Consumer Law – Deficiency in Service – Real Estate Dispute – The appellant sought a refund for failure by the Agra Development Authority (ADA) to provide possession of a residential apartment due to construction deficiencies, including the absence of a completion certificate and firefighting clearance. The NCDRC granted a partial refund but limited interest to the date of filing the complaint. The Supreme Court held that ADA's failure to obtain the necessary certificates rendered its offer of possession legally invalid, and thus the appellant was entitled to further compensation for the delay in possession [Paras 1-20].

Limitation and Jurisdiction in Consumer Disputes – ADA argued that the complaint was time-barred and beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the NCDRC. The Court rejected these arguments, applying Sections 18 and 19 of the Limitation Act, which extended the limitation period due to ADA's acceptance of payments and issuance of reminders. Further, the Court held that the NCDRC had pecuniary jurisdiction as the claim, including compensation for mental agony and harassment, exceeded Rs. 1 crore [Paras 21-40].

Compensation for Delay in Possession – The Court found that both the appellant and ADA were responsible for delays in the transaction. While the appellant delayed in making payments, ADA failed to provide the completion certificate, making its offer of possession invalid. As such, the Court awarded additional compensation of Rs. 15,00,000 to the appellant, in addition to the refund and interest from the date of the complaint [Paras 41-50].

Decision: Appeal of the appellant partly allowed – Refund of the deposit along with 9% interest per annum from the date of the complaint, plus additional compensation of Rs. 15,00,000.

ADA's appeal dismissed – The arguments regarding limitation and pecuniary jurisdiction were found to be without merit.

Service Law – Repatriation of Employees – After the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh, APSRTC employees were repatriated to their parent zones under TSRTC – High Court quashed the repatriation orders and directed permanent allocation to deputational posts – Supreme Court held that the High Court’s reliance on Section 77 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 was misplaced – Section 82 governs the allocation of employees of Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs), and guidelines for allocation had already been finalized [Paras 9-14].

Section 82 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act – Governs allocation of PSU employees post-bifurcation – APSRTC’s Agenda Note of August 2017 clarified that Class III and Class IV employees should be allocated to the respective corporations where the region falls – Supreme Court affirmed that the respondents, who were deputed temporarily, should report to their parent zones under TSRTC as per these guidelines [Paras 11-13].

Judicial Review – High Court erroneously applied principles related to government employees under Section 77 to PSU employees – Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and directed that the employees continue their service in their parent zones [Paras 10-17].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court judgment dated November 21, 2019, quashed – Repatriation orders upheld – Respondents to report to their parent zones under TSRTC as per the finalized guidelines [Paras 17-18].

Consumer Law – Filing of Written Statement – Appellant’s Right Foreclosed – The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) foreclosed the Appellant’s right to file a written statement in response to the complaint due to the failure to submit it within the 45-day statutory period – The Appellant argued that the delay was due to the non-receipt of the complaint copy, as the counsel had only appeared based on the cause list and accepted notice without being served with the complaint – Held: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, stating that the foreclosure was too harsh, given that the complaint copy had not been served with the notice – The Appellant was granted time to file the written statement with costs imposed [Paras 1-9].

Consumer Law – Limitation for Filing Written Statement – New India Assurance Case – The Respondents argued that under the New India Assurance Company Limited v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. ruling, the limitation period of 45 days begins from the date of notice, and the Commission rightly foreclosed the right of the Appellant – The Supreme Court, however, noted that without the service of the complaint copy, the limitation period could not have commenced – Therefore, the Appellant was granted additional time to file the written statement, subject to payment of costs [Para 9].

Decision – Allowing Time to File Written Statement – The Supreme Court set aside the NCDRC order and permitted the Appellant to file the written statement by 14/10/2024, with the Respondents to file their replication and affidavit of evidence thereafter – The Appellant was directed to pay ₹1,00,000 as costs to each of the Respondents as a condition precedent for the acceptance of the written statement [Paras 9-12].

Suo Motu Criminal Revision – High Court Powers Under Section 397 CrPC – The petitioner challenges the Madras High Court’s decision, which invoked its suo motu criminal revision powers under Section 397 of the CrPC, to interfere with a final closure report filed by the DVAC – Held: The High Court overstepped by effectively directing the framing of charges, a power that lies with the Special Judge under Section 227 CrPC – The closure report should be weighed along with earlier investigation reports, and the Special Judge is to decide whether to proceed with the trial or discharge the accused [Paras 2, 7-10].

Assignment of Case – Violation of Madras High Court Rules – The petitioners argued that, as per Rule XIV of the Madras High Court Rules, the suo motu revision should have been assigned to a Division Bench, but it was handled by a Single Judge – Held: This alleged violation must be addressed, as the Chief Justice is the Master of the Roster and assignment to the Division Bench would be necessary for MPs/MLAs cases [Paras 4-5].

Section 227 CrPC – Powers of the Special Judge – The petitioners submitted that the Special Judge is required to consider whether sufficient grounds exist to frame charges based on the materials presented, including the closure and earlier investigation reports – Held: The High Court's direction to the Special Court to frame charges bypassed this procedure, undermining the Special Judge’s role under Section 227 CrPC [Para 6].

Reports Under Section 173(8) CrPC – Reliance on Vinay Tyagi Precedent – The petitioners relied on the Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali decision, which held that all investigation reports, including supplementary reports under Section 173(8), must be considered cumulatively before framing charges – Held: The High Court erred by treating the final closure report as a supplementary report and directing the Special Court to frame charges without proper consideration of the reports [Paras 9-10].

Decision:

Notice issued, returnable in four weeks. Dasti notice to be served on the Standing Counsel for the State. In the meantime, the operation of the impugned judgment of the Madras High Court is stayed.

Service Law – Termination – Probationer – Whether termination of a judicial officer during probation can be retrospectively reinstated – Held, once the termination order is set aside, the employee is deemed to be in service and is entitled to reinstatement and back wages – Supreme Court directs the High Court and the State to reinstate the appellant into service and award full salary from April 20, 2022, to the date of fresh termination on April 2, 2024, along with 50% back wages for the period from December 17, 2009, to April 19, 2022 – [Paras 1-45].

Judicial Process – Delay in Compliance with Court Orders – The Supreme Court expressed concern over the delayed action taken by the High Court and the State in not reinstating the appellant after its earlier judgment, despite setting aside his termination – Court notes that no decision was taken to reinstate the appellant or pay arrears during this period, warranting relief – [Paras 12-22].

Administrative Action – Reconsideration by the Full Court – The Full Court of the High Court, when reconsidering a termination, must offer detailed reasoning rather than reiterating prior conclusions – The lack of a speaking order and failure to give proper consideration are noted as serious lapses – [Paras 23-30].

Back Wages – Entitlement of Employee after Set-Aside of Termination – The Supreme Court clarifies that while reinstatement entitles an employee to salary from the date of the Court’s judgment, partial back wages (50%) are appropriate for the period preceding the judgment, reflecting fairness and balancing of interests – [Paras 33-44].

Service Law – Termination of Employment – Non-compliance with Procedural Requirements – Termination of respondent's services by Kerala Agricultural University for unauthorized absence after expiry of Leave Without Allowance (LWA) challenged – High Court Division Bench set aside the termination, holding that the university failed to follow the prescribed procedure under the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1960 – Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing the necessity of recording prima facie satisfaction before initiating a disciplinary inquiry as per Rule 15 – Failure to adhere to statutory procedures deemed fatal to the university’s case [Paras 8-14].

Natural Justice – Mandatory Procedural Compliance – Supreme Court reiterated that statutory procedures must be strictly followed – The principle that if a statute prescribes a particular procedure, it must be followed in that manner and not otherwise – University’s failure to record satisfaction before disciplinary inquiry found to violate principles of natural justice – Respondent's inability to rejoin duties due to illness and COVID-19 travel restrictions considered bona fide [Paras 12-15].

Decision – Dismissal of Special Leave Petition – Held – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's quashing of the termination order – Court found no merit in the university's plea, concluding that the Division Bench's judgment was sound and required no interference – Termination set aside due to procedural lapses by the university [Paras 16-17].

Criminal Law – Conviction under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC upheld – Challenge in Supreme Court against the Allahabad High Court's decision maintaining trial court’s conviction of the appellant for murder and rioting – Court examined the evidence presented by the prosecution, including eyewitness accounts and medical evidence – The prosecution’s case was supported by the testimony of eyewitnesses, corroborated by medical evidence of the deceased’s injuries – The appellant’s involvement in the unlawful assembly with a common object of eliminating the deceased was established, leading to the upholding of the conviction [Paras 1-34].

Unlawful Assembly and Vicarious Liability – Supreme Court reaffirmed that under Section 149 IPC, each member of an unlawful assembly is vicariously liable for the acts committed in prosecution of the common object, regardless of whether each member physically participated in the crime – Even if the appellant did not directly cause fatal injuries, his participation in the unlawful assembly with the knowledge of the common object was sufficient for conviction under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC [Paras 27-31].

Evidence Evaluation – Supreme Court found that despite certain omissions in the prosecution's case, such as the non-recovery of the weapon and the failure to examine key witnesses, the evidence of the eyewitnesses was credible and consistent – The Court concluded that these omissions did not undermine the overall prosecution case, which was sufficiently supported by direct and medical evidence [Paras 32-33].

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – Held – The appeal is dismissed, and the conviction of the appellant under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC is affirmed – The Court held that the appellant’s involvement in the unlawful assembly with the common object of committing murder was clearly established, justifying his conviction under the applicable sections of the IPC [Paras 33-34].

Civil Law – Motor Vehicle Accident – Liability of Dealer and Manufacturer – Supreme Court examined liability in a motor vehicle accident case where the vehicle involved was owned by the manufacturer, but in possession of the dealer – Tribunal held the manufacturer and dealer jointly and severally liable – High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision – Supreme Court reversed the finding regarding the dealer’s liability, holding that the manufacturer, not the dealer, was liable as the vehicle was under the control of the manufacturer’s employees at the time of the accident [Paras 13-24].

Interpretation of 'Owner' under Motor Vehicles Act – The Court examined the definition of 'owner' under Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, concluding that ownership is not limited to the registered owner but includes the person in control or command of the vehicle – Liability determined based on control and command at the time of the accident [Paras 13, 19].

Contractual Liability – Clauses in Dealership Agreement – Supreme Court considered whether clauses in the dealership agreement between the manufacturer and dealer shifted liability to the dealer – Held that clauses limiting the manufacturer’s liability to defects under the warranty did not transfer tortious liability to the dealer, thus absolving the dealer from compensation liability in this case [Paras 25-28].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Held – The appeal is allowed to the extent that the dealer is not liable for compensation – However, the manufacturer remains liable – If the dealer has paid any part of the compensation, it is entitled to recover the same from the manufacturer with interest [Paras 33-35].

Civil Law – Jurisdiction of Execution Court – Specific Performance – Rescission of Contract – The Supreme Court considered whether the Execution Court had jurisdiction to entertain applications for rescission of a contract and for the extension of time to deposit balance sale consideration under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, when the decree was passed by an appellate court. The Court held that the Execution Court, being the court of first instance, retained jurisdiction to entertain such applications, emphasizing that the decree passed by an appellate court is considered as being passed in the same suit. The Court further clarified that the applications should be treated as interlocutory applications in the original suit rather than in execution proceedings. [Paras 15-19]

Equitable Relief – Extension of Time to Deposit – Substantial Justice – The Supreme Court upheld the Execution Court’s decision to allow the decree-holder to deposit the balance sale consideration despite a delay. The Court noted that the decree-holder had consistently shown an intention to comply with the decree, and the delay was not due to any fault on their part. The decision emphasized the discretionary nature of the relief under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, aimed at ensuring substantial justice rather than penalizing procedural delays. The Court also refused to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution, stating that technicalities should not override the interests of justice. [Paras 23-30]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Execution Court's jurisdiction and its decision to extend the time for deposit, thereby allowing the decree-holder to obtain specific performance of the contract. [Paras 31-32]