation instead of 1% provided by the State Government, while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (Para 9) State of Punjab v. Anshika Goyal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 84 : AIR 2022 SC 918 : (2022) 3 SCC 633

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - High Court ought not to have granted further extension de hors the sanctioned OTS Scheme exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Directing the Bank to reschedule the payment under OTS would tantamount to modification of the contract which can be done by mutual consent under Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act. State Bank of India v. Arvindra Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 908 : AIR 2022 SC 5517

    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 : AIR 2022 SC 3304

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Judicial interference in tender conditions - As per the settled position of law, the terms and conditions of the Invitation to Tender are within the domain of the tenderer/tender making authority and are not open to judicial scrutiny, unless they are arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide. As per the settled position of law, the terms of the Invitation to Tender are not open to judicial scrutiny, the same being in the realm of contract. The Government/tenderer/tender making authority must have a free hand in setting the terms of the tender. (Para 6) Airports Authority of India v. Centre for Aviation Policy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 814 : AIR 2022 SC 4749

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Judicial review is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits, and adequacy or inadequacy of evidence, unless the court finds that the findings recorded are based on no evidence, perverse or are legally untenable in the sense that it fails to pass the muster of the Wednesbury principles. Power of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India enables exercise of judicial review to correct errors of law, including procedural law, leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of fairness, without normally venturing into reappreciation of evidence. CISF v. Santosh Kumar Pandey, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1036

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Judicial Review - Contractual Matters - The scope of judicial review in such foreign funded contracts should be far much less than the ordinary Government funded contracts funded from Consolidated Fund of India. The scope of judicial review in such foreign funded contracts/projects would be restricted and minimal. In such foreign funded contracts, the only ground for judicial review ought to be on a limited aspect, i.e., the action of the executing authority does not suffer from favouritism or nepotism and based on the grounds which have been concealed from the foreign financing authority, if disclosed, would have persuaded the financing authority to cancel the contract. (Para 11) National High Speed Rail Corporation Ltd. v. Montecarlo Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 108 : AIR 2022 SC 866 : (2022) 6 SCC 401

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Judicial Review - Contractual Matters - Even while entertaining the writ petition and/or granting the stay which ultimately may delay the execution of the Mega projects, it must be remembered that it may seriously impede the execution of the projects of public importance and disables the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities from discharging the constitutional and legal obligation towards the citizens. Therefore, the High Courts should be extremely careful and circumspect in exercise of its discretion while entertaining such petitions and/or while granting stay in such matters. Even in a case where the High Court is of the prima facie opinion that the decision is as such perverse and/or arbitrary and/or suffers from mala fides and/or favouritism, while entertaining such writ petition and/or pass any appropriate interim order, High Court may put to the writ petitioner’s notice that in case the petitioner loses and there is a delay in execution of the project due to such proceedings initiated by him/it, he/they may be saddled with the damages caused for delay in execution of such projects, which may be due to such frivolous litigations initiated by him/it. (Para 15) National High Speed Rail Corporation Ltd. v. Montecarlo Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 108 : AIR 2022 SC 866 : (2022) 6 SCC 401

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Judicial Review - Contractual Matters - Whether the Bid submitted by a Bidder suffers from any material deviation and/or any substantial deviation should be left to the author of the Bid document and normally, the High Courts, in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should not interfere with the same unless such a decision is found to be mala fide and/or there are allegations of favouritism and/or such a decision is arbitrary. (Para 10) National High Speed Rail Corporation Ltd. v. Montecarlo Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 108 : AIR 2022 SC 866 : (2022) 6 SCC 401

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Judicial Review - Disciplinary Proceedings - The power of judicial review in the matter of disciplinary proceedings is extremely limited. It is circumscribed by the limits of correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. The power of judicial review is an evaluation of the decision-making process and not of the merits of the decision itself. (Para 11) Col. Anil Kumar Gupta v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 931 : AIR 2022 SC 5626

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Judicial Review - Interpretation of Tender- The author of the tender document is taken to be the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements- If its interpretation is manifestly in consonance with the language of the tender document or subserving the purchase of the tender, the Court would prefer to keep restraint- The technical evaluation or comparison by the Court is impermissible. (Para 17) Agmatel India Pvt. Ltd. v. Resoursys Telecom, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 105 : AIR 2022 SC 1103 : (2022) 5 SCC 362

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Judicial Review - Interpretation of Tender- Even if the interpretation given to the tender document by the person inviting offers is not as such acceptable to the Constitutional Court, that, by itself, would not be a reason for interfering with the interpretation given. (Para 17, 20) Agmatel India Pvt. Ltd. v. Resoursys Telecom, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 105 : AIR 2022 SC 1103 : (2022) 5 SCC 362

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Judicial Review - Interpretation of Tender - The process of interpretation of terms and conditions of contract is essentially left to the author of the tender document and the occasion for interference by the Court would arise only if the questioned decision fails on the salutary tests of irrationality or unreasonableness or bias or procedural impropriety. (Para 24) Agmatel India Pvt. Ltd. v. Resoursys Telecom, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 105 : AIR 2022 SC 1103 : (2022) 5 SCC 362

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Judicial Review- Disciplinary Proceedings - Where the findings of the disciplinary authority are not based on evidence, or based on a consideration of irrelevant material, or ignoring relevant material, are mala fide, or where the findings are perverse or such that they could not have been rendered by any reasonable person placed in like circumstances, the remedies under Article 226 of the Constitution are available, and intervention, warranted. (Para 19) United Bank of India V. Biswanath Bhattacharjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 109 : 2022 (2) SCALE 644

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Judicial Review- Disciplinary Proceedings - For any court to ascertain if any findings were beyond the record (i.e., no evidence) or based on any irrelevant or extraneous factors, or by ignoring material evidence, necessarily some amount of scrutiny is necessary. A finding of “no evidence” or perversity, cannot be rendered sans such basic scrutiny of the materials, and the findings of the disciplinary authority. However, the margin of appreciation of the court under Article 226 of the Constitution would be different; it is not appellate in character. (Para 19) United Bank of India V. Biswanath Bhattacharjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 109 : 2022 (2) SCALE 644

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Judicial review in contractual / commercial / tenders / public auction matters - Superior Courts should not interfere in the matters of tenders, unless substantial public interest was involved or the transaction was malafide - Plausible decisions need not be overturned - Latitude ought to be granted to the State in exercise of its executive power. However, allegations of illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety would be enough grounds for Courts to assume jurisdiction and remedy such ills - Opinion of the executive who were dealing on the subject, not to be interfered with unless the decision is totally arbitrary or unreasonable. (Para 19 -26) State of Punjab v. Mehar Din, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 235 : AIR 2022 SC 1413 : (2022) 5 SCC 648

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Judicial Review in Contractual matters - Even if it is a non-statutory contract, there is no absolute bar in dealing with a cause of action based on acts or omission by the State or its instrumentalities even during the course of the working of a contract - A monetary claim arising from a contract may be successfully urged by a writ applicant but the premise would not be a mere breach of contract. Being part of public law, the case must proceed on the basis of there being arbitrariness vitiating the decision. The matter should not fall within a genuinely disputed question of facts scenario. The dispute which must be capable of being resolved on a proper understanding of documents which are not in dispute may furnish a cause of action in a writ court. - Principles summarized. (Para 78, 54) MP Power Management Company Ltd. v. Sky Power Southeast Solar India Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 966

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Judicial Review of Disciplinary Proceedings - Limited jurisdiction - The High Court is not required to reappreciate the evidence and/or interfere with the findings recorded by the inquiry officer accepted by the disciplinary authority. (Para 4) Umesh Kumar Pahwa v. Uttarakhand Gramin Bank, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 155 : AIR 2022 SC 1041 : (2022) 4 SCC 385

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Judicial Review Of Disciplinary Proceedings - Disciplinary Proceedings - The courts would not interfere unless the exercise of discretion in awarding punishment is perverse in the sense the punishment imposed is grossly disproportionate - Quantum of punishment is within the discretionary domain and the sole power of the decision -making authority once the charge of misconduct stands proved - While exercising the power of judicial review, the court do not assume the role of the appellate authority. Writ jurisdiction is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law, procedural error leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. The decision are also disturbed when it is found to be ailing with perversity. (Para 9) Union of India v. Managobinda Samantaray, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 244 : 2022 (4) SCALE 667

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Judicial Review of Disciplinary Proceedings - The courts would not interfere unless the exercise of discretion in awarding punishment is perverse in the sense the punishment imposed is grossly disproportionate - Quantum of punishment is within the discretionary domain and the sole power of the decision-making authority once the charge of misconduct stands proved - While exercising the power of judicial review, the court do not assume the role of the appellate authority. Writ jurisdiction is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law, procedural error leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. The decision are also disturbed when it is found to be ailing with perversity. (Para 9) Union of India v. Managobinda Samantaray, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 244 : 2022 (4) SCALE 667

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Judicial Review of Disciplinary Proceedings - In the exercise of judicial review, the Court does not act as an appellate forum over the findings of the disciplinary authority. The court does not re-appreciate the evidence on the basis of which the finding of misconduct has been arrived at in the course of a disciplinary enquiry. The Court in the exercise of judicial review must restrict its review to determine whether: (i) the rules of natural justice have been complied with; (ii) the finding of misconduct is based on some evidence; (iii) the statutory rules governing the conduct of the disciplinary enquiry have been observed; and (iv) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority suffer from perversity; and (vi) the penalty is disproportionate to the proven misconduct. (Para 17) State of Karnataka v. Umesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 304 : (2022) 6 SCC 563

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Judicial review of policy decisions - Courts would be slow in interfering in the policy matters, unless the policy is found to be palpably discriminatory and arbitrary. This court would not interfere with the policy decision when a State is in a position to point out that there is intelligible differentia in application of policy and that such intelligible differentia has a nexus with the object sought to be achieved. (Para 16) Satya Dev Bhagaur v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 177 : (2022) 5 SCC 314

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Maharashtra Value Added Tax, 2002 - Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - The Statute provide for the right of appeal against the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer and against the order passed by the first appellate authority, an appeal/revision before the Tribunal - The High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the assessment order in view of the availability of statutory remedy under the Act - The question is not about the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, but about the entertainability of the writ petition against the order of assessment by-passing the statutory remedy of appeal. (Para 6-8) State of Maharashtra v. Greatship (India) Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 784 : AIR 2022 SC 4408

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Mandamus - A writ of mandamus can be issued where the Authority has failed to exercise the discretion vested in it or has exercised such a discretion malafidely or on an irrelevant consideration. Hero Motocorp Ltd. v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 852 : AIR 2022 SC 5572

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Natural justice - Natural justice is an important facet of a judicial review. Providing effective natural justice to affected parties, before a decision is taken, is necessary to maintain the Rule of law. Natural justice is usually discussed in the context of administrative actions, wherein procedural requirement of a fair hearing is read in to ensure that no injustice is caused. When it comes to judicial review, the natural justice principle is built into the rules and procedures of the Court, which are expected to be followed meticulously to ensure that highest standards of fairness are afforded to the parties. (Para 36) Future Coupons Pvt. Ltd. v. Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 114 : (2022) 6 SCC 121

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Practice of calling for answer scripts/answer sheets and thereafter to order re-evaluation and that too in absence of any specific provision in the relevant rules for re-evaluation and that too while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is disapproved - In absence of any regulation for re-evaluation of the answer scripts, the High Court is not justified in ordering re-evaluation of the answer scripts - Sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation. (Para 9-10) Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences v. Dr. Yerra Trinadh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 909 : AIR 2022 SC 5523

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Public Interest Litigation - High Courts to be more discerning / vigilant and/or cautious while entertaining writ petitions apparently filed in public interest - (1) The Courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations; (2) The Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL; (3) The Courts should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL; (4) The Courts should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition; (5) The Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation; and (6) The Courts should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations. (Para 8.12) K. Kumara Gupta v. Sri Markendaya and Sri Omkareswara Swamy Temple, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 182 : AIR 2022 SC 1220 : (2022) 5 SCC 710

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Public Interest Litigation - Bona fide of the petitioner who files the PIL is an extremely relevant consideration and must be examined by the Court at the very threshold itself and this has to be done irrespective of the seemingly high public cause being espoused. (Para 12) State of Jharkhand v. Shiv Shankar Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 924

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Public Interest Litigation - Mandamus - The fundamental requirement for the issuance of a writ of mandamus is that the petitioner must have sought such a relief before the appropriate authority and only when it is denied the Court can be approached for a writ a mandamus. This principle cannot be ignored merely because this Court is dealing with a Public Interest Litigation. (Para 10) State of Jharkhand v. Shiv Shankar Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 924

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Public Interest Litigation - PILs filed in the Jharkhand HC seeking probe against Chief Minister of Jharkhand Hemant Soren - Appeal against HC order that held PILs maintainable - Allowed - We are not for a moment saying that people who occupy high offices should not be investigated, but for a High Court to take cognizance of the matter on these generalized submissions which do not even make prima facie satisfaction of the Court, is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court - It was not proper for the High Court to entertain a PIL which is based on mere allegations and half baked truth that too at the hands of a person who has not been able to fully satisfy his credentials and has come to the Court with unclean hands. State of Jharkhand v. Shiv Shankar Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 924

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Quo Warranto - SLP against Madras HC judgment dismissing petition seeking a writ of quo warranto against Vice Presidents of ITAT appointed in January 2020 alleging that procedure for selection was contrary to the decision in Roger Mathew vs South Indian Bank Limited (2020) 6 SCC 1 - Dismissed - No recourse to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court to seek a writ of quo warranto could have been taken - There is no challenge to the eligibility - We have not entered upon the correctness of the reasoning of the High Court - Petitioner granted liberty to intervene in the pending proceedings in the petition instituted by the Madras Bar Association. Aniruthan v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 960

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Quo Warranto - The writ of quo warranto can be issued where an appointment has not been made in accordance with the law. (Para 28) State of West Bengal v. Anindya Sundar Das, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 831 : AIR 2022 SC 4902

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Regularization - High Court directed the State to consider the cases of some temporary employees for regularisation sympathetically and if necessary, by creating supernumerary posts - Such a direction is wholly without jurisdiction - No such order of absorption and/or regularisation even if required for creating supernumerary posts and not to treat the same as precedent could have been passed by the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (Para 6, 10) State of Gujarat v. R.J. Pathan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 313 : (2022) 5 SCC 394

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 18 - Without exhausting the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 18 of SARFAESI Act, the borrowers approached the High Court by filing the writ application - Practice of entertaining the writ application by the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution without exhausting the alternative statutory remedy deprecated. (Para 34) Varimadugu Obi Reddy v. B. Sreenivasulu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 967

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 ; Section 13(2) - A writ petition against the private financial institution – ARC – against the proposed action/actions under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act can be said to be not maintainable - The ARC as such cannot be said to be performing public functions which are normally expected to be performed by the State authorities. During the course of a commercial transaction and under the contract, the bank/ARC lent the money to the borrowers herein and therefore the said activity of the bank/ARC cannot be said to be as performing a public function which is normally expected to be performed by the State authorities. If proceedings are initiated under the SARFAESI Act and/or any proposed action is to be taken and the borrower is aggrieved by any of the actions of the private bank/bank/ARC, borrower has to avail the remedy under the SARFAESI Act and no writ petition would lie and/or is maintainable and/or entertainable. (Para 12) Phoenix ARC v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 45 : AIR 2022 SC 1045 : (2022) 5 SCC 345

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 ; Section 13(2) - The secured creditor and/or its assignor have a right to recover the amount due and payable to it from the borrowers- The High Court to be extremely careful and circumspect in exercising its discretion while granting stay in such matters. (Para 13.2) Phoenix ARC v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 45 : AIR 2022 SC 1045 : (2022) 5 SCC 345

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

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Specific Performance - No writ of mandamus could have been issued virtually granting the writ for specific performance of the contract/work order in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (Para 8) Municipal Corporation Gondia v. Divi Works & Suppliers HUF, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 225 : 2022 (4) SCALE 262

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Specific Relief Act, 1963; Section 41(ha) - In view the intent of the legislature that infrastructure projects should not be stayed, the High Court would have been well advised to hold its hand to stay the construction of the infrastructure project. Such provision should be kept in view even by the Writ Court. (Para 19-21) N.G. Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Jain, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 302 : AIR 2022 SC 1531 : (2022) 6 SCC 127

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Tender - High Court dismissed WPs challenging acceptance of tender following observations made in M/s N. G. Projects Ltd. Vs. M/s Vinod Kumar Jain and others, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 302 - Appeal allowed - High court has totally misread the Judgment - Respondent was declared eligible in a flagrant violation of principles of natural justice and all fairness in the process of determining the eligibility of the tenderers. Jai Bholenath Construction v. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad Nanded, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 542

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Tender condition of Airport Authority of India challenged by NGO - Supreme Court says NGO had no locus standi to challenge as none of the bidders challenged the conditions. (Para 5) Airports Authority of India v. Centre for Aviation Policy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 814 : AIR 2022 SC 4749

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Tender Jurisdiction - Interim order - disapprove and deprecate the grant of interim relief virtually allowing the writ petitions at an interim stage - If by way of interim relief, a tenderer/petitioner is permitted to participate in the tender process without insisting upon the tender clause which was under challenge and subsequently the writ petition is dismissed what would be the consequences. Balaji Ventures Pvt. Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 295

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Tender Jurisdiction - Interim order - disapprove and deprecate the grant of interim relief virtually allowing the writ petitions at an interim stage - If by way of interim relief, a tenderer/petitioner is permitted to participate in the tender process without insisting upon the tender clause which was under challenge and subsequently the writ petition is dismissed what would be the consequences. Balaji Ventures Pvt. Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 295

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - The appellant was serving as a Branch Officer of a Bank. A complaint was made against him by one borrower of the Bank alleging that he had sanctioned the limit of loan of Rs.1,50,000/­ which was later on reduced to Rs.75,000/ - when the borrower refused to give bribe demanded by him. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. The inquiry officer held that most of the charges were proved. The disciplinary authority/Chairman of the Bank passed an order of removal of the appellant from service. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal filed by him. The Uttarakhand High Court also dismissed the writ petition confirming the order of removal from service. Partly allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that removal of service can be said to be disproportionate to the charges and misconduct held to be proved. Therefore, the High Court order was modified to the extent substituting the punishment from that of removal of service to that of compulsory retirement. Umesh Kumar Pahwa v. Uttarakhand Gramin Bank, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 155 : AIR 2022 SC 1041 : (2022) 4 SCC 385

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - The courts cannot interfere with the terms of the tender prescribed by the Government because it feels that some other terms in the tender would have been fair, wiser, or logical. (Para 7) Airports Authority of India v. Centre for Aviation Policy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 814 : AIR 2022 SC 4749

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - The High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 extends to protecting the personal liberty persons who have demonstrated that the instrumentality of the State is being weaponized for using the force of criminal law. (Para 16) Mallada K. Sri Ram v. State of Telangana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 358 : 2022 (6) SCALE 50

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - The laws of limitation do not apply to exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 - Relief under Article 226 being discretionary, the Courts might in their discretion refuse to entertain the Writ Petition, where there is gross delay on the part of the Writ Petitioner, particularly, where the relief sought would, if granted, unsettle things, which are already settled. (Para 26) State of Rajasthan v. O.P. Gupta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 785 : AIR 2022 SC 4538

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

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - The terms of employment of contract between a school and non ­teaching staff cannot and should not be construed to be an inseparable part of the obligation to impart education. This is particularly in respect to the disciplinary proceedings that may be initiated against a particular employee. It is only where the removal of an employee of non ­teaching staff is regulated by some statutory provisions, its violation by the employer in contravention of law may be interfered by the court. But such interference will be on the ground of breach of law and not on the basis of interference in discharge of public duty. (Para 69) St. Mary's Educational institute v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 708

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - When a number of issues/grounds were raised in the writ petitions, it is the duty cast upon the court to deal with the same and thereafter, to pass a reasoned order. When the Constitution confers on the High Courts the power to give relief it becomes the duty of the Courts to give such relief in appropriate cases and the Courts would be failing to perform their duty if relief is refused without adequate reasons. (Para 2.1) Vishal Ashwin Patel v. Assistant Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 322 : 2022 (5) SCALE 392

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - When a number of issues/grounds were raised in the writ petition, there is a duty cast upon the High Court to deal with the same and thereafter, to pass a reasoned order. State of Uttarakhand v. Mayan Pal Singh Verma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 388 : AIR 2022 SC 1916

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - When a remedy under the statute is available filing of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is to be discouraged by the High Court. Kotak Mahindra Bank v Dilip Bhosale, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 545

    Constitution of India, 1950; 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 : (2022) 8 SCC 210

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

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

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

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

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Writ Jurisdiction - Contractual Matters - Interim orders - Any contract of public service should not be interfered with lightly and in any case, there should not be any interim order derailing the entire process of the services meant for larger public good. (Para 26) N.G. Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Jain, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 302 : AIR 2022 SC 1531 : (2022) 6 SCC 127

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Writ Jurisdiction - Grant of Tender - If the Court finds that there is total arbitrariness or that the tender has been granted in a malafide manner, still the Court should refrain from interfering in the grant of tender but instead relegate the parties to seek damages for the wrongful exclusion rather than to injunct the execution of the contract. The injunction or interference in the tender leads to additional costs on the State and is also against public interest. (Para 23) N.G. Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Jain, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 302 : AIR 2022 SC 1531 : (2022) 6 SCC 127

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Writ Jurisdiction - Grant of Tender - Multiple layers of exercise of jurisdiction also delay the final adjudication challenging the grant of tender. It would be open to the High Courts or the Hon'ble Chief Justice to entrust these petitions to a Division Bench of the High Court, which would avoid at least hearing by one of the forums. (Para 27) N.G. Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Jain, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 302 : AIR 2022 SC 1531 : (2022) 6 SCC 127

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Writ Jurisdiction - Grant of Tender - Interpretation of terms of the contract is that the question as to whether a term of the contract is essential or not is to be viewed from the perspective of the employer and by the employer - Satisfaction whether a bidder satisfies the tender condition is primarily upon the authority inviting the bids -The Writ Court should refrain itself from imposing its decision over the decision of the employer as to whether or not to accept the bid of a tenderer. The Court does not have the expertise to examine the terms and conditions of the present day economic activities of the State and this limitation should be kept in view. Courts should be even more reluctant in interfering with contracts involving technical issues as there is a requirement of the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon such issues. The approach of the Court should be not to find fault with magnifying glass in its hands, rather the Court should examine as to whether the decision-making process is after complying with the procedure contemplated by the tender conditions. (Para 17, 22, 23) N.G. Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Jain, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 302 : AIR 2022 SC 1531 : (2022) 6 SCC 127

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

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Writ petition - An educational institution may perform myriad functions touching various facets of public life and in the societal sphere. While such of those functions as would fall within the domain of a "public function" or "public duty" be undisputedly open to challenge and scrutiny under Article 226 of the Constitution, the actions or decisions taken solely within the confines of an ordinary contract of service, having no statutory force or backing, cannot be recognised as being amenable to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the absence of the service conditions being controlled or governed by statutory provisions, the matter would remain in the realm of an ordinary contract of service. (Para 69) St. Mary's Educational institute v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 708

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Writ Petition - High Court should apply its mind to the grounds of challenge and to the submissions made. State of Orissa v. Prasanta Kumar Swain, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 51

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Writ Petition - Locus Standi - Registered Society of Professional Architects who claim to be teaching faculty in institutions imparting education in Architecture, filed a writ petition on the file of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, praying for quashing the "Minimum Standards of Architectural Education Regulations, 2017 - High Court quashed the Regulations - Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court while setting aside the High Court judgment observed: Due to the nature of its membership, the society could have been aggrieved only by the prescriptions affecting the teaching faculty. It could not have challenged the prescriptions with which they are not in any way concerned. (Para 19) Council of Architecture v. Academic Society of Architects (TASA), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 172 : (2022) 5 SCC 161

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Writ petition is maintainable against a person or a body discharging public duties or public functions. The public duty cast may be either statutory or otherwise and where it is otherwise, the body or the person must be shown to owe that duty or obligation to the public involving the public law element. Similarly, for ascertaining the discharge of public function, it must be established that the body or the person was seeking to achieve the same for the collective benefit of the public or a section of it and the authority to do so must be accepted by the public - While a body may be discharging a public function or performing a public duty and thus its actions becoming amenable to judicial review by a Constitutional Court, its employees would not have the right to invoke the powers of the High Court conferred by Article 226 in respect of matter relating to service where they are not governed or controlled by the statutory provisions. (Para 69) St. Mary's Educational institute v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 708

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Writ Petitions - After a period of 10 years from the date of execution of the Sale Deed with NOIDA, the petitioner made a representation to it requesting to allot a plot as agreed in terms of the Sale Deed - High Court directed NOIDA to consider the representation - NOIDA rejected it - This was again challenged before High Court by the Petitioner - High Court dismissed writ petition - SLP challenging the said High Court judgment dismissed. Surjeet Singh Sahni v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 232 : 2022 (4) SCALE 280

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Writ Petitions - Delay and Latches - High Courts directing the authorities to decide the representation though the representations are made belatedly - Mere representation does not extend the period of limitation - If it is found that the writ petitioner is guilty of delay and latches, the High Court should dismiss it at the threshold and ought not to dispose of the writ petition by relegating the writ petitioner to file a representation and/or directing the authority to decide the representation - Such order shall not give an opportunity to the petitioner to thereafter contend that rejection of the representation subsequently has given a fresh cause of action. (Para 4, 5) Surjeet Singh Sahni v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 232 : 2022 (4) SCALE 280

    Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Writ Petitions - No writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall be maintainable and/or entertainable for specific performance of the contract and that too after a period of 10 years by which time even the suit for specific performance would have been barred by limitation. (Para 6) Surjeet Singh Sahni v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 232 : 2022 (4) SCALE 280

    <