Animals, Birds and Fish — Fishing and Fisheries — Purse seine fishing (PSF), a pernicious form of fishing that harms all marine life: Ban on Purse seine fishing (PSF), a pernicious form of fishing that harms all marine life, was imposed by State of Tamil Nadu within its territorial waters (12 nautical miles i.e. 22 km from coastline).Grant of conditional interim relief, for fishing by such method, if could be permitted beyond territorial waters of State of Tamil Nadu, which subject falls within exclusive jurisdiction of Union of India (Sch. VII List I Entry 57 to the Constitution) as Union of India not having placed any restrictions on this method of fishing beyond territorial waters of State but within Exclusive Economic Zone, if warranted. [Fisherman Care v. Union of India, (2023) 8 SCC 448]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — S. 34(3) & proviso thereto — Ss. 2(j) & 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and S. 10 of the General Clauses Act,1897 — Application for setting aside award — Delay: Benefit of exclusion of period during which Court is closed is available only when application for setting aside award is filed within “prescribed period of limitation” i.e. the period of three months prescribed in the main part of S. 34(3) of the Arbitration Act. The same, held, is not available in respect of period which may be extended by Court in exercise of its discretion under S. 34(3) proviso of the Arbitration Act. [Bhimashankar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamita v. Walchandnagar Industries Ltd., (2023) 8 SCC 453]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 11 & 11(6-A) and S. 21 — Proceedings under S. 11: Law clarified relating to relevant date for determining applicability of amendments made by Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 2015, and date of notice invoking arbitration vis-à-vis date of application under S. 11, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for appointment of arbitrator. [Shree Vishnu Constructions v. Military Engg. Service, (2023) 8 SCC 329]
Constitution of India — Preamble, Arts. 14, 19, 21, 25, 26, 29 and 32:Court has to be guided by values of secularism (a facet of basic structure of the Constitution), equality, fraternity, dignity envisaged in the Preamble, mandates of fundamental rights and goals set out in Directive Principles for securing rights and bonding all sections of society of Bharat together. [Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, (2023) 8 SCC 402]
Consumer Protection — Consumer/Consumer Dispute/Locus Standi — Right to sue: Commercial enterprise Maintainability of consumer complaints arising under insurance policy taken by commercial enterprise, determined. [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harsolia Motors, (2023) 8 SCC 362]
Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 — Ss. 1(4), 1(5), 2(12) and 2(14-AA) — Pathological laboratories — Applicability of the 1948 Act to: Applicability of the 1948 Act to respondent pathological laboratory, determined. [ESI Corpn. v. Endocrinology & Immunology Lab, (2023) 8 SCC 352]
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — S. 7 r/w S. 3(12) — Admission of application under S. 7 seeking initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP): Once NCLT is satisfied that the default has occurred, there is hardly a discretion left with NCLT to refuse admission of the application under S. 7. Further, even the non-payment of a part of debt when it becomes due and payable will amount to default on the part of a corporate debtor, and in such a case, an order of admission under S. 7 must follow. However, if NCLT finds that there is a debt, but it has not become due and payable, the application under S. 7 can be rejected. [M. Suresh Kumar Reddy v. Canara Bank, (2023) 8 SCC 387]
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Ss. 141(1): Words “was in charge of” and “was responsible to the Company for the conduct of the business of the Company” in S. 141(1), held, cannot be read disjunctively and the same must be read conjunctively in view of use of the word “and” in between. Thus, held, only by averring that a person was in charge of the Company at the time when the offence was committed, is not sufficient to attract S. 141(1). [Ashok Shewakramani v. State of A.P., (2023) 8 SCC 473]
Penal Code, 1860 — S. 499 Exception 8 and S. 500 r/w S. 52: In case of complaint filed before authority concerned with accusations of creating nuisance by opening shop that attracted anti-social elements and road romeos, and created all sorts of problems, whether could amount to defamation, discussed. Applicability of S. 499 Exception 8, determined. [Kishore Balkrishna Nand v. State of Maharashtra, (2023) 8 SCC 358]
Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 323/34 r/w Ss. 302/34 — Liability of accessory accused other than main assailant who inflicted the fatal blow: In the absence of any incriminating material or other corroborative evidence which established the participation of accessory accused in the incident, held, conviction of such accused under Ss. 323/34cannot be sustained. [Boini Mahipal v. State of Telangana, (2023) 8 SCC 398]
Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 376(2)(g) and 342 — Gang rape and wrongful confinement — Allegations — Culpability of appellant-accused — Determination of: Co-accused was acquitted as prosecution case not believable on crucial aspects. Hence, while affirming acquittal of the acquitted co-accused, appellants, held, also entitled to acquittal. [Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab, (2023) 8 SCC 322]
Registration Act, 1908 — Ss. 33(1)(c), 32, 34, 35, 52, 58, 59 and 60 — Suit for declaration of title on the basis of registered sale deed executed through power-of-attorney (PoA) holder: Due to disagreement at the Bench relating to validity and proof of sale deed executed through PoA holder, matter referred to larger Bench. [Manik Majumder v. Dipak Kumar Saha, (2023) 8 SCC 410]
