Criminal Law – Dishonor of Cheque – Liability of Directors – The Supreme Court deliberated on whether the appellant, a director of a company, could be held liable under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, for cheques issued by the company. The appellant, a director but not the signatory or person in charge of day-to-day affairs of the company, sought quashing of criminal complaints against her. [Para 3-5, 18-21]

Role of Director in Company Liability – held – emphasized that mere position as a director does not automatically entail responsibility for day-to-day operations or the company's business conduct. Specific averments are required to establish how a director is responsible for the conduct of the company's business. The Court observed that a director's role is a matter of fact depending on the specifics of each case. [Para 9-10, 19-20]

Applicability of Section 141 of N.I. Act – discussed – the Court noted that Section 141 of the N.I. Act invokes vicarious liability for directors only if they are in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of the offence. The Court emphasized the necessity of specific averments in complaints to make directors liable under this section. [Para 11-12, 20-21]

Decision – Quashing of Criminal Complaints – The Supreme Court quashed the criminal complaints against the appellant under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the N.I. Act, finding the averments insufficient to establish her role in the conduct of the company’s business or her responsibility for the offence. [Para 22]

Civil Procedure – Restitution after decree modification – Civil Appeal against refusal of restitution despite modification of original decree – Original decree for money recovery executed and property auctioned – Appellate court modified the decree reducing the decretal amount – Appellant sought restitution under Section 144 CPC as the executed sale now overshoots the decreed amount – Held: Execution of sale of properties disproportionate to decretal amount unjust – Sale set aside and properties to be restored to judgment debtor – Full restitution ordered to revert parties to pre-execution status. [Paras 1-28]

Auction Sale – Order XXI Rule 64 CPC – The Court scrutinized the Executing Court’s sale of all attached properties worth significantly more than the decretal amount. It was held that under Order XXI Rule 64 CPC, only such portion of the attached property as necessary to satisfy the decree should be auctioned. The sale of the entire property, valued much higher than the decreed sum, was found to be excessive and non-compliant with procedural requirements. This failure justified setting aside the sale for causing undue loss to the judgment debtor and undue benefit to the decree holder [Paras 20-26].

Bona Fide Purchaser – Knowledge of Pending Litigation – Protection from Restitution – Distinction Between Bona Fide and Decree Holder Purchasers

Bona Fide Purchaser – Restitution – The Court distinguished between bona fide purchasers without knowledge of pending litigation and decree holder auction purchasers. It was held that protection from restitution does not extend to purchasers with knowledge of pending proceedings or those purchasing from decree holders. The principles enshrined in prior judgments were upheld, reinforcing the obligation to restore properties purchased under an erroneous or varied decree [Paras 10-17, 18].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Restitution Granted – Setting Aside Execution Sale  – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overturned the High Court’s decision, and granted restitution under Section 144 CPC. The execution sale was set aside, restoring the parties to their pre-execution status. The judgment debtor was relieved from the sale’s consequences, emphasizing equitable justice and proper procedural adherence in execution proceedings [Paras 26-28].

Consumer Law -.Legal Profession – Applicability of Consumer Protection Act – Advocates not covered under Consumer Protection Acts of 1986 and 2019 due to the unique, duty-bound nature of the legal profession, integral to justice administration and governed under Advocates Act, 1961 – Legal services are distinct, involving duties to the court, clients, and broader justice system, not merely commercial or consumer-oriented services – Held, complaints of deficiency in service against lawyers not maintainable under Consumer Protection Acts. [Paras 1-44]

Professional Services – Comparison with Other Jurisdictions – Supreme Court evaluates international practices regarding inclusion of professional services under consumer laws – References to laws and practices in Malaysia, European Union, Canada, USA, and Australia, demonstrating exclusion of regulated professions like legal services from consumer protection laws – Upholds similar approach in India to maintain consistency with international standards and ensure uniform application of law [Paras 13-23, 26].

Legislative Intent – Interpretation of Consumer Protection Acts 1986/2019 – Detailed analysis of legislative history and objectives of consumer protection laws in India – Legislature did not intend to include professionals like advocates within the ambit of the Act – Advocates governed by Advocates Act, 1961 and Bar Council of India Rules – Consumer Protection Act aimed at protecting consumers from unfair trade practices and unethical business practices, not professional services [Paras 8-12, 24, 27].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Supreme Court sets aside NCDRC order – Holds that complaints alleging deficiency in service against advocates are not maintainable under Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019 – Advocates’ services classified under 'contract of personal service' – Legislative intention and international practices support exclusion of legal profession from consumer protection laws [Paras 42-44, 29].

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].