Access to Justice – Vulnerable Witnesses – The Supreme Court highlighted the need for a safe and barrier-free environment for recording evidence from vulnerable witnesses – The Court directed the implementation of Vulnerable Witnesses Deposition Centres (VWDC) across all High Courts and district court establishments to ensure a conducive environment for such witnesses – Emphasized the need for periodic training and sensitization of stakeholders, including judicial officers, members of the Bar, and court staff [Paras 1-8].

Guidelines – The Supreme Court issued comprehensive guidelines for the establishment of VWDCs, including the definition of vulnerable witnesses, the role of High Courts in setting up and supervising VWDCs, estimation of costs, creation of infrastructure, and training programs – A Committee chaired by Justice Gita Mittal was constituted to oversee the implementation and training programs for VWDCs across India [Paras 5-6].

Implementation – High Courts were directed to adopt and notify a VWDC scheme within two months, set up at least one VWDC in every district court establishment within four months, and ensure that the necessary infrastructure and training programs were in place – The Ministry of Women and Child Development was tasked with providing logistical support and funds for the implementation [Paras 5-6].

Decision – Miscellaneous Application allowed – Directions issued to High Courts and the Ministry of Women and Child Development to implement VWDCs and associated training programs – A follow-up report on compliance was mandated [Paras 8-9].

Cooperative Societies – Plot Allotment – Section 61(1)(b) of APCS Act – The Supreme Court upheld the allotment of a plot to respondent No. 1 (M.V. Ramana), a member of the Society, who had exchanged his earlier allotted plot with the disputed one – Despite the absence of General Body approval for the Board Resolution as required by Rule 42(4), the Court found that the allotment process was substantially compliant with the procedural requirements – The plot in question was not conclusively proven to be reserved as a parking area in the layout plan [Paras 1-16].

Equitable Considerations – Passage of Time – Considering that the plot was allotted in 2000 and construction had been raised, the Court emphasized the principle of non-interference due to the lapse of over two decades – The appeals were dismissed to prevent undue disruption [Paras 15-16].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – The High Court's decision to quash the award of the Divisional Co-operative Officer and the order of the Co-operative Tribunal was upheld – Allotment of the plot to respondent No. 1 was confirmed with no order as to costs [Paras 16].

Repatriation of Prisoners – Sentence Adaptation – The Supreme Court held that the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Mauritius (26 years for possession of 152.8 grams of heroin) is binding on India under the Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003 and the Agreement between India and Mauritius – The Central Government's rejection of the request to reduce the sentence to 10 years was justified, as it would have been incompatible with Section 13(6) of the 2003 Act and Article 8 of the Agreement – Adaptation of sentences can only be considered if the original sentence is incompatible with Indian law, which was not the case here [Paras 1-18].

International Agreements – Sentence Enforcement – The Court reiterated that the receiving state (India) is bound by the legal nature and duration of the sentence determined by the transferring state (Mauritius), as per Section 12 and Article 8 of the Agreement – The decision of the Central Government not to adapt the sentence was aligned with the objective of maintaining consistency with the original sentence imposed [Paras 14-18].

Judicial Review – Foreign Policy – The Court highlighted that judicial review should not lightly interfere with decisions influenced by foreign policy, emphasizing the need to respect bilateral treaties and international relations [Para 6].

Decision – Appeal allowed – The judgment of the High Court reducing the respondent's sentence was set aside – The original sentence of 26 years imposed by the Supreme Court of Mauritius was upheld [Paras 18-19].

Consumer Law – Deficiency in Service – Section 2(1)(d) and 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Supreme Court held that the failure of the builder to obtain the occupation certificate amounts to a deficiency in service – The members of the appellant society are consumers and have the right to seek compensation for the higher taxes and water charges incurred due to the lack of an occupancy certificate [Paras 21-22].

Limitation – Continuing Cause of Action – The Court observed that the failure to obtain an occupancy certificate is a continuing wrong, and the complaint was not barred by limitation – The continuous payment of higher taxes and water charges due to the absence of an occupancy certificate gives rise to a continuing cause of action [Paras 10-19].

Maintainability – Consumer Protection Act – The NCDRC erred in holding that the appellant was not a consumer and that the complaint was in the nature of a recovery proceeding – The Supreme Court clarified that the respondent's failure to obtain the occupancy certificate and the resulting higher charges constitute a deficiency in service, making the appellant a consumer under the Act [Paras 20-22].

Decision – Appeals allowed – The NCDRC's order dismissing the complaint was set aside – The complaint was held to be maintainable and within the period of limitation – The NCDRC was directed to decide the merits of the dispute within three months [Paras 23-24].

Arbitration Law – Jurisdiction of High Court – Section 37 of the Arbitration Act – The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act by entering into the merits of the claim and setting aside the award passed by the arbitrator and the order passed by the Additional District Judge – The High Court had a limited scope of interference and was not permitted to re-evaluate the merits of the claim as if deciding an appeal against a trial court judgment [Paras 7-8].

Arbitral Award – Public Policy – The Court reiterated that an award can only be set aside if it is against the public policy of India, which includes being contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law, the interest of India, justice or morality, or if it is patently illegal – None of these exceptions were applicable in the present case [Paras 8-8].

Decision – Appeal allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court – The award passed by the arbitrator and the order of the Additional District Judge under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act were restored [Paras 9-10].

Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Cancellation of Bail – The Supreme Court held that confessional statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the Act – Bail granted to the accused (A-2) was cancelled due to the conscious possession of commercial quantities of psychotropic substances – High Court orders granting bail to other accused upheld due to lack of substantial material connecting them to the allegations at the time of arrest [Paras 1-13].

Application of Section 67 of the NDPS Act – Confessional Statements – Confessional statements recorded under Section 67 are inadmissible – Reliance on such statements for arrest and prosecution not permissible – Court emphasized the need for substantial evidence beyond confessions [Paras 9-10].

Section 37 of the NDPS Act – Bail Conditions – Stringent conditions under Section 37 must be met for granting bail – Reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and not likely to commit any offence while on bail – High Court's findings on these conditions reviewed [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Appeals disposed of – Orders granting bail upheld for respondents except for A-2 – Bail for A-2 cancelled and directed to surrender – Observations limited to bail cancellation proceedings, not affecting the trial [Para 13].

Land Law – Ceiling on Land Holdings – Applicability to Government Grants – Provisions of the Ceiling Act are applicable to land held by grantees of the Government under lease agreements – Grantee, being a lessee from the Government, has no right to transfer the land without fulfilling the conditions stipulated in Clause 9 of the lease deed – Sub-lessees cannot claim independent rights as tenure holders contrary to the terms of the government grant – Appeals dismissed [Paras 1-33].

Government Grants Act – Transfer of Land – Conditions for Transfer – Lease conditions specifically exempt sub-leases made in the ordinary course of agriculture from certain transfer conditions – However, sub-lessees do not acquire independent tenure rights unless conditions stipulated in the lease are fulfilled – High Court upheld the decision of the ceiling authorities [Paras 22-26].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Sub-lessees continue to be ostensible holders of land, while the government grantee remains the real holder – No independent tenure rights for sub-lessees under the terms of the government grant – No order as to costs [Para 33].

Criminal Law – Murder – Cancellation of Bail – High Court released the accused on bail in a case involving the brutal murder of the appellant's husband – Supreme Court found the High Court's orders unsustainable as they did not consider the gravity of the offences and the evidence against the accused – Bail orders set aside and accused directed to surrender – State criticized for not appealing against the High Court's orders – Duty of Director of Prosecution emphasized [Paras 1-11].

Role of the State and Director of Prosecution – Importance of prompt action – State failed to protect the victim's rights by not challenging bail orders – Director of Prosecution holds a crucial role in the administration of justice – Prompt decision-making necessary to maintain rule of law – Observations to be communicated to State authorities for corrective measures [Paras 11].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court's orders releasing the accused on bail quashed – Accused directed to surrender within one week – Non-bailable warrants to be issued if they fail to surrender – Copy of order to be sent to State authorities for further action [Paras 10-11].

Arbitration – Interference with Arbitral Award – Scope of Jurisdiction – The High Court’s interference with the arbitral award based on an alternative view was not justified – The Appellate Court correctly held that the learned Single Judge exceeded his jurisdiction by questioning the interpretation of the Implementation Agreement clauses given by the Sole Arbitrator – Arbitration award restored [Paras 1-21].

Interest on Arbitral Award – Compound Interest – The decision of the Division Bench to award only simple interest based on a misinterpreted precedent was reversed – Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd. case affirmed the arbitrator's authority to award compound interest [Paras 4-6].

Merger of Agreements – Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and Implementation Agreement – The MoU dated February 10, 1992, merged with the Implementation Agreement dated August 22, 1997 – The disputes under both documents were referable to arbitration under the Implementation Agreement [Paras 8-11].

Termination of Agreement – Premature Termination – The State prematurely terminated the Implementation Agreement before the stipulated period, misinterpreting Clause 4 – The Sole Arbitrator's interpretation upheld as it was logical and reasonable [Paras 12-22].

Decision: Civil Appeal No. 10341 of 2011 partly allowed – Civil Appeal No. 10342 of 2011 dismissed – Findings on interest component and premature termination upheld – Parties to bear their own costs [Paras 23].