Consumer Law – NCDRC Penalties – Scope of Interim Moratorium under IBC – The appellant, a real estate developer, failed to deliver possession of residential units to homebuyers, leading to multiple penalties by the NCDRC – The appellant, facing insolvency proceedings under Section 95 of the IBC, claimed that the execution of penalties should be stayed due to the interim moratorium under Section 96 – Held: The moratorium under IBC applies only to debt recovery proceedings and not to regulatory penalties imposed for consumer protection – Penalties under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act are not "debt" under IBC and remain enforceable despite the moratorium [Paras 27-31].

Moratorium under IBC – Distinction Between Civil and Regulatory Penalties – The IBC provides relief against debt-related claims, but penalties imposed by consumer fora serve a punitive and regulatory purpose – Held: Unlike corporate insolvency under Section 14 of the IBC, which stays all proceedings, the interim moratorium under Section 96 is limited to "debt" – The penalties under the CP Act do not fall within the scope of the moratorium and remain enforceable [Paras 28-35].

Regulatory Compliance – Public Interest in Consumer Protection – Impact of Stay on Penalties – The NCDRC penalties were imposed to deter unfair trade practices and protect homebuyers, who had suffered delays in possession – Held: Allowing a stay of consumer protection penalties would create an unfair advantage for defaulting developers and undermine consumer rights – Courts cannot permit businesses to misuse insolvency laws to evade statutory liabilities [Paras 36-37].

Distinction Between Section 138 NI Act and Section 27 CP Act – Applicability of Moratorium – The appellant relied on P. Mohanraj v. Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt. Ltd., (2021) 6 SCC 258, where the Court held that a moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC extends to criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Held: Proceedings under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act are remedial, not criminal, and do not automatically assume the existence of a debt – The analogy with cheque dishonour cases is misconceived and legally untenable [Paras 36-38].

Appeal Dismissed – NCDRC Penalties to be Paid Within Eight Weeks – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that consumer protection penalties are not subject to the interim moratorium under the IBC – The appellant was directed to comply with the NCDRC penalties within eight weeks [Paras 40-41].

Criminal Law - Murder – Alteration of Conviction – Sudden Fight Without Premeditation – Conviction Altered to Section 304 Part I – The appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC for assaulting the deceased with a stick while his co-accused used the blunt side of an axe – Held: The incident occurred in a sudden fight without premeditation, and the nature of weapons and injuries did not suggest intent to kill – Exception IV to Section 300 IPC attracted – Conviction altered to Section 304 Part I and sentence reduced to period already undergone [Paras 12–14]. 
 
Appreciation of Evidence – Related and Interested Witnesses – Credibility Not Rejected Merely Due to Relationship – The appellant contended that the eye-witnesses were related to the deceased – Held: Relationship does not disqualify testimony; evidence of interested witnesses must be scrutinized cautiously, but cannot be discarded solely for that reason [Paras 8–9]. 
 
Nature of Weapons – Use of Stick and Blunt Side of Axe – No Undue Advantage or Cruelty – The Court noted that if the accused intended to kill, the sharp side of the axe could have been used – Use of agricultural tools and nature of assault indicated absence of cruelty or intent to cause death [Paras 12–13]. 
 
Sentencing – Period Already Undergone – Appellant Served 6 Years 10 
Months – Considering reduction of conviction to Section 304 Part I, the Court directed release based on sentence already served [Paras 14–15]. 
 
Judgment – Appeal Partly Allowed – Conviction Modified – The conviction under Section 302 IPC was set aside and altered to Section 304 Part I – Appellant sentenced to period already undergone and ordered to be released forthwith [Paras 15]. 
 

Limitation Law – Condonation of Delay – Liberal Approach for State – Delay Condoned with Costs – The appellant challenged the High Court’s order condoning a 1537-day delay in filing a Second Appeal by the respondent-State – The Court acknowledged that though the law of limitation applies equally to the Government, in the peculiar facts involving valuable Government land and absence of mala fides, delay deserved to be condoned – COVID-19 and prior filing of a Review Petition were also considered as contributing factors to delay – Held: The delay is condoned subject to cost of Rs. 50,000 payable by the State to the appellant – Second Appeal to be heard on merits [Paras 12, 15, 18-22]. 
 
Discretionary Power – Section 5 of Limitation Act – Not Mandatory to Condone Delay 
Even if Cause Shown – Exercise of Discretion Must Consider Negligence and Due Diligence – The appellant argued that the State was negligent and failed to show sufficient cause; Court emphasized that discretion to condone delay under Section 5 is not automatic and must be exercised judicially – However, due to the nature of the land and interest of substantial justice, discretion was exercised in favor of State [Paras 7-9, 12, 15]. 
 
Possession of Government Land – Dispute Involving State and Private Party – Necessity of Adjudication on Merits – The Court observed that the land in question was recorded as Government land and remained in the State's possession, reinforcing the need for a decision on merits rather than on limitation grounds alone – Suit originally dismissed, reversed in appeal, warranting further judicial scrutiny [Paras 1112]. 
 
Delay in Filing Review and Appeal – Two-Step Delay Considered Collectively – The Court accepted that a substantial portion of the delay was due to prior attempt to file a Review Petition, followed by Second Appeal filing delay due to pandemic – The delay from 2015 to 2020 was thus analyzed holistically [Paras 10, 12, 15]. 
 
Judgment – Appeal Dismissed – High Court Order Condoning Delay Upheld – Costs Imposed – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s order condoning the delay in filing Second Appeal – However, imposed costs of Rs. 50,000 to be paid by the State within one month, failing which the Second Appeal would be dismissed – Liberty granted to both parties to contest on all grounds before the High Court [Paras 19-23]. 
 

Criminal Law - Unlawful Assembly – Mere Presence at Scene – Reversal of Acquittal Set Aside – Accused Appellants Not Proven to Be Part of Mob – The appellants were named in the FIR and arrested at the spot during a riot involving over 1000 people – The High Court reversed their acquittal based solely on presence at the crime scene – Held: Mere presence, without overt act or incriminating material, does not establish membership of an unlawful assembly – Acquittal restored [Paras 11, 15, 16]. 
 
Standard of Proof – Reversal of Acquittal – Caution in Appeal Against Acquittal – No New Evidence or Infirmity in Trial Court’s View – The Trial Court found prosecution evidence perfunctory and acquitted all accused – High Court’s interference was unjustified as there was no compelling reason to overturn a plausible acquittal finding – Held: High Court erred in reversing acquittal without concrete evidence [Paras 11, 12, 17]. 
 
Evidentiary Value – Testimony of Prosecution Witnesses Discarded – PW-2 and PW-4 Found Unreliable – The High Court itself discarded the only eye-witnesses for lack of credibility – No identification parade was held – Accused named after 2 years – Held: Conviction cannot rest on such testimony [Paras 5, 6, 15]. 
 
Innocent Bystander Doctrine – No Evidence of Overt Act or Common Object – Appellants Were Residents of the Village – Without Prohibitory Orders, Presence Not Incriminating – Held: Accused cannot be convicted merely for being present at the riot scene unless active participation is proved [Paras 13-15]. 
 
Judgment – Appeals Allowed – High Court Judgment Reversed – Trial Court Acquittal Restored – Supreme Court held that the appellants were wrongfully convicted by the High Court and reinstated their acquittal as recorded by the Trial Court – Appeals allowed [Paras 17-18]. 
 

Service Law - Pensionary Benefits – Parity with Regular Government Employees – The respondents, appointed under a temporary scheme, sought pension benefits equivalent to permanent government employees – The State contended that they were governed by the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) Scheme and were not eligible for pensions – Held: The employees were entitled to pension since their service conditions were aligned with those of regular employees, and the government had made a conscious decision to grant retiral benefits [Paras 14-16].

Government Policy Decisions – No Discrimination Among Similarly Placed Employees – The respondents relied on government communications from 1997 and 1998, which stated that their service conditions were to be governed by rules applicable to the Cane Development Department – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s view that once a policy decision had been taken to extend benefits, selective denial was impermissible – Held: Employees cannot be denied pension when similarly placed employees have already been granted the benefit [Paras 12-14].

Limitation on Arrears – Doctrine of Continuing Wrong – The State argued that the claim was delayed, and employees had already withdrawn their CPF dues – The Supreme Court applied the principle of a continuing wrong, holding that pension rights do not lapse due to delay, but limited arrears to three years before the filing of the writ petition – Held: Pension granted, but arrears restricted to three years prior to the petition date [Para 19].

Contributory Provident Fund Withdrawal – Deduction from Pension Arrears – The respondents had withdrawn CPF amounts upon retirement, leading the State to argue that they were estopped from claiming pension – The Court ruled that CPF withdrawals must be deducted from pension arrears but did not bar pension entitlement – Held: The amount received under CPF to be adjusted against arrears before pension payments commence [Paras 20-21].

Decision: Appeal dismissed, except for restricting pension arrears to three years before the writ petition filing date and permitting deduction of CPF withdrawals from arrears. Pension benefits to be implemented within one month.

Land Acquisition – Sovereign Power of Eminent Domain – Private Settlement Impermissible – The appellant, a statutory board, challenged an arbitral award enforcing a private agreement that returned part of the acquired land to the original owner – The Supreme Court held that once land is acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, it vests absolutely in the Government and cannot be returned through a private settlement – Held: A statutory beneficiary of land acquisition cannot override the sovereign power of eminent domain by entering into a private contract to reverse the acquisition process [Paras 16-18].

Arbitral Award Against Public Policy – Contravention of Fundamental Principles of Law – The Court found that the arbitral award, which upheld the private settlement, was in clear violation of statutory provisions governing public acquisitions – Under Section 34(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, an arbitral award that contradicts the fundamental policy of Indian law can be set aside – Held: The award, which sought to nullify a lawful public acquisition through an illegal private agreement, was contrary to public policy and had to be set aside [Paras 15-17].

Land Vested in Government – No Right to Reverse Acquisition – The land was acquired in 1963 and possession was taken in 1986 – The Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board, as the beneficiary, attempted to return part of the land to the original owner through an agreement in 1988 – The Court held that once possession is taken, the land vests in the Government absolutely under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Held: Even the Government itself could not withdraw from the acquisition after possession was taken, making the Board’s agreement legally untenable [Paras 13-14].

Fraudulent Transaction – Lack of Authority in Chairman’s Actions – The agreement was executed one day before the Chairman’s tenure ended, without proper approval from higher authorities – The Court noted that the preparation of the agreement, including the purchase of stamp papers, took place before the Board even discussed the matter – Held: The transaction was conducted in undue haste, raising serious doubts about its legality and propriety [Paras 17-18].

Judicial Oversight in Arbitration – Failure to Apply Public Policy Test – The Court found that neither the Delhi High Court’s single judge (under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act) nor the Division Bench (under Section 37) properly examined whether the arbitral award violated public policy – Held: Courts must scrutinize arbitral awards to ensure they do not contravene statutory provisions or the fundamental legal framework of the country [Paras 18-19].

Decision: Appeal allowed. The judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in FAO (OS) No. 436 of 2013, the judgment of the Single Judge in OMP No. 561 of 2007, and the arbitral award dated 10.07.2007 were set aside. Pending applications were disposed of, and parties were directed to bear their own costs.

Recording of Advocate Appearances – Restriction to Arguing and Assisting Counsel – The applicants sought modification of para 42 of the Supreme Court’s judgment dated 20.09.2024, which directed that only the names of arguing counsel and one assisting Advocate-on-Record (AOR) be recorded in the court proceedings – The Court clarified that the appearance slip should reflect only those advocates who are physically present and actively participating in the case – Held: The practice of marking multiple advocates in proceedings without verification undermines judicial discipline; Court Masters must ensure compliance with the amended rules [Paras 20-22].

Advocate-on-Record’s Role – Responsibility in Filing Vakalatnama and Representation – The Court reiterated that an Advocate-on-Record (AOR) is responsible for certifying that the Vakalatnama was executed in their presence or properly verified – Held: An AOR must remain accountable for filings, and Senior Advocates cannot appear in the Supreme Court without an AOR [Paras 14-16].

Judicial Oversight on Legal Ethics – Curbing Abuse of Process – The Court observed that the previous system allowed misuse, with advocates being listed in proceedings despite not appearing in court – The new system ensures transparency and accountability – Held: AORs must inform the Court Master of any changes in representation via a fresh appearance slip, preventing fraudulent claims of participation [Paras 24-26].

Impact on Bar Elections and Professional Growth – No Adverse Effect on Rights – The applicants argued that restricting recorded appearances would negatively impact junior advocates’ career progression, chamber allotments, and SCBA voting rights – The Court rejected this claim, stating that statutory rules must take precedence over unwritten practices – Held: The allocation of chambers and voting rights remain subject to established SCBA rules, and professional advancement should not depend on inflated appearance records [Paras 22-23].

Decision: Miscellaneous Applications partially allowed. The directions in para 42 of the judgment dated 20.09.2024 were modified to clarify that:

1. Only advocates physically present and arguing, along with one assisting AOR, shall be recorded.

2. AORs must verify and endorse Vakalatnamas properly.

3.Senior Advocates must always appear with an AOR in Supreme Court proceedings.

4. Court Masters shall strictly implement these directions.

Motor Accident Compensation – Enhancement of Award – The claimants, legal heirs of the deceased, sought enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) and partially increased by the High Court – The Supreme Court found that the High Court underestimated the deceased’s income, failed to apply an appropriate multiplier, and did not adequately compensate for future prospects – Held: Compensation revised based on Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi principles, increasing the award from Rs.5,96,761/- to Rs.13,82,500/- [Paras 10-15].

Calculation of Monthly Income – Inclusion of Pension and Notional Wages – The High Court determined the deceased’s monthly income as Rs.5,819/-, excluding certain pension components – The Supreme Court found that the pension and homemaker services should be considered together, revising the monthly income to Rs.7,000/- – Held: When assessing loss of dependency for a deceased homemaker receiving pension, the combined value of pension and notional wages should be used [Paras 11-12].

Future Prospects – Application of Pranay Sethi Standard – The Court held that loss of future prospects should be granted at 25%, considering the deceased’s age of 45 years – Held: Future prospects of Rs.1,750/- per month added, following the standard laid down in Pranay Sethi [Paras 14].

Multiplier and Deduction for Personal Expenses – Correction of Errors – The High Court applied a multiplier of 9 and deducted 1/5^th of the income for personal expenses – The Supreme Court corrected the multiplier to 14 and the personal expenses deduction to 1/4^th, per Sarla Verma – Held: The correct application of the multiplier and deductions resulted in a higher loss of dependency calculation [Paras 15].

Loss of Love and Affection – Application of Magma General Insurance Standard – The Court increased compensation for loss of love and affection to Rs.2,40,000/-, applying Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Nanu Ram – Held: Compensation should be granted per claimant, considering familial relationships [Paras 15].

Just Compensation – Beneficial and Welfare Legislation – The Court emphasized that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a welfare legislation and that courts must award ‘just compensation’ – Held: Courts must ensure that compensation adequately reflects the loss suffered by claimants while adhering to settled legal principles [Para 14].

Decision: Appeal allowed. Compensation increased to Rs.13,82,500/- with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of claim petition.

Service Law – Seniority Dispute – Promotion vs. Direct Recruitment – Applicability of Special Rules, 1960 and Subordinate Service Rules, 1966 – Seniority Upheld for Promoted Engineers – The dispute pertained to the seniority of Assistant Engineers in the Kerala Water Authority, where the appellants, promoted from Draftsman-Grade I, challenged the High Court's decision granting seniority to directly recruited engineers – The High Court erred in applying Rule 4(b) of the Special Rules, 1960 at the stage of appointment to Assistant Engineer, as the rule only applies for further promotions – The Supreme Court clarified that once an individual becomes an Assistant Engineer, they can opt for either the degree or diploma quota for further promotion – The seniority list prepared by the Kerala Water Authority was held to be valid – Appeals allowed, and the High Court's judgments set aside [Paras 16-27].

Statutory Interpretation – Avoidance of Absurdity – Harmonious Construction – The interpretation by the High Court created an anomalous situation where a junior employee with a diploma who later acquired a degree could leapfrog a senior employee with both qualifications – The Supreme Court applied the presumption against absurdity, holding that statutory provisions must be construed to avoid irrational results – The Court reiterated that the legislature's intent must be honored through a rational and just interpretation [Paras 28-30].

Precedents – Inapplicability of Chandravathi P.K. Case (2004) 3 SCC 734 – The respondents relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Chandravathi P.K., which dealt with weightage for service before acquiring a degree – The Court held that the ruling was not relevant to the present case, as it addressed a different issue – The private respondents' reliance on the case was misplaced [Paras 31].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – High Court Judgment Overturned – The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellants, restoring their seniority as per the original list prepared by the Kerala Water Authority – The judgments of the Single Judge and the Division Bench were set aside [Para 32].