Consumer Law – Deficiency in Service – Real Estate Dispute – The appellant sought a refund for failure by the Agra Development Authority (ADA) to provide possession of a residential apartment due to construction deficiencies, including the absence of a completion certificate and firefighting clearance. The NCDRC granted a partial refund but limited interest to the date of filing the complaint. The Supreme Court held that ADA's failure to obtain the necessary certificates rendered its offer of possession legally invalid, and thus the appellant was entitled to further compensation for the delay in possession [Paras 1-20].

Limitation and Jurisdiction in Consumer Disputes – ADA argued that the complaint was time-barred and beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the NCDRC. The Court rejected these arguments, applying Sections 18 and 19 of the Limitation Act, which extended the limitation period due to ADA's acceptance of payments and issuance of reminders. Further, the Court held that the NCDRC had pecuniary jurisdiction as the claim, including compensation for mental agony and harassment, exceeded Rs. 1 crore [Paras 21-40].

Compensation for Delay in Possession – The Court found that both the appellant and ADA were responsible for delays in the transaction. While the appellant delayed in making payments, ADA failed to provide the completion certificate, making its offer of possession invalid. As such, the Court awarded additional compensation of Rs. 15,00,000 to the appellant, in addition to the refund and interest from the date of the complaint [Paras 41-50].

Decision: Appeal of the appellant partly allowed – Refund of the deposit along with 9% interest per annum from the date of the complaint, plus additional compensation of Rs. 15,00,000.

ADA's appeal dismissed – The arguments regarding limitation and pecuniary jurisdiction were found to be without merit.

Service Law – Repatriation of Employees – After the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh, APSRTC employees were repatriated to their parent zones under TSRTC – High Court quashed the repatriation orders and directed permanent allocation to deputational posts – Supreme Court held that the High Court’s reliance on Section 77 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 was misplaced – Section 82 governs the allocation of employees of Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs), and guidelines for allocation had already been finalized [Paras 9-14].

Section 82 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act – Governs allocation of PSU employees post-bifurcation – APSRTC’s Agenda Note of August 2017 clarified that Class III and Class IV employees should be allocated to the respective corporations where the region falls – Supreme Court affirmed that the respondents, who were deputed temporarily, should report to their parent zones under TSRTC as per these guidelines [Paras 11-13].

Judicial Review – High Court erroneously applied principles related to government employees under Section 77 to PSU employees – Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and directed that the employees continue their service in their parent zones [Paras 10-17].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court judgment dated November 21, 2019, quashed – Repatriation orders upheld – Respondents to report to their parent zones under TSRTC as per the finalized guidelines [Paras 17-18].

Service Law – Termination of Employment – Non-compliance with Procedural Requirements – Termination of respondent's services by Kerala Agricultural University for unauthorized absence after expiry of Leave Without Allowance (LWA) challenged – High Court Division Bench set aside the termination, holding that the university failed to follow the prescribed procedure under the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1960 – Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing the necessity of recording prima facie satisfaction before initiating a disciplinary inquiry as per Rule 15 – Failure to adhere to statutory procedures deemed fatal to the university’s case [Paras 8-14].

Natural Justice – Mandatory Procedural Compliance – Supreme Court reiterated that statutory procedures must be strictly followed – The principle that if a statute prescribes a particular procedure, it must be followed in that manner and not otherwise – University’s failure to record satisfaction before disciplinary inquiry found to violate principles of natural justice – Respondent's inability to rejoin duties due to illness and COVID-19 travel restrictions considered bona fide [Paras 12-15].

Decision – Dismissal of Special Leave Petition – Held – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's quashing of the termination order – Court found no merit in the university's plea, concluding that the Division Bench's judgment was sound and required no interference – Termination set aside due to procedural lapses by the university [Paras 16-17].

Criminal Law – Conviction under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC upheld – Challenge in Supreme Court against the Allahabad High Court's decision maintaining trial court’s conviction of the appellant for murder and rioting – Court examined the evidence presented by the prosecution, including eyewitness accounts and medical evidence – The prosecution’s case was supported by the testimony of eyewitnesses, corroborated by medical evidence of the deceased’s injuries – The appellant’s involvement in the unlawful assembly with a common object of eliminating the deceased was established, leading to the upholding of the conviction [Paras 1-34].

Unlawful Assembly and Vicarious Liability – Supreme Court reaffirmed that under Section 149 IPC, each member of an unlawful assembly is vicariously liable for the acts committed in prosecution of the common object, regardless of whether each member physically participated in the crime – Even if the appellant did not directly cause fatal injuries, his participation in the unlawful assembly with the knowledge of the common object was sufficient for conviction under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC [Paras 27-31].

Evidence Evaluation – Supreme Court found that despite certain omissions in the prosecution's case, such as the non-recovery of the weapon and the failure to examine key witnesses, the evidence of the eyewitnesses was credible and consistent – The Court concluded that these omissions did not undermine the overall prosecution case, which was sufficiently supported by direct and medical evidence [Paras 32-33].

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – Held – The appeal is dismissed, and the conviction of the appellant under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC is affirmed – The Court held that the appellant’s involvement in the unlawful assembly with the common object of committing murder was clearly established, justifying his conviction under the applicable sections of the IPC [Paras 33-34].

Criminal Law – Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304(A) of IPC – Conviction and Sentence – Modified – The appellant was convicted of causing death by rash and negligent driving under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304(A) of the IPC, related to a road accident resulting in the death of a pillion rider – The trial court sentenced him to simple imprisonment and fines for each offence – On appeal, the High Court upheld the conviction and imposed additional compensation – The Supreme Court, considering the appellant's age (69 years), health issues, and the fact that he had already been incarcerated for 117 days, modified the sentence to the period already undergone – Compensation reduced from Rs. 2.5 lakhs to Rs. 50,000, to be paid within 60 days [Paras 13-15].

Section 162 of Cr.P.C. – Testimony Contradictions – The appellant contended that the identification of the accused based on PW-6's testimony involved contradictions with the Section 161 statement, as the witness initially described the driver as an elderly person – The Court held that this inconsistency did not amount to a significant contradiction under Section 162(2) Cr.P.C., and the identification remained valid [Paras 8-9].

Sentence Reduction – Long Period of Incarceration and Mitigating Factors – The Court noted that the appellant had already been in custody for 117 days, and the accident occurred in 2007, almost 17 years ago – Citing a previous judgment in Surendran v. Sub-Inspector of Police, 2021, which substituted a sentence of imprisonment with a fine in a similar case of negligent driving, the Court reduced the appellant's sentence to the time already served [Paras 12-13].

Bail – Parity with Co-Accused – Prolonged Custody – The appellant, Sunil, sought bail on the grounds of parity with ten co-accused who had already been granted bail and the fact that he had been in custody for over a year – Held: The fact that ten other co-accused are already out on bail and that the trial is likely to be long due to the number of accused and witnesses justifies the appellant's request for bail – Bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 5-6, 15].

Absconding Accused – Delayed Apprehension – The respondent argued against granting bail on the grounds that the appellant had absconded for seven months after the alleged crime – Held: While the appellant’s absconding is a factor to be considered, it is not sufficient by itself to deny bail, especially when the charges have already been framed and several other co-accused have been granted bail [Para 6].

Conditions for Bail – Trial Court Discretion – The Court directed that the appellant be released on bail subject to conditions to be imposed by the Trial Court – The appellant is required to cooperate fully in the trial, and any violation of bail conditions will lead to cancellation [Para 16].

Decision:

Bail granted. The appellant is to be produced before the concerned trial court and released on bail subject to conditions imposed by the trial court. The appellant must cooperate fully with the trial, and any misuse of liberty will result in cancellation of bail.

Civil Law – Motor Vehicle Accident – Liability of Dealer and Manufacturer – Supreme Court examined liability in a motor vehicle accident case where the vehicle involved was owned by the manufacturer, but in possession of the dealer – Tribunal held the manufacturer and dealer jointly and severally liable – High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision – Supreme Court reversed the finding regarding the dealer’s liability, holding that the manufacturer, not the dealer, was liable as the vehicle was under the control of the manufacturer’s employees at the time of the accident [Paras 13-24].

Interpretation of 'Owner' under Motor Vehicles Act – The Court examined the definition of 'owner' under Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, concluding that ownership is not limited to the registered owner but includes the person in control or command of the vehicle – Liability determined based on control and command at the time of the accident [Paras 13, 19].

Contractual Liability – Clauses in Dealership Agreement – Supreme Court considered whether clauses in the dealership agreement between the manufacturer and dealer shifted liability to the dealer – Held that clauses limiting the manufacturer’s liability to defects under the warranty did not transfer tortious liability to the dealer, thus absolving the dealer from compensation liability in this case [Paras 25-28].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Held – The appeal is allowed to the extent that the dealer is not liable for compensation – However, the manufacturer remains liable – If the dealer has paid any part of the compensation, it is entitled to recover the same from the manufacturer with interest [Paras 33-35].

Civil Law – Jurisdiction of Execution Court – Specific Performance – Rescission of Contract – The Supreme Court considered whether the Execution Court had jurisdiction to entertain applications for rescission of a contract and for the extension of time to deposit balance sale consideration under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, when the decree was passed by an appellate court. The Court held that the Execution Court, being the court of first instance, retained jurisdiction to entertain such applications, emphasizing that the decree passed by an appellate court is considered as being passed in the same suit. The Court further clarified that the applications should be treated as interlocutory applications in the original suit rather than in execution proceedings. [Paras 15-19]

Equitable Relief – Extension of Time to Deposit – Substantial Justice – The Supreme Court upheld the Execution Court’s decision to allow the decree-holder to deposit the balance sale consideration despite a delay. The Court noted that the decree-holder had consistently shown an intention to comply with the decree, and the delay was not due to any fault on their part. The decision emphasized the discretionary nature of the relief under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, aimed at ensuring substantial justice rather than penalizing procedural delays. The Court also refused to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution, stating that technicalities should not override the interests of justice. [Paras 23-30]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Execution Court's jurisdiction and its decision to extend the time for deposit, thereby allowing the decree-holder to obtain specific performance of the contract. [Paras 31-32]

Stamp Act – Applicability of Sections 33, 34, 37, and 39 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 – Agreement of sale with possession considered as conveyance – Insufficiently stamped instrument – Jurisdiction of trial court under Section 34 to impose ten times penalty questioned – High Court upheld penalty but Supreme Court found it premature – Direction for instrument to be sent to District Registrar under Section 39 for determination of duty and penalty [Paras 14-23].

Discretionary Jurisdiction – Distinction between powers of trial court under Section 34 and District Registrar under Section 39 – Supreme Court clarified that the trial court lacks discretion to reduce penalty under Section 34, while the District Registrar under Section 39 has the discretion to impose an appropriate penalty – Trial court’s imposition of ten times penalty deemed illegal at the premature stage – Matter directed to be handled by District Registrar [Paras 14.1-14.2, 17-22].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Held – The appeal is allowed in part; the Supreme Court set aside the trial court's imposition of ten times penalty and directed the matter to the District Registrar for determination of the proper duty and penalty. The instrument is to be admitted in evidence upon compliance, with all other objections reserved for consideration [Paras 23-24].