Civil Appeal – Appellant challenging the dismissal of its appeal against the Employees State Insurance Court’s order – Definition of “Factory” and “manufacturing process” under the Employees State Insurance Act – Dispute whether the appellant-firm falls within the ambit of the definition – Relevant provisions of the ESI Act and Factories Act examined – Appellant in the business of selling and repairing electrical goods using electrical energy – Court confirms that the appellant falls within the definition of “Factory” and is engaged in a “manufacturing process” – Appeal dismissed with costs. [Para 1]

Definition Interpretation – Exploration of the terms “Factory” and “manufacturing process” – Examination of Sections 2(12), 2(14AA) of the ESI Act and Section 2(k) of the Factories Act – Clarification of conditions for premises to be classified as a “Factory” and the concept of a “manufacturing process”. [Para 7]

Power Usage – Appellant using electrical energy for selling and repairing electrical goods – Reference to Section 2(15)(C) of the ESI Act for the definition of “power” – Confirmation that the appellant falls within the definition of “power” usage as per the Factories Act – Upholding of impugned judgment based on statutory provisions. [Para 10]

Conclusion – Appeal found meritless and dismissed – Each party to bear its own expenses – Pending applications disposed of in accordance with the order. [Para 11]

Advocates Act, 1961; Section 35 – Professional Misconduct – Advocate A-1 failed to disclose conflict of interest as his wife claimed rights over the property in dispute – Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa suspended A-1's license for two years and reprimanded A-2, his son and junior colleague, with an undertaking for future conduct.

Conflict of Interest – Advocate A-1 and his son A-2 represented the complainant in a property dispute while A-1's wife had a vested interest in the same property – Neither disclosed this conflict to the complainant.

Disciplinary Proceedings – Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa found both A-1 and A-2 guilty of professional misconduct – Bar Council of India confirmed the decision and imposed additional penalties.

Appeal by Advocates – A-1 and A-2 contended that the complainant was aware of the conflict and that A-2, being new to practice, was unaware of the conflict – Court rejected these contentions.

Penalties and Undertakings – Court upheld the penalties imposed by the Bar Councils, with a modification in the wording of the undertaking to be given by A-2.

Compliance and Disposal – A-1 to surrender his Enrolment Certificate; both A-1 and A-2 to file compliance reports – Failure to comply will result in further action.

Decision – Appeals disposed of with modifications in the undertakings and confirmation of penalties – No order as to costs.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 200, 202(1), 203 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323, 342, 500, 504, 506, 295-A, 298, 427 - Dismissal of Complaint without Proper Inquiry - Remand by High Court for Section 202(1) Inquiry - Validity. (Para 4-5)

The learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. without conducting a proper inquiry mandated by Section 202(1) of the Cr.P.C. Despite citing multiple witnesses in the complaint, the Magistrate failed to examine any of them, which was found to be an error in the inquiry process.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to remand the complaint to the learned Magistrate for conducting a Section 202(1) inquiry, emphasizing that the Magistrate should consider the statements of the complainant and his witnesses before dismissing a complaint under Section 203.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 202(1) - Absence of Sanction under Section 197 - Observations by High Court - Tentative Nature. (Para 6)

The High Court made observations on the absence of sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. in its impugned order. However, the Supreme Court clarified that these observations were of a tentative nature and would have no bearing on the ultimate conclusion to be drawn by the learned Magistrate during the remanded inquiry.

Jurisdiction – Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Maintainability of petition before High Court against NCDRC order – Scope of judicial functions and powers – Remedies under Act 2019 – Appeal to Supreme Court and High Court jurisdiction – National Commission as a “Tribunal” – Writ petition under Article 227 maintainable before High Court – Supreme Court jurisdiction under Article 136 – Access to justice – Appropriate remedy for orders under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) or (iv) – Petitioner directed to approach High Court first – After High Court adjudication, party may seek special leave to appeal before Supreme Court if required.

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Maintainability of appeal to Supreme Court – Orders of NCDRC – Scope of appeal under Section 58(1)(a) – No appeal against orders passed under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) or (iv) – Appeal to Supreme Court available only if order passed under Section 58(1)(a)(i) or (ii) – Remedy for orders under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) or (iv) is petition under Article 227 of Constitution. (Para 34)

Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Access to Justice – Appropriate remedy for orders of NCDRC passed under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) or (iv) of Act 2019 – Writ petition under Article 227 maintainable before High Court – Accessible and cost-effective remedy compared to Special Leave to Appeal under Article 136 – Judicial functions vested in National Commission make it a “Tribunal” under Article 227. (Para 37)

Constitutional Jurisdiction - Article 136 – Special Leave to Appeal – Access to Justice – Remedy for orders of NCDRC – Availability of appeal to Supreme Court under Article 136 – Accessibility and cost implications – Remedy under Article 227 of the Constitution before High Court preferred over Special Leave to Appeal under Article 136. (Para 37)

Procedure - Judicial functions of National Commission – Adjudication and powers – State’s inherent judicial function transferred to Commission – Commission vested with powers to conclusively determine disputes – Tribunal status under Article 227 – Exercise of jurisdiction subject to parameters of supervisory jurisdiction. (Para 37)

Stay Order - NCDRC order stayed by Supreme Court – Deposit of 50% awarded amount – Complainant unable to withdraw deposited amount – Registry directed to refund amount to petitioner after proper verification. (Para 40)

Merit of Case - Supreme Court refrains from adjudicating on merits – Jurisdictional High Court to examine the merits of the case. (Para 42)

Criminal Procedure – Passport Impounding – Jurisdiction of Police and Passport Authority – The power to impound a passport lies with the Passport Authority under the Passports Act, 1967, and not with the police. Even if the police seize a passport under Section 102 of Cr.P.C., they cannot withhold it and must forward it to the Passport Authority for their decision on impounding. (Para 8-9)

Passport Retention – Unlawful Retention – If a passport was neither impounded nor seized lawfully, retaining it by a third party, such as the Passport Office, is unauthorized. (Para 10)

Conditions on Passport Release – Illegality of Imposed Conditions – The High Court cannot impose conditions on the release of a passport when no impounding or seizure of the passport has occurred. (Para 10)

Wife’s Passport – Reissue Procedure – In case of a lost passport, the wife can apply for reissuance without additional proof of loss beyond filing a report to the police. The husband is obliged to cooperate in providing necessary documents as per Passport Rules, 1980. (Para 11)

Direction to Return Passports – Spouse’s Passport – Court’s Inherent Power – The Court cannot direct the return of the spouse’s passport as a condition for the release of the appellant’s passport when there is no legal basis for the retention of the appellant’s passport. (Para 11)

Compliance with Deposit Condition – No Challenge – The appellant does not challenge the condition of depositing ₹10 lakhs; thus, it stands confirmed. (Para 11)

Insurance Law – Motor Insurance – Third-Party Coverage – Reimbursement of Medical Expenses – National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) disallowed indemnification of medical expenses incurred by the insured-appellant towards the treatment of an injured third-party in an accident – Supreme Court found exhibits (medical bills) on record supporting the medical expenses – Held, insurance company’s incorrect submissions led to denial of reimbursement – Appeal allowed, medical expenses to be reimbursed with interest. (Para 11, 12, 15, 16)

Consumer Protection – Insurance Claim – Medical Expenses – Insured incurred medical expenses for the treatment of an injured third-party involved in an accident covered under third-party insurance – Insurance company refused reimbursement – District Forum, State Commission, and NCDRC ruled in favor of the appellant for other claims – NCDRC disallowed medical expense reimbursement, citing lack of evidence – Supreme Court found evidence on record supporting the medical expenses – Held, appellant entitled to reimbursement with interest. (Para 11, 12, 15, 16)

Evidence – Medical Bills – Claim for Medical Expenses – Appellant submitted medical bills as evidence for the medical expenses incurred in treating an injured third-party involved in an accident – Insurance company denied reimbursement, stating “no evidence on record” – Supreme Court examined the exhibits and found them to be valid supporting evidence – Held, exhibits establish the claim for medical expenses. (Para 13)

Fairness and Justice – Conduct of Insurance Company – Insurance company made incorrect submissions leading to denial of medical expense reimbursement – Appellant had to approach the Supreme Court for relief – Supreme Court criticized insurer’s conduct as unfair and unjust – Held, insurance company directed to pay medical expenses with interest and a nominal cost to the appellant. (Para 16)

Election Petition - Non-disclosure of Criminal Cases - The appellant, a candidate in an election, faces allegations of not disclosing pending criminal cases against him [Para 16] - Contention that disclosure was not required under Section 33A of the relevant Act [Para 16] - Appellant argues that the non-disclosed cases do not fall within specified categories - Election petitioner alleges non-disclosure of past convictions under the Minimum Wages Act and the Payment of Wages Act [Para 17].

Examination of Pending Criminal Case - Court examines the records of a pending criminal case related to offenses under the Indian Forest Act [Para 18] - Finds that the appellant was not charged for the alleged offenses, contrary to the petitioner's assertions [Para 18].

Punishment for Offenses - Court considers the punishment for violating provisions of the Minimum Wages Act and the Payment of Wages Act [Para 20] - Assesses the relevance of past convictions to the non-disclosure allegations [Para 19].

Scope of Rejection - Court discusses the scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC and Order XII Rule 6 CPC [Para 21] - Emphasizes that partial rejection of the petition based on certain admissions is not permissible [Para 24].

Need for Full Trial - Court asserts that the allegations of non-disclosure and their legal effect require a full trial [Para 28] - Summary proceedings insufficient for examining non-compliance with statutory regulations [Para 28].

Significance of Right to Vote - Court underscores the importance of the right to vote and the voter's right to know a candidate's full background [Para 27].

Dismissal of Appeal - Court concludes that the impugned judgment dismissing the appeal is valid and without fault [Para 29].

Writ of Mandamus - Jurisdiction - Appellants challenged the High Court's order and judgment - Contentions based on a previous order in Praveen Kumar v. Delhi Cantonment Board & Ors. - Court found the contentions baseless as the said order did not confer any indefeasible right on the appellant and did not pertain to the pending Civil Suit - Issue Deletion - Trial Court deleted certain issues in Civil Suit No.759 of 2018, which were upheld by the High Court - Deletion of issues justified as the appellant had accepted jurisdiction and no notice or order was issued by the Cantonment Board against the first respondent - Writ Petition - Prayer for de-sealing property denied as it was contingent on the approval of the building plan, which was not sanctioned - De-sealing issue intertwined with the pending Civil Suit - Appellant had no legal right to seek a writ of mandamus at this stage - Result - Civil Appeals and Writ Petition dismissed. (Paragraphs 1-16)

Delimitation Act 2002 – Section 10A and Representation of the People Act 1950 – Section 8A – Constitutionality challenged – Deferral of delimitation exercise in a State due to threats to unity, integrity, peace, and public order – Rescission of deferment order and entrusting delimitation exercise to the Election Commission – Challenge to the political inclusivity of the process – Alleged violation of democratic principles and constitutional norms.

Process of Delimitation – Political Representation – Section 8A of RP Act – Delimitation Act provides for inclusion of political representatives – Election Commission entrusted with delimitation exercise in States specified in Section 8A – Constitutional challenge raised on dilution of political process in delimitation exercise.

Power to Rescind Deferment Order – President’s Authority – Notification rescinding deferment issued by Union Ministry of Law and Justice – Election Commission’s actions contrary to the terms of rescission – Challenge to the validity of the President’s notification and Election Commission’s role in the process.

Constitutional Norms – Article 170(2) and Article 81(2) of the Constitution – Density of Population – Draft proposal by Election Commission based on population density – Alleged breach of constitutional norms regarding the ratio between population and seats in constituencies.

Notice Issued – Counter-Affidavits and Rejoinders – Court reserves the constitutional challenge for further deliberation – Parties directed to file counter-affidavits within three weeks, and rejoinders within two weeks thereafter.

Delimitation Process – Interdiction at this Stage – Process already commenced following the rescission of deferment order – Court refrains from interdicting the ongoing delimitation process.

Next Listing – Petitions to be Listed – Petitions to be listed in the first week of October 2023 for further consideration.