Consumer Protection – Subsequent Purchaser – Relief of Interest on Refund – Supreme Court examined the entitlement of a subsequent purchaser of a flat to interest on the refund of the purchase amount due to delayed possession – Held that a subsequent purchaser, stepping into the shoes of the original allottee, is entitled to similar reliefs including interest, based on equities and the reasonable expectations of performance within a delayed timeline – NCDRC's grant of 10% interest on refund modified to 9% per annum from the date the builder acquired knowledge of the transfer or acknowledged it [Paras 1-33].

Doctrine of Privity – Consumer Status – The Court reaffirmed that the absence of privity of contract does not bar a subsequent purchaser from being considered a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act – Subsequent purchaser is entitled to seek redressal for deficiencies in service by the builder [Paras 23-26].

Equity and Reasonable Expectations – Supreme Court held that it would be arbitrary to deny relief to subsequent purchasers who face similar delays and burdens as the original allottees – Relief must be fact-dependent, with subsequent purchasers entitled to interest based on the knowledge and expectations at the time of purchase [Paras 24, 31].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – NCDRC’s order modified to grant 9% interest per annum on the refund from the date the builder acquired knowledge of the transfer or acknowledged it – No order as to costs [Paras 32-33].

Criminal Law – Bail Cancellation – Serious Offences – Appellant sought cancellation of bail granted to the second respondent convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC – High Court had suspended the sentence and granted bail during the pendency of appeal – Supreme Court highlighted the failure of the High Court to consider material aspects, including the respondent's criminal antecedents and the likelihood of interference with the investigation – Bail cancelled, High Court’s order set aside [Paras 1-39].

Judicial Independence – Political Influence – Case underscored the threat to judicial independence from political pressures – Supreme Court emphasized the need for the judiciary to be immune from such pressures to maintain the rule of law – Noted the systemic issues in the district judiciary, including inadequate infrastructure and protection, and vulnerability to administrative influence [Paras 40-44].

Constitutional Law – Separation of Powers – Article 50 – Importance of maintaining separation of judiciary from the executive – Supreme Court reiterated the need for the district judiciary to operate independently and free from external influences to uphold civil liberties [Paras 42-44].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Bail granted to the second respondent cancelled – Case remanded for reconsideration by the Trial Court – Directed the second respondent to be moved to another jail to ensure fair proceedings [Paras 39, 46].

Criminal Law – Bail Cancellation – Serious Offences – The appellant challenged the High Court's decision to grant bail to the accused in a case involving the brutal murder of his brother, Sumer Singh, who was a BSF member on leave – Supreme Court found that the High Court failed to provide adequate reasoning or consider the seriousness and brutality of the crime – Bail granted to the accused was deemed perverse and lacking judicial application of mind – High Court's order set aside, bail cancelled [Paras 1-17].

Judicial Reasoning – Requirement for Detailed Orders – The Court emphasized that orders granting or refusing bail must contain detailed reasoning reflecting judicial application of mind – Mere recital of submissions without analysis does not meet the standards required for judicial orders – Past precedent, including Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia, reinforced the necessity for reasoned decisions in bail matters [Paras 11-17].

Case Specifics – High Burden for Bail in Serious Crimes – The Court reiterated that in serious crimes, especially where earlier bail applications were rejected, there is a higher burden on appellate courts to provide specific reasons for granting bail – Factors such as the severity of the offence, the accused's role, and the potential threat to witnesses must be considered [Paras 11-17].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court's order granting bail to the accused set aside – Accused directed to surrender forthwith – The case underscores the importance of judicial discipline and detailed reasoning in bail orders, especially in cases involving serious crimes [Paras 17].

Criminal Law – Leave to Appeal – Acquittal – Appellant challenged the High Court’s denial of leave to appeal against the acquittal of the accused for offences under Sections 302, 304B, and 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act – Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to provide adequate reasoning or properly scrutinize the evidence and findings of the trial court – The High Court’s order lacked the necessary application of mind required under Section 378 CrPC – Appeal allowed, matter remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration [Paras 1-11].

Judicial Reasoning – Requirement for Detailed Orders – The Court emphasized that orders on applications for leave to appeal against acquittal must contain detailed reasoning – Simply stating that the trial court’s view is possible without analyzing evidence does not meet judicial standards – Past precedents, including State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Giriraj Dubey, reinforced the necessity for reasoned decisions in such matters [Paras 6-8].

Case Specifics – Principles for Granting Leave to Appeal – The Supreme Court reiterated the principles that guide the grant of leave to appeal against acquittal, emphasizing the duty of the appellate court to appraise evidence and provide reasons – Failure to do so warrants setting aside such orders [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Matter remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration of the appellant’s application for leave to appeal against the acquittal [Paras 10-11].

Constitutional Law – Ratification Requirement – Article 368(2) – Supreme Court held that the Constitution (97th Amendment) Act, 2011, which introduced Part IX-B regarding co-operative societies, is ultra vires the Constitution of India for want of requisite ratification by half of the State legislatures under Article 368(2) proviso – The judgment of the High Court is upheld, except to the extent that it strikes down the entirety of Part IX-B – Part IX-B declared operative only insofar as it concerns multi-State co-operative societies both within various States and in Union territories [Paras 1-44].

Scope of Legislative Power – Co-operative Societies – Part IX-B of the Constitution deals with the incorporation, regulation, and winding up of co-operative societies based on democratic member-control and autonomous functioning – The Court noted that the insertion of Part IX-B imposed restrictions on State legislatures in areas exclusively within their domain, thereby requiring ratification by half of the States [Paras 3-11].

Doctrine of Severability – The Supreme Court applied the doctrine of severability, holding that while Part IX-B is unconstitutional for State co-operative societies due to lack of ratification, it remains valid for multi-State co-operative societies as there is no requirement of ratification for laws concerning multiple States [Paras 12-15].

Federal Structure – The judgment underscores the importance of maintaining the federal structure and the distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the States – The amendment was found to infringe on the exclusive legislative competence of the States under Entry 32, List II, Schedule VII of the Constitution [Paras 16-19].

Decision: Appeals dismissed in part – Constitution (97th Amendment) Act, 2011, struck down to the extent it applies to co-operative societies within a State – Valid insofar as it applies to multi-State co-operative societies and Union territories – High Court’s decision affirmed with modifications [Paras 44-46].

Criminal Law – Inherent Powers – High Court's Discretion – Supreme Court held that the High Court has the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to grant interim protection in exceptional cases, with caution and circumspection, and by providing brief reasons – The impugned High Court order granting stay and interim protection to the respondents in criminal proceedings was justified and in line with the principles laid down in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra & Others (2021) SCC Online SC 315 – The order was not cryptic or non-speaking and provided detailed reasons regarding the overlapping allegations of voter and loan fraud during bank elections [Paras 1-27].

Election Disputes – Conversion to Criminal Cases – The Court emphasized the need to scrutinize the motive behind filing criminal complaints during elections, noting that the petitioner’s actions indicated an attempt to convert election disputes into criminal cases to pressurize the accused – The sequence of events showed a multipronged attack by the petitioner against the newly elected Board of Directors of the cooperative bank [Paras 12-20].

Judicial Reasoning – Adequate Grounds for Interim Orders – Supreme Court observed that the High Court’s interim order was based on a thorough analysis of the sequence of events, the pendency of civil writ petitions, and the overlapping allegations of voter and loan fraud – The Court reiterated that interim protection could be granted in cases manifestly attended with mala fide and malicious prosecution [Paras 21-26].

Decision: Special Leave Petitions dismissed – High Court’s order granting interim protection and staying proceedings upheld – The High Court's discretion under Section 482 CrPC was properly exercised – The Supreme Court affirmed that the interim protection was necessary to ensure the supremacy of the ballot and to prevent the misuse of criminal law to influence election outcomes [Paras 27].

Arbitration – Power to Modify Arbitral Award – Section 34 of Arbitration Act – Supreme Court held that Section 34 does not confer any power to modify an arbitral award – The provision only allows for setting aside the award on specific grounds, reflecting a deliberate legislative policy of minimal judicial intervention – Judgments modifying awards by courts under Article 142 do not set precedents for lower courts [Paras 1-46].

Interpretation of Statutes – Limited Judicial Interference – Arbitration Act, 1996 is modeled on the UNCITRAL Model Law, which aims at minimal judicial interference – Section 34 of the Act is consistent with this objective, limiting courts to setting aside or remitting awards but not modifying them – Comparative analysis with arbitration laws of other jurisdictions, such as England, the United States, Canada, Australia, and Singapore, which provide express provisions for modifying awards [Paras 15-41].

Constitutional vs. Statutory Interpretation – Distinction – The judgment emphasizes the difference between constitutional and statutory interpretation – Constitutional provisions, being dynamic and evolving, may be interpreted more broadly to meet changing societal needs, while statutory provisions are to be construed strictly within their legislative intent [Paras 43-45].

Judicial Precedent – Overruling Erroneous Judgments – Supreme Court overrules decisions by lower courts that interpreted Section 34 as including the power to modify awards – Emphasizes adherence to legislative intent and statutory framework [Paras 29-37].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court's judgment modifying the arbitral award set aside – Courts under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act do not have the power to modify arbitral awards – The matter remanded for fresh consideration consistent with this judgment [Paras 47-49].

Service Law – Age Relaxation – Eligibility – Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (Appellant) contested the respondent’s entitlement to age relaxation for the post of PGT (English) Female – Respondent claimed relaxation based on her employment as a primary teacher in South Delhi Municipal Corporation – Supreme Court held that employees of autonomous bodies, including municipal corporations, are not entitled to age relaxation applicable to government servants or departmental candidates – Orders of Central Administrative Tribunal and High Court set aside [Paras 1-10].

Government Servant vs. Autonomous Body – Circular Interpretation – Court clarified that Central Government’s circulars providing age relaxation benefits are limited to Central Government civilian employees and do not extend to personnel working in autonomous bodies or public sector undertakings – Cited Government of India's Circular dated 27.03.2012 [Para 5].

Departmental Candidate Definition – Recruitment Rules – Supreme Court held that the term ‘departmental candidate’ applies to those within the concerned department of the government – Respondent, as an employee of the South Delhi Municipal Corporation, does not qualify as a departmental candidate under the terms of the advertisement for direct recruitment [Paras 8-9].

Promotion Channel – Feeder Cadre – Argument that respondent is in the feeder cadre for promotion to PGT (English) dismissed – Promotion rules within the Municipal Corporation do not equate to eligibility for age relaxation in direct recruitment processes [Para 9].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Orders of the High Court and Central Administrative Tribunal set aside – Respondent not entitled to age relaxation for appointment to the post of PGT (English) Female [Para 10].

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Order 7 Rule 11(d) – Supreme Court held that once a plaint is rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC, there is no occasion to direct that an amendment be made to the plaint – The rejection of the plaint on the grounds that the suit is barred by any law precludes the plaintiff from rectifying the defects through amendment [Paras 1-14].

Specific Relief – Necessity of Seeking Appropriate Reliefs – The Court observed that the plaintiff did not seek a declaration that the sale deeds were executed merely as security for a loan transaction, which was essential for the maintainability of the suit – Under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, a mere declaration of title without seeking further relief is impermissible when the plaintiff can seek additional relief [Paras 6-7, 9].

Remedy Against Rejection of Plaint – Decree and Appeal – The Supreme Court clarified that the rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) operates as a decree under Section 2(2) of the CPC and is appealable – The appellant should have filed a regular first appeal against the rejection order instead of a writ petition [Paras 12-14].

Decision: Appeals disposed of – Judgment of the High Court affirmed, which allowed the revision application by the respondents and dismissed the writ petition by the appellant – Appellant granted liberty to pursue the remedy against the rejection of the plaint as prescribed by the CPC [Paras 14-15].