Consumer Law – Jurisdiction of Consumer Forums – Revisional Jurisdiction – The Supreme Court held that the NCDRC exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by calling for and relying on an additional report from the respondent-bank during the pendency of the revision application. The NCDRC's revisional jurisdiction is limited and should only be exercised in cases of jurisdictional error, failure to exercise jurisdiction, or material irregularity [Paras 8-9].

Limitation Act – Section 5 – Inapplicability to Civil Suits – The Court noted that the NCDRC's observation permitting the appellant to file an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in a civil court was erroneous. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to the institution of civil suits, and the NCDRC's direction was based on a misinterpretation of the law [Para 12].

Principle of Natural Justice – Evidence and Reports – The Court criticized the NCDRC for seeking and relying on a report from the respondent-bank at the revisional stage without providing an opportunity for the appellant to respond. The report, produced at the revisional stage, was not available to the lower forums and should not have influenced the NCDRC's decision [Paras 10-11].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the NCDRC's order and restored the State Commission's order, which had partly allowed the respondent-bank's appeal and confirmed the rest of the Consumer Forum's order. The NCDRC's reliance on additional evidence and erroneous application of the Limitation Act warranted the intervention of the Supreme Court [Paras 12-13].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Complaint – Section 482 CrPC – The Supreme Court held that allowing the criminal proceeding to proceed for offences under Sections 494 and 495 of the IPC would constitute an abuse of process. The Family Court had conclusively determined that the appellant did not have a subsisting marriage when she entered into the second marriage with the respondent. This finding, having attained finality, precluded further criminal proceedings based on the same facts [Paras 15-16].

Jurisdiction of Family Court – Determination of Marital Status – The Family Court, vested with the jurisdiction to determine the matrimonial status of a person under Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, had adjudicated the issues and declared the purported divorce null and void. The High Court's conclusion that the matter was highly contentious and needed to be tried on evidence was erroneous [Para 15].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the Gauhati High Court and allowed the appellant's petition to quash the complaint. The criminal complaint pending in the Court of SDJM(S) II Kamrup (M) Guwahati was quashed [Paras 16-17].

Consumer Law – Delay in Possession – Non-compliance with ABA – Appellant failed to deliver possession of apartments in the promised state and time – NCDRC ordered refund with interest – Supreme Court upheld NCDRC’s decision based on breach of representation by the developer [Paras 1-26].

Building Plan Approval – Fire NOC Requirement – Appellant argued possession date starts from Fire NOC receipt – Court referenced Abhishek Khanna case, confirming possession period starts post Fire NOC – Delay in possession justified refund [Paras 17-20].

Interim Orders – Compliance – NCDRC interim order for possession not adhered to by appellant due to incomplete construction – Supreme Court affirmed NCDRC's refund order given non-compliance [Paras 21-22].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – NCDRC's orders for refund with interest upheld – Appellant failed to comply with ABA and interim orders, justifying refund and interest.

Constitutional Law – Reservation in Education – Constitutional validity of OBC and EWS reservation in AIQ seats – Permissibility under Article 15(5) – Reservation in postgraduate medical courses not prohibited – Reservation as a means to ensure substantive equality and address structural barriers faced by disadvantaged classes – Constitutional amendment and legislative provisions upheld [Paras 1-29].

Merit and Reservation – Reconceptualization of Merit – Merit not solely based on exam scores – Structural inequalities and socio-economic factors influencing merit – Reservation ensuring equal opportunity and addressing historical disadvantages – Merit as a social good advancing equality [Paras 17-29].

Judicial Precedent – AIQ Reservation – Development of AIQ seats through judicial decisions – No prohibition on reservation in AIQ seats for OBCs and EWS – Analysis of relevant cases and constitutional provisions [Paras 30-31].

Decision: Writ petitions challenging the validity of OBC and EWS reservation in AIQ seats dismissed – Constitutional validity of reservation provisions upheld – Reservation to be implemented in the current and subsequent academic years as directed by the court.

Service Law – Promotion Regulations – ESIC Recruitment Regulations 2015 vs. DACP Scheme – High Court erred in applying DACP Scheme over ESIC Recruitment Regulations 2015 for teaching cadre promotions – ESIC Recruitment Regulations 2015, being statutory, have precedence over DACP Scheme – Concession by appellant’s counsel before CAT irrelevant as legal position is clear [Paras 1-27].

Statutory Regulations – Precedence over Executive Instructions – DACP Scheme as executive instruction cannot override statutory ESIC Recruitment Regulations 2015 – Recruitment advertisements referencing DACP Scheme do not supersede statutory regulations – High Court’s reliance on DACP Scheme misplaced [Paras 10-25].

Estoppel and Concessions – No Estoppel against Statutory Provisions – Concession by appellant’s counsel before CAT not binding – Legal errors in concession do not affect statutory interpretation – Appeals court bound by correct legal position irrespective of lower court concessions [Paras 23-25].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Promotions to be governed by ESIC Recruitment Regulations 2015 – Revised seniority list to reflect promotions as per ESIC regulations, not DACP Scheme

Land Acquisition – Higher Compensation – BDA Act vs. 2013 Act – LA Act incorporated into BDA Act remains applicable – High Court erred in applying 2013 Act to BDA acquisitions – 2013 Act provisions not applicable where BDA Act governs acquisition – Repeal of LA Act does not affect ongoing BDA proceedings [Paras 1-24].

Legislation by Incorporation – Provisions of LA Act within BDA Act – Section 36 of BDA Act mandates that LA Act provisions as incorporated remain effective – Subsequent amendments to LA Act do not alter incorporated provisions – Consistent legal precedent upholding this principle [Paras 12-16].

Judicial Precedent – Misapplication of Offshore Holdings Private Limited Case – High Court misinterpreted principles of incorporation vs. reference – BDA Act remains self-contained code with selective incorporation of LA Act – Constitutional Bench’s findings in Offshore Holdings reaffirmed [Paras 22-23].

Decision: Applications allowed – High Court judgment in Sri Sudhakar Hegde case overruled – 2013 Act not applicable to acquisitions under BDA Act – LA Act provisions, as incorporated, continue to govern BDA acquisitions.

Hindu Law – Succession – Self-acquired Property – Inheritance Rights – Property of a male Hindu dying intestate – Daughter’s right to inherit – Property to devolve by inheritance, not survivorship – Daughter entitled to inherit father’s self-acquired property in preference to collaterals – Recognized under old customary Hindu Law and judicial pronouncements [Paras 1-79].

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 15 – Order of Succession – Female Hindu’s property – Scheme under Section 15 – Property to devolve on her own heirs, failing which, on heirs of her father – Distinction between property inherited from father/mother and husband/father-in-law – Ensuring inherited property of issueless female reverts to the source [Paras 66-76].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of the Trial Court and High Court set aside – Suit decreed – Ramasamy Gounder's daughters entitled to 1/5th share each in the suit properties.

Specific Performance – Readiness and Willingness – Financial Capacity and Conduct – Court must assess both financial capacity and conduct of the plaintiff in determining readiness and willingness – Delay in performance, conduct inconsistent with agreement obligations, or inequitable benefit to plaintiff can bar specific performance – Contractual obligations, particularly regarding discharge of encumbrances, must be clear and adhered to by both parties [Paras 1-29].

Equitable Relief – Discretionary Nature – Section 20 of Specific Relief Act – Specific performance is discretionary – Court considers conduct of parties, escalation of property prices, and fairness in granting relief – Plaintiff’s failure to consistently demonstrate readiness and willingness impacts entitlement to specific performance [Paras 30-36].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Specific performance not granted due to respondent’s lack of demonstrated readiness and willingness – Appellants directed to refund advance amount with interest.

Land Tax – Vested Forest Lands – Validity of Ownership – Respondents' claims to ownership based on canceled jenmam rights and purchase certificates – Forest Tribunal's ruling against respondents stands unchallenged – Acceptance of basic tax from respondents would wrongly imply ownership – Appeal allowed [Paras 1-7].

Judicial Review – Role of Civil Courts – Forest Tribunal Jurisdiction – Civil courts lack jurisdiction over vested forest land disputes – Exclusive jurisdiction of Forest Tribunal upheld – High Court’s mandamus for tax acceptance reversed to prevent creation of implied ownership rights [Paras 6-7].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgments set aside – No acceptance of basic tax from respondents for vested forest lands.