Criminal Law – Quashing of Summoning Order – Distinction between Civil and Criminal Proceedings – Held – Summoning order under Section 406 IPC by the Magistrate was quashed by the Supreme Court – No prima facie case of criminal breach of trust established against the appellants – Supreme Court emphasized that mere non-payment of dues arising from a commercial transaction does not constitute a criminal offence unless there is clear evidence of dishonest intent at the inception – Remedy lies in civil litigation for recovery of dues, not criminal prosecution – High Court’s dismissal of the petition under Section 482 CrPC was overturned as there was no legal basis for the criminal proceedings [Paras 1-4, 31-40].

Judicial Scrutiny – Issuance of Process – Importance of Prima Facie Case – Held – Issuance of summons is a serious matter and must not be done mechanically – Magistrate must apply mind to ensure allegations constitute an offence before issuing summons – Supreme Court criticized the lower courts for not properly scrutinizing the complaint and evidence before initiating criminal proceedings – Highlighted the need for meticulous examination of the complaint's contents to distinguish between criminal breach of trust and civil breach of contract [Paras 13-23, 41-43].

Criminal Procedure – Powers of the Magistrate under Section 202 CrPC – Explained – Limited scope of inquiry under Section 202 CrPC was reiterated – The Magistrate must ascertain the existence of a prima facie case without delving into the merits or demerits of the case at this stage – The Supreme Court emphasized that the inquiry is not to determine guilt but to decide if there is sufficient ground to proceed with the case – Faulty application of these principles by the Magistrate and High Court led to the quashing of the summoning order [Paras 6-12].

Difference between Criminal Breach of Trust and Cheating – Legal Principles – Clarified – The Supreme Court reiterated the distinction between the two offences – Criminal breach of trust involves entrustment of property with dishonest misappropriation, while cheating involves deception from the inception – The Court ruled that these offences cannot coexist under the same set of facts, as they are mutually exclusive – The judgment underscores that the transaction in question did not meet the criteria for either offence under the IPC [Paras 24-30].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Orders of the High Court and Magistrate quashed – Supreme Court directs the Registry to send copies of the judgment to the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Law & Justice, and the Home Department to ensure better legal training and understanding of these offences across the country [Paras 44-47].

Arbitration – Award Interpretation – Contractual Terms – The Arbitrator awarded claims for uneconomic utilization of machinery, interest on delayed payments, and pre-reference interest under Section 31(7) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The High Court set aside certain claims, emphasizing the need to adhere to specific contractual prohibitions. The Supreme Court partially restored the Arbitrator's award, holding that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 37 by substituting its interpretation for that of the Arbitrator and District Judge, particularly regarding claims where the contract did not explicitly bar the award of interest. [Paras 7-10]

Interest – Pre-Reference and Pendente Lite – Arbitration Discretion – The Arbitrator's power to award interest under Section 31(7) was upheld, reaffirming that unless explicitly barred by the contract, an Arbitrator may grant pre-reference, pendente lite, and post-award interest. The High Court erred in modifying the award by disallowing pre-reference interest, which the Arbitrator had lawfully awarded. [Paras 9.4-9.6]

Decision – Appeal Partially Allowed – Held – The appeal was partially allowed with the following outcomes: The award of claim no. 3 (relating to labor charges for uneconomical stoppage of work) was set aside as it violated the Special Terms and Conditions of the contract; the award of claim no. 4 (interest on delayed payment of running account bills) was upheld; and the award of claim no. 6 (interest) was modified to reinstate pre-reference interest as originally granted by the arbitrator. Costs were not awarded, and each party was ordered to bear their own expenses. [Para 10]

Consumer Law – Real Estate Transaction – Appeal under Section 67 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against NCDRC Order – Supreme Court upheld NCDRC's decision directing refund of Rs. 7,16,41,493 with interest to the respondent for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices – Allegation of double allotment of the flat substantiated, leading to confusion and improper termination of allotment – Appeal dismissed with directions for payment within specified timeline [Paras 1-22].

Definition of Consumer – Clarification of ‘Consumer’ under Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Supreme Court reaffirmed that a company purchasing a flat for the residential use of its director and family is a consumer, not involved in commercial activity – NCDRC's reliance on precedents including Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust and Crompton Greaves Ltd. deemed appropriate [Paras 11-17].

Unfair Trade Practice – Double Allotment of Flat – Court found the appellant guilty of adopting unfair trade practices due to the double allotment and wrongful forfeiture of deposit – Supreme Court validated NCDRC’s findings of deficiency in service, leading to the cancellation of the allotment and order for refund with interest [Paras 18-20].

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – Held – The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs – Directed partial immediate refund with balance to be paid by December 31, 2024, or to be recovered as arrears of land revenue [Para 22].

Criminal Law – Conviction under NDPS Act – Acquittal on Appeal – Appellant convicted under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) for allegedly supplying a psychotropic substance, Fortwin injections, for illegal interstate transportation. High Court upheld the conviction; however, the Supreme Court found no admissible evidence linking the appellant to the conspiracy or the supply of the contraband. The appellant’s statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, relied upon by lower courts, was inadmissible based on the precedent set in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, and there was a lack of corroborating evidence. Appeal allowed, and appellant acquitted [Paras 1-14].

Evidence – Admissibility of Section 67 NDPS Act Statements – The Supreme Court reiterated that statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are inadmissible as confessional statements for convicting an accused. The Court emphasized that without any other corroborating evidence or recovery of contraband from the appellant, the conviction could not be sustained. No proper charge of conspiracy under Section 29 was framed, and the essential elements of conspiracy were not proven [Paras 7-10].

Decision – Acquittal – Held – The appeal is allowed, and the appellant is acquitted of all charges. The lack of legal evidence and the inadmissibility of statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act led to the setting aside of the conviction. The appellant's bail bonds were canceled as a result of the acquittal [Paras 11-15].

Criminal Law – Consolidation of Sureties – Petitioner unable to furnish separate sureties for 11 FIRs across multiple states – Supreme Court orders consolidation of sureties, permitting the use of a single set of sureties in all cases within each state – Court emphasizes balance between the need for sureties and the protection of the petitioner's fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution [Paras 1-33].

Excessive Bail Conditions – Proportionality and Reasonableness – Court rules that imposing excessive or onerous conditions for bail, which a petitioner cannot reasonably fulfill, effectively denies bail – Reaffirms principle that excessive bail is no bail at all [Paras 23-27].

Local Surety Requirements – Judicial Discretion – Court relieves petitioner from the requirement to provide local sureties, highlighting that such conditions could unjustly restrict liberty and noting that sureties from other states should suffice if they meet the required legal criteria [Para 27].

Fundamental Rights – Article 21 – Court underscores the need to protect the fundamental rights of the petitioner while ensuring the due process of law, advocating for reasonable and proportionate bail conditions [Para 24].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Petitioner permitted to use consolidated sureties for bail in all FIRs within each respective state – Court sets aside the requirement for local sureties, allowing the same sureties to be used across all FIRs in the concerned states​.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings under IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act – Supreme Court remands matter to Division Bench of High Court – Challenge against Single Judge's decision quashing criminal proceedings arising from IPO fraud in Yes Bank and IDFC shares – CBI contends settlement with SEBI does not absolve criminal liability – Supreme Court finds procedural irregularity in hearing by Single Judge instead of Division Bench as per High Court rules – Proceedings ordered to be heard afresh by Division Bench [Paras 1-26].

Jurisdiction – Procedural Compliance in High Court – Supreme Court emphasizes proper jurisdiction under High Court rules – Single Judge's quashing of proceedings found to be irregular as per High Court's Part 1 Chapter I Rules – Case remanded for fresh hearing by Division Bench without influence from previous orders or observations – Interim stay on criminal proceedings granted pending High Court's decision [Paras 17-20, 23-26].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – Supreme Court allows appeal, setting aside Single Judge’s order – Matter remanded to Division Bench for independent consideration on merits – Interim stay of trial court proceedings granted for four weeks – Direction issued for expeditious disposal within three months [Paras 24-26].

Service Law – Regularization of Appointment – Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation – Denial of Confirmation in Lien Vacancy – High Court's Dismissal Reversed – Challenge to the High Court’s decision upholding the resolution of the Executive Council of Tripura University not to confirm the appellant in the post of Assistant Professor in Law despite the vacation of the lien vacancy – The Supreme Court held that the University’s action was arbitrary and violative of the appellant's legitimate expectation, as there was no adverse performance record against the appellant and the lien had been vacated – Judgment of the Single Judge and the Division Bench set aside – Writ of mandamus issued directing the University to reconsider the appellant’s case for confirmation within four weeks [Paras 1-37].

Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation – Application in Employment – University’s Discretion in Regularization – Supreme Court emphasized that the doctrine of legitimate expectation requires that public authorities exercise their powers fairly and without arbitrariness – In this case, the appellant’s legitimate expectation to be confirmed in her post after the lien was vacated was not outweighed by any larger public interest – University’s failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for denial of confirmation amounted to arbitrary exercise of power [Paras 27-35].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – The appeal is allowed, and the decisions of the Single Judge and Division Bench are set aside – The University’s resolution not to confirm the appellant and to re-advertise the post was quashed – A writ of mandamus was issued directing the University to reconsider the appellant’s case for confirmation within four weeks, with all consequential benefits to be provided [Paras 36-37].

Service Law – Entitlement to Pensionary Benefits – Appellants classified as temporary employees of the Special Frontier Force (SFF) under the Compulsory Saving Scheme Deposits (SSD) Fund challenged the denial of pensionary benefits under the 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC) – Tribunal and High Court rejected claims on the ground that the appellants were not government servants – Supreme Court set aside the judgments, holding that the appellants, despite being termed as temporary employees, demonstrated characteristics of regular government servants – Appellants were granted the same benefits as regular government employees, including pensionary benefits under the Revised Pay Scale Rules, 2008 [Paras 1-37].

Temporary Employment – Regularization and Benefits – The Court held that continuous service for over three decades under the government’s financial structure, receipt of increments, promotions, and alignment with government pay scales strongly indicated a formalized employee-employer relationship akin to permanent government employees – Denial of pensionary benefits solely based on the temporary status was held to be arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India – Directed respondents to extend the benefits of the 6th CPC to the appellants [Paras 22-34].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – The appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned judgment – Respondents directed to extend the benefits of the 6th CPC and pensionary benefits to the appellants as provided to their peers in the SFF Accounts Section [Paras 35-37].

Service Law – Grant of Increment to Technical Personnel on Acquiring Ph.D. Qualification – Differentiation between Scientific and Technical Staff – Supreme Court sets aside the High Court’s decision upholding the Tribunal’s order granting two advance increments to technical personnel upon acquiring a Ph.D. degree – Held, scientists and technical staff belong to different cadres governed by distinct service rules, with scientists being eligible for incentives under their specific pay package – Mere possession of a Ph.D. by technical staff does not entitle them to benefits reserved for scientists – Appeal allowed [Paras 1-11].

Constitutional Law – Article 14 – Equality before Law – Applicability to Service Benefits – Supreme Court clarifies that Article 14 cannot be invoked to claim equal benefits between differently classified service cadres with distinct roles and promotional avenues – Reiterates that differentiation based on job requirements and service rules does not violate the right to equality under Article 14 – Appeal allowed, setting aside the orders of the Tribunal and High Court [Paras 8-10].

Decision – Appeal allowed – The Supreme Court dismissed the Original Applications filed by the respondents before the Tribunal, setting aside the orders of the Tribunal and the High Court – Held, technical personnel are not entitled to the benefits of advance increments upon acquiring a Ph.D. degree, as those benefits are specific to scientists under their service rules [Para 11].