Trust Law – Disposal of Trust Property – Registrar's Authority – The Supreme Court held that the Registrar of Public Trusts cannot impose conditions beyond those stipulated in the trust deed or by law. The Registrar's authority to refuse sanction for the disposal of trust property is limited to situations where such disposal would be prejudicial to the interests of the trust as defined by law or the trust deed. The Registrar must base decisions on objective criteria provided in the trust instrument or law, rather than personal notions of what is beneficial or prejudicial [Paras 1-10, 20-28].

Autonomy of Trusts – Principle of Democratic Decision-Making – The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining the autonomy and democratic decision-making of self-governed organizations. Public control over trusts is intended to ensure efficient administration without overriding the decisions made by the trust's members. Any measure of public control should not undermine the right to freedom of association under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution [Paras 27-28].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and the Registrar's decision, allowing the trust to proceed with the sale of its properties subject to fresh valuation and public tender to ensure transparency and fairness [Para 29-30].

Landlord-Tenant Law – Statutory Tenancy – Jurisdiction of Civil Courts – The Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction of Civil Courts is barred in matters covered by the Haryana (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act 1973, which provides a complete code for determining the rights of tenants and landlords. The appropriate remedy for eviction in such cases lies with the Rent Controller under the Act 1973, not with the Civil Court [Paras 1-11, 25].

Effect of Special Legislation – Burmah Shell Act – The Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings) Act 1976 confers tenancy rights to BPCL and overrides other inconsistent laws. The tenants under this Act are considered statutory tenants, and their eviction must be pursued under the specific provisions of the Rent Control Act applicable to the region [Paras 17-19, 21].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's judgment that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for possession. The remedy for the appellants lies in initiating eviction proceedings under the Haryana (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act 1973 [Paras 25-26].

Service Law – Pension – Application of Amended Pay Rules – The Supreme Court held that the amended pay rules, which came into effect after the retirement of the respondent, could not be applied retroactively to revise his pension. The principle of "equal pay for equal work" was found inapplicable in this case as the upgraded post and apex scale were created after the respondent's retirement, and the post was to be filled by selection, not automatically by seniority [Paras 7-13].

Jurisdiction of High Courts – Power of Superintendence – The Court emphasized that the High Courts' power under Article 227 of the Constitution should be used sparingly and only to keep subordinate courts within their bounds. The interference by the High Court in the Tribunal's order was deemed unwarranted as there was no jurisdictional error or failure of justice [Paras 14-15].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgments of the High Court, which had erroneously applied the principle of "equal pay for equal work" and directed the revision of the respondent's pension based on the apex scale. The appeals were allowed, and the Tribunal's original order dismissing the respondent's claim was restored [Para 16].

Service Law – Dismissal – Misconduct – Compulsory Retirement – The Supreme Court held that while driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol, especially while carrying personnel, is a severe misconduct warranting strict punishment, the specific circumstances, including the employee’s long service and minor nature of the accident, merited a reduction in the severity of the punishment. Consequently, the punishment of dismissal was converted into compulsory retirement, enabling the deceased employee's legal heirs to receive death-cum-retirement benefits and family pension [Paras 12-13].

Jurisdiction of High Courts – Judicial Review of Disciplinary Actions – The Court reiterated that the power of judicial review over disciplinary actions should ensure that the punishment is not disproportionate to the misconduct proven. The High Court’s decision to uphold the dismissal without considering mitigating factors was overturned [Para 11].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – The Supreme Court converted the punishment of dismissal to compulsory retirement, allowing the legal heirs to receive the benefits associated with compulsory retirement. The appeal was partly allowed to this extent [Para 13].

Criminal Law – Bail – Relevant Considerations – The Supreme Court emphasized that courts must consider the nature and seriousness of the offense, character of the evidence, likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice, impact on prosecution witnesses, societal impact, and likelihood of tampering with evidence while granting bail. The High Court's failure to consider these factors and reliance on insufficient reasoning rendered its order unsustainable [Paras 9-11].

Bail – High Court's Error – The High Court erroneously granted bail without assigning cogent reasons, failing to appreciate the gravity of the offenses, and ignoring the accused's criminal antecedents and involvement in other serious cases. The High Court's mechanical approach to granting bail necessitated the Supreme Court's intervention [Paras 7-8].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order granting bail, directing the accused to surrender immediately. The Court highlighted the importance of judicial discretion in bail matters, requiring courts to provide brief but sufficient reasons for their decisions [Paras 12].

Criminal Law – Revisional Jurisdiction – Conviction from Acquittal – The Supreme Court held that under Section 401(3) CrPC, the High Court does not have the authority to convert an acquittal into a conviction while exercising its revisional jurisdiction. The correct approach would be to set aside the acquittal and remit the matter for retrial or rehearing by the appropriate court [Paras 8-9].

Right of Victim to Appeal – Section 372 CrPC – The Court emphasized that the victim has a statutory right to appeal against an acquittal under Section 372 CrPC without the need for special leave. If the victim has not availed this remedy, a revision application should not be entertained, and the victim should be directed to pursue an appeal [Para 10.1].

Procedural Requirement – Conversion of Revision to Appeal – Under Section 401(5) CrPC, the High Court must pass a judicial order to treat a revision application as an appeal, provided the application was made under the erroneous belief that no appeal lies and it is necessary in the interest of justice [Para 11].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order converting acquittals into convictions and remitted the matter to the High Court to treat the revision applications as appeals under Section 372 CrPC and decide them in accordance with the law [Paras 12-14].

NDPS Act – Section 50 – Personal Search and Recovery – The Supreme Court held that Section 50 of the NDPS Act mandates informing the accused of their right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. Offering an option to be searched by the officer conducting the raid, not stipulated in the statute, contravenes this provision. However, this protection applies specifically to personal searches, and the invalidity of a personal search does not necessarily invalidate the recovery of contraband found elsewhere [Paras 6-7].

Judicial Interpretation – Extended Scope of Section 50 – The Court rejected the argument that a violation of Section 50 for personal searches would invalidate all related recoveries, including those not on the person. The ruling emphasized that the scope of Section 50 is limited to personal searches, and any recovery from a different location (such as a bag or other carrying device) does not fall under its purview [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentencing of the appellant. The appellant's argument for extending the protection of Section 50 to all forms of recovery was not accepted [Para 7].

Arbitration – Appointment of Arbitrator – Insufficient Stamping – The Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction to adjudicate issues at the pre-appointment stage of an arbitrator is limited to taking a prima facie view on the existence of the arbitration agreement. Issues of arbitrability and validity, including concerns of insufficient stamping, should be referred to arbitration unless they patently indicate unworkability. The Court emphasized that arbitration agreements should be enforced to promote a pro-arbitration stance, aligning with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [Paras 18-23].

Doctrine of Separability – Validity of Arbitration Agreement – The Court reiterated the doctrine of separability, stating that an arbitration agreement is independent of the underlying contract. Therefore, concerns about the non-stamping or insufficient stamping of the substantive contract do not invalidate the arbitration agreement. The Court referenced the judgments in Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. v. Coastal Marine Constructions and Engineering Ltd. and N.N. Global Mercantile Private Limited v. Indo Unique Flame Limited, ultimately deciding that arbitration should proceed unless there is clear evidence of deadwood [Paras 24-27].

Decision – Petition Allowed – The Supreme Court appointed Mr. Justice A.V. Chandrashekara, a former Judge of the High Court of Karnataka, as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes. The parties were directed to communicate this order to the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) to proceed under the SIAC rules [Paras 28-29].

Unfair Trade Practice – Delay in Possession and Extra Charges – The Supreme Court held that compensation under Section 12-B of the MRTP Act can only be granted when a consumer proves that loss or damage was caused due to monopolistic, restrictive, or unfair trade practices. The appellants failed to prove that the respondent engaged in unfair trade practices, and thus were not entitled to compensation [Paras 8-11].

Jurisdiction of MRTP Commission – Breach of Agreement – The MRTP Commission can examine the validity of agreements related to unfair or restrictive trade practices. The appellants' claim of unfair trade practice due to delay in possession and imposition of extra charges was dismissed by the Commission as it did not constitute misrepresentation or fraud [Para 8].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the MRTP Commission's order, concluding that there was no misrepresentation by the respondent amounting to unfair trade practices. The demand for extra charges was in accordance with the Apartment Buyer Agreement (ABA) and had been partly paid by the appellants. The appellants were directed to pay Rs. 25,00,000 for each flat to the respondent, after which possession of the flats would be handed over [Paras 20-26].