Criminal Law – Seizure and Reporting – Supreme Court examines whether delay in reporting seizure of property to the Magistrate under Section 102(3) Cr.P.C. invalidates a seizure order – Finds conflicting precedents across High Courts – Recognizes two views: one views delay as invalidating the seizure, while the other sees it as a mere irregularity – The Court opts for the latter, holding that non-compliance with immediate reporting does not vitiate the seizure itself, deemed only an irregularity unless proven prejudicial – [Paras 3-6, 12-17].

Legislative Interpretation – Historical and Comparative Analysis of Seizure and Reporting Provisions in Cr.P.C. from 1882 to 2023 – Current law analyzed to clarify amendments and implications over time, emphasizing the continuous necessity for reporting to facilitate property disposal and ensure legal seizure procedures – [Paras 7-11].

Application to Case – Reverses High Court’s decision, rejects immediate re-freezing of bank accounts, and imposes conditional bond requirement on respondents to secure potential restitution pending trial outcome – Addresses process and due legal considerations in handling seized assets – [Paras 25-28].

Decision: The appeal is allowed in part – The Supreme Court sets aside the High Court’s order on the basis that delayed reporting does not automatically invalidate a seizure order – Imposes a conditional bond on respondents pending trial conclusions to ensure justice and procedural compliance are maintained – [Paras 25-28].

Criminal Law – Arrest and Interim Bail – Appeal challenging arrest upheld by lower courts – Interim bail granted due to ongoing general elections and pending legal examination of arrest's validity – Supreme Court examined interim bail/release due to Arvind Kejriwal’s role in ongoing general elections, holding that ignoring peculiar circumstances would be inequitable [Paras 1-19].

Legal Proceedings – Examination of Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Supreme Court to further examine legal issues and validity of arrest before final judgment – Multiple legal pleas and interim bail discussed, with interim bail granted under specific conditions [Paras 2-19].

Judicial Consideration – Role of judiciary in granting bail – Supreme Court referred to precedents on powers to grant interim bail and conditions applicable – Emphasized importance of ongoing general elections and the appellant's political role as influencing factors in granting interim bail [Paras 9-19].

Decision – Grant of Interim Bail – Supreme Court directed interim release of Arvind Kejriwal until June 1, 2024, under stringent conditions due to his political involvement and pending court proceedings on his arrest – Interim bail not to be viewed as a judgment on the merits of the case [Paras 18-19].

Lease Renewal Dispute – Original lease from 1905 renewed in 1944 expired in 1965 – Lease renewal application made in 1972 by Nalininath Mitra not adjudicated upon till initiation of resumption proceedings in 1975 due to reported dilapidation and unauthorized occupation – Resumption order issued by Collector in 1975 based on non-compliance with lease conditions including non-payment of rent and municipal taxes, failure to maintain property – High Court held resumption invalid absent proof of specific public purpose or due legal process for lease determination under the governing manual [Paras 20-28]

Judicial Review – High Court’s decision set aside due to substantive breaches of lease terms confirmed by lessees’ admissions and lack of any steps taken to renew the lease timely before its expiry – Renewal application pending since 1972 to be considered on its own merits within six months – Supreme Court emphasizes strict adherence to lease conditions for renewal eligibility [Para 28].

Decision: The appeal is allowed – High Court and First Appellate Court judgments set aside, reverting to the original Trial Court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s suit – Pending renewal application directed to be considered within six months, with liberty to challenge any adverse decision.

Municipal Law – Town Planning Scheme – Land Allocation and Compensation – Appeals against the Gujarat High Court decision in Civil Appeal Nos. 16956-16957 of 2017 – Gujarat High Court upheld the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation's decision regarding compensation and land allocation under Town Planning Scheme No. 6, Paldi, initiated under the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 – The Supreme Court reviewed the compensation offered for a reduced plot area and the corporation's obligations under revised town planning schemes – Held that the compensation offered was adequate under the scheme’s provisions, and the plaintiffs had accepted the revised plot and compensation without protest – Confirmed that the trial court should not have directed the allocation of additional land when the plaintiffs accepted the compensation and the revised scheme without challenge – Appeals dismissed [Paras 1-42].

Compensation under Town Planning – Evaluation of compensation adequacy in municipal town planning schemes – Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ valuation of compensation under the revised Town Planning Scheme No. 6, Paldi, where original larger plots were replaced with smaller plots due to public utility needs – Emphasis on plaintiffs’ acceptance of the compensation without objection, barring them from later contesting its sufficiency – Determination that statutory compliance was maintained in the variation of the town planning scheme and compensation assessment [Paras 13-17, 32-36].

Jurisdiction of Civil Courts in Town Planning Matters – Discussion on the maintainability of civil suits against municipal corporations for town planning decisions – Supreme Court highlighted the jurisdictional boundaries of civil courts in disputes arising from town planning schemes – Acknowledged the specific procedural channels and appeals provided under the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976, for contesting compensation and plot allocation decisions [Paras 12, 16, 39-40].

Decision – Upholding of Lower Court’s Decision – Held that the Gujarat High Court properly applied the legal principles governing town planning and compensation, adequately addressing all pertinent issues without the need for separate points of determination under Order 41 Rule 31 CPC – Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the High Court’s judgment in favor of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and against the appellants, with no order as to costs [Paras 41-42].

Criminal Law – Bail Granted by High Court Upheld by Supreme Court – Challenge by Union of India against Jharkhand High Court's order dated 30.01.2023 granting bail to the respondent, Mrityunjay Kumar Singh, involved in the Chandwa police attack case – Supreme Court found no strong prima facie case against the conditions of bail being violated and noted no substantial material warranting the reversal of the High Court's decision – Emphasized distinct considerations for granting bail and canceling bail – Acknowledged absence of violations of bail conditions as a substantial factor in declining to overturn the High Court’s order [Paras 1, 13, 16-17].

Evidence and Proceedings – Detailed review of respondent's involvement in other criminal cases and current bail status – Supreme Court observed that previous acquittals and bail grants in other cases weakened the Union of India's argument for setting aside bail – High Court's decision to grant bail was based on lack of evidence directly linking respondent to the immediate crime scene and acts – Supreme Court cautioned that any future violation of bail conditions could lead to a reevaluation of bail status [Paras 7, 11-15].

Judicial Reasoning and Principles – Referenced past precedents on bail considerations, emphasizing the necessity of judicial balance between presumption of innocence and the nature of accusations – Court maintained that detention under presumption of guilt is inappropriate without strong evidential basis – Noted that decisions at the bail stage should not influence the ultimate outcome of the trial [Paras 12, 17].

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – Held – The appeal by Union of India is dismissed due to lack of substantive grounds to reverse the High Court's bail order – Court allows for potential future actions by the prosecution to seek bail cancellation should conditions be violated, stressing that such actions should be assessed independently of current findings [Para 17].

Commercial Law – Consumer Protection – Jurisdiction and Maintainability of Consumer Complaint – Supreme Court examined whether the service obtained by the complainant (a chit fund subscriber) was for a commercial purpose, affecting the maintainability of a consumer complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Dispute arose from the service provider stopping the chit business and refusing refund, leading to a complaint of deficiency in service. The case reached the Supreme Court after traversing through the District Forum, State Commission, and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, all of which failed to address the preliminary objection about the commercial nature of the service comprehensively [Paras 2-3, 7, 12].

Evidence and Burden of Proof – The Supreme Court clarified the burden of proof concerning the exclusion under the Consumer Protection Act, which excludes services bought for commercial purposes from the Act's protection. The Court noted the service provider's responsibility to prove that the service was availed for a commercial purpose before the burden shifts back to the complainant to show that the service was for personal livelihood under self-employment. This standard must be met by a preponderance of probabilities [Paras 13, 17-22].

Consumer Protection Act Interpretation – Clarification of 'commercial purpose' exclusion under Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, with a detailed discussion on the historical amendments to the definition of 'consumer' and the implications of these changes on the current case. The Court dismissed the service provider’s appeal, affirming the lower forums' findings on the deficiency of service but corrected their approach to the jurisdictional issue related to the nature of the service [Paras 13-14, 23-25].

Decision – Affirmation of Lower Courts – Held – The appeals are dismissed with the Supreme Court upholding the findings of the lower forums regarding the deficiency of service by the service provider and confirming that the service availed by the complainant was not for a commercial purpose under the Consumer Protection Act, thereby entitling the complainant to consumer protection [Para 25].

Contractual Dispute - Civil appeal challenging the judgment of Jammu and Kashmir High Court regarding enforcement and interpretation of contractual terms related to the tender awarded for transportation services - High Court had entertained a writ petition claiming damages for the loss of revenue due to delayed start of the contract period - Supreme Court holds that disputes purely arising out of contractual obligations should not be entertained under extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution [Paras 2-22].

Principle of Unjust Enrichment - Respondent sought damages for not being able to operate for full contract period due to delayed contract start, attributed to his non-compliance with contract terms - High Court awarded damages, treating the inability to operate as unjust enrichment to the appellants - Supreme Court finds this approach erroneous, stating the respondent cannot claim damages for a delay caused by his own initial refusal to comply with contract terms [Paras 16, 19-20].

Remedies and Jurisdiction - Supreme Court emphasizes that claims related to contractual damages should be pursued in civil courts or through arbitration if agreed upon, not through writ petitions - Respondent should have been directed to a competent court for resolution of contractual disputes [Para 22].

Legal Maxim Invoked - 'Nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria' (No man can take advantage of his own wrong) applied - Supreme Court holds respondent's actions and subsequent litigation barred him from claiming damages for the alleged losses [Paras 18, 21].

Decision - High Court's judgment in favor of respondent on the claim of damages set aside - Supreme Court quashes the High Court's orders dated 20th February, 2015 and 30th September, 2015 as being without jurisdiction in entertaining a contractual dispute under Article 226 - Appeals allowed [Paras 24-25].

Property Law – Condonation of Delay – Trial and High Court allowed condonation of delay for a restoration application filed by a non-party to the original proceedings (P & S Nirman Pvt. Ltd.), citing an unregistered Agreement for Sale and Power of Attorney from 2009 with the deceased original plaintiff’s legal heirs – The Supreme Court found no legal basis to entertain the application from a non-party, describing the act as unsustainable in law – Held: the trial court’s decision to entertain and approve the application filed by a non-party was incorrect, leading to the setting aside of both the trial court’s and the High Court’s decisions – Appellant’s arguments that the suit was frivolous and the land had already been compensated were noted but not required for decision after finding procedural improprieties [Paras 9, 12-13].

Legal Procedure – Filing by Non-Party – Supreme Court criticized the approach of accepting applications from entities not originally part of the suit, emphasizing that this could lead to misuse by unrelated parties intervening in judicial processes – Held: Such practices could significantly undermine judicial integrity and the proper administration of law, necessitating strict adherence to party-based litigation principles [Para 10].

Implications for Land Acquisition Claims – While the original suit challenged the legality of land acquisition and sought entitlement under CIDCO’s Gaonthan Extension Scheme, these issues remained unaddressed substantively due to the procedural flaws highlighted – Trial court directed to consider pending application by actual parties on its merits [Para 14].

Decisions: The judgment of the High Court and the order of the trial court are quashed – The case concerning the procedural improprieties is remanded back for consideration of the pending application by the original plaintiff’s legal heirs, to be adjudicated based on its own merits without influence from non-parties [Para 13-14].

Election Law – Filing of replication in election petition – High Court allowed the election petitioner to file replication responding to new facts in the appellant’s written statement – Supreme Court held that replication is permissible under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC, which is applicable to election petitions under Section 87 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, to ensure a fair and effective trial – No new facts or cause of action introduced in the replication; purely explanatory to challenge the written statement responses – Appeal against High Court’s decision dismissed. [Paras 1-26]

Disclosure and Non-disclosure of Facts in Nomination Papers – Election Petition by first respondent claiming non-disclosure by appellant affecting election results – Specific allegations include non-disclosure of bank accounts, vehicle ownership, and financial liabilities – Appellant's written statement introduced explanations treated as new facts necessitating a replication for clarification – High Court's leave for replication justified on grounds of ensuring a fair trial and allowing the election petitioner to address new defenses raised. [Paras 2-5, 22-25]

Legal Framework and Judicial Discretion – Application of CPC in Election Petitions – Supreme Court confirms that under Section 87 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, and CPC, the High Court has discretion to allow replication in election petition matters – Importance of replication in clarifying and contesting new facts raised in written statements emphasized – Adherence to procedural justice and fair trial principles underpins the decision. [Paras 6-10, 20-21]

Decision – Upholding of High Court's Leave to File Replication – Supreme Court dismisses appeal, confirming that replication did not introduce new cause of action or material facts beyond those originally pleaded – Finds no merit in the appellant's objections to the replication – Ensures no prejudice is caused to the appellant while allowing the election petitioner to fully contest the election results. [Para 26]