418961-supreme-court-monthly-digest-with-nominal-and-subject-statute-wise-index-january-2022.jpg

Supreme Court Monthly Digest With Nominal And Subject/Statute Wise Index-January 2022 [Missing Part]

Supreme Court Monthly Digest February 2022

Supreme Court Monthly Digest March 2022

Supreme Court Monthly Digest April 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bail – While granting bail, the relevant considerations are, (i) nature of seriousness of the offence; (ii) character of the evidence and circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; and (iii) likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; (iv) the impact that his release may make on the prosecution witnesses, its impact on the society; and (v) likelihood of his tampering. (Para 9) Sunil Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 85

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Sections 437 and 439 – Bail Considerations – Gravity of the offences alleged and the evidence collected during the investigation, which are forming part of the charge sheet has to be considered. (Para 9.3) Jayaben v. Tejas Kanubhai Zala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 29

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 25A – Role of Director of Prosecution in the administration of Justice – The post of Director of Prosecution is a very important post in so far as the administration of justice in criminal matters is concerned. It is the duty of the Director of Prosecution to take prompt decision. Given that crimes are treated as a wrong against the society as a whole, the role of the Director of Prosecution in the administration of justice is crucial. He is appointed by the State Government in exercise of powers under Section 25A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That his is a crucial role is evident from conditions such as in Section 25A (2) of the Code, which stipulates a minimum legal experience of not less than ten years for a person to be eligible to be Directorate of Prosecution and that such an appointment shall be made with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court. (Para 11) Jayaben v. Tejas Kanubhai Zala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 29

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 156(3) – Magistrate is required to be conscious of the consequences while passing an Order under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.PC. It being a judicial order, relevant materials are expected to be taken note of. (Para 11) Suresh Kankra v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 35

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 235 (2) – Accused must be given an opportunity to make a representation against the sentence to be imposed on him. A bifurcated hearing for convicting and sentencing is necessary to provide an effective opportunity to the accused. Adequate opportunity to produce relevant material on the question of death sentence shall be provided to the accused by the Trial Court. (Para 13) Bhagwani v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 60

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 235 (2) – Appeal against Madhya Pradesh HC judgment which confirmed death sentence awarded to the appellant accused of rape and murder of 11 year old girl – Partly allowed – Commuted death sentence- Sentenced to life imprisonment for a period of 30 years during which he shall not be granted remission- No evidence has been placed by the prosecution on record to show that there is no probability of rehabilitation and reformation of the Appellant and the question of an alternative option to death sentence is foreclosed. The Appellant had no criminal antecedents before the commission of crime for which he has been convicted. There is nothing adverse that has been reported against his conduct in jail – The Appellant was aged 25 years on the date of commission of the offence and belongs to a Scheduled Tribes community, eking his livelihood by doing manual labour. Bhagwani v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 60

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 372 and 378 – The right provided to the victim to prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal is an absolute right- The victim has not to pray for grant of special leave to appeal-The victim has a statutory right of appeal under Section 372 proviso and the proviso to Section 372 does not stipulate any condition of obtaining special leave to appeal like subsection (4) of Section 378 Cr.P.C. in the case of a complainant and in a case where an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon complaint. (Para 10.2) Joseph Stephen v. Santhanasamy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 83

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 372, 378 & 401 – No revision shall be entertained at the instance of the victim against the order of acquittal in a case where no appeal is preferred and the victim is to be relegated to file an appeal- He/she shall be relegated to prefer the appeal as provided under Section 372 or Section 378(4), as the case may be. (Para 10.1) Joseph Stephen v. Santhanasamy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 83

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 378 – Approach to be adopted while deciding an appeal against acquittal by the trial court – Principles that would regulate and govern the hearing of an appeal by the High Court against an order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court – Discussed. (Para 20-29) Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 33

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 401 – Sub-section (3) of Section 401 Cr.P.C. prohibits/bars the High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction- If the order of acquittal has been passed by the trial Court, the High Court may remit the matter to the trial Court and even direct retrial. However, if the order of acquittal is passed by the first appellate court, in that case, the High Court has two options available, (i) to remit the matter to the first appellate Court to rehear the appeal; or (ii) in an appropriate case remit the matter to the trial Court for retrial. (Para 9) Joseph Stephen v. Santhanasamy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 83

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 401 – Where under the Cr.P.C. an appeal lies, but an application for revision has been made to the High Court by any person, the High Court has jurisdiction to treat the application for revision as a petition of appeal and deal with the same accordingly as per sub-section (5) of Section 401 Cr.P.C., however, subject to the High Court being satisfied that such an application was made under the erroneous belief that no appeal lies thereto and that it is necessary in the interests of justice so to do and for that purpose the High Court has to pass a judicial order, may be a formal order, to treat the application for revision as a petition of appeal and deal with the same accordingly. (Para 11) Joseph Stephen v. Santhanasamy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 83

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 401 – While exercising the revisional jurisdiction, the scope would be very limited, however, while exercising the appellate jurisdiction, the appellate Court would have a wider jurisdiction than the revisional jurisdiction. (Para 10.1) Joseph Stephen v. Santhanasamy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 83

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 437, 439 – Bail – High Court order granting bail to murder accused – Allowed – The High Court has not at all considered the gravity, nature and seriousness of the offences alleged. Manno Lal Jaiswal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 88

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 437, 439 – Bail – Relevant considerations are, (i) nature of seriousness of the offence; (ii) character of the evidence and circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; and (iii) likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; (iv) the impact that his release may make on the prosecution witnesses, its impact on the society; and (v) likelihood of his tampering. (Para 9) Manno Lal Jaiswal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 88

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 437, 439 – While elaborate reasons may not be assigned for grant of bail or an extensive discussion of the merits of the case may not be undertaken by the court considering a bail application, an order de hors reasoning or bereft of the relevant reasons cannot result in grant of bail. In such a case the prosecution or the informant has a right to assail the order before a higher forum – Court deciding a bail application cannot completely divorce its decision from material aspects of the case such as the allegations made against the accused; severity of the punishment if the allegations are proved beyond reasonable doubt and would result in a conviction; reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced by the accused; tampering of the evidence; the frivolity in the case of the prosecution; criminal antecedents of the accused; and a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge against the accused. (Para 17-19) Manoj Kumar Khokhar v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 55

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 – Where a Court while considering an application for bail fails to consider the relevant factors, an Appellate Court may justifiably set aside the order granting bail. Appellate Court is thus required to consider whether the order granting bail suffers from a non­application of mind or a prima facie view from the evidence available on record. Centrum Financial Services v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 103

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 – While granting bail, the relevant considerations are, (i) nature of seriousness of the offence; (ii) character of the evidence and 18 circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; and (iii) likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; (iv) the impact that his release may make on the prosecution witnesses, its impact on the society; and (v) likelihood of his tampering. Centrum Financial Services v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 103

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 – When the dispute in question is purely civil in nature, the adoption of remedy in a criminal court would amount to abuse of the process of Court. Jayahari v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 106

Code of Criminal Procedure; Section 438 Once the prayer for anticipatory bail is made in connection with offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the underlying principles and rigors of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 must get triggered although the application is under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Asst. Director Enforcement Directorate v. Dr. V.C. Mohan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 16

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 227 – The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal. The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice. (Para 18) Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 39

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 227 – The power under Article 227 is intended to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases for the purpose of keeping the subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors. (Para 15) State of Madhya Pradesh v. R.D. Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 97

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

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

Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 323A, 323B, 226, 227- Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985; Section 25 – Any decision of Tribunal, including the one passed under Section 25 of the Act could be subjected to scrutiny only before a Division Bench of a High Court within whose jurisdiction the Tribunal concerned falls. (Para 16) Union of India v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 12

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – The requirement of leading detailed evidence could not be a ground to shut the doors of any forum created under the Act like the Consumer Protection Act. The anvil on which entertainability of a complaint by a forum under the Act is to be determined, is whether the questions, though complicated they may be, are capable of being determined by summary enquiry. (Para 11) Sunil Kumar Maity v. State Bank of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 77

Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Section 2(1)(g) – Failure to obtain an occupancy certificate or abide by contractual obligations amounts to a deficiency in service – Consumers ‘consumers’ has right to pray for compensation as a recompense for the consequent liability (such as payment of higher taxes and water charges by the owners) arising from the lack of an occupancy certificate. (Para 21-22) Samruddhi Co-operative Society v. Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 36

Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Section 21(b) – Revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. (Para 9) Sunil Kumar Maity v. State Bank of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 77

Contract Act, 1872; Section 23 – An unconscionable term in a contract is void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. (Para 23) B.B. Patel v. DLF Universal Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 90

Contract Act, 1872; Section 23 – What is contemplated under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act is law, in all its forms, being immunised from encroachment and infringement by a contract, being enforced. Not only would a Statutory Rule be law within the meaning of Article 13 of the Constitution of India but it would also be law under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. (Para 69) G.T. Girish v. Y. Subba Raju, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 61

Covid -19 – Ex Gratia Compensation – States directed to reach out to children who were orphaned due to COVID-19 for paying them ex-gratia compensation of Rs 50,000 – Issued directions – Applications/claims of the kin/family members of persons who have succumbed to COVID-19 shall not be rejected on technical grounds. Gaurav Bansal v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 70

Covid-19 – Extension of Limitation – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 23(4), 29A – Commercial Courts Act, 2015; Section 12A – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 138 – The period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings. (Para 5) In Re Cognizance for extension of Limitation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 31

Covid-19 – Extension of Limitation – Period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings – The balance period of limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 01.03.2022 – In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. (Para 5) In Re Cognizance for extension of Limitation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 31

Criminal Cases – Role of State – In criminal matters the party who is treated as the aggrieved party is the State which is the custodian of the social interest of the community at large and so it is for the State to take all the steps necessary for bringing the person who has acted against the social interest of the community to book. (Para 11) Jayaben v. Tejas Kanubhai Zala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 29

Criminal Cases – Where it is found that the accused are released on bail in serious offences, the State Government/legal department of State Government and the Director of Prosecution shall take prompt decision and challenge the order passed by the trial court and/or the High Court as the case may be. (Para 11) Jayaben v. Tejas Kanubhai Zala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 29

Criminal Trial – Guidelines for recording evidence of vulnerable witnesses in criminal matters’ of the High Court of Delhi – The definition of “vulnerable witness” contained in Clause 3(a) expanded. (Para 5 (i)) Smruti Tukaram Badade v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 80

Criminal Trial – Vulnerable Witnesses – The fairness of the process of trial as well as the pursuit of substantive justice are determined in a significant measure by the manner in which statements of vulnerable witnesses are recorded – Creation of a barrier free environment where depositions can be recorded freely without constraining limitations, both physical and emotional – Directions issued. (Para 3-5) Smruti Tukaram Badade v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 80

Detention – In the matter of considering representation made against detention order, the Competent Authority is duty bound to do so with utmost despatch – The time period of over two months spent in doing so, cannot countenanced. It does not require such a long time to examine the representation concerning preventive detention of the detenu. S. Amutha v, Government of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 25

Disciplinary Proceedings – Effect of Acquittal – An acquittal in a criminal trial has no bearing or relevance on the disciplinary proceedings as the standard of proof in both the cases are different and the proceedings operate in different fields and with different objectives. (Para 10.4) Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Dilip Uttam Jayabhay, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 3

Disciplinary Proceedings – The only requirement is that a delinquent officer must be given fair opportunity to represent his case and that there is no absolute right in his favour to be represented through the agent of his choice. (Para 8) Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (RMGB) v. Ramesh Chandra Meena, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 6

Disciplinary Proceedings – The standard of proof in departmental proceedings, being based on preponderance of probability, is somewhat lower than the standard of proof in criminal proceedings where the case has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt – The test of criminal proceedings ought not to be applied in departmental proceedings to call for handwriting experts to examine signatures. Indian Overseas Bank v. Om Prakash Lal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 66

Disciplinary Proceedings – There is no absolute right in favour of the delinquent officer’s to be represented in the departmental proceedings through the agent of his choice and the same can be restricted by the employer. (Para 7) Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (RMGB) v. Ramesh Chandra Meena, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 6

Doctrine of promissory estoppel – In taxing matters, the doctrine of promissory estoppel as such is not applicable and the Revenue can take a position different from its earlier stand in a case with established distinguishing features. (Para 20.3) State of Gujarat v. ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 79

Doctrine of promissory estoppel – The doctrine of promissory estoppel is an equitable remedy and has to be moulded depending on the facts of each case and not straitjacketed into pigeonholes. In other words, there cannot be any hard and fast rule for applying the doctrine of promissory estoppel but the doctrine has to evolve and expand itself so as to do justice between the parties and ensure equity between the parties. (Para 20.2) State of Gujarat v. ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 79

Doctrine of Prospective Overruling – The law declared by the Supreme Court is the law of the land and in so declaring, the operation of the law can be restricted to the future, thereby saving past transactions. The doctrine of prospective overruling is in essence a recognition of the principle that the Court moulds the reliefs claimed to meet the justice of the case- Court can apply its decision prospectively, i.e., from the date of its judgment to save past transactions. (Para 34) Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 94

Doctrine of Prospective Overruling – The observation made in M.A. Murthy v. State of Karnataka (2003) 7 SCC 517 that there shall be no prospective overruling unless indicated in the particular decision is obiter – The casual and unnecessary observation in M.A. Murthy (supra) that there shall be no prospective overruling unless it is so indicated in a particular decision is obiter and not binding. (Para 41) Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 94

Education – Central Board of Secondary Education – CBSE shall provide an option to the candidate to accept the better of the two marks obtained in the subject for final declaration of his/her results – Clause 28 to the extent – “As per this policy, marks secured in later examination will be considered final”. This condition stands effaced from the policy. Sukriti v. Central Board of Secondary Education, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 27

Education – Reservation in Admission – Appeal against Manipur High Court’s order upholding the decision of Manipur University to reduce reservation in admission for Scheduled Caste candidates from 15% to 2%, OBC quota from 27% to 17% and increase for Scheduled Tribes candidates from 7.5% to 31%, in terms of amendment to the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act 2006 – Dismissed – After amendment of the Reservation Act, the respondent No. 1 – University had to follow the reservation norms of 2% for SC candidates, 31% for ST candidates and 17% for OBC candidates which is in consonance with the second proviso to Section 3 of the Reservation Act inserted by virtue of the Amendment Act. Kshetrimayum Mahesh v. Manipur University, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 46

Electricity Duty Act, 2016 (Maharashtra); Section 3(2) – Charitable Education Institutions are not entitled to the exemption from payment of electricity duty post 08.08.2016 – Exemption provision need to be interpreted literally and when the language used in exemption provision is simple, clear and unambiguous, the same has to be applied rigorously, strictly and literally. (Para 11.4) State of Maharashtra v. Vile Parle Kelvani Mandal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 32

Employees Compensation Act, 1923 – In the absence of any clear demarcation of duties of a Helper or a Cleaner and in view of the fact that Helper and Cleaner are interchangeably used, therefore, declining claim for the reason that deceased was engaged as a helper and not Cleaner is wholly unjustified. (Para 8) Mangilal Vishnoi v. National Insurance, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 56

Estoppel – There can be no estoppel against a statute or regulations having a statutory effect. (Para 23) Employees State Insurance Co. v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 78

EWS reservation – The reasons for allowing EWS reservation for the current academic year 2021-2022 provided. Neil Aurelio Nunes v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 73

Excise Act, 1910 (U.P.) – Section 3 – IMFL destroyed in fire answers to the description of “spirit”, “liquor” and “excisable article” within the meaning of Clauses (8) (11) and (22-a) of Section 3 of the Act of 1910, for being an intoxicating liquor containing alcohol obtained by distillation. (Para 36) State of U.P. v. Mcdowell and Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 13

General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (Kerala) – The surcharge on sales tax levied by the said Act is nothing but an increase of the basic sales tax levied under Section 5(1) of the KGST Act, as such the surcharge is nothing but a sales tax- A surcharge on a tax is nothing but the enhancement of the tax. (Para 14.4) Kerala State Beverages Manufacturing & Marketing Corporation Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 4

Goods and Services Tax – Non-extension of e-way bill would not automatically amount to evasion of tax, especially when the non-delivery of goods within the validity period of the e-way bill was due to external factors, like, traffic blockage. Asst. Commissioner v. Satyam Shivam Papers, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 87

Hindu Law – Sources of Hindu law and Judicial precedents discussed – Ancient text as also the Smritis, the Commentaries written by various renowned learned persons and even judicial pronouncements have recognized the rights of several female heirs, the wives and the daughter’s being the foremost of them. (Para 21 -65) Arunachala Gounder v. Ponnusamy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 71

Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956; Section 13 – Custody Petition – The consideration of the well-being and welfare of the child must get precedence over the individual or personal rights of the parents – the rights of the parents are irrelevant when a Court decides the custody issue. (Para 26, 32) Vasudha Sethi v. Kiran V. Bhaskar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 48

Hindu Succession Act, 1956; Section 14 – The legislative intent of enacting Section 14(I) of the Act was to remedy the limitation of a Hindu woman who could not claim absolute interest in the properties inherited by her but only had a life interest in the estate so inherited. (Para 69) Arunachala Gounder v. Ponnusamy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 71

Hindu Succession Act, 1956; Section 15 – Inherited property of a female Hindu dying issueless and intestate, goes back to the source – If a female Hindu dies intestate without leaving any issue, then the property inherited by her from her father or mother would go to the heirs of her father whereas the property inherited from her husband or father-in-law would go to the heirs of the husband. In case, a female Hindu dies leaving behind her husband or any issue, then Section 15(1)(a) comes into operation and the properties left behind including the properties which she inherited from her parents would devolve simultaneously upon her husband and her issues as provided in Section 15(1)(a) of the Act. (Para 72-73) Arunachala Gounder v. Ponnusamy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 71

Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (Uttar Pradesh) – If subletting is in derogation of the terms of the Lease Deed, then the sub-lessee continues to be the ostensible tenure holder of land and the lessee the real holder. (Para 31-32) Hardev Singh v. Prescribed Authority, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 44

Income Tax Act, 1961Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 – Surcharge or tax were never intended to be included in the net of amended Section 40(a)(iib)(A) or 40(a)(iib)(B) of the Income­tax Act, 1961. (Para 14.5) Kerala State Beverages Manufacturing & Marketing Corporation Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 4

Income Tax Act, 1961 – The ‘fee’ or ‘charge’ as mentioned in Section 40(a)(iib) is clear in terms and that will take in only ‘fee’ or ‘charge’ as mentioned therein or any fee or charge by whatever name called, but cannot cover tax or surcharge on tax and such taxes are outside the scope and ambit of Section 40(a)(iib)(A) and Section 40(a)(iib)(B) of the Act. (Para 14.3) Kerala State Beverages Manufacturing & Marketing Corporation Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 4

Income Tax Act, 1961 – The aspect of ‘exclusivity’ under Section 40(a)(iib) has to be viewed from the nature of undertaking on which levy is imposed and not on the number of undertakings on which the levy is imposed- Exclusivity is to be considered with reference to nature of licence and not on number of State owned Undertakings. (Para 14.2) Kerala State Beverages Manufacturing & Marketing Corporation Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 4

Income Tax Act, 1961 – The surcharge on sales tax and turnover tax, is not a fee or charge coming within the scope of Section 40(a)(iib)(A) or 40(a)(iib)(B), as such same is not an amount which can be disallowed under the said provision. (Para 16) Kerala State Beverages Manufacturing & Marketing Corporation Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 4

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Turnover tax is also outside the purview of Section 40(a) (iib)(A) and 40(a)(iib)(B). (Para 15) Kerala State Beverages Manufacturing & Marketing Corporation Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 4

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – NCLT/NCLAT must make a reasonable assessment of the fees and expenses payable to the Interim Resolution Profession and cannot pass an order in an ad-hoc manner. (Para 16) Devarajan Raman v. Bank of India Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 24

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 29A(h) – The word “such creditor” in Section 29A(h) has to be interpreted to mean similarly placed creditors after the application for insolvency application is admitted by the adjudicating authority – What is required to earn a disqualification under the said provision is a mere existence of a personal guarantee that stands invoked by a single creditor, notwithstanding the application being filed by any other creditor seeking initiation of insolvency resolution process. This is subject to further compliance of invocation of the said personal guarantee by any other creditor. (Para 53) Bank of Baroda v. MBL Infrastructures, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 62

Interpretation of Statutes – “Ut Res Magis Valeat Quam Pereat– A liberal construction should be put up on written instruments, so as to uphold them, if possible, and carry into effect, the intention of the parties – Interpretation of a provision of law that will defeat the very intention of the legislature must be shunned in favour of an interpretation that will promote the object sought to be achieved through the legislation. (Para 13) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jogendra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 37

Interpretation of Statutes – A rule made under a statute could not override or supersede a provision of the parent statute itself. (Para 7) Union of India v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 12

Interpretation of Statutes – Same expression appearing at different places in a statute – it is the context which must determine whether the same expression occurring at two different places must be considered differently or in the same light. (Para 49- 50) State of Uttar Pradesh v. Atul Kumar Dwivedi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 20

Interpretation of Statutes – Taxation Statutes – In the taxing statute, it is the plain language of the provision that has to be preferred, where language is plain and is capable of determining defined meaning. Strict interpretation to the provision is to be accorded to each case on hand. Purposive interpretation can be given only when there is an ambiguity in the statutory provision or it alleges to absurd results. (Para 14.3) State of Gujarat v. ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 79

Interpretation of Statutes – Taxation Statutes – The exemption notification should be strictly construed and given meaning according to legislative intendment. The Statutory provisions providing for exemption have to be interpreted in the light of the words employed in them and there cannot be any addition or subtraction from the statutory provisions. (Para 14.3) State of Gujarat v. ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 79

Interpretation of Statutes – Taxation Statutes – The notification has to be read as a whole. If any of the conditions laid down in the notification is not fulfilled, the party is not entitled to the benefit of that notification. An exception and/or an exempting provision in a taxing statute should be construed strictly and it is not open to the court to ignore the conditions prescribed in industrial policy and the exemption notifications. (Para 14.2) State of Gujarat v. ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 79

Interpretation of Statutes – Taxation Statutes – The principle that construction favourable to the assessee should be adopted shall not be applicable to construction of an exemption notification, if it is clear and not ambiguous. Thus, it will be for the assessee to show that he comes within the purview of the notification. Eligibility clause in relation to exemption notification must be given effect to as per the language and not to expand the scope deviating from the language. (Para 14.6) State of Gujarat v. ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 79

Interpretation of Statutes – Taxation Statutes – There is a vast difference and distinction between a charging provision in a fiscal statute and an exemption notification. (Para 14.6) State of Gujarat v. ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 79

Interpretation of Statutes – Taxation Statutes – While the exemption notification should be liberally construed, beneficiary must fall within the ambit of the exemption and fulfill the conditions thereof. In case such conditions are not fulfilled, the issue of application of the notification does not arise. (Para 14.1) State of Gujarat v. ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 79

Interpretation of Statutes – The interpretation is to be in the manner which will subserve and promote the object and intention behind the legislation. If it is not interpreted in the manner as aforesaid it would defeat the very intention of the legislation (Para 14.3) Kerala State Beverages Manufacturing & Marketing Corporation Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 4

Interpretation of Statutes – Where the same Statute uses different terms and expressions, then it is clear that Legislature is referring to distinct and different things. (Para 14.5) Kerala State Beverages Manufacturing & Marketing Corporation Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 4

Interpretation of Statutes – While interpreting the provisions of a statute, it is necessary that the textual interpretation should be matched with the contextual one. The Act must be looked at as a whole and it must be discovered what each section, each clause, each phrase and each word is meant and designed to say as to fit into the scheme of the entire Act. No part of a statute and no word of a statute can be construed in isolation. Statutes have to be construed so that every word has a place and everything is in its place. (Para 61) Renaissance Hotel Holding Inc v. B. Vijaya Sai, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 65

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – If on account of acquisition of land a person is deprived of possession of his property, he should be paid compensation immediately and if the same is not paid to him forthwith, he would be entitled to interest on the compensation amount from the date of taking possession of the land till the date of payment. Gayabai Digambar Puri v. Executive Engineer, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 15

Land Law – Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Since LA Act has been incorporated into the BDA Act so far as they are applicable, the provisions of 2013 Act are not applicable for the acquisitions made under the BDA Act. (Para 23) Bangalore Development Authority v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 76

Law of Precedents – Obiter DictumRatio Decidendi – “Obiter dictum” as “an opinion not necessary to a judgment; an observation as to the law made by a Judge in the course of a case, but not necessary to its decision, and therefore, of no binding effect; often called as obiter dictum, ‘a remark by the way'”- A decision on a point not necessary for the purpose of or which does not fall for determination in that decision becomes an obiter dictum – Only the ratio decidendi can act as the binding or authoritative precedent. Reliance placed on mere general observations or casual expressions of the Court, is not of much avail. (Para 41) Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 94

Law of Torts – Negligence – Meaning – Failure to exercise that care which a reasonably prudent person would usually exercise under similar circumstances would amount to negligence; it is not necessary that negligence would always be advertent one where the wrongdoer is aware of unreasonable risk being created but it may be inadvertent or passive too, arising for want of foresight or because of some omission. However, the question as to whether the liability because of negligence could be fastened on the respondent company or not cannot be determined without dealing with the other aspects related with exceptions and defence to the allegation of negligence. (Para 49-52) State of U.P. v. Mcdowell and Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 13

Law of Torts – Negligence – The fault of “negligence” need not always be of active negligence or of gross negligence, but it may also be of inadvertent negligence or of passive negligence. (Para 63) State of U.P. v. Mcdowell and Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 13

Legal Maxims – ‘Contra proferentem rule – Inapplicability of this doctrine to the eligibility conditions in a notice inviting tender – This rule cannot be applied to lay down that in case of any ambiguity in a tender document, it has to be construed in favour of a particular person who projects a particular viewpoint – if two different tenderers suggest two different interpretations, the question would always remain as to which of the two interpretations is to be accepted? Obviously, to avoid such unworkable scenarios, the principle is that the author of the tender document is the best person to interpret its documents and requirements. The only requirement of law, for such process of decision making by the tender inviting authority, is that it should not be suffering from illegality, irrationality, mala fide, perversity, or procedural impropriety. (Para 24) Agmatel India Pvt. Ltd. v. Resoursys Telecom, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 105

Legal Maxims – Res ipsa loquitur – Negligence may be presumed from the mere fact of accident; of course, the presumption depends upon the nature of the accident and the surrounding factors. (Para 57-58) State of U.P. v. Mcdowell and Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 13

Legal Maxims- ‘Contra proferentem rule – The rule applied in the case of ambiguity in the insurance policy because the policies are made by the insurer and its ambiguity cannot be allowed to operate against the insured. (Para 24) Agmatel India Pvt. Ltd. v. Resoursys Telecom, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 105

Legislative Assembly – Maharashtra Legislative Assembly’s resolution of July 5, 2021, which suspended 12 BJP MLAs for a period of one year for alleged disorderly behavior in the house – Resolution directing suspension of the petitioners beyond the period of the remainder of the concerned Monsoon Session held in July 2021 is non est in the eyes of law, nullity, unconstitutional, substantively illegal and irrational – In absence of any express provision bestowing power in the Legislature to suspend its member(s) beyond the term of the ongoing Session, the inherent power of the Legislature can be invoked only to the extent necessary and for proper exercise of the functions of the House at the relevant point of time. Ashish Shelar v. Maharashtra Leg. Assembly, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 91

Legislative Assembly – There can be no place for disorderly conduct in the House much less “grossly disorderly”. Such conduct must be dealt with sternly for ensuring orderly functioning of the House. But, that action must be constitutional, legal, rational and as per the procedure established by law. (Para 74) Ashish Shelar v. Maharashtra Leg. Assembly, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 91

Legislative Assembly Rules (Maharashtra); Rule 53 – The word “suspension” is necessarily linked to attendance of the member in the House. Thus, the suspension may be resorted to merely for ensuring orderly conduct of the business of the House during the concerned Session. Anything in excess of that would be irrational suspension. (Para 54) Ashish Shelar v. Maharashtra Leg. Assembly, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 91

Limitation – Suo Motu Order Extending Limitation – Even the period of limitation which could have been extended and/or condoned by the Tribunal/Court is excluded and/or extended even up to 07.10.2021. (Para 2) Centaur Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v. Stanford Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 26

Limitation Act, 1961; Section 5 – Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to the institution of civil suit in the Civil Court. (Para 12) Sunil Kumar Maity v. State Bank of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 77

Mediation – Taking on record the comments made during the course of mediation or settlement proceedings impedes conciliation and impinges on the principle of confidentiality. (Para 3) Arjab Jena @ Arjab Kumar Jena v. Utsa Jena @ Pattnaik, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 21

Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969; Section 12B – Section 12B of MRTP Act empowers the Commission to grant compensation only when any loss or damage is caused to a consumer as a result of a monopolistic, restrictive or unfair trade practice. (Para 124) B.B. Patel v. DLF Universal Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 90

Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969; Section 2(u) – Unfair Trade Practice – Five ingredients to constitute an offence of unfair trade practice: (1) There must be a trade practice (within the meaning of section 2(u) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act); (2) The trade practice must be employed for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or the provision of any services;(3) The trade practice should fall within the ambit of one or more of the categories enumerated in clauses (1) to (5) of Section 36A; (4) The trade practice should cause loss or injury to the consumers of goods or services; (5) The trade practice under clause (1) should involve making a “statement” orally or in writing or by visible representation. (Para 20) B.B. Patel v. DLF Universal Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 90

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 67 – Confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act will remain inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. (Para 10) State by (NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallulabid Ahmad, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 69

Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 50 – Whether the personal search is vitiated by violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the recovery made otherwise also would stand vitiated ? Cannot give such an extended view. Dayalu Kashyap v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 100

NEET – The validity of the OBC reservation in the AIQ seats in NEET-PG and NEET-UG is upheld – Operative directions issued – Counselling on the basis of NEET-PG 2021 and NEET- UG 2021 shall be conducted by giving effect to the reservation as provided by the notice dated 29 July 2021, including the 27 per cent reservation for the OBC category and 10 per cent reservation for EWS category in the AIQ seats – The criteria for the determination of the EWS notified by OM 2019 shall be used for identifying the EWS category for candidates who appeared for the NEET-PG 2021 and NEET-UG 2021 examinations. (Para 6, 7) Neil Aurelio Nunes v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 17

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 8 and 9 – An obligation has been imposed on the transferee of the promissory notes, to be deemed to be a ‘Holder in due course’, that the notes should have been acquired in good faith; after exercising reasonable care and caution about the holder’s title. (Para 11.2) Small Industries Development Bank of India v. Sibco Investment Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 7

Partnership Act, 1932 – To attract the bar of Section 69(2) of the Act of 1932, the contract in question must be the one entered into by firm with the third-party defendant and must also be the one entered into by the plaintiff firm in the course of its business dealings; and that Section 69(2) of the Act of 1932 is not a bar to a suit filed by an unregistered firm, if the same is for enforcement of a statutory right or a common law right. (Para 15) Shiv Developers v. Aksharay Developers, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 104

Penal Code, 1860; Section 149, 141 – It is an essential condition of an unlawful assembly that its membership must be five or more – Less than five persons may be charged under Section 149 if the prosecution case is that the persons before the Court and other numbering in all more than five composed an unlawful assembly, these others being persons not identified and unnamed. Mahendra v. State of M.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 22

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 – Merely because no fracture was noticed and/or found cannot take the case out of Section 302 IPC when the deceased died due to head injury – Injury on the head can be said to be causing injury on the vital part of the body. (Para 7.2) State of U.P. v. Jai Dutt, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 72

Penal Code, 1860; Section 304-B – “Soon before” is not synonymous to “immediately before”. (Para 15) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jogendra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 37

Penal Code, 1860; Section 304B – Demand for money raised on the deceased for construction of a house as falling within the definition of the word “dowry”. (Para 12-14) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jogendra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 37

Penal Code, 1860; Section 34 – A mere common intention per se may not attract Section 34 IPC, sans an action in furtherance – The word “furtherance” indicates the existence of aid or assistance in producing an effect in future. Thus, it has to be construed as an advancement or promotion – Scope of Section 34 IPC discussed. (Para 26, 28) Jasdeep Singh @ Jassu v. State of Punjab, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 19

Penal Code, 1860; Section 397 – If the charge of committing the offence is alleged against all the accused and only one among the ‘offenders’ had used the firearm or deadly weapon, only such of the ‘offender’ who has used the firearm or deadly weapon alone would be liable to be charged under Section 397 IPC. (Para 17) Ram Ratan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 14

Penal Code, 1860; Section 397 – The use of the weapon to constitute the offence under Section 397 IPC does not require that the ‘offender’ should actually fire from the firearm or actually stab if it is a knife or a dagger but the mere exhibition of the same, brandishing or holding it openly to threaten and create fear or apprehension in the mind of the victim is sufficient. (Para 17) Ram Ratan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 14

Penal Code, 1860; Section 406, 420 – A man, well versed in commerce, would certainly be expected to check the valuation of the property before entering into any transaction. Jayahari v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 106

Penal Code, 1860; Section 494, 495 – Bigamy – Appeal against Gauhati HC order which dismissed petition seeking to quash criminal proceeding under Sections 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code (bigamy) despite the Family Court’s finding that the wife did not have a subsisting prior marriage – Allowed – High Court was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the issue as to whether the appellant had a subsisting prior marriage was a ‘highly contentious matter’ which has to be tried on the basis of the evidence on the record. Musst Rehana Begum v. State of Assam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 86

Penal Code, 1860; Section 498A – Appeal against the order of the High Court denying permission to Appellant to leave the country – Allowed – The High Court has also not considered the allegations against the Appellant. There is not even any prima facie finding with regard to liability, if any, of the Appellant to the complainant. Deepak Sharma v. State of Haryana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 52

Penal Code, 1860; Section 498A – Expected approach of the High Court in the event of bona fide settlement of disputes – The duty of the Court to encourage the genuine settlement of matrimonial disputes. (Para 8-9) Rajendra Bhagat v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 34

Penal Code, 1860; Section 498A – Taking custody of jewellery for safety cannot constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A. Deepak Sharma v. State of Haryana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 52

Penal Code, 1860; Section 498A – When an offence has been committed by a woman by meting out cruelty to another woman, i.e., the daughter-in-law, it becomes a more serious offence. If a lady, i.e., the mother-in-law herein does not protect another lady, the other lady, i.e., daughter-in-law would become vulnerable. (Para 8) Meera v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 40

Pension – Grant of pensionary benefits is not a one-time payment. Grant of pensionary benefits is a recurring monthly expenditure and there is a continuous liability in future towards the pensionary benefits. (Para 10.7) State of Maharashtra v. Bhagwan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 28

Police Act, 1951 (Maharashtra); Section 56 – Externment – Externment is not an ordinary measure and it must be resorted to sparingly and in extraordinary circumstances – As the order takes away fundamental right under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India, it must stand the test of reasonableness contemplated by clause (5) of Article 19. (Para 7, 12, 14) Deepak Laxman Dongre v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 93

Police Act, 1951 (Maharashtra); Section 56 – In a given case, even if multiple offences have been registered which are referred in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 56 against an individual, that by itself is not sufficient to pass an order of externment under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 56. Moreover, when clause (b) is sought to be invoked, on the basis of material on record, the competent authority must be satisfied that witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence against the person proposed to be externed by reason of apprehension on their part as regards their safety or their property. The recording of such subjective satisfaction by the competent authority is sine qua non for passing a valid order of externment under clause (b). (Para 7) Deepak Laxman Dongre v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 93

Practice and Procedure – Interim order – In matters involving challenge to the constitutionality of a legislation or a rule, the Court must be wary to pass an interim order, unless the Court is convinced that the rules are prima facie arbitrary. (Para 30) Neil Aurelio Nunes v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 73

Pre-emption – Maligned law. Such rights have been characterized as feudal, archaic and outmoded. Such right of pre-emption has been taken away and all proceedings pending before any authority have been ordered to be abated including proceedings in any other Court. Any other Court is wide enough to include the Constitutional Courts i.e. the High Court and the Supreme Court. (Para 12) Punyadeo Sharma v. Kamla Devi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 23

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 45 – Code of Criminal Procedure; Section 438 – Once the prayer for anticipatory bail is made in connection with offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the underlying principles and rigors of Section 45 of the PMLA Act must get triggered although the application is under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Asst. Director Enforcement Directorate v. Dr. V.C. Mohan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 16

Public Employment – Recruitment – The decisions made by expert bodies, including the Public Services Commissions, should not be lightly interfered with, unless instances of arbitrary and mala fide exercise of power are made out. (Para 53) State of Uttar Pradesh v. Atul Kumar Dwivedi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 20

Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971; Section 2(e)(2)(ii) – Even if CSIR is a Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, it is an authority owned or controlled by the Central Government within the meaning of Section 2(e)(2)(ii) of the Act. Sharada Dayadhish Shetty v. Director CSIR-NCL, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 49

Public Trusts – Any organization which is self-governed, cannot be subjected to overarching state control. As long as its decisions are well informed, and grounded on relevant considerations, the interests of the trust are those defined by its members. Any measure of public control enacted through express stipulations in law, should not be expanded to such an extent that the right to freedom of association, under Article 19 (1) (c), is reduced to an empty husk, bereft of meaningful exercise of choice. Parsi Zoroastrian v. Sub-Divisional Officer, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 96

Public Trusts – The aim of public control is to ensure that the trust is administered efficiently and smoothly. The state interest is that far, and no more; it cannot mean that the state can dictate what decisions can or cannot be taken. Parsi Zoroastrian v. Sub-Divisional Officer, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 96

Ratio Decidendi – Final relief granted need not be the natural consequences of the ratio decidendi of its judgment. (Para 26) B.B. Patel v. DLF Universal Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 90

Registration Act, 1908 – The registration by itself will not bring the curtains down on questions relating to title to the property. (Para 27) Amar Nath v. Gian Chand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 98

Registration Act, 1908; Section 17 (2) (v) – A document of partition which provides for effectuating a division of properties in future would be exempt from registration under section 17 (2) (v). The test in such a case is whether the document itself creates an interest in a specific immovable property or merely creates a right to obtain another document of title. If a document does not by itself create a right or interest in immovable property, but merely creates a right to obtain another document, which will, when executed create a right in the person claiming relief, the former document does not require registration and is accordingly admissible in evidence. (Para 24) K. Arumuga Velaiah v. P.R. Ramasamy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 92

Registration Act, 1908; Section 17, 18 – The very purport of the Law of Registration is to usher in and maintain a transparent system of maintaining documents relating to property rights. It puts the world on notice about certain transactions which are compulsorily registrable Section 17 interalia. The law also makes available facility of registering documents at the option of the person (Section 18). (Para 27) Amar Nath v. Gian Chand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 98

Registration Act, 1908; Section 18A – Section 18A was enacted only to ensure that the copying process is hastened, as noticed from the Objects and Reasons. It is concerned only with the document which is presented for registration. (Para 32) Amar Nath v. Gian Chand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 98

Registration Act, 1908; Section 32 – 35 – There is really no need for the production of the original power of attorney, when the document is presented for registration by the person who has executed the document on the strength of the power of attorney. (Para 25) Amar Nath v. Gian Chand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 98

Registration Act, 1908; Section 32 – Section 32(b) speaks about the representative or assignee of ‘such a person’. The word such a person in Section 32(b) is intended to refer to the persons covered by Section 32(a). (Para 20) Amar Nath v. Gian Chand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 98

Registration Act, 1908; Section 32 – Section 32(c) must alone be read with Section 33 of the Act. Thus, when Section 32(c) of the Registration Act declares that a document, whether it is compulsorily or optionally registrable, is to be presented, inter alia, by the agent of such a person, representative or assignee, duly authorised by power of attorney, it must be executed and authenticated in the manner and hereinafter mentioned immediately in the next following section. (Para 20) Amar Nath v. Gian Chand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 98

Registration Act, 1908; Section 32 – Section 32(c) provides for the agent of ‘such a person’ which necessarily means the persons who are encompassed by Section 32(a). Besides agent of the person covered by Section 32(a), Section 32(c) also takes in the agent of the representative or assignee. Now the words representative or assignee are to be found in Section 32(b). Thus, Section 32(c) deals with agents of the persons covered by Section 32(a) and agents of the representative or assignee falling under Section 32(b). It is in respect of such an agent that there must be due authorisation by a power of attorney, which in turn, is to be executed and authenticated in the manner provided for in Section 33. (Para 20) Amar Nath v. Gian Chand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 98

Registration Act, 1908; Section 32 – The person, who has actually signed the document or executed the document for the purpose of Section 32(a) does not require a power of attorney to present the document. It may be open to the principal, who has entered obligations under the document, to present the document. (Para 20) Amar Nath v. Gian Chand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 98

Registration Act, 1908; Section 32 – The word ‘agent’ is to be understood as a person who is authorised to present the document for registration. Such an agent would fall under Section 32(c). Thus, in regard to persons falling in Section 34(3)(c), it would, indeed, be incumbent on the agent, inter alia, to produce the power of attorney as such. (Para 22) Amar Nath v. Gian Chand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 98

Registration Act, 1908; Section 32 – When a person empowers another to execute a document and the power of attorney, acting on the power, executes the document, the power of attorney holder can present the document for registration under Section 32(a). Section 32(a) of the Registration Act deals with the person executing a document and also the person claiming under the same. It also provides for persons claiming under a decree or an order being entitled to present a document. (Para 20) Amar Nath v. Gian Chand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 98

Registration Act, 1908; Section 32 and 33 – Section 33 by its very heading provides for power of attorney recognisable for the purpose of Section 32. Section 32(a) cannot be read with Section 33 of the Act. In other words, in a situation, if a document is executed by a person, it will be open to such a person to present the document for registration through his agent. The agency can be limited to authorising the agent for presenting the document for it is such a power of attorney, which is referred to in Section 32(c). It is in regard to a power of attorney holder, who is authorised to present the document for registration to whom Section 33 would apply. (Para 20) Amar Nath v. Gian Chand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 98

Registration Act, 1908; Section 32 and 34 – Appearances under Section 34(1) may be simultaneous or at different times. Section 34(3)(a) enjoins upon the Registering Officer to enquire whether or not such document was executed by the persons by whom it purports to have been executed. Section 34(3)(b) further makes it his duty to satisfy himself as to the identity of a person’s appearing before him and alleging that they have executed the document. It must be understood and read along with Section 32(a). Section 32(a) mandates presentation of the document for registration by some person executing or claiming under the same, inter alia. In respect of a person who presents the document, who claims to have executed the document, not only is he entitled to present the document for registration, in the inquiry under Section 34 34(3)(a) and 3(b), the duty of the Registering Officer extends only to enquire and find that such person is the person who has executed the document he has presented and further be satisfied about the identity of the person. (Para 22) Amar Nath v. Gian Chand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 98

Registration Act, 1908; Section 32 and 34 – When it comes to Section 34(3)(c), the Registering Officer is duty-bound in respect of any person appearing as a representative, assign or agent to satisfy himself of a right of such a person to so appear. Section 34(3)(c) is relatable to persons covered by Section 32(b) and 32(c) of the Act. (Para 22) Amar Nath v. Gian Chand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 98

Registration Act, 1908; Section 32, 33 and 34 – The inquiry contemplated under the Registration Act, cannot extend to question as to whether the person who executed the document in his capacity of the power of attorney holder of the principal, was indeed having a valid power of attorney or not to execute the document or not. (Para 25) Amar Nath v. Gian Chand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 98

Registration Act, 1908; Section 34 – Section 34 provides for the inquiry to be done by the Registering Office before he orders registration. It declares that no document shall be registered under the Act unless the persons executing such document or their representatives, assigns or agents authorised as aforesaid, appear before the Registering Authority before the time, allowed for presentation under Sections 23, 24, 25 and 26. This is, however, subject to Sections 41, 43, 45, 69, 75, 77, 83 and 89. (Para 22) Amar Nath v. Gian Chand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 98

Registration Act, 1908; Section 35 – Section 35 deals with situations in which the Registering Authority refuses the registration. If the registering Authority is satisfied about the identity of the person and that he admits the execution of the document, it may not be a 38 part of the Registrar’s duty to enquire further. (Para 27) Amar Nath v. Gian Chand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 98

Rent Control Laws – Jurisdiction of civil courts are excluded from landlord-tenant disputes when they are specifically covered by the provisions of the State Rent Acts, which are given an overriding effect over other laws. (Para 20) Subhash Chander v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 101

Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003 – The object is to provide an opportunity to the convicts to be repatriated to their country so that they can be closer to their families and have better chances of rehabilitation. (Para 11) Union of India v. Shaikh Istiyaq Ahmed, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 41

Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003; Sections 12, 13 – Agreement between the Government of India and Government of Mauritius on the Transfer of Prisoners – The question of adaptation of the sentence can only be when the Central Government is convinced that the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Mauritius is incompatible with Indian law – Incompatibility with Indian law is with reference to the enforcement of the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Mauritius being contrary to fundamental laws of India. It is only in case of such an exceptional situation, that it is open the Central Government to adapt the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Mauritius to be compatible to a sentence of imprisonment provided for the similar offence. Even in cases where adaptation is being considered by the Central Government, it does not necessarily have to adapt the sentence to be exactly in the nature and duration of imprisonment provided for in the similar offence in India. In this circumstance as well, the Central Government has to make sure that the sentence is made compatible with Indian law corresponding to the nature and duration of the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Mauritius, as far as possible. (Para 15, 16) Union of India v. Shaikh Istiyaq Ahmed, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 41

Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003; Sections 12, 13 – Agreement between the Government of India and Government of Mauritius on the Transfer of Prisoners – The sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Mauritius in this case is binding on India. (Para 15) Union of India v. Shaikh Istiyaq Ahmed, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 41

Res Judicata – Operation of the principles of res judicata in respect to the previous proceeding and judgment discussed. (Para 30) K. Arumuga Velaiah v. P.R. Ramasamy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 92

Reservation – The reservation for OBC candidates in the AIQ seats for UG and PG medical and dental courses is constitutionally valid. (Para 59) Neil Aurelio Nunes v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 73

Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 – Banking Regulation Act, 1949 – RBI has wide supervisory jurisdiction over all Banking Institutions in the country- For ‘public interest’ the RBI is empowered to issue any directive to any banking institution, and to prohibit alienation of an NBFC’s property. (Para 8.7) Small Industries Development Bank of India v. Sibco Investment Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 7

Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 – Banking Regulation Act, 1949 – RBI as was declared is not only vested with curative powers but also preventive powers, as was held in Ganesh Bank of Kurundwad Ltd. Vs. Union of India. Hence, it is not necessary for the bank to wait for a direction to be violated, and then launch penal actions against the offenders. But the RBI can also issue directions to ensure that the relevant orders/directions are effectively followed. (Para 8.13) Small Industries Development Bank of India v. Sibco Investment Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 7

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; Section 13(2) – Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Section 48 – Once the High Court has passed an order of lapsing of the acquisition proceedings by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Act, the landowners cannot revert back on the plea raised that they are entitled to seek release of land in terms of Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 since repealed. Government of NCT of Delhi v. Om Prakash, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 47

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – UGC to ensure that the guidelines inspection of educational institutions to ensure implementation of RPWD Act are finalized. Disabled Rights Group v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 50

Service Law – “Equal pay for equal work” is not a fundamental right vested in any employee, though it is a constitutional goal to be achieved by the Government.” (Para 14) State of Madhya Pradesh v. R.D. Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 97

Service Law – Appeal against High Court judgment which directed the reinstatement of an employee with back-wages – Allowed – A stale claim cannot be revived by a representation. Nagar Panchayat v. Hanuman Prasad Dwivedi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 53

Service Law – Deputation involves a tripartite consensual agreement between the lending employer, borrowing employer and the employee. Specific rights and obligations would bind the parties and govern their conduct. A transient business visit without any written agreement detailing terms of deputation will not qualify as a deputation unless the respondent were to lead cogent evidence to indicate that the appellant was seconded to work overseas on deputation. Sarita Singh v. Shree Infosoft, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 67

Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol is not only a misconduct but it is an offence also. Nobody can be permitted to drive the vehicle under the influence of alcohol. Such a misconduct of driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol and playing with the life of the others is a very serious misconduct. – Merely because there was no major loss and it was a minor accident cannot be a ground to show leniency. (Para 11, 10) Brijesh Chandra Dwivedi v. Sanya Sahayak, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 81

Service Law – If a regular promotion is offered but is refused by the employee before becoming entitled to a financial upgradation, she/he shall not be entitled to financial upgradation only because she has suffered stagnation. This is because, it is not a case of lack of promotional opportunities but an employee opting to forfeit offered promotion, for her own personal reasons. However, this vital aspect was not appropriately appreciated by the High Court while granting relief to the employees. (Para 16) Union of India v. Manju Arora, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1

Service Law – In the event of a conflict between a statement in an advertisement and service regulations, the latter shall prevail – an erroneous advertisement would not create a right in favour of applicants who act on such representation. (Para 20) Employees State Insurance Co. v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 78

Service Law – Modified Assured Career Progression – MACP Scheme envisages merely placement in the immediate next higher grade pay in the hierarchy of the recommended revised pay bands and grade pay as given in Section 1, Part A of the First Schedule of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 and has nothing to do with the next promotional post. (Para 4.1) Directorate of Enforcement v. Sudheesh Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 99

Service Law – Policy Decision – The Court should refrain from interfering with the policy decision, which might have a cascading effect and having financial implications. Whether to grant certain benefits to the employees or not should be left to the expert body and undertakings and the Court cannot interfere lightly. Granting of certain benefits may result in a cascading effect having adverse financial consequences. (Para 10.4) State of Maharashtra v. Bhagwan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 28

Service Law – The employees of the autonomous bodies cannot claim, as a matter of right, the same service benefits on par with the Government employees. Merely because such autonomous bodies might have adopted the Government Service Rules and/or in the Governing Council there may be a representative of the Government and/or merely because such institution is funded by the State/Central Government, employees of such autonomous bodies cannot, as a matter of right, claim parity with the State/Central Government employees. This is more particularly, when the employees of such autonomous bodies are governed by their own Service Rules and service conditions. The State Government and the Autonomous Board/Body cannot be put on par. (Para 10.2) State of Maharashtra v. Bhagwan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 28

Service Law – The employees who have refused the offer of regular promotion are disentitled to the financial upgradation benefits envisaged under the O.M. dated 9.8.1999. (Para 18) Scottish doctrine of “Approbate and Reprobate -” The English equivalent of the doctrine was explained in Lissenden v. CAV Bosch Ltd. wherein Lord Atkin observed at page 429, “…………In cases where the doctrine does apply the person concerned has the choice of two rights, either of which he is at liberty to adopt, but not both. Where the doctrine does apply, if the person to whom the choice belongs irrevocably and with knowledge adopts the one he cannot afterwards assert the other………….” Union of India v. Manju Arora, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1

Service Law – The equation of post and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the executive and not the judiciary and therefore ordinarily courts will not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to the expert bodies like the Pay Commissions. This is because such job evaluation exercise may include various factors including the relevant data and scales for evaluating performances of different groups of employees, and such evaluation would be both difficult and time consuming, apart from carrying financial implications. Therefore, it has always been held to be more prudent to leave such task of equation of post and determination of pay scales to be best left to an expert body. Unless there is cogent material on record to come to a firm conclusion that a grave error had crept in while fixing the pay scale for a given post, and that the court’s interference was absolutely necessary to undo the injustice, the courts would not interfere with such complex issues. (Para 14) State of Madhya Pradesh v. R.D. Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 97

Service Law – When an employee refuses the offered promotion, difficulties in manning the higher position might arise which give rise to administrative difficulties as the concerned employee very often refuse promotion in order to continue in his/her own place of posting. (Para 17) Union of India v. Manju Arora, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Specific Performance Suit – A decree could not have been obtained behind the back of a bona fide purchaser, more so when the transaction had taken place prior to the institution of the suit for specific performance. (Para 23) Seethakathi Trust Madras v. Krishnaveni, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 58

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Specific Performance Suit – A plaintiff cannot examine his attorney holder in his place, who did not have personal knowledge either of the transaction or of his readiness and willingness in a suit for specific performance. Thus, a third party who had no personal knowledge cannot give evidence about such readiness and willingness, even if he is an attorney holder of the person concerned. (Para 12) Seethakathi Trust Madras v. Krishnaveni, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 58

Specific Relief Act, 1963; Section 16 – Readiness and Willingness – it is not only necessary to view whether he had the financial capacity to pay the balance consideration, but also assess his conduct throughout the transaction – The foundation of a suit for specific performance lies in ascertaining whether the plaintiff has come to the court with clean hands and has, through his conduct, demonstrated that he has always been willing to perform the contract. (Para 25-26) Shenbagam v. KK Rathinavel, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 74

Specific Relief Act, 1963; Section 20 – In deciding whether to grant the remedy of specific performance, specifically in suits relating to sale of immovable property, the courts must be cognizant of the conduct of the parties, the escalation of the price of the suit property, and whether one party will unfairly benefit from the decree. The remedy provided must not cause injustice to a party, specifically when they are not at fault. (Para 36) Shenbagam v. KK Rathinavel, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 74

Supreme Court Rules, 2013; Order XXII Rule 5 – Application seeking exemption from surrendering is not required to be filed along with a special leave petitions against cancellation of bail orders – Order XXII Rule 5, applies only to cases where the petitioner is ‘sentenced to a term of imprisonment’ and it cannot be confused with simple orders of cancellation of bail. Mahavir Arya v. State Govt. NCT of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 30

Tenancy Act, 1955 (Rajasthan); Section 42 – A Scheduled Caste belonging to State of Punjab as an ordinarily and permanent resident of the State of Punjab cannot claim the benefit of a Scheduled Caste in the State of Rajasthan for the purpose of purchase of the land belonging to a Scheduled Caste person of State of Rajasthan, which was given to original allottee as Scheduled Caste landless person. Bhadar Ram v. Jassa Ram, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 10

Trade Marks Act, 1999 – Action for infringement – Once it is found that the defendant’s trademark was identical with the plaintiff’s registered trademark, the Court could not have gone into an enquiry whether the infringement is such as is likely to deceive or cause confusion. In an infringement action, an injunction would be issued as soon as it is proved that the defendant is improperly using the trademark of the plaintiff. (Para 54) Renaissance Hotel Holding Inc v. B. Vijaya Sai, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 65

Trade Marks Act, 1999 ; Section 30(1) – To get the benefit of sub section (1) of Section 30 of the said Act, both the conditions had to be fulfilled. Unless it is established that such a use is in accordance with the honest practices in industrial or commercial matters, and is not to take unfair advantage or is not detrimental to the distinctive character or repute of the trade mark, one could not get benefit under Section 30(1) of the said Act. (Para 59) Renaissance Hotel Holding Inc v. B. Vijaya Sai, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 65

Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 122 and 123 – Gift – Voluntariness and animus necessary for the execution of a valid gift deed – One who bargains in the matter of advantage with a person who places confidence in him is bound to show that a proper and reasonable use has been made of that confidence. The burden of establishing perfect fairness, adequacy and equity is cast upon the person in whom the confidence has been reposed. Therefore, in cases of fiduciary relationships when validity of the transaction is in question it is relevant to see whether the person conferring the benefit on the other had competent and independent advice. (Para 9) Keshav v. Gian Chand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 82

Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 122 and 123 – The question whether a person was in a position to dominate the will of the other and procure a certain deed by undue influence is a question of fact, and a finding thereon is a finding of fact, and if arrived at fairly in accordance with the procedure prescribed, it is not liable to be reopened in second appeal. (Para 10) Keshav v. Gian Chand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 82

Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 122 and 123 – When a person obtains any benefit from another, the court would call upon the person who wishes to maintain the right to gift to discharge the burden of proving that he exerted no influence for the purpose of obtaining the document-Corollary to this principle finds recognition in sub-section (3) to Section 16 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 which relates to pardanashin ladies. The courts can apply this principle to old, illiterate, ailing or infirm persons who may be unable to comprehend the nature of document or contents thereof. (Para 9) Keshav v. Gian Chand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 82

Village Panchayats Act, 1959 (Maharashtra); Section 14B(1) – Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 – If the State Election Commission or its delegatee were to reject or drop the proceedings against the concerned person or member initiated under Section 14B(1), as being devoid of merits or for any other reason, the complainant does not have remedy of appeal against such decision. Such an order becomes final and is not appealable at all. Indeed, it can be assailed before the constitutional court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (Para 18) Shobhabai Narayan Shinde v. Divisional Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 11

Village Panchayats Act, 1959 (Maharashtra); Section 14B(1) – No remedy of appeal is envisaged against an order of the State Election Commission or its delegatee – the Collector, under Section 14B(1), rejecting the complaint or to drop the proceedings for declaration of a Sarpanch/Member having incurred disqualification. That order becomes final and if passed by the Collector as the delegatee, is deemed to have been passed by the State Election Commission itself. Even the State Election Commission cannot step in thereafter in any manner much less in the guise of reconsideration or review of such order. It must follow that the Divisional Commissioner would have no jurisdiction (ab initio) to entertain assail to such an order of the Collector. (Para 21) Shobhabai Narayan Shinde v. Divisional Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 11

Village Panchayats Act, 1959 (Maharashtra); Section 14B(1) and 16 – The processes under Section 14B(1) and Section 16 are completely different, though concern the matter of disqualification and vacancy arising therefrom. In case, the Collector rejects the complaint and drops the proceedings in favour of concerned Sarpanch/Member, there would be no question of accrual of any vacancy. In contradistinction, if the Collector declares the member as having incurred disqualification, the follow­up issue required to be considered by the Collector under Section 16 then is to ascertain if any vacancy had arisen because of such disqualification. The two are different processes. (Para 20) Shobhabai Narayan Shinde v. Divisional Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 11

Words and Phrases – Difference between ‘finding’ and ‘reasons’ – Finding is a decision on an issue – Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. I-Pay Clearing Services Pvt. Ltd. v. ICICI Bank Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 2

Words and Phrases – Public Interest – The term ‘Public interest’ has no rigid definition. It has to be understood and interpreted in reference to the context in which it is used. The concept derives its meaning from the statute where it occurs, the transaction involved, the state of society and its needs. (Para 8.7) Small Industries Development Bank of India v. Sibco Investment Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 7

Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923; Section 4A – Interest shall be paid on the compensation awarded from the date of the accident and not the date of adjudication of the claim. (Para 5) Ajaya Kumar Das v. Divisional Manager, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 102

Writ Petition seeking probe about the incident wherein on a visit to Hussainiwala, District Firozpur, State of Punjab the convoy of the Prime Minister was stuck on a flyover for around 20 minutes – Enquiry committee headed by Justice Indu Malhotra appointed. Lawyers Voice v. State of Punjab, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 43

2022 LiveLaw (SC) January Nominal Index (1 – 106)

  1. Agmatel India Pvt. Ltd. v. Resoursys Telecom, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 105
  2. Ajaya Kumar Das v. Divisional Manager, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 102
  3. Amar Nath v. Gian Chand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 98
  4. Arjab Jena v. Utsa Jena, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 21
  5. Arunachala Gounder v. Ponnusamy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 71
  6. Ashish Shelar v. Maharashtra Leg. Assembly, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 91
  7. Asst. Commissioner v. Satyam Shivam Papers, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 87
  8. Asst. Director Enforcement v. Dr. VC Mohan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 16
  9. Atlanta Ltd. v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 63
  10. B.B. Patel v. DLF Universal Ltd, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 90
  11. B.L. Kashyap and Sons v. JMS Steels & Power, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 59
  12. Bangalore Devel. Authority v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 76
  13. Bank of Baroda v. MBL Infrastructures, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 62
  14. Bhadar Ram v. Jassa Ram, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 10
  15. Bhagwani v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 60
  16. Brijesh Chandra Dwivedi v. Sanya Sahayak, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 81
  17. Centaur Pharmaceuticals v. Stanford Lab, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 26
  18. Centrum Financial Services v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 103
  19. Competition Commission v. State of Mizoram, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 75
  20. Dayalu Kashyap v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 100
  21. Deepak Laxman Dongre v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 93
  22. Deepak Sharma v. State of Haryana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 52
  23. Devarajan Raman v. Bank of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 24
  24. Devas Multimedia v. Antrix Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 57
  25. Directorate of Enforcement v. Sudheesh Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 99
  26. Disabled Rights Group v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 50
  27. Durga Welding Works v. Chief Engineer, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 9
  28. Ellora Paper Mills Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 8
  29. Employees State Insurance Co. v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 78
  30. G.T. Girish v. Y. Subba Raju, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 61
  31. Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 39
  32. Gaurav Bansal v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 70
  33. Gayabai Digambar Puri v. Executive Engineer, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 15
  34. Government of NCT of Delhi v. Om Prakash, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 47
  35. Griesheim GmbH v. Goyal MG Gases Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 95
  36. Hardev Singh v. Prescribed Authority, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 44
  37. Haryana Tourism Ltd. v. Kandhari Beverages Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 38
  38. In Re Cognizance for extension of Limitation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 31
  39. Indian Overseas Bank v. Om Prakash Lal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 66
  40. I-Pay Clearing Services Pvt. Ltd. v. ICICI Bank Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 2
  41. Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 94
  42. Jasdeep Singh Jassu v. State of Punjab, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 19
  43. Jayaben v. Tejas Kanubhai Zala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 29
  44. Jayahari v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 106
  45. Joseph Stephen v. Santhanasamy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 83
  46. K. Arumuga Velaiah v. P.R. Ramasamy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 92
  47. Kerala State Beverages v. Asst. Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 4
  48. Keshav v. Gian Chand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 82
  49. Krishan Lal v. Vini Mahajan Secretary, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 68
  50. Kshetrimayum Mahesh v. Manipur University, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 46
  51. Lawyers Voice v. State of Punjab, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 43
  52. Maharashtra S.R.T.C. v. Dilip Uttam Jayabhay, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 3
  53. Mahavir Arya v. State Govt. NCT of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 30
  54. Mahendra v. State of M.P, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 22
  55. Mahindra & Mahindra v. Maheshbhai Tinabhai, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 5
  56. Mangilal Vishnoi v. National Insurance Co; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 56
  57. Manno Lal Jaiswal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 88
  58. Manoj Kumar Khokhar v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 55
  59. Meera v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 40
  60. Musst Rehana Begum v. State of Assam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 86
  61. Nagar Panchayat v. Hanuman Prasad Dwivedi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 53
  62. Neil Aurelio Nunes v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 17
  63. Neil Aurelio Nunes v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 73
  64. Parsi Zoroastrian v. Sub-Divisional Officer, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 96
  65. Phoenix ARC v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 45
  66. Premier Sea Foods v. Caravel Shipping Services, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 54
  67. Punjab State Co. Agri. Bank Ltd. v. Registrar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 42
  68. Punyadeo Sharma v. Kamla Devi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 23
  69. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank v. Ramesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 6
  70. Rajendra Bhagat v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 34
  71. Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 33
  72. Ram Ratan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 14
  73. Renaissance Hotel Holding Inc v. B. Vijaya Sai, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 65
  74. S. Amutha v. Government of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 25
  75. Samruddhi Co-operative Society v. Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 36
  76. Sarita Singh v. Shree Infosoft, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 67
  77. Seethakathi Trust Madras v. Krishnaveni, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 58
  78. Sharada Dayadhish Shetty v. Director CSIR-NCL, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 49
  79. Shenbagam v. KK Rathinavel, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 74
  80. Shiv Developers v. Aksharay Developers, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 104
  81. Shobhabai Narayan Shinde v. Divl.Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 11
  82. Small Industries Development Bank v. Sibco, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 7
  83. Smruti Tukaram Badade v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 80
  84. State by (NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallulabid Ahmad, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 69
  85. State of Gujarat v. ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 79
  86. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jogendra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 37
  87. State of Madhya Pradesh v. R.D. Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 97
  88. State of Maharashtra v. Bhagwan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 28
  89. State of Maharashtra v. Vile Parle Kelvani Mandal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 32
  90. State of Orissa v. Prasanta Kumar Swain, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 51
  91. State of Punjab v. Anshika Goyal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 84
  92. State of U.P. v. Jai Dutt, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 72
  93. State of UP v. Mcdowell and Company, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 13
  94. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Atul Kumar Dwivedi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 20
  95. Subhash Chander v. Bharat Petroleum Corp., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 101
  96. Sukriti v CBSE, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 27
  97. Sunil Kumar Maity v. State Bank of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 77
  98. Sunil Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 85
  99. Sunil Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 89
  100. Suresh Kankra v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 35
  101. Sushil Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 64
  102. UHL Power Company v. State of H.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 18
  103. Union of India v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 12
  104. Union of India v. Manju Arora, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1
  105. Union of India v. Shaikh Istiyaq Ahmed, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 41
  106. Vasudha Sethi v. Kiran V. Bhaskar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 48

Comments are closed.