Delay in Reasoned Judgments – Violation of Article 21 – Operative orders pronounced without accompanying reasoned judgments prejudice the rights of aggrieved parties and impede their ability to seek legal remedies – Delay in delivering judgments violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India – NCDRC directed to ensure that reasoned judgments are passed along with operative orders and made available to litigating parties within two months [Paras 1-7].

Practice Discontinued – National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – The President of the NCDRC to take necessary steps to discontinue the practice of delaying reasoned judgments following operative orders – Urgent steps required to address existing cases where reasons are pending [Paras 6-7].

Decision: Appeal disposed of with directions to the NCDRC – Pending applications, if any, also disposed of [Paras 8-9].

Partition Suit – Transfer of Suit – The partition suit pending in the Additional District Judge Saket Court, New Delhi is sought to be transferred to a competent court in Nainital, Uttarakhand – Original suit filed in 2012, later transferred in 2016 – Written statement filed by the petitioner without requiring letters of administration – Petitioner’s subsequent filing of testamentary case in 2019 seen as a strategic move to complicate proceedings – Transfer petition dismissed [Paras 1-10, 13].

Testamentary Proceedings – Primacy and Jurisdiction – Testamentary proceedings are in rem and usually take precedence – Provisions under the Indian Succession Act allow testamentary cases to have primacy but the petitioner’s delayed filing questioned – Proper jurisdiction for testamentary cases involving properties in multiple states discussed – Transfer of testamentary case from Uttarakhand High Court to High Court of Delhi ordered to facilitate joint hearing with the partition suit [Paras 11-18, 23-25, 48-49].

Legal Contention – Specific Pleading and Procedural Aspects – Legal contentions about probate and letters of administration and their applicability in different jurisdictions – Bar under Section 213 for reliance on a Will without probate or letters of administration – The factual matrix considered for rejecting the transfer of the partition suit and ordering the transfer of the testamentary case for consolidated hearing [Paras 32-43].

Decision: Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 970 of 2016 dismissed – Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 2779 of 2019 allowed – Testamentary Case No. 01 of 2019 transferred to the High Court of Delhi – Partition suit to be transferred back to the High Court of Delhi and heard jointly with the testamentary case – Directions for virtual hearings and use of court-appointed commissioners for witness examination provided [Paras 44-49].

Trade Marks Act – Functioning Without Chairperson – Sustainability – Technical members of the IPAB can function in the absence of a Chairperson – Section 87 enables the senior-most member to act as Chairperson in the event of a vacancy – Technical members, holding legal qualifications and practical legal experience, can adequately function in the Board’s operations [Paras 9-25].

Appointment and Tenure – Interpretation of Provisions – Section 89A of the Trade Marks Act as amended by the Finance Act 2017 governs the term of office and conditions of service for Chairperson and members – The applicant's contention for the incumbent’s extension based on Section 184 of the Finance Act was found insubstantial – Provisions of Section 86 and 89A discussed, clarifying that the maximum age and tenure limits prescribed by rules apply unless superseded by specific statutory provisions [Paras 10-23].

Decision: Application dismissed – IPAB’s functioning deemed sustainable with technical members – No extension of the incumbent Chairperson's term granted – Costs not imposed on parties [Paras 25-26].

Civil Procedure – Auction Sale – Fraud and Misrepresentation – Allegations of fraud must be specifically pleaded and proved with evidence – Mere allegations without substantiation are insufficient – High Court erred by not following proper procedures under Order XLI Rules 27, 28, and 29 CPC in calling for additional evidence on fraud without setting aside the executing court’s earlier orders dismissing such objections [Paras 10-11].

Finality of Sale Certificate – Order XXI Rules 92 and 94 CPC – Once a sale is confirmed and a sale certificate is issued, it becomes final – Subsequent appeals challenging the sale must meet the procedural requirements, including depositing the decretal amount as per Order XXI Rule 90 CPC [Paras 9, 13-14].

Appellate Procedure – Additional Evidence – The appellate court may allow additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 only when specific conditions are met – High Court’s reliance on additional evidence without proper procedure under Order XLI Rules 28 and 29 was incorrect – Report from Principal City Civil Judge regarding fraud was improperly obtained and relied upon [Paras 10-10.2, 11].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court’s judgment and order set aside – Original orders of the trial court and executing court upheld – Judgment debtors’ objections regarding fraud dismissed as unsubstantiated [Paras 15-16].

Mutual Fund Regulations – Winding Up of Schemes – Unitholder Consent – Regulation 18(15)(c) requires consent of the unitholders for winding up a mutual fund scheme – Consent by majority of the unitholders who participate in the poll is sufficient, not the consent of the majority of all unitholders of the scheme [Paras 6-9, 16-18].

Interpretation of Consent – Practical Interpretation – For mutual funds with large and fluctuating unitholder numbers, requiring consent from the majority of all unitholders is impractical and absurd – Practical interpretation requires consent from the majority of participating unitholders [Paras 10-15].

Validity of E-Voting Process – The e-voting process supervised by an observer appointed by SEBI is valid – Minor irregularities in the voting process do not vitiate the consent given by unitholders for winding up [Paras 23-40].

Appointment of Independent Agency – SBI Funds Management Pvt. Ltd. appointed to undertake the exercise of winding up, including liquidation of holdings and distribution to unitholders – To ensure the best possible liquidation value and expeditious payment [Paras 41-42].

Decision: Appeals disposed of – Unitholders' consent for winding up the six schemes upheld – Directions for SBI Funds Management Pvt. Ltd. to handle the winding up process [Paras 42].

Writ Petition – Jurisdiction – Real Estate – Appellant seeks writs under Article 32 for various reliefs including cancellation of agreements, refunds, or completion of construction – Supreme Court holds it inappropriate to entertain such petitions under Article 32 due to existence of specific statutory provisions and remedies under the Consumer Protection Act, RERA, and IBC – Judicial review should not involve day-to-day supervision of a building project [Paras 1-8].

Alternative Remedies – Consumer Protection Act – RERA – IBC – Statutory mechanisms provide adequate relief for real estate purchasers – Representative complaints and class actions available – Real estate grievances to be addressed through statutory fora rather than direct intervention by Supreme Court under Article 32 [Paras 7-8].

Judicial Supervision – Limitations – Managing a construction project beyond judicial competence under Article 32 – Existing legal framework provides adequate procedural avenues for complaints, investigations, and redressal – Day-to-day supervision by court deemed inappropriate and inefficient use of judicial resources [Paras 6-8].

Decision: Writ petition under Article 32 dismissed – Petitioners directed to seek remedies under relevant statutory provisions – Clarification that this decision does not affect ongoing cases like Amrapali or Unitech projects where the Supreme Court has intervened for home buyers [Paras 9].

Disability Rights – Scribe Provision – Appellant with dysgraphia requested a scribe for the CSE, which UPSC denied citing guidelines restricting scribes to candidates with benchmark disabilities – Supreme Court interprets the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, emphasizing that benchmark disability is not a precondition for obtaining a scribe – Sections 2(r) and 2(s) distinguish between benchmark disabilities and broader categories of disabilities – Guidelines by MSJE are not exhaustive; UPSC required to provide reasonable accommodations for all persons with disabilities, not limited to those with benchmark disabilities [Paras 1-42].

Reasonable Accommodation – Rights of Persons with Disabilities – Appellant entitled to scribe based on reasonable accommodation principles under Section 3 of the Act – Statutory mandate to ensure equality and non-discrimination extends to all persons with disabilities – UPSC's interpretation limiting scribes to benchmark disabilities is flawed – Reasonable accommodation must be provided to ensure full and effective participation in society [Paras 43-57].

Legal Framework – Guidelines and Statutory Interpretation – UPSC and DoPT guidelines restricting scribe provision to benchmark disabilities are inconsistent with the RPwD Act, 2016 – MSJE’s guidelines are flexible, not restrictive – Statutory rights under Section 3 extend to all persons with disabilities, ensuring dignity and equality [Paras 19-24, 29-38].

Decision: Appeal allowed – UPSC directed to provide a scribe for the appellant in the CSE – Court underscores the need for inclusive interpretation of disability rights, ensuring reasonable accommodation beyond benchmark disabilities [Paras 57-60].

Consumer Protection – Delay in Filing Written Statement – Appellants challenged the rejection of their application for condonation of delay in filing the written statement to a consumer complaint – Written statement required within 30 days, extendable by a further 15 days under Section 13 of the Act – District Forum has no power to extend beyond this period – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-6].

Jurisdiction – Section 13 of Consumer Protection Act – No jurisdiction for consumer fora to accept written statements beyond 45 days – National Commission's decision aligned with Constitution Bench’s interpretation – Constitution Bench decision applies prospectively, but does not affect complaints filed prior to this decision – Condonation of delay cannot be granted as per precedent [Paras 3-6].

Procedure – Written Statement Submission – Despite sufficient time, appellants failed to file within prescribed limit – Citing precedents, court holds no merit in appeal – No jurisdiction to condone delay [Paras 4-6].

Decision: Special Leave Petition dismissed – Confirmation of the National Commission's decision rejecting condonation of delay in filing the written statement.

Arbitration – Appealability of Refusal to Condon Delay – Question of law whether a single Judge's order refusing to condone delay in filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 is appealable under Section 37(1)(c) – Supreme Court holds that an appeal under Section 37(1)(c) is maintainable against an order refusing to condone delay in filing an application under Section 34 – The decision emphasizes the importance of minimal judicial intervention in arbitration, but not at the expense of rights explicitly provided for in the Arbitration Act [Paras 1-38].

Condonation of Delay – Section 34 of Arbitration Act – Interpretation – Application under Section 34 must comply with both sub-sections (2) and (3) – Delay beyond prescribed period cannot be condoned under Section 5 of Limitation Act – Essence of appeal lies in the effect of refusal to condone delay, effectively denying the setting aside of an arbitral award [Paras 7-12, 19-23].

Precedent and Legal Interpretation – Reference to judgments under Section 39 of the 1940 Act – Court reaffirms the applicability of Essar Constructions judgment – Distinction between refusal to set aside award on merits and preliminary orders is crucial for appealability [Paras 10-22, 29-30].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of the Division Bench under appeal is set aside – Matter remitted to Division Bench of High Court of Delhi to decide on the Single Judge's refusal to condone delay [Paras 37-39].