Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — S. 33 — Power of modification of award under — Scope of: Award can be modified only to the extent of correcting arithmetical and/or clerical error without any material changes. [Gyan Prakash Arya v. Titan Industries Ltd., (2023) 1 SCC 153]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 438 — Anticipatory bail: In case of refusal of grant of anticipatory bail, by High Court, interference by Supreme Court, when warranted, explained. [Sunita Devi v. State of Haryana, (2023) 1 SCC 178]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 173(8) and 482 — Further investigation or reinvestigation: Principles clarified regarding permissibility and limitations on direction for further investigation or reinvestigation, by High Court by invoking its inherent powers under S. 482. [Devendra Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, (2023) 1 SCC 48]
Evidence Act, 1872 — S. 9 — Test identification parade (TIP): Validity of test identification parade (TIP), determined. [Gireesan Nair v. State of Kerala, (2023) 1 SCC 180]
Evidence Act, 1872 — Ss. 25 and 27 r/w S. 8 — Facts disclosed by accused in police custody: Principles summarised regarding scope of admissibility of facts disclosed by accused in police custody. [Rahul v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 1 SCC 83]
Income Tax — Concession/Exemption/Incentive/Rebate/Subsidy — Exemption: Leave Travel Concession (LTC) is exempted from income only when it is given/availed entirely for domestic travel within India. The same is not exempted when it is given/availed for foreign travel wholly or in part. Objective, ambit and payability of LTC, explained. [SBI v. CIT, (2023) 1 SCC 162]
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — S. 8 and 9 — Application for initiation of CIRP by operational creditor for non-payment/short payment on accounts of goods supplied: Once the operational creditor has filed an application, which is otherwise complete, the adjudicating authority must reject the application under S. 9(5)(2)(d) IBC if notice of dispute has been received by the operational creditor or there is a record of dispute in the information utility. Further, such notice must bring to the notice of the operational creditor the “existence” of a dispute or the fact that a suit or arbitration proceeding relating to a dispute is pending between the parties. Therefore, all that the adjudicating authority is to see at this stage is whether there is a plausible contention which requires further investigation and that the “dispute” is not a patently feeble legal argument or an assertion of fact unsupported by evidence. Further held, the court need not be satisfied that the defence is likely to succeed. [Rajratan Babulal Agarwal v. Solartex India (P) Ltd., (2023) 1 SCC 115]
Maharashtra Land Revenue (Extraction and Removal of Minor Minerals) Rules, 1968 — R. 4-A: Scope and Object of, stated. Resolution dt. 12-7-2011 in pursuance to Jagpal Singh, (2011) 11 SCC 396 for removal of encroachments or unauthorised construction on barren land/grassy land and on common village land, on facts, held, valid as R. 4-A not applicable. Further held, refusal to renew permission to “Vadar” community as per Resolution dt. 12-7-2007 in respect of barren lands/grassy lands, any village land owned by local bodies or the Government, would not attract R. 4-A. Said community can get permission in respect of private lands or un-assessed government wasteland. [Maharashtra Rajya Vadar Samaj Sangh v. Union of India, (2023) 1 SCC 43]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Ss. 166 and 171: Award of compensation exceeding amount claimed in claim petition, permissible. Less valuation, if any, made in claim petition no impediment to award just compensation, exceeding claimed amount. Tribunal/Court should award “just” compensation, which is reasonable, on basis of evidence produced. [Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto, (2023) 1 SCC 204]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Ss. 166, 168 and 171 — Fatal accident — Compensation claim — Various heads for awarding compensation: Deceased was aged 28 yrs at the time of accident. Considering notional income @ Rs 6500 per month as determined by High Court, adding 40% towards future prospects, deducting ⅓rd towards personal expense of deceased and applying multiplier of 17, claimant was held entitled to Rs 12,37,790 under head loss of dependency. [Sarup Singh v. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd., (2023) 1 SCC 159]
Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 — Ss. 18, 19, 17, 2(g) and 31 — Maintainability of civil suit by borrower against Bank/Financial Institution in relation to proceedings for recovery of debt already initiated by Bank/Financial Institution: There is no provision in the RDB Act by which the remedy of a civil suit by a defendant-borrower in a claim by the Bank under the RDB Act, is ousted. Rather, it is a matter of choice of that defendant-borrower. Hence, such defendant-borrower may file a counterclaim before DRT in the proceedings filed by the Bank/Financial Institution under the RDB Act. Or, such defendant-borrower may avail the more strenuous procedure established under CPC. That is a choice which such defendant-borrower takes with the consequences thereof. The jurisdiction of a civil court to try a suit filed by a borrower against a bank or financial institution, held, is not ousted by virtue of the scheme of the RDB Act in relation to proceedings for recovery of debt by a bank or financial institution. However, the proceedings under the RDB Act will not be impeded in any manner by filing of a separate suit before the civil court by the borrower. [Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. v. VCK Shares & Stock Broking Services Ltd., (2023) 1 SCC 1]
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — S. 24(2): Lapse of acquisition proceedings is not occasioned where possession of land could not be taken due to pendency of litigation initiated by the landowners challenging the acquisition proceedings. [State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sudesh Verma, (2023) 1 SCC 31]
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — S. 24(2): Lapse of acquisition proceedings is not occasioned where possession of land could not be taken due to pendency of litigation initiated by the landowners challenging the acquisition proceedings. [State (NCT of Delhi) v. Subhash Jain, (2023) 1 SCC 35]
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — S. 24(2) — Lapse of acquisition proceedings: Non-payment of compensation is not a ground occasioning the same where possession of land has been taken. Further reiterated, subsequent purchaser does not have locus standi to claim lapse of proceedings under the 2013 Act. [State (NCT of Delhi) v. Karampal, (2023) 1 SCC 39]
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — S. 24(2) — Lapse of acquisition proceedings: Non-payment of compensation is not a ground, where possession has been taken. [State (NCT of Delhi) v. Mahipal Singh, (2023) 1 SCC 111]
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — S. 24(2): Lapse of acquisition proceedings is not occasioned if possession has been taken, but compensation has not been paid. [State (NCT of Delhi) v. Krishna Saini, (2023) 1 SCC 170]
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — S. 24(2) — Lapse of acquisition proceedings: Non-payment of compensation is not ground, where possession of land has been taken. [State (NCT of Delhi) v. Mohd. Zubair, (2023) 1 SCC 174]
