Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Or. 12 R. 6 — Grant of relief on the basis of admission — When permissible: Grant of such relief is discretionary in nature. Requirements for exercise of such power, namely: specific, clear and categorical admission of facts and documents on record are necessary. Power under Or. 12 R. 6, held, is discretionary which should be only exercised when specific, clear and categorical admission of facts and documents are on record, otherwise the court can refuse to invoke this power. [Karan Kapoor v. Madhuri Kumar, (2022) 10 SCC 496]
Constitution of India — Art. 144 — Judicial authorities to act in aid of Supreme Court: Supreme Court judgment directing all trial courts and Magistrates to act independently of interim/interlocutory orders, even of High Court, in circumstances specified in the said Supreme Court judgment. In such a case, held, all Magistrates and trial courts in India must act in terms of the Supreme Court, in letter and spirit, without any further confirmation from the High Court concerned. Magistrates all over the country must be reminded that in our pyramidical structure under the Constitution, the Supreme Court is at the apex, and the High Courts, though not subordinate administratively, are certainly subordinate judicially. [Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency (P) Ltd. v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 592]
Constitution of India — Art. 226 — Interim stay of further proceedings/investigation — When permissible: Ratio of Neeharika, (2021) 19 SCC 401, clarified and reiterated, that grant of any stay of investigation and/or any interim relief while exercising powers under S. 482 CrPC/Art. 226 of the Constitution is permissible only in the rarest of rare cases. [Siddharth Mukesh Bhandari v. State of Gujarat, (2022) 10 SCC 525]
Constitution of India — Art. 226 — Interim stay of further proceedings/investigation — When permissible: Principles laid down in Neeharika, (2021) 19 SCC 401, summarized. [Siddharth Mukesh Bhandari v. State of Gujarat, (2022) 10 SCC 530]
Constitution of India — Arts. 16(4), (4-A) and (4-B) and Art. 335 — Reservation policy for SCs and STs — Identification of quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs in public employment: Law clarified regarding scope of discretion of executive to identify measure and quantify these yardsticks under the enabling Arts. 16(4) and (4-A) and to lay down a valid, proper and just reservation policy and limitations of judicial review in the matter. [Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, (2022) 10 SCC 595]
Consumer Protection — Consumer/Consumer Dispute/Locus Standi — Transaction with State or its Instrumentalities: Policy decision of foreign sovereign cannot be questioned before Consumer Fora. [HCMI Education v. Narendra Pal Singh, (2022) 10 SCC 486]
Consumer Protection — Services — Educational Services: Divergent views of Supreme Court on whether an educational institution or University would be subject to provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hence, appeal admitted on above issue. [Manu Solanki v. Vinayaka Mission University, (2022) 10 SCC 492]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 319 — Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence: Principles summarised regarding scope and ambit of S. 319 CrPC. [Naveen v. State of Haryana, (2022) 10 SCC 537]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 320 — Compounding of offence under Ss. 307/149 IPC — When permissible: Exercise of power under Art. 142 of the Constitution in this regard, whether warranted, determined. [Guhan v. State, (2022) 10 SCC 542]
Environment Law — Forests, Wildlife and Zoos — Wildlife Sanctuaries and National Parks: Detailed directions issued regarding protection and preservation of wildlife sanctuaries and national parks. [T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad, In re v. Union of India, (2022) 10 SCC 544]
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — S. 62 — Appeal against order of NCLAT: Interference in appeal against order of NCLAT whether warranted, determined. [Vishal Vijay Kalantri v. Shailen Shah, (2022) 10 SCC 510]
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Ss. 30(2) and 31 — Decision of Committee of Creditors on resolution plan and its commercial wisdom — Bindingness of: The commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors in approving or rejecting a resolution plan is essentially based on a business decision, which involves evaluation of the resolution plan based on its feasibility besides the Committee of Creditors being fully informed about the viability of the corporate debtor. Further, such commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors with requisite voting majority is non-justiciable and the discretion on adjudicating authority is circumscribed to scrutiny of resolution plan as approved by the requisite majority voting share of the financial creditors. Further, the enquiry postulated under S. 31 is limited to matters covered under S. 30(2) when the resolution plan does not confirm the stated conditions. [Ashish Saraf v. Bhuvan Madan, (2022) 10 SCC 493]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — S. 166 — Accident claims — Whether insured offending vehicle was involved in accident or not: Application under the MV Act has to be decided on basis of evidence led before it and not on basis of evidence which should have been or could have been led in a criminal trial. [Janabai v. ICICI Lambord Insurance Co. Ltd., (2022) 10 SCC 512]
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — S. 24(2) — Lapse of acquisition proceedings — Locus standi/Right to claim: Subsequent purchaser has no right to claim lapse of acquisition proceedings. [DDA v. Damini Wadhwa, (2022) 10 SCC 519]
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — Ss. 24(1) & (2) — Lapse of acquisition proceedings: When possession taken, but compensation not paid, there will be no lapse. Deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under S. 24(2) of the 2013 Act takes place where due to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the 2013 Act, possession of land has not been taken and compensation has not been paid. [DDA v. Krishan Lal Arora, (2022) 10 SCC 534]
