Consumer Protection – Delayed Possession of Property – Appeal against National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's Order – Supreme Court sets aside part of Commission's order allowing respondent-developer to charge interest at 9% p.a. on balance amount from appellants. Appeal arises from delayed possession of a flat by the respondent-developer. Commission partly allowed appellants' claim, but imposed interest on balance amount from 14th November, 2017. Supreme Court holds that charging interest from appellants is unjustified as possession was not delivered by the scheduled date. Orders respondent to convey outstanding amount within two months and handover possession within 30 days of final payment. [Paras 1-8]

Directions Issued – Execution of Conveyance Deed and Possession – Supreme Court directs respondent-developer to issue a statement of account, including compensation, and to execute conveyance deed and handover possession of the unit upon settlement of the account, without further delay. The imposition of 9% interest on balance amount by Commission set aside. [Paras 6-7]

Justice and Fairness in Consumer Disputes – Court emphasizes the protection of consumer rights and equitable treatment in cases of delayed possession, ensuring fairness and justice to homebuyers. [Para 6]

Order – Appeal disposed of in terms above; pending application, if any, disposed of. [Para 8-9]

Repudiation of Insurance Claim – Analysis of Material Suppression – Appellant’s claim repudiated by respondent insurance company on the grounds of non-disclosure of pre-existing insurance policies held by the insured-deceased – NCDRC upheld repudiation – Supreme Court finds repudiation to be unjustified due to lack of adequate evidence supporting respondent’s claim of other existing insurance policies – Impugned NCDRC order set aside. [Paras 48-52]

Interpretation of Queries in Insurance Proposal Form – Ambiguity and Contra Proferentem Rule – Queries in the insurance proposal form concerning pre-existing policies interpreted – Application of contra proferentem rule leads to finding that the insured-deceased did not suppress material facts in the insurance application form – Respondents failed to prove fraudulent suppression by the insured-deceased. [Paras 39-42, 52]

Burden of Proof in Insurance Claims – Onus lies on the insurer to prove allegations of non-disclosure or suppression of material facts – Respondents failed to provide adequate evidence to substantiate their claim of existing policies – Merely providing a tabulation of information without corroboration does not satisfy the burden of proof. [Paras 47-51]

Applicability of Section 45 of the Insurance Act, 1938 – Ascertaining Material Suppression and Fraudulent Intent – In light of Section 45, the court finds that the insurer has not proven that the insured-deceased had fraudulently given false information regarding pre-existing policies – Insufficient evidence to demonstrate knowledge of suppression by the insured-deceased. [Paras 16-17, 35-37, 51]

Direction for Payment of Insurance Claim – Court directs respondent insurance company to pay the appellant the claimed amounts under both insurance policies with interest – Insurance claims amounting to Rs. 7,50,000/- and Rs. 9,60,000/- to be paid with interest at 7% per annum from the date of filing the complaint. [Para 53]

Challenge Against Auction Sale Notice – Borrower’s application in DRT under SARFAESI Act against auction notice by UCO Bank – Interim DRT order allowing auction with conditions – Conditions unmet by Borrower – Auction completed and sale confirmed in favor of appellant [Paras 3.3, 3.5, 3.6, 10].

Restoration of Securitization Application – Dismissal by DRT Challenged – Alternative Remedy and High Court’s Jurisdiction – Held, High Court erred in entertaining writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution when alternative remedy under SARFAESI Act was available. Observes that High Court should refrain from entertaining such matters unless exceptions carved out by Supreme Court in Chhabil Dass Agarwal case are present. Auction purchaser's appeal allowed, setting aside High Court’s order and dismissing writ petition. [Paras 16-34]

Validity of Auction Purchase – Impact of Confirmed Sale – Borrower’s Conduct – Finds that confirmed auction sale should only be interfered with in cases of fraud or collusion, which is not the case here. Notes Borrower's conduct and failure to comply with DRT's order to deposit dues, impacting the outcome. Emphasizes the finality achieved by auction sale confirmation and subsequent registration, leading to extinguishment of Borrower's right of redemption. [Paras 25-27]

Exercise of Jurisdiction under Article 226 – Exceptional Circumstances – Reiterates the Supreme Court’s stance on not entertaining petitions under Article 226 in presence of an effective alternative remedy, except in specific exceptional circumstances. The case at hand found not to fall under these exceptions. [Paras 28-31]

Decision –  Appeal allowed by Supreme Court.

Impugned order dated 4^th February 2022 by High Court in Writ Petition No. 5275 of 2021 quashed and set aside.

Writ Petition No. 5275 of 2021 dismissed with costs of Rs.1,00,000 imposed upon the Borrower [Para 34].

Conviction for Murder and Disappearance of Evidence – Conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC for murder of Sushildhar Dubey – Sentenced to life imprisonment by Sessions Court and confirmed by High Court – Based on circumstantial evidence. [Para 1]

Factual Background – Appellant and deceased were related and cohabitants of village Amgoan – Frequently consumed liquor together – Deceased last seen alive with appellant on 29^th September 1993 – Dead body found next day on road – Prosecution case hinged on circumstantial evidence, primarily last seen theory, recovery of murder weapon, and medical evidence. [Paras 2, 6-7]

Appellant’s Submission – Challenged the reliability of last seen together circumstance, questioning the evidence of weapon recovery and absence of motive – Argued for the possibility of accidental death, citing evidence of PW-7 and PW-15. [Para 3]

Prosecution’s Argument – Supported the judgment, stressing the discovery of the deceased soon after being last seen with appellant and the recovery of weapon used in the assault. [Para 4]

Supreme Court’s Assessment – Applied principles for cases based on circumstantial evidence from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra – Requirements for conviction not fully satisfied. [Para 5]

Weak Last Seen Theory – Regular habit of deceased drinking with appellant, absence of motive or altercation, and deceased’s company with appellant not unusual – Circumstantial evidence weakens the last seen together theory. [Para 7]

Unproved Weapon Recovery – Evidence of PW-2 and PW-4 fails to conclusively establish the recovery of murder weapon at appellant’s instance – Memorandum of appellant’s statement not duly proved. [Para 8-9]

Alternative Theory of Accidental Death – PW-7’s observation of glass pieces at the incident site and PW-15’s admission regarding the possibility of injuries being caused by glass lend credibility to accidental death theory. [Paras 10-11]

Conclusion and Decision – Circumstances not conclusively pointing to appellant’s guilt – Existence of reasonable doubt – Acquittal of the appellant for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC – Bail bonds cancelled. [Paras 12-13]

Curative Petition – Invoked under Article 142 – Addressing miscarriage of justice in arbitral award interpretation – Overlooking of vital evidence and erroneous contractual interpretation leading to an undeserved financial burden on DMRC – Curative petition maintainable and allowed. [Paras 30-72]

Arbitral Award Review – Patently Illegal – Incorrect interpretation of termination clause by Arbitral Tribunal – Overlooked vital evidence, namely CMRS certificate, in evaluating the validity of contract termination by DAMEPL – The award failed to recognize DMRC’s effective steps during the cure period – Award set aside due to patent illegality and perversity. [Paras 44-66]

Interpretation of Termination Clause – Analysis of Clause 29.5.1(i) – Unreasonable interpretation by Tribunal – Misinterpretation leading to overlooking effective steps taken by DMRC during the cure period – Contradicts contractual intent. [Paras 47-54]

CMRS Certificate – Overlooked Evidence – Significance under Metro Railways (Operation and Maintenance) Act, 2002 – Certificate relevant for assessing the safety and effective steps towards defect remedy – Arbitral Tribunal’s disregard led to miscarriage of justice. [Paras 55-66]

Execution Proceedings – Termination and Refund – Execution proceedings for enforcing the arbitral award to be discontinued – Amounts deposited by DMRC to be refunded. [Para 69]

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the curative petition, setting aside the previous judgment which had upheld the arbitral award favoring Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. The Court found the award patently illegal and perverse, as it overlooked vital evidence and contained an erroneous interpretation of the termination clause of the contract. The decision reinstated the position of the parties as it was prior to the arbitral award and directed the discontinuation of execution proceedings.

Easementary Rights – Dispute over 20ft. wide road in land Survey No.57 Hissa No.13A/1 owned by Ramani's, claimed by Gala's under easement – Gala's (appellants) claimed easementary rights over the road which is part of respondents' property – Suit filed for declaration of easementary rights and for permanent injunction – Original suit decreed but overturned by appellate court and dismissal upheld by High Court [Paras 1-5].

Easementary Right by Prescription – Gala's claim of easementary right over road by prescription not established – Requirement of uninterrupted usage for over 20 years under Section 15 of Indian Easements Act, 1882 not fulfilled – Gala's failed to specifically claim use of road for over 20 years [Paras 21-22, 27].

Easement of Necessity – No easement of necessity established as there existed an alternative access to Gala's land – Gala's unable to prove necessity of disputed road for accessing their property [Paras 32-33].

Transfer of Easement Rights – Gala's claim of acquiring easement rights under Sale Deed dated 17.09.1994 – No evidence presented that government transferred easement rights to initial purchaser, nor such rights were acquired or perfected by Joki Woler Ruzer (original plaintiff) – Photocopy of sale deed inadmissible as evidence [Paras 35-36].

Comparison with Another Easement – Gala's contention of having rights similar to another landowner (Dharmadhikari) rejected – Dharmadhikari's easement rights explicitly assigned in separate sale deed, not applicable to Gala's [Para 37].

Appellate Court's Power – Appellate court has power to overturn findings of the court of first instance – First appellate court justified in its reassessment of the evidence and findings [Para 39].

Decision – Appeals by Gala's dismissed – Easementary rights over disputed road not established – No legal or factual basis for claiming easement rights [Paras 40-41].

Title and Possession – Suit for Partition – Inheritance under Modified Mitakshara Law – Appeal from High Court decision granting partition – Supreme Court reverses decision, upholding First Appellate Court’s findings. Clarifies legal heirs’ entitlement and lease agreements related to property. Affirms that Chiruthey lost her rights in her first husband’s property upon remarriage, and her subsequent lease agreements post-1910 cannot confer ownership. [Paras 1-19]

Lease Agreements – Legal Validity – Examination of back-to-back lease transactions from 1910 – Supreme Court holds transactions as unusual but valid, lacks evidence of illegality. However, reiterates that Chiruthey, having lost rights upon remarriage, cannot pass valid title through these leases. [Para 17]

Rights of Remarried Widow – Application of Hindu Widows Remarriage Act, 1856 – Court finds that Chiruthey’s remarriage led to loss of any rights in her first husband’s property. Holds that rights from subsequent lease agreements post-1910 cannot establish property ownership. [Paras 8, 17, 19]

Decision – Dismissal of Suit for Partition – Supreme Court sets aside High Court judgment, upholds First Appellate Court’s dismissal of suit. Concludes that Chiruthey and, by extension, her son with Neelakandan had no valid claim to property ownership for partition. [Para 19]

Improper Acceptance of Nomination – Challenge to Election of Karikho Kri – Allegations of non-disclosure of assets and government dues – High Court declared election void but Supreme Court reversed decision, holding that disclosures were substantial and non-disclosures did not materially affect the election [Paras 9, 13, 27, 34, 43, 50].

Non-Disclosure of Assets – Analysis – The Court held that non-disclosure of certain assets, specifically three vehicles that remained registered in the names of Karikho Kri’s family members, did not amount to ‘undue influence’ under Section 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. It reasoned that the actual ownership of the vehicles had been transferred prior to Kri’s nomination, and mere registration in family members’ names did not equate to current ownership or possession. This non-disclosure was not deemed significant enough to influence the election outcome. [Para 28, 50]

Role of ‘No Dues Certificate’ and Government Accommodation in Nomination Process – The Court found that Karikho Kri’s failure to disclose his previous occupancy of government accommodation and to submit a ‘No Dues Certificate’ did not constitute a defect of a substantial nature. It noted that there were no outstanding dues and that this non-disclosure was not significantly material to his nomination or the election’s outcome. [Paras 42-43]

Disclosure of Municipal/Property Taxes – Partial non-disclosure by Karikho Kri – Considered not pressing by Nuney Tayang’s counsel and not found to be of substantial nature affecting the election [Paras 11, 49].

Decision – Upholding of Election of Karikho Kri – The Supreme Court has allowed Civil Appeal No. 4615 of 2023 filed by Karikho Kri, thereby upholding his election as the returned candidate from 44 Tezu (ST) Assembly Constituency in Arunachal Pradesh. The Court set aside the judgment of the Itanagar Bench of the High Court, which had declared Karikho Kri's election void based on various allegations of non-disclosure. The Court found that the grounds under Sections 100(1)(b), 100(1)(d)(i), and 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, were not sufficiently established to warrant the invalidation of his election. [Paras 50-51]

Enhancement of Compensation in Motor Accident Claim – Civil Appeal for enhanced compensation from Motor Accident Claims Tribunal order – Tribunal's award enhanced by High Court – Appellant seeks further enhancement. [Paras 1-3]

Facts and Background – Road accident dated 23.04.2013 – Appellant sustained injuries leading to 17% whole body disability – Compensation for income loss, attendant charges, pain and suffering, and transportation contested. [Paras 4, 6, 11-12]

Assessment of Permanent Disability – Tribunal's reduction of disability percentage from 17% to 10% without adequate reasoning, contrary to medical evidence – Held, tribunal and High Court erred in not accepting medical evidence fully – Disability reassessed at 17%. [Para 10]

Income Assessment – Monthly income of appellant, a mechanic with 30 years of experience, undervalued – Held, income should be assessed at Rs.6,500 per month, not Rs.3,500 as determined by Tribunal and High Court. [Para 11]

Compensation Calculation – Total compensation for loss of future income, attendant charges, pain and suffering, transportation reassessed – Enhanced from Rs.1,27,700 to Rs.1,92,820. [Paras 11-13]

Decision – Appeal allowed – Compensation enhanced with directions to Insurance Company for payment – No order as to costs. [Paras 14-15]