Service Law – Reservation – Mandamus – The Supreme Court held that no mandamus can be issued directing the State Government to provide for reservation or to collect quantifiable data to justify their action not to provide for reservation. The Court emphasized that Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution are enabling provisions, and the State is not obligated to provide reservations unless it deems necessary. The High Court's directive to provide a 3% reservation for sports persons instead of the 1% provided by the State was deemed unsustainable and beyond judicial jurisdiction [Paras 9-10].

Judicial Review – Policy Decisions – The Court reiterated that policy decisions regarding reservations lie within the domain of the State Government and should be respected by the judiciary unless there is a clear violation of constitutional or statutory provisions. The decision to provide only 1% reservation for sports persons was a conscious policy decision of the State and should not have been interfered with by the High Court [Paras 7-8].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment directing the State to provide a 3% reservation for sports persons and maintained the State's policy of 1% reservation. The issue regarding the reservation for children/grandchildren of terrorist-affected and Sikh riot-affected persons was deemed academic due to subsequent policy changes, and the question of law was kept open for future consideration [Paras 10-11].

Criminal Law – Bail – Relevant Considerations – The Supreme Court emphasized that while granting bail, courts must consider the nature and seriousness of the offense, character of the evidence, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice, impact on prosecution witnesses, and societal impact. The High Court's failure to consider these factors and reliance on incorrect facts rendered its order unsustainable [Paras 8-9].

Bail – High Court's Error – The High Court erroneously noted that the accused were not named in the FIR and that witness statements were recorded belatedly, which were factually incorrect. Such errors, along with a mechanical approach to granting bail without proper reasoning, necessitated the Supreme Court's intervention [Paras 4.1-4.3, 8.1-8.3].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order granting bail, directing the accused to surrender immediately. The trial court was instructed to proceed with the trial on merits, uninfluenced by the observations in this judgment [Para 10].

Criminal Law – Bail – Relevant Considerations – The Supreme Court emphasized that courts must consider the nature and seriousness of the offense, character of the evidence, likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice, impact on prosecution witnesses, societal impact, and likelihood of tampering with evidence while granting bail. The High Court's failure to consider these factors and reliance on insufficient reasoning rendered its order unsustainable [Paras 9-11].

Bail – High Court's Error – The High Court erroneously granted bail without assigning cogent reasons, failing to appreciate the gravity of the offenses, and ignoring the accused's criminal antecedents and involvement in other serious cases. The High Court's mechanical approach to granting bail necessitated the Supreme Court's intervention [Paras 7-8].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order granting bail, directing the accused to surrender immediately. The Court highlighted the importance of judicial discretion in bail matters, requiring courts to provide brief but sufficient reasons for their decisions [Paras 12].

Criminal Law – Revisional Jurisdiction – Conviction from Acquittal – The Supreme Court held that under Section 401(3) CrPC, the High Court does not have the authority to convert an acquittal into a conviction while exercising its revisional jurisdiction. The correct approach would be to set aside the acquittal and remit the matter for retrial or rehearing by the appropriate court [Paras 8-9].

Right of Victim to Appeal – Section 372 CrPC – The Court emphasized that the victim has a statutory right to appeal against an acquittal under Section 372 CrPC without the need for special leave. If the victim has not availed this remedy, a revision application should not be entertained, and the victim should be directed to pursue an appeal [Para 10.1].

Procedural Requirement – Conversion of Revision to Appeal – Under Section 401(5) CrPC, the High Court must pass a judicial order to treat a revision application as an appeal, provided the application was made under the erroneous belief that no appeal lies and it is necessary in the interest of justice [Para 11].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order converting acquittals into convictions and remitted the matter to the High Court to treat the revision applications as appeals under Section 372 CrPC and decide them in accordance with the law [Paras 12-14].

NDPS Act – Section 50 – Personal Search and Recovery – The Supreme Court held that Section 50 of the NDPS Act mandates informing the accused of their right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. Offering an option to be searched by the officer conducting the raid, not stipulated in the statute, contravenes this provision. However, this protection applies specifically to personal searches, and the invalidity of a personal search does not necessarily invalidate the recovery of contraband found elsewhere [Paras 6-7].

Judicial Interpretation – Extended Scope of Section 50 – The Court rejected the argument that a violation of Section 50 for personal searches would invalidate all related recoveries, including those not on the person. The ruling emphasized that the scope of Section 50 is limited to personal searches, and any recovery from a different location (such as a bag or other carrying device) does not fall under its purview [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentencing of the appellant. The appellant's argument for extending the protection of Section 50 to all forms of recovery was not accepted [Para 7].

Arbitration – Appointment of Arbitrator – Insufficient Stamping – The Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction to adjudicate issues at the pre-appointment stage of an arbitrator is limited to taking a prima facie view on the existence of the arbitration agreement. Issues of arbitrability and validity, including concerns of insufficient stamping, should be referred to arbitration unless they patently indicate unworkability. The Court emphasized that arbitration agreements should be enforced to promote a pro-arbitration stance, aligning with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [Paras 18-23].

Doctrine of Separability – Validity of Arbitration Agreement – The Court reiterated the doctrine of separability, stating that an arbitration agreement is independent of the underlying contract. Therefore, concerns about the non-stamping or insufficient stamping of the substantive contract do not invalidate the arbitration agreement. The Court referenced the judgments in Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. v. Coastal Marine Constructions and Engineering Ltd. and N.N. Global Mercantile Private Limited v. Indo Unique Flame Limited, ultimately deciding that arbitration should proceed unless there is clear evidence of deadwood [Paras 24-27].

Decision – Petition Allowed – The Supreme Court appointed Mr. Justice A.V. Chandrashekara, a former Judge of the High Court of Karnataka, as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes. The parties were directed to communicate this order to the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) to proceed under the SIAC rules [Paras 28-29].

Unfair Trade Practice – Delay in Possession and Extra Charges – The Supreme Court held that compensation under Section 12-B of the MRTP Act can only be granted when a consumer proves that loss or damage was caused due to monopolistic, restrictive, or unfair trade practices. The appellants failed to prove that the respondent engaged in unfair trade practices, and thus were not entitled to compensation [Paras 8-11].

Jurisdiction of MRTP Commission – Breach of Agreement – The MRTP Commission can examine the validity of agreements related to unfair or restrictive trade practices. The appellants' claim of unfair trade practice due to delay in possession and imposition of extra charges was dismissed by the Commission as it did not constitute misrepresentation or fraud [Para 8].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the MRTP Commission's order, concluding that there was no misrepresentation by the respondent amounting to unfair trade practices. The demand for extra charges was in accordance with the Apartment Buyer Agreement (ABA) and had been partly paid by the appellants. The appellants were directed to pay Rs. 25,00,000 for each flat to the respondent, after which possession of the flats would be handed over [Paras 20-26].

Motor Accident - Compensation - Enhancement of - Pain, suffering, and trauma post-accident cannot be fully compensated monetarily but awarding suitable compensation provides solace - Amount of compensation under pain, shock, suffering, loss of amenities, and happiness depends on each case's facts and circumstances - Claimant in coma and bedridden warrants higher compensation [Paras 7-8.1].

Compensation for Pain and Suffering - Considering prolonged hospitalization, grievous injuries, multiple surgeries, claimant's ongoing coma, and bedridden state - High Court's award of Rs. 2,00,000/- increased to Rs. 10,00,000/- [Paras 7.1, 8.1].

Compensation for Loss of Amenities and Happiness - Considering claimant's permanent bedridden state and long-term coma - High Court's award of Rs. 1,00,000/- increased to Rs. 10,00,000/- [Para 7.2].

Interest on Compensation - High Court reduced interest rate from 9% to 6% per annum - Supreme Court found no reason to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution [Para 8.2].

Decision - Appeal Partly Allowed - Total compensation enhanced to Rs. 1,41,94,333/- with 6% interest per annum from filing date till realization - Enhanced amount to be deposited within four weeks; otherwise, interest rate to increase to 7.5% per annum - Tribunal to invest compensation in long-term interest-bearing deposits for claimant's benefit [Paras 9-10].

Insurance Law – Repudiation of Claim – Deterioration of Stock Policy – The Supreme Court upheld the repudiation of the insurance claim by the insurer, New India Assurance Company Limited, based on the specific terms of the DOS Policy. The policy clearly stated that the insurer would not be liable for any damage if the temperature in the refrigeration chambers did not exceed 4.4 degrees Celsius (40 degrees Fahrenheit). The surveyor's report and the appellants' own records indicated that the temperature never exceeded this threshold. Therefore, the claim was correctly repudiated [Paras 16-18].

Policy Exceptions – Clarity and Ambiguity – The Court emphasized that exceptions in insurance policies are to be strictly construed. In this case, the exception clause was clear and unambiguous, and the insurer had clearly stipulated the conditions under which it would not be liable. The exception related to the maintenance of temperature was integral to the policy's purpose of preventing deterioration of stored potatoes [Paras 13-16].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) which had upheld the insurer's decision to repudiate the claim. The Court found no grounds to interfere with the NCDRC's findings, which were based on the clear terms of the insurance policy and the evidence presented [Paras 17-18].