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].

Motor Accident - Compensation - Enhancement of - Pain, suffering, and trauma post-accident cannot be fully compensated monetarily but awarding suitable compensation provides solace - Amount of compensation under pain, shock, suffering, loss of amenities, and happiness depends on each case's facts and circumstances - Claimant in coma and bedridden warrants higher compensation [Paras 7-8.1].

Compensation for Pain and Suffering - Considering prolonged hospitalization, grievous injuries, multiple surgeries, claimant's ongoing coma, and bedridden state - High Court's award of Rs. 2,00,000/- increased to Rs. 10,00,000/- [Paras 7.1, 8.1].

Compensation for Loss of Amenities and Happiness - Considering claimant's permanent bedridden state and long-term coma - High Court's award of Rs. 1,00,000/- increased to Rs. 10,00,000/- [Para 7.2].

Interest on Compensation - High Court reduced interest rate from 9% to 6% per annum - Supreme Court found no reason to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution [Para 8.2].

Decision - Appeal Partly Allowed - Total compensation enhanced to Rs. 1,41,94,333/- with 6% interest per annum from filing date till realization - Enhanced amount to be deposited within four weeks; otherwise, interest rate to increase to 7.5% per annum - Tribunal to invest compensation in long-term interest-bearing deposits for claimant's benefit [Paras 9-10].

Insurance Law – Repudiation of Claim – Deterioration of Stock Policy – The Supreme Court upheld the repudiation of the insurance claim by the insurer, New India Assurance Company Limited, based on the specific terms of the DOS Policy. The policy clearly stated that the insurer would not be liable for any damage if the temperature in the refrigeration chambers did not exceed 4.4 degrees Celsius (40 degrees Fahrenheit). The surveyor's report and the appellants' own records indicated that the temperature never exceeded this threshold. Therefore, the claim was correctly repudiated [Paras 16-18].

Policy Exceptions – Clarity and Ambiguity – The Court emphasized that exceptions in insurance policies are to be strictly construed. In this case, the exception clause was clear and unambiguous, and the insurer had clearly stipulated the conditions under which it would not be liable. The exception related to the maintenance of temperature was integral to the policy's purpose of preventing deterioration of stored potatoes [Paras 13-16].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) which had upheld the insurer's decision to repudiate the claim. The Court found no grounds to interfere with the NCDRC's findings, which were based on the clear terms of the insurance policy and the evidence presented [Paras 17-18].

Workmen's Compensation – Interest on Compensation – Delay in Payment – The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in interfering with the award of interest on compensation after dismissing the insurer's appeal on the ground of limitation. Once the appeal was dismissed for delay, there was no occasion for the High Court to entertain it on merits. Section 4A of the Workmen's Compensation Act mandates that the Commissioner shall direct the employer to pay interest at 12% or at a higher rate if the employer does not pay the compensation within one month from the date it fell due [Paras 5-6].

Judicial Error – High Court's Inexplicable Decision – The High Court's decision to delete the interest award despite dismissing the appeal due to an unexplained delay of 619 days was deemed a serious judicial error. This necessitated the intervention of the Supreme Court to rectify the erroneous order and restore the interest awarded by the Commissioner [Paras 5-6].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order deleting the interest on the compensation. The award of interest as ordered by the Additional Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner Workmen Compensation was restored. Additionally, costs were imposed on the respondent insurer for compelling the appellants to approach the Supreme Court due to the High Court's erroneous order [Paras 6-8].

Domestic Violence – Jurisdiction of Magistrate – The Domestic Violence Act allows filing of complaints in a court where the aggrieved person resides, either permanently or temporarily – Supreme Court held that the Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, has jurisdiction as the respondent resides within its territorial limits [Paras 10-11].

Prima Facie Case – Allegations of Domestic Violence – Court found no specific allegations against appellants Nos. 3 to 13 – Criminal case of domestic violence against these appellants quashed – Proceedings to continue against appellants Nos. 1, 2, and 14 [Paras 9-11].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Criminal Misc. No. 53 of 2015 quashed against appellants Nos. 3 to 13 – Proceedings to continue against appellants Nos. 1, 2, and 14 in accordance with law [Para 11].

Environmental Law – Adjudicatory Functions – Role of NGT – The Supreme Court held that the National Green Tribunal (NGT) cannot abdicate its adjudicatory functions to administrative expert committees. While expert committees can assist the NGT in its fact-finding role, the ultimate adjudication must be by the NGT. Sections 14 and 15 of the NGT Act entrust adjudicatory functions to the NGT, and these functions cannot be delegated [Paras 15-17].

Jurisdiction and Powers of NGT – Restoration of Environment – The Court emphasized that the NGT is vested with broad powers under Section 15(1)(c) of the NGT Act to provide for restitution of the environment. The NGT, being a specialized body with judicial and expert members, is empowered to address complex environmental issues, including the awarding of compensation and the implementation of remedial measures [Paras 11-12, 16].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the NGT, which had directed the appellants to approach a committee rather than continue with the proceedings. The Court restored OA No. 81 of 2014 (WZ) to the file of the NGT and directed it to commence hearings from the stage reached before the impugned order was passed. The appeal was allowed, and the NGT was instructed to take appropriate action based on the merits of the case [Paras 18-21].

Taxation – Exemption Notification – Conditions for Eligibility – The Supreme Court held that while exemption notifications should be liberally construed, the beneficiary must fall within the ambit of the exemption and fulfill the conditions thereof. If any conditions laid down in the notification are not fulfilled, the application of the notification does not arise. The Court emphasized that an exception or an exempting provision in a taxing statute should be construed strictly, and it is not open to the court to ignore the conditions prescribed in industrial policy and exemption notifications [Paras 14.1-14.4].

Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel – Application in Taxation – The Court rejected the High Court's application of the principle of promissory estoppel, stating that in taxation matters, each assessment year/period is independent. The principle of promissory estoppel does not apply where the eligible unit has not fulfilled the conditions of the exemption notification. The Court reiterated that statutory provisions providing for exemption have to be interpreted in light of the words employed in them, and there cannot be any addition or subtraction from the statutory provisions [Paras 19-20.4].

Penalty for Breach of Conditions – The Supreme Court upheld the imposition of penalty on the respondent for failing to fulfill the eligibility criteria and for breach of the declaration in Form No.26. The Court noted that the penalty is leviable under Section 45 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, where the difference between the tax paid and the tax assessed exceeds twenty-five percent. The respondent's act of transferring raw materials to an ineligible unit (Essar Power Limited) after availing the exemption was found to be a deliberate violation [Paras 23-23.2].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court, as well as the Tribunal's order. The Court held that the respondent was not entitled to the exemption from payment of purchase tax as it did not fulfill the eligibility criteria/conditions mentioned in the original Entry No.255(2) dated 05.03.1992 and there was a breach of the declaration in Form No.26. The orders setting aside the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer were also quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officer's order levying the demand of purchase tax and imposing the penalty was restored [Paras 24-25].