Consumer Law – Definition of Consumer – Whether the borrower of a project loan qualifies as a "consumer" - Business-to-Business Transactions Not Covered – Respondent No.1 (a company) had availed a project loan from the appellant-bank for the purpose of film post-production – The Supreme Court held that a loan taken for business expansion constitutes a commercial purpose under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act – Since the transaction was purely business-to-business, the borrower could not be classified as a consumer under the Act [Paras 12-14].

Wrongful CIBIL Reporting – NCDRC’s Jurisdiction – Complaint Not Maintainable – The NCDRC held the bank liable for deficiency in service and awarded Rs. 75,00,000/- as compensation for wrongful reporting of loan status to CIBIL – The Supreme Court ruled that the complaint was not maintainable before the NCDRC as the transaction was commercial – The correct remedy lay under civil or banking law, not consumer protection law [Paras 18-22].

Dominant Purpose Test – Commercial Nature of Loan Transactions – Exclusion from Consumer Protection – The Court emphasized that even if part of the loan was used for branding, the dominant purpose remained profit generation – It relied on Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust v. Unique Shanti Developers (2020) 2 SCC 265 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harsolia Motors (2023) 8 SCC 362 to conclude that a business entity availing a loan for revenue generation cannot be a consumer under the Act [Paras 15-17].

Decision – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the NCDRC’s order, holding that the complaint was not maintainable before the consumer forum – It clarified that the borrower could pursue remedies under other laws but not under the Consumer Protection Act [Paras 22-23].

Compensation Quantum Appeal Dismissed – No Interference Warranted – A cross-appeal by the borrower for enhancement of compensation was dismissed, as the Supreme Court found no scope for interference with the NCDRC’s findings on quantum [Paras 25-26].

Bail – NDPS - Criminal Procedure – Jurisdiction of High Court under Section 439 CrPC – Scope Limited to Bail – The High Court, while deciding a bail application, awarded compensation to the respondent for wrongful confinement – The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 439 CrPC, which is limited to granting or refusing bail – Compensation for wrongful confinement is a matter of civil remedy or constitutional writ jurisdiction, not bail proceedings [Paras 6-7].

Wrongful Confinement – Compensation for Violation of Rights – Article 32 Jurisdiction Distinguished – The respondent was detained for four months despite forensic reports showing that the seized substance was not a narcotic drug – While wrongful detention may warrant compensation, such relief must be sought under Article 32 or Article 226, not in bail proceedings under Section 439 CrPC – The Supreme Court noted that past precedents like Rudal Sah v. State of Bihar and Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa were decided under writ jurisdiction, not criminal appellate jurisdiction [Paras 9-10].

Investigation Errors – Re-Testing of Sample Without Justification – Procedural Lapse Acknowledged – The Supreme Court noted that re-testing the second sample after an initial negative test was impermissible under the guidelines laid down in Thana Singh v. Central Bureau of Narcotics (2013) 2 SCC 590 – However, it held that any remedy for this procedural lapse must be sought separately and not in bail proceedings [Para 3].

Good Faith Protection under Section 69 NDPS Act – No Malafide Proven – The Supreme Court observed that officers of the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) acted on credible intelligence and did not act with malice – Protection under Section 69 of the NDPS Act shields officers from liability unless malafide intent is proven – The Court declined to make any findings on this issue, as it was not directly before it [Para 8].

Decision – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s order awarding compensation – It held that compensation cannot be awarded in bail proceedings under Section 439 CrPC – The decision does not preclude the respondent from seeking compensation through appropriate legal remedies [Para 10].
 

Criminal Law – Revisional Jurisdiction – Discharge order in a murder case - High Court’s Power to Stay Discharge Order – The High Court exercised its revisional jurisdiction to stay the order of discharge granted by the Sessions Court and directed the appellant to surrender – The Supreme Court held that an order staying the discharge is an extraordinary measure that should be exercised only in rare and exceptional cases where the discharge order is ex-facie perverse – Such an order must not be passed ex parte and requires the accused to be heard before granting a stay [Paras 14, 22].

Effect of Discharge Order – Accused Ceases to Be an Accused – Higher Protection Than Bail – The Supreme Court clarified that an accused who has been discharged stands on a higher legal pedestal than an accused out on bail – Once discharged, the accused ceases to be an accused in the eyes of law – A stay of discharge deprives the accused of liberty and virtually amounts to allowing the revision application without deciding it on merits [Paras 12, 16].

Section 390 CrPC – Application in Revision Against Discharge – Bail Instead of Custody – The Court held that when a revision is admitted against an order of discharge, the power under Section 390 CrPC can be invoked only to direct the discharged accused to appear before the trial court and furnish bail, not to take him into custody – The normal rule is bail, not jail unless exceptional circumstances justify detention [Paras 18-19].

Due Process – Ex Parte Stay of Discharge Order Held Illegal – The High Court’s stay order was passed ex parte without giving the appellant an opportunity to be heard – The Supreme Court held that this violated due process and Article 21 of the Constitution – Stay orders affecting personal liberty should not be granted without hearing the affected party [Para 22].

Decision – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s orders staying the discharge and directing surrender – The appellant was directed to appear before the Sessions Court and furnish bail within four weeks, failing which he would be taken into custody – The High Court was directed to decide the revision application expeditiously, without being influenced by the Supreme Court’s observations on merits [Paras 25-26].
 

Motor Accident – Contributory Negligence – Tribunal's Finding Restored – High Court’s Finding Set Aside – The High Court had attributed 25% contributory negligence to the deceased based on assumptions without corroborative evidence – The Supreme Court held that there was no sufficient evidence to establish negligence on the part of the deceased – Tribunal's finding that the accident was solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the BMTC bus was restored [Paras 10-11].

Determination of Monthly Income – High Court's Assessment Erroneous – Tribunal’s Finding Affirmed – The High Court reduced the monthly income of the deceased to Rs.50,000/- despite clear documentary evidence (Ex. P.16) showing a last drawn salary of Rs.62,725/- per month – The Supreme Court reinstated the Tribunal’s finding and assessed the deceased’s income at Rs.62,725/- per month, citing the principle of preponderance of probability in motor accident cases [Paras 12-14].

Enhancement of Compensation – Recalculated on Correct Income and Multipliers – Substantial Increase Ordered – Applying the multiplier of 15 as per Pranay Sethi and considering future prospects (40% addition), the Supreme Court recalculated the compensation to Rs.1,20,84,925/- as against Rs.77,50,000/- awarded by the High Court – Tribunal’s award of 9% interest per annum was retained [Paras 15-16].

Standard of Proof in Motor Accident Claims – Preponderance of Probability Applied – The Court reiterated that strict rules of evidence as applicable in criminal trials do not apply to motor accident claims – Standard of proof is based on the preponderance of probability, as per Sunita v. Rajasthan SRTC (2020) 13 SCC 468 and Rajwati v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1699) [Para 13].

Decision – High Court’s Order Modified – Enhanced Compensation Granted – The Supreme Court modified the High Court’s order and restored the findings of the Tribunal—Held: The deceased was not contributorily negligent—Monthly income assessed at Rs.62,725/-—Compensation enhanced to Rs.1,20,84,925/- with 9% interest per annum—Appeal allowed in favor of claimants [Para 16].
 

Motor accident claim—Involvement of a minor in the accident – No Substantive Evidence – Liability Set Aside – The Tribunal and the High Court held that Appellant No. 2 (a minor) was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident – The Supreme Court, after re-evaluating the evidence, found no cogent proof to establish that the minor was the driver – Eyewitness testimonies confirmed that the father of Appellant No. 2 was driving the vehicle – Held: The minor was merely a passenger and could not be held liable [Paras 12-15].

Compensation Award – No Interference – Quantum Upheld – The Supreme Court upheld the compensation awarded by the High Court amounting to Rs. 21,82,800/- with interest at 6% per annum – The enhancement of compensation from Rs. 7,74,088/- awarded by the Tribunal was justified in light of the financial dependency of the claimants – No grounds found for interference with the compensation amount [Para 16].

Insurance Company’s Right to Recovery – Set Aside – The High Court directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation and recover the amount from the owner under the Pay and Recover principle – The Supreme Court held that since Appellant No. 2 was wrongly implicated, the recovery direction was unjustified – The Insurance Company shall pay the compensation but shall not be entitled to recover it from the owner [Para 16.1].

Evidentiary Evaluation – Contradictions in Witness Statements – Misreading of Evidence by Lower Courts – The Supreme Court found that key prosecution witnesses contradicted themselves – The deceased’s friend (PW3), who initially claimed the minor was driving, later admitted in cross-examination that the father of the minor was actually driving – The lower courts failed to consider this crucial admission, leading to erroneous findings [Paras 12.4, 15.1].

Decision – The appeals were partly allowed – The Supreme Court absolved Appellant No. 2 (minor) of liability – The compensation awarded to the claimants was upheld – The Insurance Company shall pay the compensation but cannot recover it from the owner – The findings of the Tribunal and High Court holding the minor liable were set aside [Paras 16-17].
 

Service Law - Constitution of India – Article 311(2) – Termination of Judicial Officers – Probation Termination – Petitioners, Ms. Sarita Choudhary and Ms. Aditi Kumar Sharma, terminated from service under Rule 11(c) of the M.P. Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 – Administrative Committee and Full Court resolutions based termination citing poor performance and complaints – Petitioners challenged the termination orders as punitive and stigmatic – Held: Termination was not based on consistent poor performance but on complaints and adverse entries not properly communicated or considered – Violated Articles 14, 16 and 311 of the Constitution – Orders of termination held to be punitive and arbitrary – Termination orders set aside and reinstatement ordered [Paras 1 to 18].

Probationer’s Rights – Termination during Probation – Law laid down that a probationer can be terminated simpliciter for unsuitability – However, if termination is founded on allegations of misconduct without proper inquiry or opportunity, it becomes punitive – In the instant case, reliance on complaints and adverse ACRs without timely communication or opportunity rendered termination punitive – Termination order, though styled as simpliciter, caused civil consequences and stigma affecting future prospects – Violated principles of natural justice [Paras 12 to 16].

Women Judicial Officers – Gender Sensitive Approach – Court emphasized the importance of creating a sensitive working environment for women in the judiciary – Highlighted that medical issues like miscarriage and health complications due to COVID-19 affecting performance should be considered compassionately – Faulted High Court for overlooking such considerations while evaluating the petitioner-Aditi Kumar Sharma’s performance – Reiterated the transformative role of judiciary in ensuring gender-sensitive decision-making [Paras 17 to 17.7].

Administrative Process – Deficiency in ACR Communication – Delay in communicating adverse remarks deprived officers of timely opportunity to improve – Use of unapproved ACRs and pending complaints in termination decision was legally untenable – Lack of proper application of mind by Administrative Committee vitiated the entire decision-making process – Recommendations of the Full Court and State Government based on such flawed consideration are liable to be set aside [Paras 14.11, 15.8, 16].

Decision: Relief Granted – Termination orders, Resolutions of Administrative Committee and Full Court, and consequential Government Orders quashed – Petitioners reinstated with continuity of service and all consequential benefits – Probation to be declared in accordance with seniority as on the date juniors were confirmed – No back salary but notional benefits for pensionary purposes allowed – Complaints kept in abeyance to be processed as per law [Paras 18].

Consumer Law - Consumer dispute regarding delayed possession and non-compliance with an alternate accommodation agreement – Limitation Period – NCDRC's Dismissal Set Aside – Complaint Restored – The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed the complaint as time-barred, holding that the cause of action arose in July 2015 – The Supreme Court held that the claim was based on a continuing cause of action, as negotiations and communications between the parties continued until December 2018 – The dismissal of the complaint on limitation grounds was erroneous, and the matter was restored for adjudication on merits [Paras 9-12].

Continuing Cause of Action – Escrow Arrangements – Delay in Property Possession Justifies Extension of Limitation – The appellants’ claim was based on an Indemnity-cum-Undertaking agreement dated 10/01/2015, under which possession was due within six months – Since possession was delayed, and discussions regarding compliance with contractual terms continued until December 2018, the Supreme Court held that limitation should not be strictly computed from July 2015 – The Court emphasized that limitation laws should not defeat substantive rights, particularly in cases involving contractual performance [Paras 7-11].

Consumer Rights – Fair Adjudication on Merits – Litigation Delay Cannot Be Used Against Claimants – The Court criticized the approach of the NCDRC, noting that respondents repeatedly sought adjournments and delayed responses, while simultaneously arguing that the claim was time-barred – The Supreme Court held that consumer forums must take a holistic approach and not allow procedural technicalities to defeat just claims [Paras 10-11].

Decision – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the NCDRC’s order – It held that the complaint was within the limitation period due to the continuing cause of action – The matter was restored to the NCDRC for a fresh hearing on merits – The Supreme Court directed that the NCDRC decide the case within six months and clarified that its observations were only on limitation, leaving other issues open for determination [Paras 12-13].
 

Criminal Law – Quashing - Prevention of Corruption – Demand and Acceptance of Bribe – Proof Required – Appeal Allowed - The appellant, a former Gujarat minister, was accused of corruption for allegedly granting fishing contracts without a tender process – The High Court upheld the criminal proceedings, but the Supreme Court held that no prima facie material indicated demand or acceptance of bribe – Held: Under Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023) 4 SCC 731, proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act – Since no evidence established such demand or receipt of a bribe by the appellant, the case could not be sustained [Paras 11-12].

Misuse of Authority – Mere Violation of Policy Does Not Constitute Corruption – No Presumption Under Section 20 - The prosecution argued that deviation from the official tendering process indicated corruption – The Court held that mere violation of government policy does not automatically constitute corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act – Held: A presumption of corruption under Section 20 requires proof of illegal gratification, which was absent in this case – The High Court erred in sustaining the charges in the absence of requisite proof [Paras 16-17, 22].

Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Lack of Evidence Against Appellant – Discharge Ordered - The investigation report did not contain allegations of bribery against the appellant, and the complainant’s statements primarily referred to the first accused, not the appellant – The Special Court and High Court failed to analyze the absence of material implicating the appellant – Held: When no prima facie case exists, continuing criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process – Appeal allowed, and proceedings against the appellant quashed [Paras 23-25].

Quashing of FIR – Whether Complaints Were False and Motivated – The appellants, a married couple, challenged two FIRs filed against them in 2010 and 2011 for forgery, cheating, and criminal conspiracy—Held: Merely alleging that an FIR is false is insufficient for quashing—Both FIRs disclosed cognizable offences—No interference warranted at this stage [Paras 2-5].

Applicability of Priyanka Srivastava Judgment – Whether Mandatory Affidavit for Section 156(3) CrPC Applies Retrospectively – The second FIR was registered based on a complaint before the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC without an accompanying affidavit—Held: The requirement of an affidavit, as laid down in Priyanka Srivastava vs. State of U.P., (2015) 6 SCC 287, applies prospectively—Since the complaint was filed before the 2015 ruling, its absence of an affidavit does not invalidate the FIR—Appeal dismissed [Paras 6-10].

Retrospective vs. Prospective Operation of Judicial Decisions – General Principles – The appellants argued that Supreme Court judgments are always retrospective unless otherwise stated—Held: Judicial pronouncements clarifying procedural law usually apply prospectively to avoid unsettling past actions—High Court’s interpretation correct—Appeal dismissed [Paras 3-6].

Final Decision – Appeals dismissed—FIRs not quashed—Appellants granted liberty to move for discharge if charges have not yet been framed—Pending applications disposed of [Paras 7-9].