Landlord-Tenant Law – Statutory Tenancy – Jurisdiction of Civil Courts – The Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction of Civil Courts is barred in matters covered by the Haryana (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act 1973, which provides a complete code for determining the rights of tenants and landlords. The appropriate remedy for eviction in such cases lies with the Rent Controller under the Act 1973, not with the Civil Court [Paras 1-11, 25].

Effect of Special Legislation – Burmah Shell Act – The Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings) Act 1976 confers tenancy rights to BPCL and overrides other inconsistent laws. The tenants under this Act are considered statutory tenants, and their eviction must be pursued under the specific provisions of the Rent Control Act applicable to the region [Paras 17-19, 21].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's judgment that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for possession. The remedy for the appellants lies in initiating eviction proceedings under the Haryana (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act 1973 [Paras 25-26].

Service Law – Pension – Application of Amended Pay Rules – The Supreme Court held that the amended pay rules, which came into effect after the retirement of the respondent, could not be applied retroactively to revise his pension. The principle of "equal pay for equal work" was found inapplicable in this case as the upgraded post and apex scale were created after the respondent's retirement, and the post was to be filled by selection, not automatically by seniority [Paras 7-13].

Jurisdiction of High Courts – Power of Superintendence – The Court emphasized that the High Courts' power under Article 227 of the Constitution should be used sparingly and only to keep subordinate courts within their bounds. The interference by the High Court in the Tribunal's order was deemed unwarranted as there was no jurisdictional error or failure of justice [Paras 14-15].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgments of the High Court, which had erroneously applied the principle of "equal pay for equal work" and directed the revision of the respondent's pension based on the apex scale. The appeals were allowed, and the Tribunal's original order dismissing the respondent's claim was restored [Para 16].

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].

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].

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].

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 – 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].

Constitutional Law – Article 32 – COVID-19 Vaccination – Pregnant Women and Lactating Mothers – The Supreme Court held that the concerns regarding the vaccination of pregnant women and lactating mothers fall within the policy domain and should be addressed by expert groups such as the National Technical Advisory Group on Immunization (NTAGI) and the National Expert Group on Vaccine Administration for COVID-19 (NEGVAC). The Court recognized the steps taken by the Union Government to ensure safe vaccination for these groups, based on recommendations from international bodies like the World Health Organization [Paras 6-10].

Policy Recommendations – Surveillance and Data Collection – The Court suggested that the Union Government consider further strengthening the existing framework for monitoring adverse events following immunization (AEFI) and data collection through targeted tracking and publication of data. The suggestions made by the petitioners were to be deliberated upon by expert groups for potential implementation [Paras 11-12].

Decision – Petition Disposed – The Supreme Court disposed of the petition, leaving it open to the Union of India to evaluate the suggestions provided by the petitioners. The Court refrained from issuing specific directions regarding the intervenor's application, which sought to halt vaccinations for pregnant women, emphasizing that such decisions are within the purview of medical and policy experts [Paras 12-13].

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].