Supreme Court Monthly Digest September 2023

18 Nov 2023 3:53 AM GMT

Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 737 To 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 843

'No immediate threat to mother's life; no foetal abnormality' : Supreme Court rejects married woman's plea to abort 26-week pregnancy. X v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 840

Supreme Court directs Manipur bar associations to not prevent lawyers of any community from appearing before courts; warns of contempt action. Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 837

It is very unfortunate that the Advocates representing the State Government have to approach the Court of Law for recovery of their fees - Ensure that an Advocate who appears for the State is paid his fees within a reasonable time. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Bina Pandey, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 769

Disciplinary Action against advocate who was running taxi service - The findings of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council are based on documentary evidence - The Supreme Court found no error in the decision of BCI to bar the advocate from practice for one year. Phoola Ram Jaat v. Sanwar Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 768

Advocate acting as real estate agent and selling a client's property amounts to misconduct. The direction of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India to suspend him as an Advocate for five years is fully justified. (Para 7) Syed Altaf Ahmed v. S. Suson, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 767

Is an Arbitration Clause in an unstamped agreement enforceable? Supreme Court Refers N.N. Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 343 to a Seven-Judge Bench. Bhaskar Raju and Brothers v. Dharmaratnakara Rai Bahadur Arcot Narainswamy Mudaliar Chattram and Other Charities, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 828

The Supreme Court explains scope of judicial interference in arbitral awards. Batliboi Environmental Engineers v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 817 : 2023 INSC 850

The Supreme Court extends disability pension claim of army veteran for 10 years as allowed under pension regulations for the army. Ex L/NK Rajput Ajit Singh v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 831

Are civilian employees of Armed Forces Unit Run Canteens (URCs) Government Servants? - The matter refers to Larger Bench. (Para 6 – 8) Union of India v. Vinod Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 795

BSF Act - Even if an officer pleads guilty of misconduct, the court has to satisfy that confession is voluntary. Union of India v. Jogeshwar Swain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 758 : 2023 INSC 802

Rape and Murder – Delay in Trial – The appellant, convicted of raping and murdering his niece in 1983, remained on bail during the 40-year trial. The High Court declined to suspend his sentence. Held, bail granted considering the delay in trial and the appellant's age (75 years) urging stringent bail conditions. The Court emphasized prioritizing the appellant's appeal and cautioned the appellant, a Bar member, against unnecessary adjournments. Non-compliance could lead to bail cancellation. Appeal allowed on these terms. Banamali Choudhury v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 836

Once the High Court came to the conclusion that the accused was entitled to bail, there was no reason to restrict the bail to the period of three months. Ranjit Digal v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 772

When accused persons are in prison, it is the duty of the police to produce them before the trial court. If the police fail to produce them before the court, then the accused cannot be made to suffer due to such negligence of the police. Satendra Babu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 766

Bail - One cannot apply one bail order to all the other subsequent cases. (Para 8) PACL v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 747 : 2023 INSC 795

Can anticipatory bail be granted to proclaimed offender? only in exceptional & rare cases, holds the Supreme Court. State of Haryana v. Dharamraj, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 739 : 2023 INSC 784

The Supreme Court directed the Chief Justice of the High Court of Patna to take a look into certain irregularities in uploading an order of the High Court. The issue raised 'serious concerns' and directed the High Court Chief Justice to take necessary steps in this regard. Manish Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 738

The Supreme Court comes to the rescue of a party who filed a cheque bounce case in wrong court after noting he got incorrect legal advice. Bijoy Shankar Mishra v. State of Jharkhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 798

Section 148 NI Act - Deposit of minimum 20% amount is not an absolute rule; can be relaxed if an exceptional case is made out. Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 776 : 2023 INSC 822

Cheque bounce case can be quashed u/s 482 only if the amount is patently non-recoverable; whether debt time-barred or not is a question of evidence. K. Hymavathi v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 752 : 2023 INSC 811

Revision petition under Section 115 CPC cannot be entertained against order of trial court rejecting review of decree. Rahimal Bathu v. Ashiyal Beevi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 829 : 2023 INSC 861

In the second appeal, the High Court must frame a substantial question of law at the admission stage itself ordinarily. Suresh Lataruji Ramteke v. Sumanbai Pandurang Petkar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 821 : 2023 INSC 846

Order V Rule 2 of Civil Procedure Code requires service of summons with plaint. National Insurance Company Ltd. v. National Building Construction India Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 800

Res judicata can't be decided in application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as previous suit documents have to be seen. Keshav Sood v. Kirti Pradeep Sood, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 799

Do MPs/MLAs taking bribe for votes have immunity from criminal law ? The Supreme Court refers to 7-judge bench. Sita Soren v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 823 : 2023 INSC 856

Article 20(1) of the Constitution doesn't bar retrospective application of procedural changes in criminal trial. Central Bureau of Investigation v. R.R. Kishore, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 770 : 2023 INSC 817

Once a law is declared unconstitutional, it becomes inoperative from its inception; void ab initio. Central Bureau of Investigation v. R.R. Kishore, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 770 : 2023 INSC 817

Party has the right to address final arguments before NCDRC despite not filing a written version. ARN Infrastructure India Ltd. v. Hara Prasad Ghosh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 763

Consumer Protection Act - If commercial use is by purchasers themselves for earning livelihood by self-employment, they'll be 'consumers'. Rohit Chaudhary v. Vipul Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 754 : 2023 INSC 807

Litigants liable for civil contempt on violating undertaking given on their behalf by advocate to court. Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari v. Hiralal Somabhai Contractor, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 750 : 2023 INSC 805

Courts should exercise restraint while exercising judicial review in contracts involving complex technical issues. BTL EPC Ltd. v. Macawber Beekay Pvt. Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 834

Principle of judicial restraint in reviewing contracts that entail complex technical issues - A dispute arose following the award of a subcontract by Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL) for the Yadadri Thermal Power Station. The 1st Respondent contended that the Appellant's consortium agreement with a Chinese company breached a 2020 Finance Ministry order concerning bidders from countries sharing a land border with India. The High Court quashed the letter of intent awarded to the Appellant. Held, the Courts should exercise restraint while exercising judicial review in contracts involving complex technical issues. The courts should not act as appellate courts over tender-inviting authorities. Such authorities are best positioned to interpret tender documents, and judicial interference should be restricted to examining arbitrariness or mala fides. Interference in writ appeals should only occur in cases of perversity or error. (Para 36 & 37) BTL EPC Ltd. v. Macawber Beekay Pvt. Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 834 : 2023 INSC 864

In suit for passing off, the plaintiff is required to prove figures of sale/ advertisement expenses to establish goodwill. Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. v. Yashwantrao Mohite Krushna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 784 : 2023 INSC 831

PC Act - Once it is proved that a public servant received gratification beyond legal remuneration, statutory presumption operates. P. Sarangapani v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 819 : 2023 INSC 844

Public servants lose immunity in pre-2014 corruption cases; Supreme Court clarifies that striking down of Sec 6A DSPE Act has retrospective effect. Central Bureau of Investigation v. R.R. Kishore, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 770 : 2023 INSC 817

Criminal Trial - the death of the complainant or nonavailability of the complainant at the time of trial could be said to be fatal to the case of prosecution, nor could it be said to be a ground to acquit the accused. It is always open for the prosecution to prove the contents of the complaint and other facts in issue by leading other oral or documentary evidence, in case of death of or nonavailability of the complainant. (Para 9) P. Sarangapani v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 819 : 2023 INSC 844

Section 313 CrPC - Failure to put incrimination circumstances to the accused will not vitiate trial if no prejudice is caused. Sunil v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 815 : 2023 INSC 840

Supreme Court acquits two death row convicts, perplexed at trial court & hc awarding capital punishment despite loopholes in evidence. Rajesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 814 : 2023 INSC 839

Criminal Investigation - It is high time, perhaps, that a consistent and dependable code of investigation is devised with a mandatory and detailed procedure for the police to implement and abide by during the course of their investigation so that the guilty do not walk free on technicalities, as they do in most cases in our country. (Para 38) Rajesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 814 : 2023 INSC 839

Criminal Justice System - The manner in which police investigations are conducted is of critical importance to the functioning of the Criminal Justice System. Not only serious miscarriage of justice will result if the collection of evidence is vitiated by error or malpractice, but successful prosecution of the guilty depends on a thorough and careful search for truth and collection of evidence which is both admissible and probative. (Referred: 2003, the Report of Dr. Justice V.S. Malimath’s ‘Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System, Para 37) Rajesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 814 : 2023 INSC 839

Criminal Jurisprudence - Defence witnesses are entitled to equal treatment with those produced by the prosecution and different yardsticks cannot be prescribed for prosecution witnesses as compared to defence witnesses. (Para 23) Balwinder Singh (Binda) v. Narcotics Control Bureau, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 813 : 2023 INSC 852

Supreme Court refuses to quash FIR against UP Congress leader over alleged 'Modi-Adani love affair’ remark. Sachin Chaudhary v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 797

Principle of Parity - When there is similar or identical evidence of eyewitnesses against two accused by ascribing them the same or similar role, the Court cannot convict one accused and acquit the other. In such a case, the cases of both the accused will be governed by the principle of parity. This principle means that the Criminal Court should decide like cases alike, and in such cases, the Court cannot make a distinction between the two accused, which will amount to discrimination. (Para 15) Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 782 : 2023 INSC 829

Standard of proof to prove insanity is only 'reasonable doubt' : Supreme Court acquits man accused of killing his grandfather. Rupesh Manger (Thapa) v. State of Sikkim, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 781 : 2023 INSC 826

Supreme Court refers sedition law challenge to larger bench, says new bill to replace IPC can't affect past cases. S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 780

The Supreme Court upholds life sentence for men who murdered woman alleging witchcraft. Bhaktu Gorain v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 779 : 2023 INSC 821

'State assisted accused, failed to prosecute fairly': Supreme Court directs Bihar Govt to compensate victims in 1995 double murder case. Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 760 : 2023 INSC 738

Judge is not a mere recording machine; must actively search for truth in trial : Supreme Court sends back death penalty matter to HC. Munna Pandey v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 744 : 2023 INSC 793

Section 162 CrPC does not prevent a trial court from putting questions to witnesses suo motu to contradict them. Munna Pandey v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 744 : 2023 INSC 793

Section 323 Cr.P.C. - Power can be invoked even after deposition / chief examination of witness. Archana v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 742

No litigant should have even an iota of doubt or an impression (rather, a misimpression) that just because of systemic delay or the matter not being taken up by the Courts resulting in efflux of time the cause would be defeated, and the Court would be rendered helpless to ensure justice to the party concerned. It would not be out of place to mention that this Court can even turn the clock back, if the situation warrants such dire measures. The powers of this Court, if need be, to even restore status quo ante are not in the realm of any doubt. (Para 32) Union Territory of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 749 : 2023 INSC 804

An order refusing special leave to appeal by a non-speaking order does not attract the doctrine of merger. (Para 18) Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 782 : 2023 INSC 829

Dowry death case - the Supreme Court surprised at HC using the same dying declaration to convict husband while disbelieving it for father-in-law. Phulel Singh v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 833 : 2023 INSC 863

'No quality education if a student is penalised based on religion' : Supreme court slams UP Govt & police on Muzaffarnagar student slapping. Tushar Gandhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 843

Prescribe minimum marks requirement for languages other than Tamil & English also in Tamil Nadu schools: Supreme Court in linguistic minorities' plea. Linguistic Minorities Forum of Tamil Nadu v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 839

It is not within the Court’s domain to decide as to what would be the choice of food for the children of a particular region for Mid­day Meal Scheme. There is no scope of guess work by the law Courts on that count and the Court will have to accept the administrative decision in that regard unless some outstanding arbitrariness is pointed out. (Para 8) Ajmal Ahmed v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 803

The Supreme Court refuses to interfere with the Lakshadweep administration’s decision to drop meat from the school mid-day meal menu. Ajmal Ahmed v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 803

Supreme Court dismisses PIL seeking independent audit of EVM source codes. Sunit Ahya v. Election Commission of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 824

Aadhaar number not mandatory for electoral rolls, will make changes in forms to enrol new voters: ECI Tells Supreme Court. G. Niranjan v. Election Commission of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 805

As a general rule, the courts do not interfere in election matters. However, this principle is not absolute. It recognized that there are circumstances where executive actions or attempts to disrupt a fair electoral playing field may emerge. In such cases, the Constitutional Courts are not only permitted but also duty-bound to step in and ensure the integrity of the election process. (Para 37) Union Territory of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 749 : 2023 INSC 804

Elections to any office / body are required to be free, fair and transparent. Elections lie at the core of democracy. The authority entrusted by law to hold / conduct such elections is to be completely independent of any extraneous influence / consideration. (Para 22) Union Territory of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 749 : 2023 INSC 804

The controversy involved in this lis is the non-allocation of the Plough symbol to the Jammu and Kashmir National Conference for its candidates to contest the then-upcoming General Elections of the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council, Kargil (“LAHDC”). The request for allotment of the Plough symbol by R1 was bonafide, legitimate and just, for the plain reason that in the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir (which included the present Union Territory of Ladakh), it was a recognized State Party having been allotted the Plough symbol. Upon bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir and the creation of two new Union Territories, namely the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and the Union Territory of Ladakh, though the ECI had not notified R1 as a State Party for the Union Territory of Ladakh, it cannot be simpliciter that R1 was not entitled for the allotment of plough symbol to it, in the factual background. There is no conflict with any other stakeholder for the reason that the Plough symbol is neither a symbol exclusively allotted to any National or State Party nor one of the symbols shown in the list of free symbols. Thus, there was and is no impediment in such symbol being granted to R1. (Para 28 & 29) Union Territory of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 749 : 2023 INSC 804

The Ladakh Administration had filed the special leave petition challenging the direction passed by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh to notify the 'plough' symbol for JKNC. It is surprising that the Union Territory of Ladakh not only denied R1 the Plough symbol, but even upon timely intervention by the learned Single Judge, has left no stone unturned not only to resist but also frustrate a cause simply by efflux of time. The Supreme Court set aside the notification issued by the Union Territory of Ladakh on August 5 for the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council (LAHDC) election in the Kargil region, which was scheduled on September 10. The Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party (JKNC) is entitled to the 'plough' symbol. The Court imposed a cost of Rupees One Lakh on the Ladakh Administration for filing the petition. The Administration has been directed to issue a fresh election notification within seven days. (Para 44 & 45) Union Territory of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 749 : 2023 INSC 804

Enforcement officer competent to file complaint under repealed provisions of FERA during sunset period of 2 years after enforcement of FEMA. First Global Stockbroking Pvt. Ltd. v. Anil Rishiraj, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 820 : 2023 INSC 845

Equity cannot supplant the law. Equity has to follow law, if the law is clear and unambiguous. (Para 104) Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 808 : 2023 INSC 838

Panchnama inadmissible in court where witnesses merely acted as attestors and did not disclose how objects were discovered. Rajesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 814 : 2023 INSC 839

S. 27 Evidence Act - Discovery can't be proved against a person if he wasn't accused of any offence & wasn't in custody of police at the time of confession. Rajesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 814 : 2023 INSC 839

Circumstantial Evidence - In a case resting on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a chain of unbroken events unerringly pointing to the guilt of the accused and none other. (Para 14) Rajesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 814 : 2023 INSC 839

Certified copy can be produced to prove original sale deed in trial. Appaiya v. Andimuthu @ Thangapandi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 811 : 2023 INSC 835

Eyewitness account can't be discarded merely because of inconsistencies with medical evidence. Rameshji Amarsingh Thakor v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 804

Minor Discrepancies - An eyewitness to a gruesome killing cannot in deposition narrate blow by blow account of the knife strikes inflicted on the deceased like in a screenplay. Just because there were more injuries than the ones narrated by the eyewitness cannot negate the prosecution version. Even if in the opinion of the autopsy surgeon there was mismatch of the knife with the injuries caused, the doctor’s evidence cannot eclipse ocular evidence. (Para 7 & 9) Rameshji Amarsingh Thakor v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 804

Lack of positive viscera report not conclusive proof that victim didn’t die of poisoning: supreme court upholds conviction in dowry death case. Buddhadeb Saha v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 794

Supreme Court deprecates advocates raising unnecessary objections to questions in cross-examinations, urges bar to co-operate with trial courts. Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. v. Yashwantrao Mohite Krushna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 784 : 2023 INSC 831

Cross-Examination - Huge pendency of suits in the Trial Courts - If the members of the Bar do not cooperate with the Trial Courts, it will be very difficult for our Courts to deal with the huge arrears. While a trial is being conducted, the members of the Bar are expected to act as officers of the Court. They are expected to conduct themselves in a reasonable and fair manner. The members of the Bar must remember that fairness is a hallmark of great advocacy. If the advocates start objecting to every question asked in the cross-examination, the trial cannot go on smoothly. The trial gets delayed. In the facts of the case, looking at the persistent objections raised by the learned advocate, the Court was required to record a substantial part of the cross-examination in question-and-answer form which consumed a lot of time of the Court. (Para 19) Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. v. Yashwantrao Mohite Krushna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 784 : 2023 INSC 831

'Last seen’ theory can be invoked only when the same stands proved beyond reasonable doubt - The burden on the accused would kick in, only when the last seen theory is established. (Para 15-17) R. Sreenivasa v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 751 : 2023 INSC 803

Free and fair trial is sine-qua-non of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. If the criminal trial is not free and fair, then the confidence of the public in the judicial fairness of a judge and the justice delivery system would be shaken. Denial to fair trial is as much injustice to the accused as to the victim and the society. No trial can be treated as a fair trial unless there is an impartial judge conducting the trial, an honest, able and fair defence counsel and equally honest, able and fair public prosecutor. A fair trial necessarily includes fair and proper opportunity to the prosecutor to prove the guilt of the accused and opportunity to the accused to prove his innocence. (Para 64-72) Munna Pandey v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 744 : 2023 INSC 793

The Supreme Court rejected the firecracker makers' plea to use barium and joined crackers – Held, cannot allow barium nitrate in firecrackers merely because the new formulation is 30% less polluting. (Para 12) Arjun Gopal v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 816 : 2023 INSC 840

Cannot ask successful resolution applicant to pay arrears payable by corporate debtor for grant/restoration of electricity connection. Tata Power Western Odisha Distribution Ltd. v. Jagannath Sponge Pvt. Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 788

Admitting claims after a resolution plan has been accepted by COC would make CIRP an endless process. RPS Infrastructure Ltd. v. Mukul Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 773 : 2023 INSC 816

LIC not entitled to levy fee for endorsing transfer or assignment of a policy. Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Dravya Finance Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 759 : 2023 INSC 815

A statutory provision cannot be declared ultra vires without a specific challenge in the pleadings. (Para 9) Union of India v. Manjurani Routray, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 745 : 2023 INSC 787

Supreme Court refuses to interfere with Cauvery Water Regulatory Committee (CWRC) Order directing Karnataka to release 5000 cusecs to Tamil Nadu. State of Karnataka v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 838

Cannot ignore the ratio laid down in an earlier judgment merely because the same stands referred to a larger Bench. Judicial propriety did not permit it ignoring the ratio laid down in the earlier judgement as no decision regarding the same had come out from the larger Bench. (Para 4) Rajnish Kumar Rai v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 842

Recruitment process for Junior Civil Judges - Directed the State to take immediate steps to fill 175 vacant posts - Rejected the State Governments plea to conduct Civil Judge recruitment by Public Service Commission instead of a Selection Committee that includes representatives of the High Court – Held, the High Court is best suited to understand the needs of the judicial service - the Judges of the High Court who participate in the selection process possess domain knowledge, both in the subject matter and the nature of the service. (Para 23) Malik Mazhar Sultan v. U.P. Public Service Commission, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 832 : 2023 INSC 860

Judge aspirants get relief; Supreme Court sets aside BPSC's rejection of candidates for not producing original certificates. Sweety Kumari v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 818 : 2023 INSC 853

Supreme Court dismisses PIL seeking 2 years' cooling off period for retired judges' post-retirement appointments. Bombay Lawyers Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 753

The Supreme Court releases a man incarcerated for 12 years after finding that he was a juvenile at the time of offence. Makkella Nagaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 757 : 2023 INSC 800

A condition imposed by the Government that the land owner should handover a part of land free of cost for public utility purpose in return of the permission granted for converting the nature of the use of the land cannot be held illegal. (Para 23) Shirdi Nagar Panchayat v. Kishor Sharad Borawake, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 830 : 2023 INSC 851

It is a matter of great concern that a National Law University, which are institutions in the forefront of legal education, should operate only with contractual teachers. This is unacceptable and undesirable. These are supposed to be institutions of excellence and you cannot expect excellence in institutions where there is constant inflow and outflow of teaching staff because they are contractual in character. It is time to remedy the position. National Law University Jodhpur v. Prashant Mehta, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 785

‘Lien’ of a government servant only ceases to exist when he/she is appointed on another post ‘substantively’/confirmed or absorbed permanently. Otherwise, his/her lien would continue on the previous post. (Para 17) L.R. Patil v. Gulbarga University, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 748 : 2023 INSC 796

Directions on aid and rehabilitation of displaced persons in Manipur – Reissue aadhar card – provide bank account details - Expediently issue or reissue disability certificates to specially-abled individuals in relief camps - State will appoint additional Para Legal Volunteers as needed - Allocate sufficient funds to the Victim Compensation Scheme - Appoint a nodal officer in Delhi for addressing grievances of displaced persons from Manipur residing temporarily outside the State - Cooperation with the Expert Committee - Protection of religious buildings and properties - Access to High Court proceedings via video conferencing - Bar members are expected to ensure unhindered access for all lawyers, non-compliance may result in contempt proceedings. Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 837

Child from void / voidable marriage cannot be treated as coparcener by birth in Mitakshara Hindu Undivided Family. Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 737 : 2023 INSC 783

Children of invalid marriages have right in their parents' share in hindu joint family property. Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 737 : 2023 INSC 783

2019 NEET results could not have been basis for allowing counselling in the year 2022 for admission to MBBS courses. (Para 3) Registrar-in-Charge v. Medhasree Goswami, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 825

MBBS admission in pwd quota - Disability assessment report must explain how the candidate can't pursue the course. Bambhaniya Sagar Vasharambhai v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 841

Propriety and procedure of media briefings by police personnel - The Supreme Court directed the Union Ministry of Home Affairs to prepare a comprehensive manual on media briefings by police personnel within a period of three months. Also directed Director Generals of Police (DGPs) of all states to submit their suggestions for the manual. The input of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) will be considered in this matter. (Para 18 – 20) People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 792 : 2023 INSC 833

Unfair reporting by the media has the potential to affect public opinion and impinge upon the presumption of innocence which is one of the cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence. (Para 7) People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 792 : 2023 INSC 833

Rs 1.5 crore in compensation has been awarded to an ex-Indian Air Force official who contracted HIV during a blood transfusion at a military hospital. Both the Indian Army and the Indian Air Force are jointly and severally liable for medical negligence. (Para 92) Ashish Kumar Chauhan (Retd.) v. Commanding Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 826 : 2023 INSC 857

Principle of res ipsa loquitur (“the thing speaks for itself”) - where negligence is evident, burden of proof shifts to hospital. (Para 71 - 73) Ashish Kumar Chauhan (Retd.) v. Commanding Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 826 : 2023 INSC 857

MMDR Act - Supreme Court explains exceptions to Sec 10A(1) which makes mining lease applications received before 12.01.2015 ineligible. State of West Bengal v. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 787 : 2023 INSC 824

LMV license issue: supreme court concerned about impact on drivers' livelihood if 'Mukund Dewangan' is reversed; urges centre to consider amendments. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Rambha Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 793 : 2023 INSC 832

NDPS Act - Confession to NCB officials not admissible in evidence; possession must be established to draw presumption under S. 54. Balwinder Singh (Binda) v. Narcotics Control Bureau, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 813 : 2023 INSC 852

The Supreme Court granted relief to a candidate who was aggrieved by the rejection of her candidature as an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card holder by the All-India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS). Finding the rejection of her application as an OCI candidate to be illegal, the Court directed to be considered in remaining counseling rounds by the AIIMS and other NEET-PG Medical seats. All those who had obtained OCI cards before 04.03.2021 are entitled to similar benefits in the NEET-PG admission process. 04.03.2021 is the date on which the Ministry of Home Affairs issued a notification holding that OCI candidates cannot compete in seats meant for Indian citizens in college admissions and that they will be considered only in NRI seats. (Para 17) Pallavi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 741 : 2023 INSC 782

Mere living in a particular house by itself would not mean that the said house is under ownership of the person living therein in his individual capacity or even that it is within the area of operation of the society. (Para 16) Purushottam Bagh Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. v. Shobhan Pal Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 762 : 2023 INSC 789

In partition suit, every interested party deemed to be a plaintiff - No bar in passing numerous preliminary decrees. (Para 8) A. Krishna Shenoy v. Ganga Devi G., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 778

It is the duty of police to produce imprisoned accused before court, accused can't be blamed for police's negligence. Satendra Babu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 766

Cannot ignore ratio laid in an earlier judgment merely because it stands referred to a larger bench. Rajnish Kumar Rai v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 842

Practice of filling several miscellaneous civil applications (MCA) for seeking review of the judgment passed in Second Appeal – Held, no litigant should be permitted to misuse the process of law through vexatious applications. (Para 8) Vasant Nature Cure Hospital & Pratibha Maternity Hospital Trust v. Ukaji Ramaji, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 783 : 2023 INSC 825

'Sorry state of affairs': Supreme Court criticises registry for shifting blame on court masters for not complying with order. Harphool @ Kala v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 775

Court Masters had no role to play in compliance with the orders of the Apex Court and they cannot be blamed for the lapse. Harphool @ Kala v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 775

When a Bench of two Judges requires printed copies of the depositions, it is obvious that only one copy cannot be supplied and two copies are required. The explanations submitted by some staff members show that even this elementary knowledge was lacking. Harphool @ Kala v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 775

Concerned Registrar (Judicial Listing) to instruct the members of the staff that the orders of the Court should be scrupulously implemented and in event, any member of the Registry has any doubt, they should seek clarification through the Court Masters. Harphool @ Kala v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 775

Legislature can't directly overrule judgment, but law can be made to alter the basis of court verdict. NHPC Ltd. v. State of Himachal Pradesh Secretary, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 756

SLP cannot be filed to challenge an order passed by the High Court on the Administrative side. Nimmanapally Surya Reddy v. Honorable Chief Justice High Court of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 755

The High Courts cannot refuse to follow its binding judgment on the ground that a reference has been made against it to the larger bench or a review is pending against it. (Para 35) Union Territory of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 749 : 2023 INSC 804

Treating 12 months as the standard duration of detention was indicative of a mechanical approach by the authorities. The purpose to be served by imposing maximum period of detention must be specified or the authorities could be accused of unreasonableness and unfairness. (Para 60 & 70) Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 743 : 2023 INSC 788

When ordinary provisions of criminal law would have sufficed to deal with the detenu, there was no reason for the state to invoke the provisions of the preventive detention act, being an extraordinary statute. (Para 51) Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 743 : 2023 INSC 788

Detention order must be precise and simple, laying down grounds for detention. (Para 49) Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 743 : 2023 INSC 788

Preventive detention laws are an 'exceptional measure reserved for tackling emergent situations' and must not be used as a tool for enforcing 'law and order'. (Para 40) Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 743 : 2023 INSC 788

Differentiation between maintenance of 'public order' and offences that create a "law and order" situation - For an act to qualify as a disturbance to ‘public order’, the activity must impact the general public and evoked feelings of fear, panic, or insecurity. “Stray acts affecting private individuals and the repetition of similar such acts would not tend to affect the even flow of public life. (Para 39) Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 743 : 2023 INSC 788

Preventive Detention - Factors to be considered by courts to decide legality – Explained. (Para 25) Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 743 : 2023 INSC 788

Section 106 Transfer of Property Act - Onus on tenant to prove that premises was leased for manufacturing purpose. Paul Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Amit Chand Mitra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 827 : 2023 INSC 854

PIL challenges the Cabinet decision to relax the payment terms for the adjusted gross revenue (AGR) due from Telecom Service Providers. Held, The Government's decision to give relaxations to the telecom sector in view of the outstanding performance of the telecom sector in meeting the COVID-19 pandemic challenges. The huge surge in data consumption during the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated reform measures to boost proliferation and penetration of broadband and telecom connectivity. These are all matters of policy and decision-making which is on the basis of experts’ opinion and on emerging situations and exigencies, to be made in the interest of the welfare of the people of India having serious technical and financial implications and, therefore, have to be in public interest. Hence, we do not think such Cabinet decisions could be lightly interfered with by a Court of law in the absence of there being any particulars or materials brought to the notice of the Court assailing the Cabinet decisions, as being unconstitutional or arbitrary in nature or contrary to law. (Para 11) Anshul Gupta v. Prime Minister Office, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 765

Petition seeking a ‘cooling off’ period of two years before any retired judge of a constitutional court can accept a post-retirement appointment. Held, the issue whether a retired Judge should accept any office or not has to be left to the conscience of the Judge concerned, or any law in this regard brought into force but cannot form a subject matter of directions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Bombay Lawyers Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 753

Members of Railway Protection Force can seek benefits under Employees Compensation Act though RPF declared as an armed force. Railway Protection Special Force v. Bhavnaben Dinshbhai Bhabhor, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 835 : 2023 INSC 859

When can an unregistered lease deed, which is compulsorily registrable, be admitted to show nature & character of possession? the Supreme Court explains. Paul Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Amit Chand Mitra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 827 : 2023 INSC 854

WB Registration Act - Registrar cannot exercise power of substantive review while cancelling society's registration. Chen Khoi Kui v. Liang Miao Sheng, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 796 : 2023 INSC 827

No party should be vexed twice in a litigation for one and the same cause: supreme court on 'constructive res judicata'. Samir Kumar Majumder v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 806

Law on Constructive Res Judicata - The doctrine itself is based on public policy flowing from the age-old legal maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium which means that in the interest of the State there should be an end to litigation and no party ought to be vexed twice in a litigation for one and the same cause. (Para 35) Samir Kumar Majumder v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 806

Borrower's right to redeem mortgage extinguishes once bank publishes auction notice for secured asset. Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 808 : 2023 INSC 838

SARFAESI Act no license for bank officers to act against law. Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 808 : 2023 INSC 838

If one of the selected candidates joins and then resigns, it gives rise to a fresh vacancy which could not have been filled up without issuing a proper advertisement and following the fresh selection process. (Para 18) Sudesh Kumar Goyal v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 812 : 2023 INSC 842

An applicant does not acquire any indefeasible right to be appointed just because he/she has qualified in the selection process. (Para 17) Sudesh Kumar Goyal v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 812 : 2023 INSC 842

A candidate accused of a heinous offense cannot claim the right to appointment when the acquittal was on the 'benefit of doubt'. (Para 19) State of M.P. v. Bhupendra Yadav, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 810 : 2023 INSC 837

Appointment in Law Enforcement Agency - The yardstick to be applied in cases where the appointment sought relates to a Law Enforcement Agency, ought to be much more stringent than those applied to a routine vacancy. One must be mindful of the fact that once appointed to such a post, a responsibility would be cast on the respondent of maintaining law and order in the society, enforcing the law, dealing with arms and ammunitions, apprehending suspected criminals and protecting the life and property of the public at large. Therefore, the standard of rectitude to be applied to any person seeking appointment in a Law Enforcement Agency must always be higher and more rigourous for the simple reason that possession of a higher moral conduct is one of the basic requirements for appointment to a post as sensitive as that in the police service. (Para 18) State of M.P. v. Bhupendra Yadav, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 810 : 2023 INSC 837

Appointment - An employer has the discretion to terminate or condone an omission in the disclosure made by a candidate. While doing so, the employer must act with prudence, keep in mind the nature of the post and the duties required to be discharged. Higher the post, more stringent ought to be the standards to be applied. Even if a truthful disclosure has been made, the employer is well within its right to examine the fitness of a candidate and in a concluded criminal case, keep in mind the nature of the offence and verify whether the acquittal is honourable or benefit has been extended on technical reasons. If the employer arrives at a conclusion that the incumbent is of a suspect character or unfit for the post, he may not be appointed or continued in service. (Para 10) State of M.P. v. Bhupendra Yadav, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 810 : 2023 INSC 837

Appointment - Acquittal in the criminal case - Even though the respondent had truthfully declared that he was involved in a criminal case, on perusing the facts of the said case and the observations made in the judgement, quite clearly, this was not a case of clean acquittal. It is evident from the facts narrated that after the chargesheet was filed, the respondent had arrived at a compromise with the complainant and filed an application under Section 320 of the CrPC, based on which the offence under Section 341 IPC was compounded. As for the remaining offences for which the respondent was charged i.e. Section 354(D) of the IPC and Section 11 (D)/12 of the POCSO Act, they were non compoundable and therefore, the matter was taken to trial. The respondent was acquitted by the trial Court primarily on account of the fact that the complainant did not support the case set up by the prosecution and the other prosecution witnesses had turned hostile. In such circumstances, the respondent’s plea that he had been given a clean acquittal in the criminal case, is found to be devoid of merits. (Para 16 & 17) State of M.P. v. Bhupendra Yadav, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 810 : 2023 INSC 837

Appointment - Acquittal in the criminal case - mere acquittal of the respondent in the criminal case would not automatically entitle him to being declared fit for appointment to the subject post. The State Government has judiciously exercised its discretion after taking note of all the relevant factors 2 relating to the antecedents of the respondent. In such a case, even one criminal case faced by the respondent in which he was ultimately acquitted, apparently on the basis of being extended benefit of doubt, can make him unsuitable for appointment to the post of a Constable. The said decision taken by the State Government is not tainted by any malafides or arbitrariness for the High Court to have interfered therewith. As a result, the judgement passed by the Single Judge is upheld while quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The appeal is allowed. (Para 19) State of M.P. v. Bhupendra Yadav, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 810 : 2023 INSC 837

No pension for past service if a central govt employee resigns to join another govt post without permission. Union of India v. H.R. Vijaya Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 807

Service Law - The appellant’s claim for absorption as Assistant Teacher in the Higher Secondary Section is not tenable. It observed that the appellant was appointed as a substitute teacher in the pay scale of a primary teacher. In fact, when he filed the first round of proceedings, no plea was raised that he worked as an Assistant Teacher in the Higher Secondary Section. Even before the Tribunal, the argument was only about regularization. Before this Court too, no claim for regularization as Assistant Teacher in the Higher Secondary Section was made. The Screening Committee having considered him, pursuant to the orders of this Court, had thought it fit to absorb him only as a primary teacher; the Screening Committee itself was pursuant to the orders of this Court; the records of his appointment as a substitute teacher admittedly show that he was only appointed as a substitute primary teacher; it is on the completion of three months as substitute primary teacher that he acquired temporary status and on absorption now he became entitled to certain benefits. (Para 29 - 32) Samir Kumar Majumder v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 806

Working for a long period on a contractual basis does not create a vested right to regularization. Ganesh Digamber Jambhrunkar v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 801

Promotion given to employee continuing in service on strength of interim order will lose effect once petition is dismissed. (Para 11) Jagpal Singh v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 771 : 2023 INSC 777

Probation - Employee found unsuitable for job can be dismissed without notice during the probationary period. (Para 19) State of Punjab v. Jaswant Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 761 : 2023 INSC 798

Distinction between simpliciter termination and punitive termination - This distinction is crucial since if the order of termination is punitive or stigmatic in nature, it becomes mandatory to conduct an inquiry following the procedure and an opportunity to be heard has to be given. Failure to do so may make such termination/discharge illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice. If an enquiry or assessment is conducted with the aim of uncovering any misconduct by an employee and results in their termination, it is considered punitive in nature. Whereas, if it is focused on evaluating an employee's suitability for a specific job, the termination is considered termination simpliciter and not punitive. (Para 13) State of Punjab v. Jaswant Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 761 : 2023 INSC 798

When no time is fixed for performance, limitation runs from the period when plaintiff had notice of refusal. A. Valliammai v. K.P. Murali, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 777 : 2023 INSC 823

Mitakshara Hindu Property Succession - Tried and tested many times over, the issue of succession to Mitakshara coparcenary property continues to raise its head time and again like an undying Hydra of Lerna. (Para 1) Derha v. Vishal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 740 : 2023 INSC 785

Hindu Succession Act - To decide shares of heirs, first step is to ascertain share of deceased in coparcenary property on date of death. Derha v. Vishal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 740 : 2023 INSC 785

Material disclosed to the income tax settlement commission needn't be something which wasn't discovered by the assessing officer. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax Bangalore, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 822 : 2023 INSC 855

Dividend income from an Indian entity's establishment in Oman having ‘permanent establishment’ status under DTAA not taxable in india. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Krishak Bharti Cooperative Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 802 : 2023 INSC 834

Cooperative society not doing banking business but providing credit facilities to members eligible for Sec 80P deduction under Income Tax Act. Kerala State Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. v. Assessing Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 786 : 2023 INSC 830

No bar in assessee seeking restoration of appeal after being unsuccessful in availing amnesty scheme. P.M. Paul v. State Tax Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 774

Supreme Court upholds centre's decision to relax AGR dues payment by telecom cos; but says filing application to modify orders was more appropriate. Anshul Gupta v. Prime Minister Office, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 765

Supreme Court refuses to hold pharma company liable for not mentioning adverse reaction of vaccination, says doctor should've advised patient. Prakash Bang v. Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 764 : 2023 INSC 794

A Will is an instrument of testamentary disposition of property. It is a legally acknowledged mode of bequeathing a testator’s property during his lifetime to be acted upon on his/her death and carries with it an element of sanctity. It speaks from the death of the testator. Since the testator/testatrix, at the time of testing the document for its validity, would not be available for deposing as to the circumstances in which the Will came to be executed, stringent requisites for the proof thereof have been statutorily enjoined to rule out the possibility of any manipulation. (Para 9) Meena Pradhan v. Kamla Pradhan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 809 : 2023 INSC 847

Apart from statutory compliance, broadly it has to be proved that (a) the testator signed the Will out of his own free Will, (b) at the time of execution he had a sound state of mind, (c) he was aware of the nature and effect thereof and (d) the Will was not executed under any suspicious circumstances. (Para 11) Meena Pradhan v. Kamla Pradhan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 809 : 2023 INSC 847

Appeal from Workmen's Compensation Commission can be entertained only if there is a substantial question of law. Fulmati Dhramdev Yadav v. New India Assurance Co Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 746 : 2023 INSC 790

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Award in question is patently illegal since it lacks reasoning in arriving at conclusions and calculation of amounts awarded. The High Court’s order setting aside the award has been upheld. Appeal has been dismissed. (Para 45-46) Batliboi Environmental Engineers v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 817 : 2023 INSC 850

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Concept of justice and morality - When an Award shocks the conscience of the court, for example where the claimant has restricted his claim but the arbitral tribunal has awarded a higher amount without any reasonable ground of justification, that would be against justice. However, morality would cover illegal and unenforceable agreements but interference would be only if warranted if something shocks the court’s conscience. (Para 43) Batliboi Environmental Engineers v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 817 : 2023 INSC 850

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 28(3) - Scope of judicial interference in arbitral awards - While setting aside an arbitral award for being violative of Section 28(3) of the Act, it must be considered that the Arbitrator is empowered to interpret the contract terms reasonably. Arbitrator’s interpretation cannot be a ground for setting aside an award, since the construction of contract’s terms is finally for the arbitrator to decide. Under Section 28(3), award can only be set aside if the arbitrator interprets it in manner as no fair-minded reasonable person would do. Section 28(3) of the Act mandatorily obligates the arbitral tribunal to decide cases as per terms of the contract and by considering the usage of the trade applicable to the transaction. (Para 41-43) Batliboi Environmental Engineers v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 817 : 2023 INSC 850

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 28(3) - The meaning of patent illegality was interpreted to mean, (a) contravention of substantive law of India which goes to the root of matter and is not be trivial in nature; (b) when Arbitrator gives no reason in award in contravention with Section 31(3) of the Arbitration Act; and (c) contravention of Section 28(3) of Arbitration Act which mandatorily obligates the arbitral tribunal to decide cases as per terms of the contract and by considering the usage of the trade applicable to the transaction. (Para 43) Batliboi Environmental Engineers v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 817 : 2023 INSC 850

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34 - Scope of judicial interference in arbitral awards - Arbitral Tribunal is ultimate master of quality and quantity of evidence. An Award cannot be regarded invalid merely for being passed upon little or no evidence. It is not imperative for every Arbitrator to be trained in law like a Judge. Even if decisions are passed over equity, being just and fair, such decisions cannot be set aside alleging arbitrariness. (Para 43) Batliboi Environmental Engineers v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 817 : 2023 INSC 850

Banking Regulation Act, 1949 - Income Tax Act, 1961 - National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development Act,1981 - If a cooperative society does not transact the business of banking as defined in Section 5 (b) of the BR Act, it would not be a cooperative bank. Thus, if a co-operative society is not a ‘co-operative bank’ within the meaning of Section 56 of the BR Act, then such an entity would be entitled to deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act. But on the other hand, if it is a co-operative bank within the meaning of Section 56 of BR Act, 1949 read with the provisions of NABARD Act, 1981, then it would not be entitled to the benefit of deduction under sub-section (4) of Section 80P of the Act. (Para 15.8) Kerala State Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. v. Assessing Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 786 : 2023 INSC 830

Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Even if the Officer pleads guilty of misconduct, the Court has to satisfy that the confession is voluntary. (Para 38) Union of India v. Jogeshwar Swain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 758 : 2023 INSC 802

CCS Pension Rules; Rule 26 (2) - Unauthorized resignation from government service for another government job will result in the forfeiture of past service and pension benefits. (Para 17) Union of India v. H.R. Vijaya Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 807

Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1955 (Bihar) - Rejection of candidates for not producing original certificates – Held, if a person possesses eligibility before the date of actual selection, he cannot be denied benefit because its proof is produced later. In the present case, the proof is available and true photocopies were on record. The appellants’ candidature could not have been rejected merely because the original was not produced before the Commission at the time of interview in particular when such requirement was not mandatory, in view of the manner in which the Rules are couched. (Para 18 & 19) Sweety Kumari v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 818 : 2023 INSC 853

Civil Service Rules (Karnataka); Rule 20 Note 4 - As per the language of the said Rule, the lien of a government servant on the previous post stands protected till his or her continuation on probation period on the new post. The intention of the said rule is clear, viz., to protect the past service of the government servant in cases where the government servant is not confirmed or absorbed substantively on the new post on account of his/her failure to satisfactorily complete the probation period or for any other reason. (Para 19) L.R. Patil v. Gulbarga University, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 748 : 2023 INSC 796

Civil Service Rules (Karnataka); Rule 252(b) - 'Relieving order' cannot be treated as resignation. The said Rule makes it clear that if another appointment is taken up by a government servant with proper permission, then it cannot be termed as resignation of public service. (Para 20) L.R. Patil v. Gulbarga University, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 748 : 2023 INSC 796

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order V Rule 2 - Service contemplated in terms of Order V Rule 2 of the Code would imply service of summons along with the copy of the plaint. National Insurance Company Ltd. v. National Building Construction India Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 800

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VII Rule 11 - Rejection of Plaint and Res judicata - As far as scope of Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC is concerned, the Court can look into only the averments made in the plaint and at the highest, documents produced along with the plaint. The defence of a defendant and documents relied upon by him cannot be looked into while deciding such application. Hence, the issue of res judicata could not have been decided on an application under Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC. The reason is that the adjudication on the issue involves consideration of the pleadings in the earlier suit, the judgment of the Trial Court and the judgment of the Appellate Courts. (Para 5 & 6) Keshav Sood v. Kirti Pradeep Sood, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 799

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 100 - A Court sitting in second appellate jurisdiction is to frame substantial question of law at the time of admission, save and except in exceptional circumstances. Post such framing of questions the Court shall proceed to hear the parties on such questions, i.e., after giving them adequate time to meet and address them. It is only after such hearing subsequent to the framing that a second appeal shall come to be decided. (Para 27.1) Suresh Lataruji Ramteke v. Sumanbai Pandurang Petkar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 821 : 2023 INSC 846

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 100 - In ordinary course, the High Court in such jurisdiction does not interfere with finding of fact, however, if it does find any compelling reason to do so as regard in law, it can do but only after perusing the records of the Trial Court, on analysis of which the conclusion arrived at by such a Court is sought to be upturned. In other words, when overturning findings of fact, the Court will be required to call for the records of the Trial Court or if placed on record, peruse the same and only then question the veracity of the conclusions drawn by the Court below. (Para 27.2) Suresh Lataruji Ramteke v. Sumanbai Pandurang Petkar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 821 : 2023 INSC 846

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 100 - Second appeal can be entertained by the High Court only if the case involves a ‘substantial question of law’. (Para 12 – 14) Appaiya v. Andimuthu @ Thangapandi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 811 : 2023 INSC 835

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 115 - Where an appealable decree has been passed in a suit, no revision should be entertained under Section 115 of the CPC against an order rejecting on merits a review of that decree. The proper remedy for the party whose application for review of an appealable decree has been rejected on merits is to file an appeal against that decree and if, in the meantime, the appeal is rendered barred by time, the time spent in diligently pursuing the review application can be condoned by the Court to which an appeal is filed. (Para 28) Rahimal Bathu v. Ashiyal Beevi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 829 : 2023 INSC 861

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 100 (4) - Plea of unreliability of the testimony of the independent witness - It is a general provision relating to search and applies to a closed place, as for example, a residence, office, shop, a built-up premises etc, where a search is required to be conducted by the investigation. It is in this context that sub-section (4) of Section 100 Cr.P.C. provides that to maintain the purity of the process, before undertaking a search, a couple of independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality where the place to be searched is located, be joined as witnesses to the search. (Para 24 – 25) Balwinder Singh (Binda) v. Narcotics Control Bureau, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 813 : 2023 INSC 852

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 162 - There is nothing in Section 162 of the CrPC which prevents a Trial Judge from looking into the papers of the chargesheet suo motu and himself using the statement of a person examined by the police recorded therein for the purpose of contradicting such person when he gives evidence in favour of the State as a prosecution witness. The Judge may do this or he may make over the recorded statement to the lawyer for the accused so that he may use it for this purpose - The proviso would prevent the Court from using statements made by a person to a police officer in the course of investigation for any other purpose than that mentioned in the proviso but it does not in any other way affect the power that lies in the Court to look into documents or put questions to witnesses suo motu. (Para 45-48) Munna Pandey v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 744 : 2023 INSC 793

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 162 - Witnesses to the panchnamas and the seizures acted as mere attestors to the documents and did not disclose in their own words as to how these objects were discovered, i.e., at whose instance and how. Ergo, no lawful validity attaches to these proceedings recorded by the police in the context of collection of all this evidence. (Para 32) Rajesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 814 : 2023 INSC 839

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 313 - To enable an accused to explain the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence must be put to him. But where there has been a failure in putting those circumstances to the accused, the same would not ipso facto vitiate the trial unless it is shown that its non-compliance has prejudiced the accused. Where there is a delay in raising the plea, or the plea is raised for the first time in the Apex Court, it could be assumed that no prejudice had been felt by the accused. (Para 44) Sunil v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 815 : 2023 INSC 840

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 323 - High Court directed the Magistrate to undertake the exercise of committal in pursuant to a decision to be taken as to whether a charge can be added under Section 307 IPC only after the conclusion of the entire evidence of prosecution witness - It is not mandatory for the Magistrate to wait for the completion of the entire evidence of the prosecution witness, which is inclusive of cross-examination - Section 323 Cr.P.C. gives a discretion to the Court to exercise its power at any stage of the proceeding before signing judgment - The power under Section 323 Cr.P.C. may be invoked by the Magistrate at any stage of the proceeding prior to signing of the Judgment - The said power may be invoked even after the deposition or the examination-in-chief of a witness. The key requirement for the invocation of the power under the Section 323 is that the learned Magistrate concerned must feel that the case is one which ought to be tried by the Court of Sessions. Archana v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 742

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 366 - 368 - In a reference for confirmation of the sentence of death, the High Court is under an obligation to proceed in accordance with the provisions of Sections 367 and 368 resply of the CrPC. Under these Sections the High Court must not only see whether the order passed by the Sessions Court is correct but it is under an obligation to examine the entire evidence for itself, apart from and independently of the Sessions Court's appraisal and assessment of that evidence - The Court must examine the appeal record for itself, arrive at a view whether a further enquiry or taking of additional evidence is desirable or not, and then come to its own conclusion on the entire material on record whether conviction of the condemned prisoner is justified and the sentence of death should be confirmed - In this case, the court found serious lapses on the part of the defence in not proving major contradictions in the form of material omissions surfacing from the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses - remit the matter back to the High Court for deciding the death reference. (Para 2, 57-60) Munna Pandey v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 744 : 2023 INSC 793

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 378, 386 - An appellate court, in the case of an acquittal, must bear in mind that there is a double presumption in favour of the accused. When two views are possible, the one favouring the accused is to be leaned on. (Para 17-18) R. Sreenivasa v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 751 : 2023 INSC 803

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 378, 386 - The judgment of acquittal can be reversed by the Appellate Court only when there is perversity and not by taking a different view on reappreciation of evidence. If the conclusion of the Trial Court is plausible one, merely because another view is possible on reappreciation of evidence, the Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of acquittal and substitute its own findings to convict the accused. (Para 24) Rupesh Manger (Thapa) v. State of Sikkim, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 781 : 2023 INSC 826

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 389 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 148 - When Appellate Court considers the prayer under Section 389 Cr.P.C. of an accused who has been convicted for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it can consider whether it is an exceptional case which warrants grant of suspension of sentence without imposing the condition of deposit of 20% of the fine/compensation amount - If the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that it is an exceptional case, the reasons for coming to the said conclusion must be recorded. When an accused applies under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence, he normally applies for grant of relief of suspension of sentence without any condition. Therefore, when a blanket order is sought by the appellants, the Court has to consider whether the case falls in exception or not. (Para 7-10) Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 776 : 2023 INSC 822

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 53A - Failure to subject the accused to medical examination by a medical practitioner - A serious flaw- Medical examination of an accused assumes great importance in cases where the victim of rape is dead and the offence is sought to be established only by circumstantial evidence. (Para 24-29) Munna Pandey v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 744 : 2023 INSC 793

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 82 and 438 - Anticipatory bail can be granted to a proclaimed offender only in an exceptional and rare case. (Para 16) State of Haryana v. Dharamraj, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 739 : 2023 INSC 784

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 20(1) does not bar retrospective application of procedural changes in criminal trial. (Para 10.2) Central Bureau of Investigation v. R.R. Kishore, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 770 : 2023 INSC 817

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 20(1) has no applicability either to the validity or invalidity of Section 6A of the DSPE Act. (Para 36) Central Bureau of Investigation v. R.R. Kishore, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 770 : 2023 INSC 817

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 105(2) and 194(2) - Powers, privileges and immunities of the members of the Houses of Parliament and the State Legislatures. Do MPs/MLAs have immunity from criminal proceedings when they take bribes for votes? The judgement in P.V. Narasmiha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE), (1998) 4 SCC 626 had held that legislators enjoyed immunity from prosecution in cases of bribery in relation to parliamentary vote and speech. However, the immunity would only be extended if the legislators carried out the act that they had taken the bribe for. In other words, if a legislator took a bribe to vote for a particular candidate but later decided to not go ahead with the same and voted for someone else, the immunity would not be extended to them. Held, the correctness of the majority view in P.V. Narasmiha Rao should be reconsidered by a larger Bench of seven judges. (Para 24) Sita Soren v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 823 : 2023 INSC 856

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution can be invoked even suo motu in compelling cases. While considering the appeal filed by another accused person, the Court noted that the evidences against all the accused persons were the same. Hence, the benefit of acquittal given to one accused has to be extended to the other accused also, even if they haven't approached the Supreme Court. (Para 17) Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 782 : 2023 INSC 829

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - No Special Leave Petition can be filed against the administrative order - Article 136 contemplates only special leave petition to the Court from adjudication of courts and tribunals and such adjudication must doubtless be judicial. Nimmanapally Surya Reddy v. Honorable Chief Justice High Court of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 755

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 19(1)(a), 14 and 21 - Indian Penal Code 1860; Section 124A - Constitutional validity of Sedition Law - Held, the provisions of Section 124A of the IPC continue to remain on the statute book. Even if the new law which is proposed to be placed by the Government before the legislature results in a modification of the existing provision of Section 124A, there is a presumption that a penal statute would have prospective and not retrospective effect. Existing prosecutions under Section 124A will likely be governed by that provision. Consequently, the validity of the prosecutions which have been launched or would be launched so long as Section 124A continues to remain on the statute would have to be assessed under it. The issue of the validity of the provision for the period that it continues to operate would, therefore, need to be determined. (Para 7 & 8) S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 780

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 19(1)(a), 14 and 21 - Indian Penal Code 1860; Section 124A - In Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, 1962 Supp (2) SCR 769 the Constitution Bench upheld the provisions of Section 124A. The provisions of Section 124A have only been tested on the anvil of Article 19(1)(a). In view of the development of law that has taken place in the six decades since the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Kedar Nath Singh, it would be necessary to re-evaluate the validity of Section 124A on the basis of the doctrines which have evolved in those years particularly having a bearing on the ambit of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The submissions which have been urged on behalf of the petitioners would warrant consideration by a Bench of at least five Judges of this Court. Held, the appropriate course of action for a three Judge Bench of this Court would be to direct that the papers be placed before the Chief Justice of India so that, if so considered appropriate, the batch of cases can be heard by a Bench of five or more Judges, since the decision in Kedar Nath Singh’s case (supra) was rendered by a Constitution Bench. (Para 13) S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 780

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 22 (4) - Preventive detention law cannot authorise the detention of a person beyond 3 (three) months unless an Advisory Board finds sufficient cause for such detention. (Para 59) Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 743 : 2023 INSC 788

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 and 324 - PIL for an independent audit of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs') source codes - No evidence presented by petitioner to show Election Commission's breach of its constitutional duties. The Court refrains from issuing directives on policy matters like EVM source code audits that concern election integrity, under the Election Commission's purview. No indication that the Commission isn't fulfilling its role. Petition dismissed. (Para 5) Sunit Ahya v. Election Commission of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 824

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - The Supreme Court has upheld the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) where the Commission had held that no case of deficiency of service was made out against drug-manufacturer, Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd, in relation to administration of vaccine Engerix-B. The complainant had failed to prove the allegations with the minimal required evidence even on a preponderance of probability. Non-mentioning of ‘myositis’ as an adverse reaction in the literature accompanying the injection or on the ‘vial’, did not amount to ‘deficiency of service’ on part of the pharmaceutical company, more particularly when the adverse reaction was to the minimal level, i.e., 0.02 in one million. Prakash Bang v. Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 764 : 2023 INSC 794

Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Section 2(1)(d) - ‘consumer’ - ‘commercial purpose’ - A person buying goods either for resale or for use in large-scale profit-making activity, will not be a ‘consumer’ entitled to protection of the Act - If the dominant purpose of purchasing the goods or services is for a profit motive and the said fact is evident from the record, such purchaser would not fall under the ambit of ‘consumer’, as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. However, the Explanation clarifies that even purchases in certain situations for ‘commercial purposes’ would not take within its sweep the purchaser out of the definition of expression ‘consumer’. In other words, if the commercial use is by the purchaser himself for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment, such purchaser of goods would continue to be a ‘consumer’. Rohit Chaudhary v. Vipul Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 754 : 2023 INSC 807

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Although the transfer of the suit property pendente lite may not be termed as void ab initio yet when the court is looking into such transfers in contempt proceedings the court can definitely declare such transactions to be void in order to maintain the majesty of law. Apart from punishing the contemnor, for his contumacious conduct, the majesty of law may demand that appropriate directions be issued by the court so that any advantage secured as a result of such contumacious conduct is completely nullified. This may include issue of directions either for reversal of the transactions by declaring such transactions to be void or passing appropriate directions to the concerned authorities to ensure that the contumacious conduct on the part of the contemnor does not continue to enure to the advantage of the contemnor or any one claiming under him. (Para 116 (iii)) Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari v. Hiralal Somabhai Contractor, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 750 : 2023 INSC 805

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - The apology tendered should not be accepted as a matter of course and the court is not bound to accept the same. The apology may be unconditional, unqualified and bona fide, still if the conduct is serious, which has caused damage to the dignity of the institution, the same should not be accepted. There ought not to be a tendency by courts, to show compassion when disobedience of an undertaking or an order is with impunity and with total consciousness. (Para 116 (v)) Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari v. Hiralal Somabhai Contractor, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 750 : 2023 INSC 805

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - The beneficiaries of any contumacious transaction have no right or locus to be heard in the contempt proceedings on the ground that they are bona fide purchasers of the property for value without notice and therefore, are necessary parties. Contempt is between the court and the contemnor and no third party can involve itself into the same. (Para 116 (iv)) Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari v. Hiralal Somabhai Contractor, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 750 : 2023 INSC 805

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - There exists a distinction between an undertaking given to a party to the lis and the undertaking given to a court. The undertaking given to a court attracts the provisions of the Act 1971 whereas an undertaking given to a party to the lis by way of an agreement of settlement or otherwise would not attract the provisions of the Act 1971. In the facts of the present case, we hold that the undertaking was given to the High Court and the breach or disobedience would definitely attract the provisions of the Act 1971. (Para 116 (ii)) Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari v. Hiralal Somabhai Contractor, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 750 : 2023 INSC 805

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; Section 2 (b) - Assurance in the form of an undertaking given by a counsel / advocate on behalf of his client to the court; the wilful breach or disobedience of the same would amount to “civil contempt”. (Para 116 (i)) Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari v. Hiralal Somabhai Contractor, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 750 : 2023 INSC 805

Copyright Act, 1957 – Infringement - Passing-off Action - In a suit for passing off, for establishing goodwill of the product, it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove not only the figures of sale of the product but also the expenditure incurred on promotion and advertisement of the product. Though the statement of sales, advertisement and sale promotion expenses certified by a Chartered Accountant, were exhibited by the plaintiff in the suit before the Trial Court, the Chartered Accountant was not examined to prove the statements. Though the statements may constitute a material for examining whether a prima facie case was made out against the opposite party by the plaintiff, however, at the time of the final hearing of the suit, the figures must be proved in a manner known to law. (Para 13) Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. v. Yashwantrao Mohite Krushna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 784 : 2023 INSC 831

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 – Section 6A of the DSPE Act is a part of the procedure only in the form of a protection to senior government servants. It does not introduce any new offence nor it enhances the punishment or sentence. (Para 24) Central Bureau of Investigation v. R.R. Kishore, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 770 : 2023 INSC 817

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946; Section 6A - Whether a 2014 judgment striking down Section 6A (1) of the DSPE Act which mandated central government sanction for investigations involving certain government officials, would retrospectively apply to pending cases. Held, once a law is declared to be unconstitutional, being violative of Part-III of the Constitution, then it would be held to be void ab initio, still born, unenforceable and non-est in view of Article 13(2) of the Constitution and its interpretation by authoritative pronouncements. Thus, the declaration made by the Constitution Bench in the case of Subramanian Swamy v. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, (2014) 8 SCC 682 will have retrospective operation. Section 6A of the DSPE Act is held to be not in force from the date of its insertion i.e. 11.09.2003. (Para 43) Central Bureau of Investigation v. R.R. Kishore, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 770 : 2023 INSC 817

Employees Compensation Act, 1923 - Officers of the Railway Protection Force (RPF) are entitled to claim compensation under the 1923 Act, despite the RPF being designated as an armed force of the Union. The case arose when the heirs of an RPF Constable, who died during his employment, sought compensation under the 1923 Act. The Appellant contended that as a part of the Armed Forces of the Union, the deceased was not a 'workman' under the Act. The Apex Court rejected this contention, emphasizing the lack of legislative intent to exclude RPF members from the benefits of the 1923 Act, even after its designation as an armed force. The definition of a 'Railway Servant' in the Railways Act, 1989, includes RPF members, making them eligible for compensation under the 1923 Act. The designation of the RPF as an "armed force of the Union" did not automatically exempt its members from the provisions of the 1923 Act, unless such intent was evident. (Para 61) Railway Protection Special Force v. Bhavnaben Dinshbhai Bhabhor, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 835 : 2023 INSC 859

Employees Compensation Act, 1923 - Social welfare legislation must be given a beneficial construction – Matters thereunder are to be adjudicated with due process of law and also with a keen awareness of the scope and intent of the Act. (Para 30) Fulmati Dhramdev Yadav v. New India Assurance Co Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 746 : 2023 INSC 790

Employees Compensation Act, 1923; Section 30 - An appeal from an order of Commissioner can be entertained only if there exists a substantial question of law to be considered – Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts – The other ground making the order under challenge, amenable to interference when the scope of jurisdiction is circumscribed by it being exercised only in cases of “substantial question of law”, is perversity in the findings. (Para 17- 21) Fulmati Dhramdev Yadav v. New India Assurance Co Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 746 : 2023 INSC 790

Evidence Act 1872; Sections 65, 74, 77 and 79 - Registration Act, 1908; Section 57 (5) - Certified copy of an original sale deed is admissible in evidence in a trial. (Para 29) Appaiya v. Andimuthu @ Thangapandi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 811 : 2023 INSC 835

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 27 - For a confession made to the police to be admissible, two essential conditions must be met: the individual must be 'accused of any offence,' and they must be in 'police custody' at the time the confession is made. (Para 22) Rajesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 814 : 2023 INSC 839

Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973; Sections 56, 57, 61 - Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999; Sections 49 (1), (3), (4) - Enforcement Officer appointed and authorised under the repealed provisions of the FERA, will continue to have the authority and competence to file a complaint for the offences punishable under the Act before the expiry of the sunset period of 2 years provided under Section 49(3) of the FEMA. (Para 11) First Global Stockbroking Pvt. Ltd. v. Anil Rishiraj, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 820 : 2023 INSC 845

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Section 16 - Rights of children born out of invalid marriages in their parents' share in Hindu joint family property – Held, a child born from a void or voidable marriage is entitled to the parents share in a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) governed by Mitakshara law; however, such a child cannot be treated as a coparcener by birth in the HUF. The very concept of a coparcener postulates the acquisition of an interest by birth. If a person born from a void or voidable marriage to whom legitimacy is conferred by sub-sections (1) or (2) of Section 16 were to have an interest by birth in a Hindu Undivided Family governed by Mitakshara law, this would certainly affect the rights of others apart from the parents of the child. When an individual falls within the protective ambit of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 16, they would be entitled to rights in or to the absolute property of the parents and no other person. (Para 51) Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 737 : 2023 INSC 783

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Section 16 - Rights of children born out of invalid marriages in their parents' share in Hindu joint family property – Children born out of void/voidable marriages are entitled to inherit a share in the property of their deceased parents which would have been allotted to them on a notional partition of the Hindu coparcenary property. However, such children are not entitled to the properties of any coparcener other than their parents. This ruling is applicable only to Hindu joint family properties governed by Hindu Mitakshara law. (Para 55) Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 737 : 2023 INSC 783

Hindu Succession Act, 1955; Section 6 - In order to ascertain the shares of the heirs in the property of a deceased coparcener, the first step is to ascertain the share of the deceased himself in the coparcenary property and Explanation 1 to Section 6 provides a fictional expedient, namely, that his share is deemed to be the share in the property that would have been allotted to him if a partition had taken place immediately before his death - Once that assumption has been made for the purpose of ascertaining the share of the deceased, one cannot go back on the assumption and ascertain the shares of the heirs without reference to it, and all the consequences which flow from a real partition have to be logically worked out, which means that the shares of the heirs must be ascertained on the basis that they had separated from one another and had received a share in the partition which had taken place during the life-time of the deceased. In effect, the heir will get his or her share in the interest which the deceased had in the coparcenary property at the time of his death, in addition to the share which he or she received or must be deemed to have received in the notional partition. (Para 11-12) Derha v. Vishal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 740 : 2023 INSC 785

Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (Prevention and Control) Act, 2017 - Issued directions to the Central and State Governments to ensure the effective implementation of the HIV Act. (Para 93) CPL Ashish Kumar Chauhan (Retd.) v. Commanding Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 826 : 2023 INSC 857

Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (Prevention and Control) Act, 2017; Section 34 - All courts, tribunals, and quasi-judicial bodies in the country should prioritize cases relating to HIV-infected persons for early disposal. Steps should be taken to maintain the anonymity of HIV-infected individuals. (Para 93 (12)) Ashish Kumar Chauhan (Retd.) v. Commanding Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 826 : 2023 INSC 857

Income Tax Act, 1961 - If an Indian Entity’s Establishment is operating in Oman and has a ‘Permanent Establishment’ (PE) status under Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”), then the dividend income received by the Indian Entity from such Establishment would not be taxable under Indian Taxation laws. (Para 16 - 18) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Krishak Bharti Cooperative Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 802 : 2023 INSC 834

Income Tax Act, 1961; Sections 245C, 245D, 245H, 271 (1)(c) - Section 245H of the Act, which empowers the Settlement Commission to grant immunity from prosecution and penalty to the assessee if he has co-operated with the Settlement Commission and has made “full and true disclosure of his income”, cannot be saddled with an artificial requirement that the material “disclosed” by the assessee before the Commission must be something apart from what was “discovered” by the Assessing Officer. (Para 7) Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax Bangalore, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 822 : 2023 INSC 855

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Admitting claims after the Resolution Plan has been accepted by the Committee of Creditors (COC) under IBC even though the Adjudicating Authority has yet to approve the plan, would make the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) an endless process. (Para 21) RPS Infrastructure Ltd. v. Mukul Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 773 : 2023 INSC 816

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Once the Resolution Plan stands approved by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), the Electricity Department cannot demand payment of arrears, which were payable by the Corporate Debtor, from the Successful Resolution Applicant for restoration/grant of electricity connection. The ‘clean slate principle’ would stand negated if the Successful Resolution Applicant is asked to pay the arrears payable by the Corporate Debtor for the grant of an electricity connection in her/his name. Tata Power Western Odisha Distribution Ltd. v. Jagannath Sponge Pvt. Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 788

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 15 of the IBC and Regulation 6 of the IBBI Regulations mandate a public announcement of the CIRP through newspapers. This would constitute deemed knowledge on the appellant. In any case, their plea of not being aware of newspaper pronouncements is not one which should be available to a commercial party. (Para 20) RPS Infrastructure Ltd. v. Mukul Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 773 : 2023 INSC 816

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Whether the delay in the filing of claim by the appellant ought to have been condoned by the Resolution Professional. Held, The IBC is a time bound process. There are, of course, certain circumstances in which the time can be increased. The question is whether the present case would fall within those parameters. The delay on the part of the appellant is of 287 days. The appellant is a commercial entity. That they were litigating against the Corporate Debtor is an undoubted fact. We believe that the appellant ought to have been vigilant enough in the aforesaid circumstances to find out whether the Corporate Debtor was undergoing CIRP. The appellant has been deficient on this aspect. The result, of course, is that the appellant to an extent has been left high and dry. (Para 19) RPS Infrastructure Ltd. v. Mukul Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 773 : 2023 INSC 816

Insurance Act, 1938; Section 38 - Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) is not entitled to levy a service charge or fee for endorsing the assignment or transfer of a policy. (Para 9) Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Dravya Finance Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 759 : 2023 INSC 815

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000; Section 16 r/w 15(1)(g) - If the date of birth of the petitioner is 02.05.1989, he was 16 years 7 months old as on the date of the crime, i.e., 21.12.2005. Accordingly, the petitioner was a juvenile in conflict with the law on the date of commission of the offence. The maximum period for which the petitioner could have been in custody is three years. However, as the plea of juvenility was raised for the first time in the present writ petition before us, the process of criminal law, which commenced in 2005, led to the petitioner being convicted and sentence for life imprisonment concurrently by the Trial Court, the High Court as well as the Supreme Court. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has undergone more than 12 years of imprisonment. Having accepted the report of the II Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioner can no longer be incarcerated. (Para 6 – 8) Makkella Nagaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 757 : 2023 INSC 800

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015; Section 75 - Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323 and 504 - Muzaffarnagar school student slapping case, in which a primary school teacher punished a Muslim boy by asking other students to slap him. Held, the victim must have undergone trauma. The State Government to ensure that proper counselling is extended to the victim of the offence through an expert child counsellor. Even the other students, who were involved in the incident, in the sense that they allegedly followed the mandate issued by the teacher and assaulted the victim, need counselling by an expert child counsellor. The State Government will take immediate steps to do the needful by providing services of an expert child counsellor. Tushar Gandhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 843

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015; Section 75 - Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323 and 504 - Student slapping case - Physical punishment inflicted upon a student who belongs to a minority community. Considering the manner in which the Police have delayed action and especially the fact that though a case of cognizable offence was made out, only a non-cognizable case was reported, we direct that the investigation shall be conducted under the supervision of a senior IPS Officer, nominated by the State Government. The IPS Officer so nominated will go into the question of whether the second proviso to Section 75 of the JJ Act is attracted and whether Section 153A of the IPC needs to be applied. Tushar Gandhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 843

Limitation Act, 1963; Article 54 - Specific Performance of Contract - When no time is fixed for performance, limitation runs from the period when the plaintiff had notice of refusal. (Para 27) A. Valliammai v. K.P. Murali, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 777 : 2023 INSC 823

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957; Sections 10-A, 10-A (1), 10-A (2)(b) - Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 - Concession Rules, 2016; Rule 61 and Proviso - Exceptions applicable to Section 10-A (1) of the MMDR Act - Where a prospecting licence has been granted to the permit holder or the licensee has the right to obtain a prospecting licence followed by a mining lease, and the State Government is satisfied that the permit holder or the licensee has complied with the requirements specified in Section 10- A (2)(b) of the MMDR Act, the bar of Section 10-A (1) shall not be applicable. Another exception was when the Central Government had already communicated their previous approval or the State Government had issued a ‘Letter of Intent’ for grant of mining lease before coming into force of the 2015 Amendment Act. (Para 14) State of West Bengal v. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 787 : 2023 INSC 824

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The primary issue which has been referred to the Constitution Bench is whether a person holding a driving licence in respect of a “light motor vehicle” could on the strength of the licence be entitled to drive a “transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class” having unladen weight not exceeding 7500 kgs. In Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2017) 14 SCC 663, a 3-judge Bench held that a separate endorsement in the "Light Motor Vehicle" driving licence was not required to drive a transport vehicle having unladen weight below 7500 kgs. Thus, a person holding an LMV driving licence was entitled to drive a "transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class" having an unladen weight not exceeding 7500 kgs. In 2022, the dictum in Mukund Dewangan was doubted by a coordinate bench and the matter was referred to a 5-judge bench. Held, statutory issue combined with social policy, not an interpretative exercise to be carried by court. An interpretation given by the Court could impact the livelihood of hordes of drivers. Therefore, the Central Government should consider bringing appropriate legislative amendments to strike a balance between the livelihood issue and road safety concerns. (Para 14) Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Rambha Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 793 : 2023 INSC 832

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 53 - Any confessional statement made by an accused to an officer invested with the powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act, is barred for the reason that such officers are “police officers” within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, a statement made by an accused and recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. (Para 10) Balwinder Singh (Binda) v. Narcotics Control Bureau, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 813 : 2023 INSC 852

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 54 - For attracting the provisions of Section 54 of the NDPS Act, the prosecution must first establish possession of contraband by the accused, only then will the burden shift to the accused to prove his innocence. The possession of the contraband must be proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. (Para 16) Balwinder Singh (Binda) v. Narcotics Control Bureau, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 813 : 2023 INSC 852

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 138 and 142(2)(a) - Territorial Jurisdiction - When the case was fixed for final arguments, the Magistrate, on examining the records, came to the conclusion that the court did not have territorial jurisdiction. No opportunity was granted to the complainant to take remedial steps. The Magistrate passed the order without realizing the legal consequences as well as the fact that the trial had remained pending for more than four years and had proceeded without any objection to territorial jurisdiction, till the stage of final arguments. There was a lapse and proper legal guidance, which was not provided to the complainant. Held, that the complainant should not suffer on account of lack of proper legal assistance. Procedural defect / lapse, had a remedy, and was not substantial as to constitute lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Code is procedural in nature and technical defects and irregularities should not come in the way of substantial justice. Bijoy Shankar Mishra v. State of Jharkhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 798

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 138, 139 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - If the question as to whether the debt or liability being barred by limitation was an issue to be considered in such proceedings, the same is to be decided based on the evidence to be adduced by the parties since the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact. It is only in cases wherein an amount which is out and out non-recoverable, towards which a cheque is issued, dishonoured and for recovery of which a criminal action is initiated, the question of threshold jurisdiction will arise. In such cases, the Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC will be justified in interfering but not otherwise. K. Hymavathi v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 752 : 2023 INSC 811

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 148 - Normally, Appellate Court will be justified in imposing the condition of deposit as provided in Section 148. However, in a case where the Appellate Court is satisfied that the condition of deposit of 20% will be unjust or imposing such a condition will amount to deprivation of the right of appeal of the appellant, exception can be made for the reasons specifically recorded. (Para 5 - 6) Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 776 : 2023 INSC 822

Passengers and Goods Taxation Act, 1955 (Himachal Pradesh); Sections 3(1) and 3 (1-A) - Amendment and Validation Act, 1997 - It is permissible for the legislature to remove a defect in an earlier legislation, as pointed out by a constitutional court in exercise of its powers of judicial review. The defect can be removed both prospectively and retrospectively by a legislative process and previous actions can also be validated. However, where a legislature merely seeks to validate the acts carried out under a previous legislation which has been struck down or rendered inoperative by a Court, by a subsequent legislation without curing the defects in such legislation, the subsequent legislation would also be ultra-vires. NHPC Ltd. v. State of Himachal Pradesh Secretary, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 756

Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 153A, 505(2) and 504 - Quashing of FIR - Abusive and derogatory comments about holder of a high office - The law enforcement agency is still investigating the alleged commission of offences and they ought to decide on future course of action after completion of investigation. At this stage it is not a fit case for interference. Sachin Chaudhary v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 797

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302/34 or 307/34 - To fasten liability with the aid of Section 34 IPC what must necessarily be proved is a common intention to commit the crime actually committed and each accused person can be convicted of that crime, only if it is in furtherance of the common intention of all. Common intention pre-supposes a prior concert, though pre-concert in the sense of a distinct previous plan is not necessary as common intention to bring about a particular result may develop on the spot. The question whether there was any common intention or not depends upon the inference to be drawn from the proven facts and circumstances of each case. The totality of the circumstances must be taken into consideration in arriving at the conclusion whether the accused had a common intention to commit an offence with which they could be convicted. (Para 29) Sunil v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 815 : 2023 INSC 840

Penal Code, 1860; Section 304B - Dowry Death - Validity and credibility of dying declaration - The High Court had partly upheld the conviction of the appellant / husband under Section 304B IPC for dowry death. The primary evidence against the appellant was the dying declaration of the deceased-wife, which alleged that the appellant had set her on fire after a disagreement over dowry. Held, doubts regarding the voluntary nature of the dying declaration and its recording, including discrepancies in testimony concerning the deceased's fitness to provide such a statement. The High Court's selective belief in the dying declaration (disbelieving parts of it concerning father-in-law but relying on it for the husband) raised further questions about its credibility. Evidence from the Investigating Officer suggested a different conclusion concerning the circumstances of the incident. The testimonies provided by the relatives of the deceased regarding harassment due to dowry were vague, and no concrete evidence was presented to substantiate the claims. Given these findings, the dying declaration was not free from doubt and that the charge under Section 304B IPC (harassment due to non-fulfillment of dowry demand) was not conclusively proven. The Court acquitted the appellant of all charges and set aside the judgments of the trial court and the High Court. (Para 10 – 18) Phulel Singh v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 833 : 2023 INSC 863

Penal Code, 1860; Section 364A r/w. 120B, 302 and 201 - A young boy in the first flush of youth was cruelly done to death and the wrongdoers necessarily had to be brought to book for the injustice done to him and his family. However, the manner in which the police tailored their investigation, with complete indifference to the essential norms in proceeding against the accused and in gathering evidence; leaving important leads unchecked and glossing over other leads that did not suit the story that they had conceived; and, ultimately, in failing to present a cogent, conceivable and fool-proof chain of events pointing to the guilt of the appellants, with no possibility of any other hypothesis, leaves us with no option but to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused. (Para 38) Rajesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 814 : 2023 INSC 839

Penal Code, 1860; Section 364A r/w. 120B, 302 and 201 - It is indeed perplexing that, despite the innumerable weak links and loopholes in the prosecution’s case, the Trial Court as well as the High Court were not only inclined to accept the same at face value but went to the extent of imposing and sustaining capital punishment. No valid and acceptable reasons were put forth as to why this case qualified as the ‘rarest of rare cases’, warranting such drastic punishment. Per contra, held, that the yawning infirmities and gaps in the chain of circumstantial evidence in this case warrant acquittal of the accused by giving them the benefit of doubt. The degree of proof required to hold them guilty beyond reasonable doubt, on the strength of circumstantial evidence, is clearly not established. (Para 39) Rajesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 814 : 2023 INSC 839

Penal Code, 1860; Section 84 - Standard of proof to prove the lunacy or insanity is only ‘reasonable doubt - A distinction is to be made between legal insanity and medical insanity. The court is concerned with legal insanity and not with medical insanity. (Para 19 - 22) Rupesh Manger (Thapa) v. State of Sikkim, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 781 : 2023 INSC 826

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 341, 302 r/w. 34 - All the five accused persons called the deceased a witch who is the cause of trouble to the villagers as she used to indulge in witchcraft. The nature of injuries which have been caused on the head of the deceased with the deadly weapons proves that they had assembled with the common intention and not merely to threaten her or to deter her from practicing witchcraft. In the light of the clinching evidence and in the absence of any specific lacuna in the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence adduced, held, that the trial court had not committed any error in convicting and sentencing the accused persons with imprisonment of life. The conviction and sentence have rightly been affirmed by the High Court. (Para 19) Bhaktu Gorain v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 779 : 2023 INSC 821

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 498A, 304B r/w. 34 – Dowry Death - Poisoning - Absence of detection of poison in the viscera report alone need not be treated as a conclusive proof of the fact that the victim has not died of poison. In certain circumstances, traces of poison may not be found in the body due to evaporation, vomiting, purging, and detoxification processes. Where the deceased dies as a result of poisoning, it is difficult to successfully isolate the poison and recognize it. Lack of positive evidence in this respect would not result in throwing out the entire prosecution case, if the other circumstances clearly point out the guilt of the accused. (Para 29, 30 & 33) Buddhadeb Saha v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 794

Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961; Rule 185 - Disability Pension - The appellant, after serving the Indian Army for 15 years until 1987 and having an exemplary service record, was diagnosed with a "complete heart block." He was placed in the permanent low medical category, qualifying for a hundred percent disability treatment. Despite being granted a disability pension, the Armed Forces Appellate Tribunal (AFT) limited its duration to one year. The key contention was the appellant's refusal to undergo a potentially life-threatening surgery, which the Medical Board considered while assessing his disability. The Court emphasized Rule 185 of the Pension Regulations for the Army-1961, which prescribes that, if a disability is deemed incapable of improvement, the disability pension should be granted for 10 years initially, subject to reassessment. The AFT had either overlooked or not justified its deviation from this rule. The Court set aside the Tribunal's one-year confinement, directing that the appellant receive his disability pension for 10 years, after which a re-assessment would be in order, in line with Rule 185. The arrears and payments for the pension are restricted to three years prior to his appeal to the Tribunal and the relevant future duration. The appeal was thus allowed. Ex L/NK Rajput Ajit Singh v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 831

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) - In the instant case the pre-trap and post-trap proceedings were duly proved by the prosecution by examining the concerned witnesses, who had duly supported the case of prosecution. Both the courts below have recorded the findings that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt the conscious acceptance of the tainted currency by the accused and also the recovery of tainted currency from the accused. Therefore, the burden had shifted on the accused to dispel the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the said Act, and prove that it was not accepted as a motive or reward for the performance of his public duty, which the accused had failed to dispel. The explanation offered by the accused did not tally with the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The High Court had also recorded that the defence taken by the accused that the acceptance of tainted currency by him was towards the Audit fees of the Society was not proved by him in as much as there was nothing on record to show that the amount paid by the complainant to the accused was out of the funds of the Society. Both the courts have appreciated the evidence on record threadbare in the right perspective and have found the accused guilty for the offence. (Para 12 - 14) P. Sarangapani v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 819 : 2023 INSC 844

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 7 and 20 - Presumption where public servant accepts any undue advantage - Once the undue advantage i.e., any gratification whatever, other than the legal remuneration is proved to have been accepted by the accused, the Court is entitled to raise the presumption under Section 20 that he accepted the undue advantage as a motive or reward under Section 7 for performing or to cause performance of a public duty improperly or dishonestly. No doubt, such presumption is rebuttable. (Para 11) P. Sarangapani v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 819 : 2023 INSC 844

Railways Act, 1989 - Employees Compensation Act, 1923 - Whether the availability of an alternative remedy to claim compensation under Sections 124 and 124-A of the 1989 Act prevents a claim under the 1923 Act? Held, as per Section 128 of the 1989 Act, a person retains the right to claim compensation under the 1923 Act or any other existing law, even if they have the right to compensation under Section 124 or Section 124-A of the 1989 Act. However, the condition is that compensation cannot be claimed multiple times for the same accident. In the present case, there was no evidence to suggest that the respondents had already received compensation for the same accident under another law before making a claim under the 1923 Act. Consequently, their claim under the 1923 Act was not precluded due to the alternative remedy available under the 1989 Act. (Para 62 & 63) Railway Protection Special Force v. Bhavnaben Dinshbhai Bhabhor, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 835 : 2023 INSC 859

Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - More than a decade back, the Apex Court had expressed serious concern despite its repeated pronouncements in regard to the High Courts ignoring the availability of statutory remedies under the RDBFI Act and the SARFAESI Act and exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Even after, the decision in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon, (2010) 8 SCC 110, it appears that the High Courts have continued to exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 ignoring the statutory remedies under the RDBFI Act and the SARFAESI Act. (Para 96) Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 808 : 2023 INSC 838

Registration Act, 1908; Section 49 - an unregistered lease deed (which is otherwise compulsorily registrable) can be admitted in evidence to show the ‘nature and character of possession’, only when the ‘nature and character of possession’ is not the main term of the lease and is not the primary dispute before the Court for adjudication. Paul Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Amit Chand Mitra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 827 : 2023 INSC 854

Registration Act, 1961 (West Bengal) - The Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the Calcutta High Court where it was held that the Registrar of Society can only cancel registration granted to a society under the Act, 1961, by exercising a power of procedural review. The High Court was of the view that there is a vital difference between a power of substantive review and procedural review, and the former was not available to the Registrar while deciding an application for cancellation of registration. The High Court observed that the Registrar had proceeded to exercise his power of substantive review, that too without reference to the application for registration that succeeded, while passing the cancellation order. Chen Khoi Kui v. Liang Miao Sheng, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 796 : 2023 INSC 827

Registration of Electors (Amendment) Rules 2022; Rule 26B - Submission of the Adhar number is not mandatory for electoral rolls. The Election Commission of India has given an undertaking to the Supreme Court that it will issue "appropriate clarificatory changes" in Forms 6 and 6B (for Registration in E-Roll) which required details of Aadhaar number for the purpose of electoral roll authentication for new voters. (Para 2) G. Niranjan v. Election Commission of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 805

Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 - Quality education cannot be achieved if a student is penalised based on their religion. Tushar Gandhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 843

Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 - Uttar Pradesh Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 - When the object of the RTE Act is to provide quality education, unless there is an effort made to inculcate the importance of constitutional values in the students, especially the core values of equality, secularism and fraternity, there cannot be any quality education. There cannot be quality education if, in a school, a student is sought to be penalised only on the ground that he belongs to a particular community. Thus, there is a prima facie failure on the part of the State to comply with the mandatory obligations under the RTE Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Tushar Gandhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 843

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - In cases even of specified disabilities, in all cases the standard of 40% may result in “one size fit all” norm which will exclude eligible candidates. The Union, therefore, shall consider the steps to mitigate such anomalies, because a lower extent of disabilities bar benefits and at the same time render them functional, whereas higher extent of disability would entitle benefits, but also result in denying them the benefit of reservation. The National Commission and the Central Government are directed to consider the problem and work out suitable solutions to enable effective participation. (Para 13) Bambhaniya Sagar Vasharambhai v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 841

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - MBBS Admission in PwD Quota - Disability Assessment Report - Persons with disabilities should not be excluded from MBBS courses merely on the basis of a quantitative assessment of their disabilities. The assessment of the disabilities must have a cogent reasoning as to how such candidates will be unable to pursue the medical courses. (Para 7) Bambhaniya Sagar Vasharambhai v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 841

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 13 (8) - Once the borrower fails to tender the entire amount of dues with all cost & charges to the secured creditor before the publication of auction notice, his right of redemption of mortgage shall stand extinguished / waived on the date of publication of the auction notice in the newspaper in accordance with Rule 8 of the Rules of 2002. (Para 88) Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 808 : 2023 INSC 838

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 13 (8) - Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002; Rule 8 - Sanctity of Public Auction - It is the duty of the courts to zealously protect the sanctity of any auction conducted. The courts ought to be loath in interfering with auctions, otherwise it would frustrate the very object and purpose behind auctions and deter public confidence and participation in the same. Any other interpretation of the amended Section 13(8) will lead to a situation where multiple redemption offers would be encouraged by a mischievous borrower, the members of the public would be dissuaded and discouraged from in participating in the auction process and the overall sanctity of the auction process would be frustrated thereby defeating the very purpose of the SARFAESI Act. Thus, it is in the larger public interest to maintain the sanctity of the auction process under the SARFAESI Act. (Para 86 - 87) Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 808 : 2023 INSC 838

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction by the high court under Article 226 of the Constitution in SARFAESI matters - High Courts should not entertain petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. (Para 92 – 96) Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 808 : 2023 INSC 838

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - The High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution could not have applied equitable considerations to overreach the outcome contemplated by the statutory auction process prescribed under the SARFAESI Act. (Para 105 (v)) Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 808 : 2023 INSC 838

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 13 (8) - Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002; Rule 9(1) - Borrower's right of redemption of mortgage under the SARFAESI Act will get extinguished once the bank publishes an auction notice for the sale of the secured asset. (Para 105 (iii)) Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 808 : 2023 INSC 838

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - The High Court was not justified in exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution more particularly when the borrowers had already availed the alternative remedy available to them under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. (Para 105 (i)) Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 808 : 2023 INSC 838

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 13 (8) - The two decisions of the Telangana High Court in the case of Concern Readymix v. Authorised Officer, 2018 SCC OnLine Hyd 783 and Amme Srisailam v. Union Bank of India do not lay down the correct position of law. In the same way, the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of M/s Pal Alloys and Metal India Pvt. Ltd. v. Allahabad Bank, 2021 SCC OnLine P&H 2733 also does not lay down the correction position of law. The decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in n Sri. Sai Annadhatha Polymers v. Canara Bank, 2018 SCC OnLine Hyd 178 and the decision of the Telangana High Court in the case of K.V.V. Prasad Rao Gupta v. State Bank of India, 2021 SCC OnLine TS 328 lay down the correct position of law while interpreting the amended Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act. (Para 105 (vi) & (vii) Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 808 : 2023 INSC 838

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 13 (2) – Conduct of the Bank - Bank is duty bound to follow the provisions of the law as any other litigant. the authorised officer and the Bank cannot act in a manner so as to keep the sword hanging on the neck of the auction purchaser. The law treats everyone equally and that includes the Bank and its officers. The said enactments were enacted for speedy recovery and for benefitting the public at large and does not give any license to the Bank officers to act de hors the scheme of the law or the binding verdicts. (Para 100) Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 808 : 2023 INSC 838

Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002; Rule 9 - The Bank after having confirmed the sale under Rule 9(2) of the Rules of 2002 could not have withhold the sale certificate under Rule 9(6) of the Rules of 2002 and enter into a private arrangement with a borrower. (Para 105 (iv)) Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 808 : 2023 INSC 838

Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002; Rule 9 - The confirmation of sale by the Bank under Rule 9(2) of the Rules of 2002 invests the successful auction purchaser with a vested right to obtain a certificate of sale of the immovable property in form given in appendix (V) to the Rules i.e., in accordance with Rule 9(6) of the SARFAESI. (Para 105 (ii)) Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 808 : 2023 INSC 838

Succession Act, 1925 - Section 63 and 68 - Principles to prove validity and execution of will – explained. (Para 10) Meena Pradhan v. Kamla Pradhan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 809 : 2023 INSC 847

Tamil Nadu Tamil Learning Act, 2006 - The State had issued circulars mandating the study of Tamil as a primary subject while allowing linguistic minorities the option to study their mother tongue. Held, the state's circulars should be executed in their entirety. Therefore, similar to other subjects, minimum qualifying marks should be stipulated for the mother tongue and reflected in students' mark sheets. Linguistic Minorities Forum of Tamil Nadu v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 839

Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Land Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertiliser Offenders, Food Adulteration Offenders, Fake Document Offenders, Scheduled Commodities Offenders, Forest Offenders, Gaming Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Explosive Substances Offenders, Arms Offenders, Cyber Crime Offenders and White Collar or Financial Offenders Act 1986; Section 3(2) - Drastic provisions of the Act are not to be invoked at the drop of a hat. (Para 41) Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 743 : 2023 INSC 788

Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 106 - In order to attract the application of Section 106, which requires 6 months’ notice for termination of lease, the burden is on the Tenant to prove that manufacturing activity was being carried on in the leased Premises. A mere statement that manufacturing activity was being done would not suffice, the Tenant must explain the nature of work being done in factory shed. Paul Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Amit Chand Mitra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 827 : 2023 INSC 854

Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (Kerala) - Amnesty Scheme - Since appeal is a statutory remedy, the assessee cannot be barred from seeking restoration of the appeal which was withdrawn by him as a pre-condition for availing the benefit under an Amnesty scheme, if the assessee is subsequently unsuccessful in availing the benefit of the scheme. The appellate authority as well as the Kerala High Court ought to have allowed the assessee to seek restoration of his appeal before the appellate authority so that the same could have been heard on merits. The court thus set aside the order of the High Court where it had upheld the appellant authority’s decision rejecting assessee’s application for restoration of appeal against the assessment order passed against him. P.M. Paul v. State Tax Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 774