Consumer Law – Unfair Trade Practice – Non-delivery of a new car booked and paid for in full constitutes unfair trade practice and dishonesty – District Forum and State Commission's directions to deliver a new car were justified – National Commission erred in reversing these findings [Paras 1-8].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope and Limitations – National Commission's powers under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act are limited to cases where the State Commission has exercised jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity – National Commission exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by re-evaluating evidence and setting aside concurrent factual findings [Paras 7-7.2].

Decision: Appeal allowed – National Commission's order quashed – District Forum's and State Commission's orders restored – Respondent directed to deliver a new car and comply with the District Forum's judgment – Respondent to pay Rs. 1 lakh in costs, split between the appellant and the Supreme Court's Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee [Paras 8].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Proceedings – Appellant challenged High Court's quashing of criminal proceedings based on a settlement between parties in a corruption case – Supreme Court emphasized the seriousness of corruption cases, stating that they cannot be quashed based merely on settlements, as corruption impacts the State and society at large – High Court's order quashing the criminal complaint set aside [Paras 1-14].

Corruption – Impact on Society – Court stressed that corruption by public servants is an offense against the State and society – Settling such cases privately undermines the judicial process and public trust – The need for stringent measures to uphold the integrity of public office highlighted [Paras 27-44].

Non-compoundable Offenses – Settlement Not Sufficient – Highlighted that offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act and related sections of the IPC are non-compoundable – Such offenses cannot be settled privately to quash proceedings – Judicial scrutiny required to maintain the rule of law [Paras 42-45].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court's order quashing the criminal proceedings set aside – Criminal complaint restored – Investigating Officer directed to file a further report under Section 173(8) of the CrPC – Special Court instructed to proceed based on the merits of the case [Paras 50-51].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Appellants convicted for the murder of an aged couple during a robbery – Trial court imposed death sentence – High Court reduced it to life imprisonment – Supreme Court analyzed the brutality and premeditated nature of the crime, considering societal impact and trust betrayal [Paras 1-12].

Sentence – Death Penalty vs. Life Imprisonment – Court deliberated on the appropriateness of death sentence versus a fixed term life sentence – Emphasized on the rarest of rare doctrine – Supreme Court highlighted the aggravating factors including the trust reposed in the accused and the heinous manner of the crime – Mitigating factors such as age of the accused considered [Paras 3-13].

Fixed Term Sentence – Concept and Application – Court imposed a fixed term sentence of 30 years before remission eligibility – Discussed the balance between retributive justice and rehabilitative justice – Referenced previous judgments advocating for fixed term sentences in lieu of death penalty where mitigating factors exist [Paras 12-14].

Decision – Appeals partially allowed – Imposed fixed term sentence of 30 years for the convicts – Emphasized the hope for reintegration of the convicts into society post-sentence [Para 14].

Criminal Law – Dishonestly Receiving Stolen Property – Appeal – Conviction under Section 411 IPC requires proof that the accused had knowledge or reason to believe that the property was stolen – Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to establish that the appellant had such knowledge – Conviction based solely on the possession of stolen goods and selling them at a lower price is insufficient without proving the essential element of mens rea – Appeal allowed [Paras 1-25].

Essential Ingredients – Section 411 IPC – For a conviction under Section 411 IPC, it must be proved that (1) the stolen property was in the possession of the accused, (2) the property was previously in someone else's possession, and (3) the accused knew or believed the property to be stolen – The prosecution failed to meet these criteria in this case [Paras 21-22].

Disclosure Statements – Insufficient Evidence – The Court noted that the disclosure statement of one accused cannot prove another accused's knowledge of the stolen nature of the goods – Concrete evidence is required to establish such knowledge – Prosecution's evidence found unreliable due to discrepancies [Paras 11-20, 23].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentencing of appellant under Section 411 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted and ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case [Para 25].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Appeal – In absence of concrete evidence, conviction is unsustainable – Appellants were convicted for the murder of Rupak Kumar Gogoi, Managing Director of the company where they were employed – Prosecution relied on eyewitness testimonies which did not conclusively prove that the appellants caused any injury or instigated the laborers to commit the crime – Supreme Court found that the appellants were present as union office bearers and there was no evidence of their participation in the crime – Conviction under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 149 IPC found unsustainable – Appeal allowed [Paras 1-6].

Concrete Evidence – Requirement for Conviction – Court emphasized the necessity of concrete evidence to sustain a conviction – Mere presence at the crime scene or holding a position of authority does not establish guilt without evidence of direct involvement or instigation – Appellants acquitted due to lack of such evidence [Paras 5-6].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentencing of appellants set aside – Appellants acquitted and ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case [Para 7].

Succession Law – Faridkot Royal Family Property Dispute – Appellants and respondents contested the succession to the estate of Raja Harinder Singh – Main issues included the applicability of the Raja of Faridkot's Estate Act, the Rule of Primogeniture, and the validity of the Third Will dated June 01, 1982 – Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, ruling that the Raja of Faridkot's Estate Act was not a valid enactment for succession purposes and that the Rule of Primogeniture was not applicable – The properties were to be succeeded according to personal law of succession – Third Will declared invalid [Paras 1-28].

Primogeniture – Not Applicable – The Court held that the Rule of Primogeniture did not apply to the properties of Raja Harinder Singh after the integration of Faridkot State into the Indian Union – Succession was to be governed by personal law rather than by primogeniture [Paras 20-21].

Validity of Will – The Court found the Third Will dated June 01, 1982, executed by Raja Harinder Singh to be a fabricated document, shrouded with suspicious circumstances, and therefore invalid – Succession to the properties left by the Ruler was to be governed by intestate succession [Paras 14, 19].

Decision – Special Leave Petitions dismissed – High Court's order upheld – Properties to be succeeded as per personal law – Maharwal Khewaji Trust to manage properties until further orders from the executing court [Paras 28].

Motor Accident – Serious Injuries – Compensation Enhancement – Appellant sustained severe injuries resulting in 68% permanent disability (assessed by High Court as 100%) – Tribunal awarded compensation under various heads, including Rs. 50,000/- for pain and suffering – High Court enhanced compensation for future economic loss, considering claimant's income at Rs. 3,000/- per month – Supreme Court found Rs. 50,000/- for pain and suffering insufficient, awarded Rs. 4,00,000/- – Future economic loss recalculated considering claimant's income as Mason at Rs. 5,000/- per month with a multiplier of 15 – Total compensation enhanced to Rs. 15,42,800/- with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of claim petition till satisfaction [Paras 1-5].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Compensation enhanced – Respondent Insurance Company directed to pay the enhanced compensation within eight weeks [Para 5].

Insolvency Law – CIRP Against Corporate Guarantor – Liability of Guarantor – CIRP can be initiated against the Corporate Guarantor without first proceeding against the principal borrower – Liability of the guarantor is co-extensive with that of the principal borrower – Supreme Court held that the guarantor metamorphoses into a debtor or corporate debtor if the principal borrower defaults in payment – Judgment in Laxmi Pat Surana v. Union Bank of India and Another (2021) 8 SCC 481 affirmed – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-18].

Corporate Guarantor – Definition and Scope – Court interpreted the definitions under Section 3(7), 3(8), and 5(5A) of the IBC to include corporate persons offering guarantees for loans taken by non-corporate borrowers – Legislative intent does not exclude such guarantors from CIRP provisions [Paras 12-15].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Concurrent findings of the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) and the Appellate Authority (NCLAT) upheld – No interference warranted [Paras 17-18].

Municipal Law – Possession and Permanent Injunction – Town Planning Scheme – Land reserved for public park under the sanctioned Town Planning Scheme vested in the Municipal Committee – Plaintiff sought permanent injunction alleging possession – Courts held possession of land was already taken over by Municipality and developed as a public park – Supreme Court held plaintiff not entitled to permanent injunction – Scheme not challenged by plaintiff and deemed lapse not sought – Appeals allowed, permanent injunction set aside [Paras 1-11].

Contempt Proceedings – Status Quo Order – Context and Violation – Order of status quo regarding possession interpreted in context – Municipality’s development of land as a public park after possession does not violate status quo order – Contempt proceedings closed [Para 10].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court's judgment in Regular Second Appeal No. 115/1994 quashed – Trial Court's decree of permanent injunction set aside – First Appellate Court's judgment restored – Original suit dismissed – Contempt proceedings disposed of [Para 11].