Transaction in Securities and Attachment of Property – Appellant's appeals against Special Court's order for recovery of funds under the Act of 1992 – Involvement of appellant with benami companies and alleged failure to repay borrowed funds – Act focused on handling irregularities in transactions in securities, and provisions for attachment of properties of notified persons – [Paras 3-11, 32-33, 35-38].

Interpretation of the Special Court (Trial of Offences relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 – examined – the Court analyzed the provisions of the Act of 1992, especially focusing on the appointment of custodians, the attachment of properties, and the role of the Special Court in dealing with offences and recovery of assets related to securities transactions. [Para 3-11, 34-35]

Burden of Proof and Evidence – discussed – the Court considered the principles of burden of proof and the adequacy of evidence presented. It delved into whether the appellants successfully discharged their onus of proving that loans taken from respondent companies were repaid, and whether the Custodian provided sufficient evidence to establish outstanding debts. [Para 22-24, 26-27, 36-38]

Decision – Reversal of Special Court's Judgment – The Supreme Court reversed the Special Court's decision, finding that the judgments against the appellants were not substantiated by sufficient evidence and were contrary to legal principles. The Court emphasized the importance of reliable documentary evidence and proper legal procedure in such financial cases. [Para 39-41]

Reimbursement Ordered – The Court directed the reimbursement of amounts deposited by the appellants in compliance with a previous order, underscoring the significance of just and fair legal processes in financial litigations. [Para 42]

Disposition – The appeals were allowed, and the judgments of the Special Court were quashed. Any pending applications related to the case were disposed of. [Para 41-43]

Recruitment – Local and Non-Local Candidates – legality of the recruitment process conducted by the Telangana Residential Educational Institutions Recruitment Board, where the contention was regarding the allocation of posts to local and non-local candidates as per the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order 1975. [Para 4-5, 7, 13-14]

Amendment to Government Order – Clarification of Recruitment Process – held – The amendment to G.O.P No. 763 via GOMs No. 124 dated 07.03.2002 mandates filling up 30% of posts first with both locals and non-locals on the basis of merit, followed by filling the remaining 70% with locals. The Court found that the recruitment process adhered to this mandate. [Para 5, 13]

Interpretation of Recruitment Rules – Zone Preferences – The Court held that a candidate could be considered for a zone as per their preference and merit, thereby rejecting the argument that respondent no. 2 should not have been considered for a zone which was her second preference. [Para 8, 14]

Judicial Interference in Recruitment Process – Limitations – emphasized – The Supreme Court stressed the need for judicial restraint in interfering with the decisions of recruitment agencies unless there is evidence of illegality, material irregularity, or mala fides. Reliance was placed on the decision in Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. B.S. Mahajan, (1990) 1 SCC 305. [Para 14]

Decision – Upholding of Recruitment to Respondent No. 2 – The Court set aside the High Court's decision, affirming the recruitment of respondent no. 2 and thus upholding the recruitment process conducted by the appellant. [Para 15]

Land Acquisition – Notice and Opportunity to Object – examined the compliance of statutory notice requirements under the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965, in the context of land acquisition. The court addressed the issue of whether the absence of individual notice to certain tenure-holders vitiated the acquisition process. [Para 1-6, 16-17]

Application of 1965 Act Provisions – The Court scrutinized the provisions of the 1965 Act, focusing on the obligation to issue a pre-acquisition notice and the entitlement of affected parties to object to the acquisition. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural requirements for a valid acquisition. [Para 4-6, 16]

Invalidity of Acquisition Process – The Court held that the absence of public or individual notice proposing to acquire certain lands rendered the acquisition process invalid. This lack of notice denied the respondents an effective opportunity to object, leading to the quashing of the acquisition of specific plots. [Para 16-17]

Assessment of Compensation under 2013 Act – Considering the repeal of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, the Court directed that compensation for acquired land should be assessed in accordance with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. This decision aligns the process with contemporary standards of fair compensation. [Para 18-19]

Directions for Future Action – The Court directed the appropriate government to dispense with certain procedures under the 2013 Act for practical reasons and ordered the determination of compensation in compliance with the Act. It also provided guidelines for dealing with the compensation amount amid a title dispute and maintaining the status quo regarding the land. [Para 20-22]

Conclusion – The appeal was disposed of with specific directions, emphasizing the adherence to procedural requirements in land acquisition and the assessment of fair compensation under the 2013 Act. [Para 23-24]

Claim of Juvenility – Petitioner convicted of murder in 1986, claimed juvenility at the time of incident (10th September, 1982) based on a medical report and family register – Petitioner’s age was a central issue in determining eligibility for relief under the Juvenile Justice Act. [Paras 1-5]

Medical Examination and Age Determination – Medical Board conducted age estimation via X-rays, opining petitioner around 56 years old in 2021 – Claimed petitioner was around 15 years in 1982 – Ossification test and family register scrutinized for age verification. [Paras 5, 7]

Inquiry by Sessions Court – Ordered by Supreme Court to examine petitioner’s claim and authenticity of the family register – Found petitioner's date of birth as 2nd July, 1960, and that he was major at the time of incident – Medical opinion noted uncertainty in age estimation based on X-ray after 25 years of age. [Paras 6, 7, 17-19]

Legal Argument and Court's Observation – Petitioner contested inquiry findings, arguing discrepancies in the family register and school records – The court considered school records more reliable in age determination under Section 94(2) of the JJ Act. [Paras 9-14, 20]

Dismissal of Writ Petition – Supreme Court found no merit in the petition based on detailed inquiry and evidence – Upheld the decision that the petitioner was not a juvenile at the time of the incident and dismissed the writ petition. [Para 21]

Suspension and Cancellation under PC&PNDT Act - Interpretation of Sections 20(1), (2), and (3) - The appeal focuses on the powers for cancellation, suspension, or suspension in public interest under the PC&PNDT Act - Concerns the case of suspension of registration of "Dev Hospital," Ahmedabad, without notice or hearing, deemed contrary to the provisions of the Act [Paras 2, 3, 5, 10-12, 17-18]

Administrative Action – Principles of Natural Justice – Emphasized the need for following principles of natural justice, such as issuing a show cause notice and providing an opportunity of hearing, before suspending or cancelling medical registration under the PC&PNDT Act. [Para 5, 13, 17]

Interpretation of Section 20(3) of PC&PNDT Act – Clarified – Held that the power under Section 20(3) for suspension in public interest is distinct and can be exercised independently of Sections 20(1) & (2). However, this power should be exercised sparingly and for interim periods, not indefinitely, and requires explicit reasoning demonstrating the necessity or expediency in public interest. [Para 11, 16, 17]

Decision – Upholding High Court's Judgment – The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat, which had set aside the suspension orders of the hospital's registration by the appropriate authority under the PC&PNDT Act, finding procedural impropriety and lack of adherence to principles of natural justice. [Para 13, 18]

Directive – No Additional Orders Required – Since the hospital in question is operational and the challenged suspension orders were implemented, no further orders were deemed necessary for reviving the registration. [Para 18]

Arbitration – Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards – Conflict of Interest and Bias – challenge against enforcement of a foreign arbitral award on grounds of arbitrator's alleged bias and conflict of interest under Section 48 of the Indian Arbitration Act. The appellants contended that the presiding arbitrator had failed to disclose conflicts of interest, impacting his impartiality and independence, thus violating the public policy of India. [Para 6, 26-28]

Application of IBA Guidelines on Conflict of Interest – Evaluated – The court examined the application of the International Bar Association (IBA) Guidelines on Conflict of Interest in International Arbitration to determine whether there was a duty of disclosure by the arbitrator and if the alleged non-disclosure led to a conflict of interest. The court found that the arbitrator complied with the disclosure obligations, and no bias or improper conduct could be attributed to the arbitral award. [Para 30-37]

Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards – Upheld – Court underscored the need for minimal judicial intervention in foreign arbitral awards, highlighting the distinction between the standards of public policy applicable in domestic and international arbitration. The court held that refusal to enforce a foreign arbitral award on grounds of bias should be an exceptional circumstance, applying international standards over domestic ones. The award was found enforceable as the appellants failed to meet the high threshold for refusal under Section 48 of the Indian Arbitration Act. [Para 21, 27, 42-44]

Challenge at Enforcement Stage – Discouraged – The court discouraged the practice of raising challenges like arbitrator bias at the enforcement stage, stating such strategies prolong legal battles and delay the enforcement process. It emphasized the importance of timely and strategic resolution in arbitration cases, advocating for adherence to international standards in determining bias. [Para 29, 42]

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – The court dismissed the appeals, finding them devoid of merit and underscored the need for swift enforcement of the foreign arbitral award without further indulgence to the award debtors. [Para 44]

Criminal Procedure – Complaint under Section 200 of CrPC – Dismissal of Complaint – The Supreme Court analyzed the validity of the dismissal of a complaint filed under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) in a dispute involving land and allegations of trespass and threats by officers of the Special Armed Forces (SAF). [Para 1-4, 11-12]

Criminal Procedure – Sanction for Prosecution under Section 197 CrPC – Considered – The necessity of sanction for prosecution under Section 197 CrPC for alleged offenses committed by SAF officers was a focal point. The Court scrutinized whether the acts were performed as part of official duties, thereby requiring sanction for prosecution. [Para 4, 6, 10-11]

Criminal Procedure – Abuse of Process of Law – Held – Court found that the continuation of prosecution based on the complaint constituted an abuse of the process of law, especially considering the overlap with a previously dismissed Contempt Petition and lack of disclosure of relevant facts in the complaint. [Para 9-11]

Decision – Quashing of Complaint and Orders – The Supreme Court quashed the impugned orders of the High Court and the Magistrate and dismissed the complaint filed by the first respondent, citing abuse of the process of law and lack of necessity for sanction under Section 197 CrPC. [Para 12-13]

Consumer Law - Contract Law – Terms and Conditions – Loan Agreement Interpretation – adjudicated on the validity of the interest rate revisions by Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited (HDFC) under a loan agreement. The primary dispute involved the interpretation of terms related to the Adjustable Rate of Interest in the agreement. The appellant, Rajesh Monga, contended that the interest rate should only be revised based on changes in the Prime Lending Rate by the RBI, as allegedly assured by HDFC representatives. [Para 1-4, 6, 11-12]

Pre-Contractual Representations – Reliance on Email Communication – The appellant relied on an email dated 05.10.2005, claiming it was assurance from HDFC about interest rates being pegged to the RBI's Prime Lending Rate. The court examined whether pre-contractual communications could override the explicit terms of the agreement. [Para 6-7, 9, 13]

Interpretation of Agreements – Binding Nature – the terms agreed upon in the loan agreement are binding on the parties. It was noted that prior email exchanges cannot supersede the policy decisions of the lending institution (HDFC) encapsulated in the signed agreement. The Court highlighted that an agreement's terms take precedence over pre-contractual communications. [Para 10, 13-14]

Unfair Trade Practices – Allegation and Evidence – The appellant's claim of being misled into signing the agreement, alleging it to be an unfair trade practice by HDFC, was not substantiated with evidence. The Court required demonstrable proof that the appellant had a better alternative or was indeed lured by HDFC into a disadvantageous agreement. [Para 15]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – upholding the NCDRC's order. It concluded that the increase in interest rates by HDFC was consistent with the terms of the loan agreement and that the pre-contractual email did not alter the agreement's terms. The Court found no evidence of unfair trade practices by HDFC. [Para 16-17]

Constitutional Law – Parliamentary Privilege and Bribery - Scope of Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution - Whether legislators can claim immunity from prosecution on charges of bribery related to their speech or vote in the legislature - Majority in PV Narasimha Rao overruled; bribery not immune under parliamentary privilege - Bribery considered independent of legislator's function to vote or speak - Offense of bribery complete upon acceptance or agreement to accept illegal gratification, not contingent on performance of promised action [Paras 188.1-188.12].

Elections to Rajya Sabha - Voting by legislators in Rajya Sabha elections falls within the ambit of Article 194(2) - Voting considered part of legislative function, warranting protection to ensure free and fearless exercise of franchise [Paras 168, 184-187].

Constitutional Law – Parliamentary Privilege – Bribery and Corruption – The Supreme Court deliberated on whether the parliamentary privilege under Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution extends to immunity from prosecution for bribery in connection with a legislator's vote or speech. The Court evaluated the scope of these constitutional provisions and their application to allegations of bribery among members of Parliament and state legislatures. [Paras 92-98, 103-107, 113, 188.1-188.12]

Interpretation of Parliamentary Privilege – Held – Parliamentary privilege under Articles 105 and 194 does not grant immunity from criminal prosecution for bribery related to legislative activities. The Court clarified that while the privilege protects freedom of speech and voting in the legislature, it does not extend to criminal acts like bribery that are independent of legislative functions. [Paras 100-102, 188.4-188.7, 188.9-188.12]

Doctrine of Stare Decisis – Reconsideration of Precedents –  Court, while acknowledging the doctrine of stare decisis, decided to overrule the majority judgment in PV Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE) in light of the significant implications of the decision on public interest, probity in public life, and the foundations of parliamentary democracy. [Para 188.1]

Bribery as a Criminal Offence – The Court emphasized that the act of bribery is complete upon the acceptance or agreement to accept undue advantage, irrespective of the performance of the promised action. This finding led to the conclusion that bribery, being an independent criminal act, does not fall under the protection of parliamentary privilege. [Paras 111-117, 123-125]

Rajya Sabha Elections – Article 194(2) – The Court concluded that voting in Rajya Sabha elections by members of state legislatures falls within the ambit of Article 194(2), affirming the need for free and fearless exercise of franchise in these elections as integral to the functioning of the state legislatures and the federal structure of Indian democracy. [Paras 168-187]

Decision – Overruling PV Narasimha Rao Majority Judgment – Court, overruled the majority judgment in PV Narasimha Rao, thereby holding that parliamentary privilege does not provide immunity from criminal prosecution for bribery in legislative functions. The Court directed that the interpretation of Articles 105 and 194 should align with the foundational principles of democracy and the rule of law. [Paras 188, 189]