Co-operative Societies – Membership – Belated Claim by Legal Heirs of Tenant – Resolution of Society – Validity – Dispute concerning Flat No.7 in a co-operative housing society formed by erstwhile tenants of a company in liquidation – Original tenant did not deposit contribution amount at inception but continued in undisputed occupation – Society had issued offer letter in 1995 and passed AGM resolution in 2005 resolving to admit him as member subject to payment – Resolution never withdrawn or challenged – Legal heirs later deposited amount with interest and sought membership – Held: Membership could not be denied merely on ground of delay when occupation was never disputed and Society itself had resolved to admit the tenant [Paras 39–42].

Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 – Powers of Registrar – Sections 23(2), 152 and 154 – Scope – Authorised Officer declined to decide membership application citing lack of power – Deputy Registrar directed convening of Special General Body Meeting – Revisional Authority granted membership relying on prior AGM resolution – High Court held Revisional Authority exceeded jurisdiction – Supreme Court held that statutory remedies were properly invoked and Revisional Authority acted within jurisdiction, particularly when General Body itself had earlier resolved to admit the member [Paras 44–45].

Co-operative Society – Autonomy – Role of General Body – Subsequent Ratification – During pendency of proceedings, Society’s AGM ratified 2005 resolution and approved membership of appellants and subsequent transferee – Such ratification not challenged before any forum – Held: Once General Body has consciously accepted membership and transfer in accordance with bye-laws and statute, High Court erred in ignoring such subsequent developments [Paras 43–45].

Transfer of Flat – Subsequent Purchaser – Effect of Membership Dispute – Appellants transferred flat to third-party purchaser after obtaining No Objection Certificate from Society through Administrator – High Court’s order had effect of nullifying registered sale deed – Held: Once original members’ entitlement is recognised, subsequent transfer and admission of purchaser as member, already ratified by General Body, must stand protected in law [Paras 28, 45].

Equitable Relief – Delay in Payment – Enhanced Interest – Appellants deposited original contribution amount with 9% interest after long delay – Objecting members contended delay caused prejudice due to escalation of property value – Held: Equity demands recognition of membership but Society or aggrieved members may seek determination of additional amount or enhanced interest before appropriate forum [Paras 47–48].

Writ Jurisdiction – Disputed Questions of Fact – Membership and Tenancy Rights – High Court entertained writ petition despite pendency of eviction suit and existence of disputed factual issues – Supreme Court observed that such issues ought not to defeat statutory and equitable rights arising from undisputed resolutions and long-standing possession [Paras 29–30, 44].

Decision – Appeals partly allowed – Impugned judgment of Bombay High Court set aside to extent quashing revisional order and consequential directions – Membership of appellants and subsequent transferee recognised – Liberty reserved to Society or members to claim enhanced interest or challenge AGM resolution in accordance with law – No order as to costs [Paras 46–49].

Criminal Law – Further Investigation – Leave of Court – Mandatory Requirement – FIR registered for serious offences including gang rape – After detailed investigation, closure report filed and accepted by Judicial Magistrate after notice to informant – Supreme Court held that once a final report under Section 173(2) CrPC is accepted by the Court, further investigation under Section 173(8) can be undertaken only with prior leave of the Magistrate/Court concerned – Police or executive authorities cannot unilaterally direct further investigation [Paras 25–28].

Criminal Procedure – Section 173(8) CrPC – Power to Order Further Investigation – Who Can Exercise – Under Secretary, State Government and Superintendent of Police directed CBCID to conduct further investigation without judicial order – Supreme Court held that power to direct further investigation vests exclusively in the Magistrate or a higher Court – Superintendent of Police or investigating agency lacks jurisdiction to order further investigation on its own [Paras 27–31].

Criminal Procedure – Further Investigation vs Fresh / De Novo Investigation – Alleged further investigation ordered nearly seven years after acceptance of closure report and included steps from initial stage such as DNA sampling – Held: Such action amounted to impermissible fresh or de novo investigation and filling up lacunae in prosecution case, which is not permissible in law [Paras 21–22, 31].

Criminal Law – Acceptance of Closure Report – Legal Effect – Closure report accepted by Magistrate after repeated notice to informant and absence of protest petition – Supreme Court held that acceptance of closure report confers finality subject to remedies under law – Executive interference thereafter undermines judicial authority [Paras 7–8, 28–31].

Criminal Procedure – Doctrine of Contemporanea Expositio – Supreme Court reiterated that though Section 173(8) CrPC does not expressly mandate prior permission of Court, long-standing judicial practice requires investigating agency to seek leave before conducting further investigation – Such requirement is a necessary implication to safeguard accused from abuse of process [Paras 26, 28].

Police Powers – Jurisdictional Excess – Superintendent of Police directing further investigation without court approval held to be an act in excess of jurisdiction – Supreme Court deprecated such conduct as undermining rule of law and authority of courts [Para 31].

Criminal Procedure – NHRC Directions – Effect – Directions issued by NHRC for fact-finding inquiry cannot override statutory criminal procedure – Further investigation in criminal case must still conform to CrPC and judicial supervision – Executive directions cannot substitute judicial order [Paras 9–11, 28–31].

Criminal Procedure – Reliance on Dharam Pal Case – Distinguished – Supreme Court distinguished Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana – Held: Said decision concerned powers of constitutional courts to direct fresh or de novo investigation – Does not empower police or executive authorities to order further investigation without leave of Magistrate [Para 32].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment dated 20.11.2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench set aside – Orders dated 06.06.2019 and 26.04.2021 directing further investigation quashed – Clarified that observations shall not prejudice pending criminal revision or any other proceedings arising from FIR No. 70 of 2013.

Family Law - Child Custody – Paramount Welfare Principle – Scope and Application – Custody dispute between divorced parents concerning two minor children removed from Qatar to India by the mother without consent of the father and without permission of Qatar Courts – High Court held welfare of children as sole consideration and restored custody to mother – Supreme Court held that while welfare of the child is paramount, other relevant factors such as conduct of parties, education, comfort, standard of living, foreign court orders, and contempt findings cannot be ignored – Held: High Court erred in excluding relevant considerations while deciding custody [Paras 22–24, 31].

Child Custody – Removal of Children from Foreign Jurisdiction – Effect – Respondent-mother removed minors from Qatar mid-academic session without consent of father who was guardian and without original passports – Custody granted earlier by Qatar Court revoked due to such misconduct – Supreme Court held that impact of such unilateral removal and revocation of custody by foreign court was a material factor mandatorily required to be considered – Failure of High Court to do so vitiated its judgment [Paras 23–25].

Child Custody – Foreign Court Orders – Relevance – Qatar Court revoked custody granted to mother and ordered custody to father on account of mother’s misconduct – Supreme Court held that there was no subsisting custody order in favour of the mother at the time High Court passed impugned judgment – Such foreign custody orders were highly relevant and could not be ignored while determining custody in India [Paras 25–26].

Contempt of Court – Breach of Undertaking – Effect on Custody Proceedings – Respondent-mother gave undertaking before High Court to return to Qatar with children for continuation of education but violated the same – Held guilty of contempt – Supreme Court held that contempt finding had attained finality and conclusively established misconduct of the respondent – Such conduct was a relevant factor in custody determination and was wrongly ignored by the High Court [Paras 26–27].

Child Custody – Preference of Children – Evidentiary Value – Minor children expressed inclination to accompany father to Qatar before Family Court and during mediation – Mediation report indicated children were comfortable with father, distressed otherwise, and faced linguistic and cultural difficulty in India – Supreme Court held that while children’s preference is not determinative, it is a relevant factor and must be cumulatively assessed – High Court erred in ignoring such material [Paras 29–31].

Child Custody – Education and Welfare – Mid-Session Disruption – Children removed from school in Qatar mid-session and admitted to school in India after considerable delay – Allegation of educational disruption and irregular attendance – Supreme Court held that education and continuity are integral to child welfare and such disruption is a relevant consideration in custody matters [Paras 14–16, 22].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and order dated 08.09.2025 passed by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh set aside – Matter remanded to High Court for fresh consideration on merits in accordance with law – No order as to costs [Paras 32–34].

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Definition of Consumer – Commercial Purpose – Appellants purchased residential flat in housing project – After taking possession, flat was leased to a third party – NCDRC dismissed complaint holding appellants were not ‘consumers’ as property was used for commercial purpose – Supreme Court reversed – Held: Mere leasing of residential property does not ipso facto establish that the dominant purpose of purchase was commercial – Determinative test is dominant intention behind the transaction [Paras 10, 12, 17].

Consumer Law – Commercial Purpose – Dominant Intention Test – Court reiterated that “commercial purpose” under Section 2(1)(d) is not defined exhaustively – Dominant purpose and close nexus between purchase and profit-generating activity must be established – Leasing by itself, without proof of profit-oriented intent at the time of purchase, is insufficient to exclude purchaser from definition of consumer [Paras 12–14, 17].

Consumer Law – Burden of Proof – Exclusion Clause – Service provider pleaded that complainants were not consumers as flat was leased out – Supreme Court held that burden of proving applicability of exclusion clause rests on service provider – Respondents failed to discharge burden on preponderance of probabilities – NCDRC erred in placing implicit burden on complainants [Paras 16–17].

Consumer Jurisprudence – Beneficial Legislation – Interpretation – Consumer Protection Act is a welfare legislation – Exclusion clauses must be construed strictly – Negative burden cannot be placed on complainant to prove that transaction was not commercial – Interpretation must advance consumer protection rather than defeat it [Para 16].

Consumer Disputes – Real Estate – Leasing of Flat – Effect – Mere act of purchasing immovable property and leasing it, even subsequently, cannot automatically attract exclusion under Section 2(1)(d) – Unless dominant purpose of purchase is shown to be commercial in nature, purchaser continues to be a ‘consumer’ entitled to invoke remedies under the Act [Para 17].

Consumer Disputes – Remand – Supreme Court set aside dismissal of complaint by NCDRC – Consumer Complaint restored to original number – NCDRC directed to decide complaint on merits in accordance with law [Paras 18–19].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment dated 11.05.2023 passed by the NCDRC set aside – Consumer Complaint No.74/2017 restored to file of NCDRC for adjudication on merits – No order as to costs.

Service Law – All India Services – IPS Cadre Allocation – Insider Vacancy – Appellant selected to IPS in 2004 Civil Services Examination and allocated Tamil Nadu cadre – Claim raised for re-allocation to Rajasthan cadre against an ‘insider’ vacancy on ground that two candidates senior in merit did not accept the vacancy – Tribunal and High Court rejected the claim – Supreme Court upheld rejection – Held: Once cadre allocation is made in accordance with merit and applicable rules, it attains finality and cannot be reopened after several years [Paras 6, 9–11].

Service Law – Cadre Allocation – Non-Joining by Senior Candidate – Effect – Senior candidate Rishikesh Meena did not accept ‘insider’ vacancy for Rajasthan cadre in 2004 batch – Next senior Rajesh Kumar obtained favourable order from Tribunal but subsequently joined IAS and did not claim IPS vacancy – Appellant, being third in merit, sought allocation after six years – Held: Junior candidate does not acquire an automatic or vested right to claim such vacancy when senior candidates decline to join – Process cannot be stretched indefinitely [Paras 7–9, 11–12].

Service Jurisprudence – Delay and Laches – Vacancy pertained to 2004 batch – Appellant raised claim only in 2010 after six years – Supreme Court held that cadre allocation cannot be kept fluid for years together – Long delay disentitles the appellant to relief – Finality of selection and cadre allocation is essential for stability in services [Paras 9–12].

Service Law – Cadre Allocation – Doctrine of Finality – Acceptance of appellant’s claim would lead to chain reaction resulting in reshuffling of cadres and vacancies of subsequent years – Supreme Court held that such an approach would open a “Pandora’s box” and make cadre allocation perpetually unsettled – Held: Finality must attach to cadre allocation once made [Paras 4, 10–12].

Service Law – Insider Vacancy – Consumption of Vacancy – Union of India contended that once an ‘insider’ vacancy is offered and allocation is made, the vacancy stands consumed irrespective of acceptance – Supreme Court accepted the stand – Held: Appellant failed to show that the insider vacancy of 2004 batch continued to remain vacant even after more than two decades [Paras 4.1, 12].

Decision: Civil Appeals dismissed – No merit found in claim for re-allocation of cadre – Orders passed by the Tribunal and the High Court upheld – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 13–14].

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11 (Pre-2015 Regime) – Scope of Judicial Determination – Arbitrator appointed by High Court under Section 11 prior to insertion of Section 11(6A) – Supreme Court reiterated that under SBP & Co. vs. Patel Engineering Ltd., Section 11 Court was required to decide not only existence but also validity of arbitration agreement – Such determination is judicial in nature and attains finality between parties [Paras 19–22].

Arbitration – Arbitration Clause – Reopening of Validity at Section 34 Stage – Clause 23 of contract providing for reference to Standing Committee challenged as not being arbitration clause – Commercial Court and High Court set aside award holding Clause 23 was not arbitration agreement – Supreme Court held that once arbitrator was appointed under Section 11 and order attained finality, existence and validity of arbitration agreement could not be reopened at Section 34 stage – Orders below held unsustainable [Paras 21–22, 29–31].

Arbitration Law – Res Judicata vs. Precedent – Conceptual Distinction – Supreme Court explained distinction between precedent (operating in rem) and res judicata (operating in personam) – Section 11 order appointing arbitrator operates as res judicata between parties regarding existence and validity of arbitration agreement – Commercial Court erred in treating Section 11 order as lacking binding effect on parties [Paras 24–25, 30–31].

Arbitration – Kompetenz-Kompetenz – Limits – While Arbitral Tribunal has power under Section 16 to rule on its jurisdiction, it cannot override or reopen findings on existence and validity of arbitration agreement already conclusively determined by Section 11 Court under pre-2015 regime – Section 11(7) gives finality to such determination [Paras 20–22].

Arbitration – Effect of 2015 Amendment – Prospective Application – Supreme Court clarified that post-2015 amendment, scope of Section 11 is confined only to examination of existence of arbitration agreement – However, amendment not applicable to arbitral proceedings commenced prior to 23.10.2015 – Present disputes governed by SBP & Co. regime [Paras 19, 23].

Arbitration – Section 34 Proceedings – Scope – Commercial Court wrongly set aside awards solely on ground that Clause 23 was not arbitration clause – Supreme Court set aside orders and remitted matters to Commercial Court for consideration of remaining objections under Section 34 – Validity of arbitration clause cannot be revisited [Paras 32, 36].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgments of High Court and Commercial Court set aside – Arbitral awards restored to extent of validity of arbitration agreement – Matters remanded to Commercial Court for adjudication of other objections under Section 34 – Directions issued to decide proceedings expeditiously – Parties to bear their own costs.

Civil Law – Article 227 – Rejection / Striking off of Plaint – Availability of Remedy under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – High Court erred in exercising supervisory jurisdiction to strike off plaint despite existence of specific statutory remedy – Held: Availability of remedy under CPC constitutes a near-total bar to invocation of Article 227 – Impugned order set aside and suit restored [Paras 2, 5–11].

Constitution of India – Article 227 – Scope and Nature of Supervisory Jurisdiction – Powers are supervisory and not appellate – To be exercised sparingly and only to keep subordinate courts within bounds of jurisdiction – Cannot be invoked to correct mere errors or to bypass statutory remedies – High Court cannot act as a court of appeal in disguise [Paras 5, 5.1–5.7].

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VII Rule 11 – Rejection of Plaint – Statutory remedy for challenging maintainability of suit – Grounds for rejection often involve factual inquiry – Where such specific remedy is available under CPC, High Court must insist upon recourse to the same and desist from exercising powers under Article 227 [Paras 6.2–6.2.3, 7.4].

Article 227 vs Statutory Remedies – Availability of Alternative Remedy – In cases governed by CPC, existence of appellate or revisional remedy operates as a near-total bar against invoking Article 227 – Distinguished between civil court proceedings under CPC and proceedings under special statutes – High Court ought not to entertain petitions under Article 227 when CPC remedies exist [Paras 5.6–5.7, 7.1–7.4].

Order VI Rule 16 CPC – Striking Out Pleadings – Scope Limited to Portions of Pleadings – Cannot be stretched to justify striking off entire plaint – Rejection of plaint and striking out pleadings operate in distinct legal fields – Reliance on Order VI Rule 16 to strike off plaint under Article 227 held misconceived [Paras 6.1–6.4.1].

Property Disputes – Title Disputes – Allegations of Fraud – Such issues necessarily involve disputed questions of fact – Must be adjudicated through trial and evidence – High Courts should refrain from exercising supervisory jurisdiction in routine civil disputes involving factual controversies [Paras 6.3–6.3.2].

Judicial Discipline – Legislative Intent – When legislature provides a specific remedial mechanism, courts must respect the statutory scheme – Supervisory jurisdiction cannot be used to supplant or circumvent remedies expressly provided under CPC [Paras 8–9].

Final Relief – Appeal Allowed – High Court’s order striking off plaint under Article 227 set aside – Original suit restored to file – Liberty granted to defendants to file application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – No order as to costs [Paras 10–11].

Arbitration – Section 29A – Maintainability of Application for Extension – Arbitrator passed award after expiry of mandate under Section 29A – High Court held award to be a nullity and dismissed application for extension as not maintainable – Supreme Court held that Section 29A(5) application for extension of mandate is maintainable even after the award is passed – Award rendered after expiry of mandate is unenforceable, but court’s power to extend mandate survives – Held: Such award is not a nullity but is ineffective unless the court extends the mandate – Court's discretion includes reducing arbitrator fees, imposing costs, and substituting arbitrator(s) [Paras 1-5, 13-24].

Interpretation of Section 29A – Legislative Intent – Amendments to Section 29A intended to address delays in arbitral proceedings while preserving finality and efficacy – Provisions allow extension of arbitrator’s mandate before or after expiry – Statutory mandate terminates subject to court’s discretion – Extension application revives mandate retrospectively – Court has wide discretion to safeguard integrity and efficiency of arbitral process [Paras 10-12, 14-23].

International Arbitration – Expiry of Arbitral Mandate – Comparative Jurisprudence – Courts in UK, US, Singapore and Mauritius adopt pragmatic approach allowing retrospective extensions – Indian law aligns with global practice to avoid frustrating arbitral process due to technical non-compliance – Emphasis on party autonomy and judicial support in preserving arbitration efficacy [Paras 12-12.8].

Judicial Power – Post-Award Intervention – Power of Court under Section 29A is not denuded by arbitrator’s indiscretion in passing award after expiry of mandate – Court can revive mandate and direct proceedings to continue from where they left – Substitution of arbitrators is discretionary – Award passed during expired mandate may be validated upon extension [Paras 15-24].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court order dismissing application under Section 29A(5) set aside – Application restored – High Court directed to consider extension application afresh in light of Supreme Court's judgment.

Bail – Interim Bail – Economic Offences – Liquor Scam – Former Excise Minister of Chhattisgarh arrested in ACB and ED cases alleging receipt of ₹2 crores per month from illegal liquor syndicate and framing of tailor-made excise policy – Multiple FIRs and ECIR based on same set of allegations – Seven chargesheets/prosecution complaints filed against 37 accused including the petitioner – Large-scale scam involving entire State and other parts of the country – Proposed examination of 864 witnesses – Investigation still ongoing with possibility of supplementary chargesheets – Prolonged custody since 15.01.2025 (ED case) and 02.04.2025 (ACB case) – Balancing prosecution’s right to complete complex investigation and accused’s right to liberty under Article 21 – Held: Indefinite incarceration not justified at interim stage – Interim bail granted with stringent conditions [Paras 1–11].

Bail Jurisprudence – Right to Liberty – Article 21 – Complex and Multi-Agency Investigation – Court observed that directing time-bound completion of investigation in complex cases involving specialised agencies may adversely impact prosecution – At the same time, continued incarceration for an uncertain duration infringes personal liberty – Interim arrangement warranted on peculiar facts of the case [Paras 8–10].

Conditions of Bail – Restrictive Conditions – Non-entry into State – Travel Restrictions – Witness Protection – While granting interim bail, Court imposed strict conditions including prohibition on entering State of Chhattisgarh except for court appearances, surrender of passport, disclosure of place of stay and contact details, non-interference with witnesses, and restraint on public statements concerning pending investigations – Breach of conditions to entail cancellation of bail – Held: Conditions necessary to balance liberty with fair investigation [Paras 10(i)–(x)].

Public Office – Legislative Assembly Participation – Judicial Restraint – Question regarding petitioner’s participation in State Legislative Assembly during pendency of investigation left open – Decision to be taken by Speaker – Court declined to express any opinion on the issue [Para 10(vii)].

Nature of Order – Interim Bail – No Opinion on Merits – Court clarified that grant of interim bail does not amount to expression of opinion on merits of allegations or entitlement to regular bail – Order passed considering peculiar facts and circumstances [Para 10(xi)].

Decision: Special Leave Petitions disposed of – Interim bail granted in FIR No. 04/2024 (ACB/EOW) and ECIR No. RPZO/04/2024 (ED) subject to stringent conditions – Pending applications closed.