Deficiency in Service – Delay in Possession – NCDRC's order partially allowing the complaint – Found delay in handing over possession of flats – Compensation awarded at 6% per annum interest on deposits from due date of possession to date of offer of possession – NCDRC's method for determining due date based on payment of 11th instalment and grace period held erroneous – Supreme Court modified the due date to six months from March 2014 as per Clause 6.1 of the Construction Agreement [Paras 1-27].

Review Jurisdiction – Scope and Limits – High Court exceeded review jurisdiction by re-evaluating merits of original decision under the guise of addressing contempt – Emphasized the finality of litigation and disciplined approach to review petitions [Paras 11-20].

Forfeiture of Right to File Written Statement – Legal Consequences – Opposite party’s failure to file written statement did not bar participation in proceedings or cross-examination of witnesses – NCDRC erred in considering facts introduced through written submissions in contravention of Supreme Court's order [Paras 15-19].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Modified NCDRC's method for determining due date for possession – Interest on delayed possession set from September 2014 till actual possession – Refund of car parking charge and legal fee claims declined – Direction to provide Green Jogging Track and Convenience Store upheld [Paras 25-27].

Sentencing under Section 307 IPC – Limitation on Term – Convicts sentenced to 14 years rigorous imprisonment challenged the sentence – Argument that Section 307 IPC limits imprisonment to ten years unless hurt caused warrants life imprisonment – Court examined statutory interpretation of Section 307 IPC – Held that imprisonment exceeding ten years without awarding life imprisonment is impermissible – Sentence reduced to ten years rigorous imprisonment with fine maintained [Paras 1-10].

Concurrent Conviction – Upheld – The appellants' conviction under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC supported by overwhelming evidence – Sentence modification restricted to statutory limits without altering conviction [Paras 2-3, 6].

Mens Rea and Actus Reus – Clarified the offence under Section 307 IPC constitutes attempt to murder by intention or knowledge causing hurt – Emphasized that actual hurt or bodily injury enhances the penalty to life imprisonment or up to ten years but not beyond [Paras 4-7].

Decision – Appeal allowed in part – Conviction upheld – Sentence modified from 14 years to 10 years rigorous imprisonment – Fine and default clause upheld [Paras 8-10].

Property Law – Validity of Sale Deed – Execution and registration of sale deed in 1985, presented for registration the same year but registered in 2011 – Defendant did not specifically deny execution or receipt of consideration – High Court erred in invalidating the sale deed on grounds of delay and minor’s involvement – Presumption of correctness of registered documents upheld [Paras 28-40]. 

Minor’s Capacity to Contract – Minor represented by natural guardian in sale deed – Sale deed valid for minor’s share – Natural guardian’s role in representing minors during transactions recognized [Paras 33.10-33.12]. 

Registration Process – Delay – Delay in registration due to deficiency in stamp duty – Document registered after 26 years – Registration process presumed correct in absence of contrary evidence – Rights of vendee upheld despite delay [Paras 33.8-33.9]. 

Doctrine of Bona Fide Purchaser – Not applicable where vendor had already transferred rights via prior sale deed – Subsequent purchaser cannot claim protection if prior transfer was valid – Respondent’s deceitful conduct invalidates claim [Paras 34-35]. 

Evidentiary Value of Registered Documents – Registered sale deed presumed valid unless proven otherwise – Vendor’s failure to deny execution or receipt of consideration undermines claims against the deed – Burden of proof improperly shifted to plaintiff by lower courts [Paras 30-32]. 

Exemplary Costs – Suit decreed with exemplary costs due to respondent’s malice and dishonest conduct – Costs quantified at Rs. 10,00,000 to be paid to appellants [Para 41]. 

Decision: 

Appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Judgment of first Appellate Court decreeing the suit restored – Sale deed dated 03.12.2010 in favor of respondent no.1 cancelled – Exemplary costs of Rs. 10,00,000 imposed on respondents [Paras 40-41]. 

Stamp Duty – Concession Agreements under BOT Scheme – Dispute on whether the Concession Agreement amounts to a “lease” – Madhya Pradesh High Court held the agreements to be leases and imposed stamp duty accordingly – Supreme Court examined the statutory definitions and the clauses of the agreement – Confirmed that the agreements are leases under Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 2(16) of the Indian Stamp Act – Reiterated that toll collection agreements fall within the definition of “lease” for stamp duty purposes [Paras 1-33].

Promissory Estoppel and Legitimate Expectation – Appellants argued the principle of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation based on prior executive decisions exempting such agreements from stamp duty – Supreme Court held that legislative power is not subject to promissory estoppel – Previous executive clarifications cannot override statutory amendments – Cited established legal principles that government policies can be changed in the public interest, and such changes are not constrained by previous executive decisions [Paras 20-27].

Concession Agreement Interpretation – Concession Agreement examined for transfer of interest – Court affirmed that possession and toll collection rights were transferred to the appellants for a specified period in return for consideration, fulfilling the requirements of a lease [Paras 28-33].

Re-assessment of Stamp Duty – Court directed re-assessment of the amount spent by the lessee for determining stamp duty – Directed the Revenue Officer/Collector (Stamps) to re-calculate stamp duty based on the actual amount spent by the lessee, excluding the lessor’s expenditure – Any excess amount already paid to be refunded, and any deficit to be deposited within a specified timeframe [Paras 31-35].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – High Court judgment upheld in principle – Directed re-assessment of stamp duty based on actual expenditure by the lessee – Excess payments to be refunded, and deficit amounts to be paid within stipulated period [Para 35].

Criminal Law – Bail Application – Long Incarceration – Appellant in custody for over nine years for possession and circulation of counterfeit currency under Sections 489B, 489C IPC and Section 16 of UAP Act – Trial prolonged with minimal witness examination – Supreme Court grants bail considering prolonged detention and slow trial pace, emphasizing accused’s right to speedy trial [Paras 1-34].

Right to Speedy Trial – Fundamental Right – Court reiterates that an accused is entitled to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution – Denial of bail solely on the severity of charges unjustified if trial is unreasonably delayed – Prosecution’s inability to ensure timely trial cannot be grounds for prolonged detention [Paras 22-24].

Statutory Provisions – UAP Act – Section 43D(5) – Not an absolute bar to bail – Supreme Court clarifies that constitutional courts retain the power to grant bail despite statutory restrictions if prolonged incarceration violates fundamental rights – Highlights balance between legislative intent of restrictive bail provisions and constitutional guarantees of personal liberty [Paras 28-29].

Seriousness of Charges – Impact on Bail – Supreme Court acknowledges the gravity of charges under IPC and UAP Act but emphasizes the necessity of balancing this against the appellant’s right to a fair and speedy trial – Criticizes the slow pace of trial with only two witnesses examined over nine years [Paras 30-33].

Bail Conditions – Practical and Non-Arbitrary – Supreme Court mandates practical conditions for bail to ensure compliance without infringing on fundamental rights – Appellant required to surrender passport, attend trial regularly, and report to police fortnightly, ensuring presence without excessive restrictions [Para 34].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Bail granted subject to conditions including surrender of passport, regular attendance before the trial court, and fortnightly reporting to the police [Para 34].

Selection Process – Qualification Marks – Appeal against disqualification of a candidate for the post of City Manager – Appellant challenged High Court’s ruling that the respondent met the minimum qualifying marks – Supreme Court affirmed High Court’s decision, holding that the minimum qualifying marks should be interpreted as relating only to the written examination, not the aggregate of written examination and experience – Court emphasized proper interpretation of the Bihar City Manager Cadre Rules, 2014 [Paras 1-22].

Executive Orders vs. Statutory Rules – Discusses the precedence of statutory regulations over executive decisions – Executive Order dated 16.07.2007 could not override the provisions of the Bihar City Manager Cadre Rules, 2014 – Court upheld High Court’s interpretation giving primacy to statutory rules [Paras 13, 19].

Merit List Preparation – Clarified that candidates who met the minimum qualifying marks in the written examination should be considered for inclusion in the merit list, with their overall ranking determined by additional marks for experience – Disqualified candidate who met the written test threshold but lacked experience was entitled to be placed on the merit list [Paras 16-18].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court’s judgment affirmed – Respondent to be included in the merit list for the post of City Manager, provided she met the minimum qualifying marks for the written examination.

Overcharging – Recovery Powers – The NPPA issued demand notices for overcharging on the drug Roscilox, requiring the appellant to deposit both the overcharged principal amount and the interest – The NPPA's authority to recover overcharged amounts is rooted in Paragraph 13 of the DPCO, which empowers the government to recover amounts accrued from charging prices higher than those fixed or notified under the DPCO [Paras 4-5].

Definitions – Dealer and Distributor – The DPCO definitions of 'dealer,' 'distributor,' and 'wholesaler' show overlapping roles – A 'distributor' includes any stockist appointed by a manufacturer, which encompasses roles performed by 'dealers' – The appellant's dual role as a 'distributor' and 'dealer' does not exempt it from the ambit of Paragraph 13 of the DPCO [Paras 6, 10-11].

Judicial Review – Scope of Appeal – The appellant's attempt to question the validity of the demand and the computation under Paragraph 19 of the DPCO was not entertained by the Supreme Court, as these issues were not properly raised before the Delhi High Court – The Court restricted its review to whether the appellant falls within the reach of Paragraph 13 [Paras 7-8].

Corporate Veil – Piercing the Corporate Veil – The High Court's exercise of piercing the corporate veil to find overlapping identities between the appellant and its group companies was acknowledged but not re-evaluated by the Supreme Court – The appellant's own admissions in its replies to the NPPA confirmed its direct contact with the manufacturer [Paras 9-10].

Laudable Objective – Price Control – The DPCO aims to control drug prices to ensure affordability for the common man – The Court emphasized the importance of not restricting the interpretation of the DPCO's provisions, which are intended to prevent overcharging by those involved in the manufacture and marketing of drugs [Para 11].

Inconsistent Versions – Lack of Documentation – The appellant's inconsistent versions and failure to provide firm documentation about its arrangements with manufacturers undermined its claim of being merely a 'dealer' – The appellant could not establish a clear factual foundation to support its exemption from Paragraph 13 [Paras 12-13].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – The Supreme Court found no error in the High Court's rejection of the appellant's claim – The Court upheld the NPPA's demand notices and vacated the status quo order previously granted [Paras 14-15].

Discharge Application – Scope and Consideration – The Supreme Court reiterated that the scope of consideration under Section 227, Cr.PC, is confined to the 'record of the case and the documents submitted therewith' by the prosecution – Defence materials cannot be considered at this stage – The court must determine whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused based on prosecution materials alone [Paras 3-4, 12].

Legal Interpretation – Record of the Case – Emphasized that 'record of the case' under Section 227, Cr.PC, refers only to prosecution materials and not any defence materials – Highlighted the decision in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi that clarified this legal position [Paras 3-4].

Criminal Conspiracy – Ingredients and Proof – For a charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B, IPC, there must be prima facie evidence of an agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act – Mere suspicion or conjecture is insufficient – The materials on record did not support an accusation of conspiracy against the appellant – Referred to R. Venkatakrishnan v. CBI and Ajay Aggarwal v. Union of India & Ors. for defining the essential ingredients of conspiracy [Paras 25-28].

Evaluation of Evidence – Limited Scope – The court must only sift the evidence to determine whether a prima facie case exists – It should not engage in a detailed evaluation of the evidence, which is the function of the trial – The decision to frame charges should be based on a strong suspicion arising from the prosecution's materials – Cited Yogesh alias Sachin Jagadish Joshi v. State of Maharashtra and State of Tamil Nadu v. N Suresh Rajan & Ors. for these principles [Paras 15-16, 19].

Procedure – Obligations of the Court – The court has an obligation to apply its judicial mind to the prosecution's materials to determine if there is sufficient ground for proceeding – The decision to discharge must be reasoned, especially when rejecting a discharge application, to facilitate appellate review [Paras 21-23].

Custodial Death – Lack of Evidence – In this case, the materials on record did not provide sufficient ground to proceed against the appellant for the custodial death – There was no evidence of his involvement in the alleged torture or conspiracy – The Trial Court's suspicion was not based on concrete evidence but on conjectures [Paras 22-23, 30].

Decision – Appeal allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order dismissing the application under Section 482, Cr.PC, and the trial court's order rejecting the discharge application – The appellant was discharged from the case as there was no sufficient ground for proceeding against him based on the prosecution's materials – The court clarified that its observations were specific to the appellant and not applicable to the other accused in the case [Paras 35-36].

Pay Scale Revision – Historical Context – Controversy centered on the pay scale revisions of SDI/ABSA and DBSA compared to Headmasters following the Fifth Central Pay Commission's recommendations – The 2001 Order revised Headmasters' pay scales but not SDI/ABSA and DBSA, leading to perceived discrepancies [Paras 4-10].

Doctrine of Merger – Application – The Supreme Court clarified that the High Court's judgment dated 06.05.2002 merged with its own order dated 08.12.2010 – High Court's assumption that its decision remained enforceable was erroneous [Paras 39-44].

Equitable Relief – Recovery of Excess Payment – The Supreme Court upheld the Single Judge's direction against recovering excess payments made to retired SDI/ABSA and DBSA, adhering to the principles in State of Punjab v. Rafique Masih [Para 47].

Doctrine of Proportionality – Observed that forfeiture of the entire security deposit for a bona fide error was punitive and disproportionate – Directed the appellant to pay Rs 3 crore instead, balancing state and private interests [Paras 23-25].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – 2011 Order approved – Respondents entitled to the pay scale as per the 2011 Order, with no recovery of excess payments – Arrears to be paid with 7% interest per annum [Paras 60-61].