Consumer Protection – Educational Institution – Policy Decision – Respondent sought admission to MBBS course in the Philippines through the appellant – Republic of Philippines abolished the MBBS program after admission – Appellant offered alternative course, which respondent declined – Consumer Fora directed appellant to refund fees and pay compensation – Supreme Court held appellant not liable for policy decisions of the foreign government – Orders set aside, complaint dismissed [Paras 7-14].

Facilitator Role – Liability Limitation – Appellant acted as a facilitator for admission to the College in the Philippines – Policy decision by the Republic of Philippines led to abolition of MBBS program – Supreme Court noted appellant had no control over the policy decision – Appellant’s role limited to securing admission, which was fulfilled – No vicarious liability for changes made by foreign government [Paras 11-13].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Orders of Consumer Fora set aside – Complaint dismissed – No costs ordered [Para 14].

Consumer Law – Delay in Delivery of Possession – Builder delayed delivery of possession of the flat due to delayed regulatory clearance – Appellant (allottee) entitled to compensation for delay from March 2011 till fresh offer of possession – Modification of contractual terms regarding compensation upheld – National Commission's modification of compensation to 6% p.a. set aside; State Commission's direction of Rs.10 per sq. ft. per month restored [Paras 22-27, 29(iv)].

Maintenance Charges – Liability and Payment – Direction to allottee to pay maintenance charges held erroneous as the entity entitled to receive such charges was not a party to the proceedings – Declaratory relief cannot be given in vacuum – Orders of the National and State Commissions directing payment of maintenance charges set aside [Paras 15-19, 29(i)-(ii)].

Offer of Possession – Validity and Conditions – Letter dated 10th June 2013 offering possession deemed invalid due to conditional nature and illegal demand – Proper fresh offer of possession to be issued within eight weeks from date of judgement – Execution of Deed to follow within specified period [Paras 28-29(iii)].

Decision – Appeals disposed of in specified terms – Directions for compensation and issuance of fresh offer of possession upheld – Erroneous direction for maintenance charges payment set aside [Paras 30-31].

Civil Procedure – Striking Off Defense – Defendant tenant failed to deposit due rent despite requirements under Order XV Rule 5 CPC – Trial Court and Revisional Court struck off defense for non-payment – High Court reversed this decision, granting indulgence to the tenant – Supreme Court held that mere denial of landlord-tenant relationship does not absolve tenant from depositing due rent – High Court's order set aside; defense struck off as per lower courts' orders [Paras 11.1, 12, 15, 18].

Eviction Suit – Denial of Title – Defendant's denial of plaintiff's title and landlord-tenant relationship deemed insufficient to avoid compliance with Order XV Rule 5 CPC – Supreme Court emphasized that tenant must deposit rent unless able to show lawful payment [Paras 13-14].

Discretionary Power – Application – High Court's discretionary power to strike off defense must be exercised with great circumspection – Discretionary power is not meant for routine relaxation but to address bonafide situations; not applicable in this case of deliberate non-performance by tenant [Paras 10.1, 10.3, 17].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's order set aside – Trial Court's order striking off defense restored – Suit to proceed with reasonable priority for expeditious disposal [Paras 22-23].

Sales Tax – Classification of Product – 'KADIPROL' sold by the respondent categorized by Deputy Commissioner as 'Drug and Medicine' under Entry 26(1) of Schedule II Part A of the GST Act – Tribunal upheld this classification – High Court reversed and categorized it as 'Poultry Feed' under Entry 25 of Schedule I – Supreme Court found merit in Revenue’s contention that the product should be classified as a drug due to its medicinal properties and primary use in preventing infections in poultry – However, as issue was deemed academic with no revenue implication, proceedings were closed without a definitive ruling on classification [Paras 2, 4-8].

Common Parlance Test – Application in Tax Law – Supreme Court noted the importance of the common parlance test in determining the classification of goods for tax purposes – High Court’s reliance on previous decisions without detailed examination critiqued – Issue of applying common parlance test left open for consideration in future cases [Paras 5.6, 7-8].

Decision – Appeal disposed of on grounds of academic interest – No tax dues or revenue implication – Larger question on common parlance test kept open for future consideration [Paras 7-8].

Contempt of Court – Wilful Disobedience – Respondents failed to deposit shortfall amount to maintain USD 60 million in Corporation Bank account despite Supreme Court’s orders – Defence of insufficient funds and inability to comply rejected – Conduct amounted to deliberate and wilful disobedience – Respondents liable for punishment under Contempt of Courts Act [Paras 10-12].

Execution of Court Orders – Contempt vs. Execution – Contempt proceedings maintainable even if the order is executable – Contempt proceedings and execution proceedings are separate remedies and can be invoked simultaneously – Supreme Court emphasized the need to maintain rule of law and judicial authority [Paras 8-9].

Legal Principles – Non-Compliance – Mere non-compliance due to lack of funds not a valid defence – Repeated failure to comply with court orders despite opportunities considered wilful disobedience – Supreme Court’s directions must be followed to uphold the authority of the judiciary [Paras 7, 10-11].

Decision – Respondents held guilty of contempt – Further opportunity given to comply with the order within four weeks – Matter adjourned for consideration of punishment [Paras 12].

Customs – Classification of Goods – Dried pomegranate seeds (Anardana) classified under Heading 1209 as seeds, not under Heading 0813 as dried fruit – CESTAT's classification upheld based on the common parlance test and policy conditions in the Import Policy – Revenue's contention rejected due to insufficient evidence to reclassify Anardana under a different heading [Paras 1-3, 25].

Common Parlance Test – Interpretation of Taxing Statutes – Words in taxing statutes should be construed according to their commonly accepted meaning in trade and popular sense – Common parlance test applied to determine that Anardana is not considered a dried fruit but a spice or medicinal seed [Paras 12-13, 19].

Import Policy – Influence on Classification – Policy condition attached to sub-heading 1209.99.00 of the Import Policy supports classification of Anardana under Heading 1209 – Import Policy's correlation with sub-heading 1209.99 considered valid in the absence of specific exclusion or inclusion in the Customs Tariff Act [Paras 21-22].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Classification of Anardana under Heading 1209 upheld – CESTAT’s decision affirmed – Suggested Revenue to consider a policy decision on classification of Anardana to avoid future litigation [Paras 26-28].

Civil Procedure – Setting Aside Ex-parte Decree – High Court set aside ex-parte judgment and decree without considering delay of 1522 and 2345 days in filing petitions to set aside the decree – Supreme Court held that High Court erred in exercising Article 227 jurisdiction where statutory remedy of appeal was available – High Court’s decision set aside; ex-parte decree and trial court’s orders on delay restored [Paras 6, 7.1, 7.2].

Jurisdiction – High Court’s Exercise of Supervisory Power – High Court should not entertain petitions under Article 227 when specific remedy of appeal exists – Exercise of supervisory jurisdiction by High Court critiqued for bypassing available appellate remedies under CPC [Paras 7, 7.1, 7.2].

Delay in Legal Proceedings – Condonation – Trial Court’s refusal to condone significant delays in filing petitions to set aside ex-parte decree upheld – High Court’s failure to address justification of trial court’s refusal noted as a critical oversight [Paras 6.1, 6.2, 7.2].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Ex-parte judgment and decree and trial court’s orders on condonation of delay restored – No order as to costs [Paras 8].

Criminal Law – Evidence of Hostile Witness – Even the evidence of a hostile witness can be considered to the extent it supports the case of the prosecution – Prosecution established motive through the deposition of a hostile witness who testified to the accused's harassment of the deceased – High Court's failure to consider this aspect constituted a serious error [Paras 7, 7.1].

Circumstantial Evidence – Recovery of Weapon – Recovery of the knife in three pieces from the crime scene, identified by the shopkeeper (PW-9) as sold to the accused, established a crucial link in the chain of evidence – High Court erred in observing that the prosecution failed to prove this link [Paras 7.1].

Incriminating Material – DNA Evidence and Injury – Blood-stained Loi recovered at the instance of the accused matched the blood of the deceased and the accused – Injury on the accused's finger corroborated by medical testimony (PW-20) – High Court's dismissal of DNA evidence on non-germane grounds was unjustified [Paras 7.2, 7.3].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court's order of acquittal set aside – Trial Court's conviction and sentence restored – Accused to surrender to undergo the sentence imposed by the Trial Court [Paras 8, 8.1, 9].

Arbitration – Counter-claim – Claims not notified before invoking arbitration – Counter-claim of a party cannot be dismissed solely on this ground – Clauses 26.1 and 26.2 should be interpreted pragmatically to require parties to attempt amicable settlement before arbitration – Entire subject matter, including counterclaims, forms the subject of arbitration if not resolved amicably [Paras 13, 13.4].

Dispute Resolution – Interpretation of Clauses – Clause 26.1 and 26.2 of the EPC contract emphasize attempts to resolve disputes amicably before arbitration – Disputes include claims and counterclaims if unresolved by conciliation – High Court and Arbitral Tribunal erred in excluding counterclaim for not following conciliation procedure [Paras 12-13.5].

Procedural Compliance – Section 23(2A) – Counterclaims must fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement – Failure to notify counterclaims does not negate jurisdiction if they arise from the same transaction – Section 23(2A) aims to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and ensure comprehensive resolution [Paras 4.6, 13.5].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court and Arbitral Tribunal's orders set aside – NHAI permitted to file counterclaim – Arbitral Tribunal directed to consider counterclaim along with the statement of claim and defense on merits – Delay period excluded for computing the period for passing of the award [Paras 14].