Constitutional Law – Writ Petition – Article 226 – The Supreme Court reiterated that when an effective alternative remedy is available under a statutory framework, writ petitions under Article 226 should not be entertained – The High Court erred in entertaining the writ petitions filed by the borrowers against the SARFAESI notice and granting an ex-parte interim order directing status quo, which seriously impacted the financial health of the secured creditor [Paras 10-13].

SARFAESI Act – Sections 13(4) and 17 – The Court emphasized that the borrowers should have availed the statutory remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act by approaching the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) instead of filing writ petitions – The High Court's interim orders were set aside as they were passed without considering the statutory provisions and existing legal precedents [Paras 9-13].

Abuse of Process – The Court noted that the writ petitions filed by the borrowers were an abuse of process and aimed at stalling the recovery process initiated by the secured creditor – The ex-parte interim relief granted by the High Court was unjustifiable and adversely affected the rights of the secured creditor to recover the dues [Paras 13-14].

Decision – Appeals allowed – The High Court's interim orders directing status quo were set aside – Writ petitions filed by the borrowers before the High Court were dismissed – Costs of Rs. 1 lakh were awarded to the appellant, payable by the original writ petitioners within four weeks [Paras 14-14].

Pension Scheme – Vested Rights – Supreme Court upheld the vested rights of the employees under the bank pension scheme introduced on 1st April 1989 – The Court held that the retrospective amendment made on 11th March 2014, which discontinued the pension scheme, violated Articles 14 and 16 as it took away accrued rights of the employees – The Court emphasized the importance of ensuring socio-economic security for employees, and the non-availability of financial resources was not a valid defense for the bank to withdraw the vested rights of the employees [Paras 42-56].

Jurisdiction – Punjab Cooperative Societies Act – The amendments made under Section 84A(2) were found to be within jurisdiction, but the retrospective application taking away vested rights was impermissible – The amendments cannot alter the accrued rights of employees who were already receiving pension under the scheme introduced in 1989 [Paras 10-20].

Financial Viability – The bank’s plea of financial distress to justify the discontinuation of the pension scheme was rejected – The Court noted that financial constraints do not justify taking away the vested rights of employees – The bank must find alternative resources to ensure the continuation of pension payments to retirees [Paras 54-55].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – The amendment dated 11th March 2014 was declared inapplicable retrospectively – The bank was directed to continue paying pension to the retired employees as per the scheme prior to the amendment – Arrears to be paid in instalments by the end of December 2022 [Paras 57-59].

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].

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].

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].

Criminal Law – Dowry Death – Section 304-B IPC – Supreme Court held that the demand for money for the construction of a house falls within the definition of "dowry" under Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act – The trial court correctly convicted the respondents for dowry death and cruelty, based on consistent testimonies regarding the harassment of the deceased for money to build a house – The High Court erred in acquitting the respondents for dowry death and reducing the sentence under Section 498A IPC [Paras 9-14, 20].

Criminal Law – Cruelty and Abetment – Sections 498A and 306 IPC – Supreme Court upheld the acquittal of the respondents under Section 306 IPC, as the prosecution failed to conclusively prove abetment to suicide – The conviction under Section 498A IPC for cruelty was restored, given the continuous harassment of the deceased for dowry [Paras 20].

Sentencing – Section 304-B IPC – The Court reduced the sentence from life imprisonment to seven years rigorous imprisonment, the minimum prescribed for the offence under Section 304-B IPC, taking into account the circumstances of the case [Para 20].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – The High Court's acquittal of the respondents under Section 304-B IPC was set aside – Conviction under Section 304-B and 498A IPC restored – Sentence under Section 304-B IPC reduced to seven years rigorous imprisonment – Respondents directed to surrender within four weeks [Paras 21].

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].

Criminal Law – Cruelty – Section 498A IPC – Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant, the mother-in-law, for cruelty towards her daughter-in-law – The Court observed that when cruelty is meted out by a woman to another woman, especially when the victim is vulnerable and living alone with her in-laws, it is a more serious offence – Emphasized the duty of the mother-in-law to protect and care for her daughter-in-law rather than subjecting her to harassment and cruelty over jewels [Paras 7-8].

Sentencing – Mitigating Circumstances – The appellant, aged 80, was initially sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment – Considering her age and the fact that the incident occurred in 2006, the Supreme Court reduced the sentence to three months of rigorous imprisonment while maintaining the fine imposed by the Trial Court – Highlighted that leniency was shown due to the long lapse of time since the incident and the appellant's advanced age [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 498A IPC maintained – Sentence reduced from one year rigorous imprisonment to three months rigorous imprisonment – Fine imposed by the Trial Court upheld – Appellant directed to surrender to the appropriate Court/jail authority within four weeks [Para 9].

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].