SARFAESI Act – Bar on Civil Court Jurisdiction – Suit for recovery of damages/compensation – Plaintiff claimed damages for receiving less area than paid for – Suit not barred by Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act as it did not challenge the sale/sale certificate but sought compensation for less area received – High Court erred in holding suit barred by Section 34 [Paras 5.2, 6].

Contractual Obligation – Bank's Duty – Plaintiff paid for 54 cents but received only 39.60 cents – Bank aware of discrepancy but still issued sale certificate for 54 cents – Bank failed to disclose material defect in property – Conduct and fairness in contractual obligations emphasized [Paras 5.3, 5.4].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment quashed – Trial Court's judgment and decree restored – Bank to pay decretal amount with interest within 8 weeks – Costs of Rs. 25,000 to be paid by the Bank to the original plaintiff [Para 6].

Land Acquisition – Delay – Condonation and Compensation Enhancement – High Court condoned 22-year delay and enhanced compensation to Rs. 149 per sq. yard – Supreme Court upheld the compensation but exempted NOIDA from liability for statutory benefits and interest during the delayed period – Delayed statutory benefits would impose a financial burden and increase project costs against public interest [Paras 5-6].

Statutory Benefits – Financial Burden on Public Body – NOIDA should not bear statutory benefits and interest under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the delay between Reference Court's award and filing of appeals – Liability includes interest at 15% per annum, solatium, and price rise [Para 5.3].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Compensation of Rs. 149 per sq. yard upheld – NOIDA exempted from statutory benefits and interest for the period between Reference Court's award and filing of appeals [Para 6].

Income Tax – Deduction under Section 80-IB – Eligibility – Assessee manufacturing polyurethane foam used as car seats – Claimed deduction under Section 80-IB – Assessing Officer, CIT(A), and High Court denied deduction, classifying product as polyurethane foam under Eleventh Schedule – Tribunal's favorable ruling for assessee overturned – Supreme Court upheld High Court's decision, confirming foam as final product [Paras 6-10].

Classification – Polyurethane Foam vs. Car Seats – Manufacturing process examined – No further process by assessee to convert foam into car seats – Polyurethane foam used as ingredient by assembly operators – Final product not car seats but polyurethane foam in various sizes/designs – Compliance with Eleventh Schedule confirmed [Paras 8-10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court's decision upheld – Assessee not entitled to Section 80-IB deduction as product falls under Eleventh Schedule – No costs [Paras 10-11].

Criminal Law – Negotiable Instruments Act – Liability of Directors – High Court quashed proceedings against the director of a company under Section 138 NI Act due to the company not being made an accused and lack of averments in the complaint stating the director was responsible for the conduct of the business – Supreme Court affirmed, emphasizing the necessity of company being arraigned as an accused and specific averments regarding directors' responsibility in the complaint – Reliance placed on previous judgments establishing these principles [Paras 12-32].

Vicarious Liability – Section 141 NI Act – Vicarious liability of a director arises only if the company is prosecuted and there are specific averments in the complaint that the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company’s business – Mere description as a director insufficient – Compliance with Section 141 is mandatory [Paras 16-19].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court's judgment quashing proceedings upheld [Para 33].

Legitimate Expectation – Gender Discrimination – Women officers in the Indian Air Force who were inducted as SSCOs between 1993 and 1998 – Appellants were not considered for PC despite initial policy assurances – Appeals challenged the exclusion from PC and sought pensionary benefits [Paras 1-33].

Policy Implementation – Supreme Court examined the policy implementation following the judgment in Secretary Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya and Others – Emphasized the doctrine of legitimate expectation and directed consideration of pensionary benefits for eligible officers [Paras 19-33].

Pensionary Benefits – Directive to grant one-time pensionary benefits to women SSCOs who were not considered for PC – Evaluation based on HRP dated November 19, 2010 – No arrears of salary, but arrears of pension from the date of completing twenty years of service [Paras 34-36].

Decision – Civil Appeals Disposed – Held – Women SSCOs eligible for pensionary benefits on completion of minimum qualifying service – Evaluated under HRP dated November 19, 2010 – Sympathetic consideration for officers scoring QRs between 6.29 and 6.41 [Para 34-36].

Advocates Act – Constitutional Validity of AOR Rules – Petitioner challenged Order IV Rule 1(b), Rule 5, and Rule 7(c) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Contended these rules were discriminatory and violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution – Claimed the exclusive right given to AORs contravened Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 [Paras 1-4].

Supreme Court Rules – Authority under Article 145 – Supreme Court affirmed its authority under Article 145 to regulate persons practicing before it – Cited Section 52 of the Advocates Act, 1961, which saves the Supreme Court's power to make such rules – Held the AOR system was within the Court's rule-making authority and did not violate constitutional provisions [Paras 5-10].

Judicial Review – Reasonableness of Legislation – Emphasized the limited scope of judicial review concerning subordinate legislation – Court’s role not to question the wisdom of rules unless afflicted with arbitrariness or unreasonableness – Found no merit in the petitioner’s claims of unreasonableness or arbitrariness in the AOR requirements [Paras 10-11].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the AOR rules under the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Found no violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), or Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 [Para 11].

Execution of Decree – Dismissal for Default – Second Execution Petition – High Court held second execution petition not maintainable due to dismissal of first petition for default and lack of transfer under Section 39 CPC – Supreme Court overturned, stating mere dismissal for default does not preclude fresh execution petition if within limitation period – Second execution petition maintainable [Paras 21-24].

Limitation – Commencement – Certificate under Section 103 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act obtained in 1995 – Execution petition filed within 12 years from the date of certificate issuance valid – Limitation period computed from certificate issuance [Para 22].

Attachment and Garnishee Order – Procedural Requirements – High Court found order under Order 21 Rule 46A CPC flawed due to lack of prior attachment under Order 21 Rule 46 – Supreme Court affirmed necessity of attachment and garnishee’s right to dispute liability under Order 21 Rule 46C – Execution Court’s order to be treated as attachment order under Order 21 Rule 52 [Paras 25-32].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Execution Court’s order treated as valid attachment under Order 21 Rule 52 – Execution proceedings to continue with the Execution Court directed to assess exact amount payable after adjustments [Para 32-33].

SARFAESI Act – Typographical Error – Auction Validity – High Court set aside e-auction sale due to a typographical error in the property description (Door No. 12-3-393 instead of 12-3-39) – Supreme Court held typographical error inconsequential as no prejudice was caused – Full property description with boundaries provided – Auction process upheld [Paras 13, 35-37].

Compliance with Rule 9(4) – Auction Timelines – Rule 9(4) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 mandates balance payment within 15 days of sale confirmation – Delay of four days occurred due to Tribunal's interim order and negotiations – Supreme Court held delay justified and did not invalidate auction – Auction upheld [Paras 38-44].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment quashing the auction set aside – Auction sale and proceedings upheld – Surplus amount of Rs. 1,880,000/- to be transferred to borrowers/guarantors within eight weeks [Paras 46-47].

Electricity Tariff – Concessional Rates – Respondent industrial unit started commercial production on March 26, 1995, and sought concessional tariffs based on the Government Order (GO) dated February 6, 1992 – Dispute over whether the benefit period should start from the date of commercial production or the date of energisation – High Court initially ruled in favor of commercial production start date – Respondent later claimed parity with another unit, M/s Patspin India Ltd., which had received benefits from the date of energisation – High Court granted benefits to respondent based on this parity – Supreme Court found the parity claim invalid after benefits to M/s Patspin India Ltd. were withdrawn [Paras 1-21].

Policy Implementation – GO dated February 6, 1992 – Provided tariff concessions for five years to new industrial units starting production between January 1, 1992, and December 31, 1996 – High Court’s decision based on incorrect parity with another industrial unit – Supreme Court ruled the benefit period should adhere strictly to GO terms – Extended period for power cuts already accounted for in Board’s orders [Paras 22-24].

Decision: Appeals Allowed – Held – High Court’s judgments dated November 22, 2018, and July 29, 2019, set aside – No order as to costs [Para 24-26