Professional Misconduct – Disposal of Complaints – Bar Councils directed to decide complaints within one year as mandated under Section 36B of the Advocates Act – Bar Councils have a duty to uphold standards of professional conduct – Complaints not disposed of within a year to be transferred to Bar Council of India – Emphasis on timely and efficient resolution of complaints to maintain the integrity of the profession [Paras 1-16].

Duty of Bar Councils – Sentinels of Professional Conduct – State Bar Councils and Bar Council of India must ensure high standards of professional conduct and etiquette – Failure to dispose of complaints within stipulated time seen as shirking responsibility – Guidelines to be issued for regular meetings and possible empanelment of Inquiry Officers for expeditious disposal of complaints [Paras 7-14].

Judicial Review – Procedural Lapses – Dismissal of complaint on procedural grounds without considering merits criticized – Importance of procedural fairness and timely action highlighted – Directions to address backlog and procedural inefficiencies in disciplinary proceedings [Paras 3-8].

Decision: Appeal disposed of with directions – Bar Council of India and State Bar Councils directed to ensure complaints are decided within one year – Mechanism suggested for quick disposal including empanelling Inquiry Officers – Complaint of appellant subsequently disposed of by State Bar Council; no further orders required [Paras 15-16].

Robbery with Deadly Weapon – Section 397 IPC – Conviction of appellant under Sections 392 and 397 IPC challenged – Prosecution failed to prove use of firearm by appellant – Co-accused alone used the firearm – Charge under Section 397 IPC requires offender to use deadly weapon – Appellant’s involvement proved for robbery under Section 392 IPC but not under Section 397 IPC [Paras 1-26].

Legal Interpretation – Use of Deadly Weapon – Section 397 IPC interpreted to apply only to the offender who uses a deadly weapon – Mere possession by one offender does not extend liability to co-accused under Section 397 IPC – Judicial precedents confirm this interpretation [Paras 14-17].

Sentence Modification – Original sentence of 7 years under Sections 392 and 397 IPC reduced – Appellant had already served 3 years, 5 months, and 1 day – Sentence modified to period already served – Appellant to be released upon payment of fine if not required in other cases [Paras 25-26].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 397 IPC and Sections 11/13 of MPDVPK Act set aside – Conviction under Section 392 IPC upheld – Sentence reduced to time served – Appellant ordered to be released forthwith if fine paid and no other detentions pending [Paras 26].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Approval Requirements – Disciplinary proceedings initiated against appellant without specific approval of charge memorandum by the Disciplinary Authority – Rule 14(3) of CCS (CCA) Rules requires independent approval for initiating enquiry and for drawing up charge memorandum – Ex-post facto approval given during pending proceedings deemed inadequate – Charge memorandum without initial approval is non est in law [Paras 1-16].

Procedural Fairness – Independent Application of Mind – Sub-clauses (2) and (3) of Rule 14 necessitate independent application of mind by Disciplinary Authority at each stage – Approval at initiation stage does not substitute for approval at charge memorandum stage – Tribunal's direction for issuing fresh charge memorandum upheld [Paras 12-14].

Judicial Review – Validity of Charges – High Court erred in distinguishing B.V. Gopinath's case – Charge memorandum lacking prior approval remains legally void – Fresh memorandum of charges to be issued within two months if department proceeds [Paras 11-16].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Principal Bench of CAT judgment restored with modification – Department directed to issue fresh charge memorandum within two months if proceeding continues [Paras 17-18].

Disability Pension – Territorial Army – Appellant, a former soldier of the Territorial Army, claimed disability pension for injury sustained while on leave – AFT dismissed the claim citing separate terms and conditions for Ecological Task Force (ETF) – Supreme Court held members of Territorial Army entitled to same pensionary benefits as Regular Army personnel unless inconsistent with specific regulations – AFT’s decision quashed; appellant entitled to disability pension [Paras 1-24].

Right to Equality – Unconscionable Contracts – Conditions denying enhanced pension for ETF members held unreasonable and unfair – Disparity in bargaining power between Union of India and an individual soldier – Courts will not enforce unfair and unreasonable contract terms imposed on weaker parties – Principles from Central Inland Water Transport Corporation case applied [Paras 22-23].

Statutory Rules vs. Internal Communication – Statutory rules and regulations prevail over internal communications between state organs – Injury sustained by appellant found attributable to military service by Medical Board and Court of Inquiry – Internal communications denying pension cannot override statutory entitlement [Paras 19-21].

Decision: Appeal allowed – AFT judgment set aside – Respondents directed to grant disability pension to appellant from January 1, 2012 – Arrears to be paid within three months with 9% interest per annum [Paras 24-26].

Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder – Sentence Reduction – Incident arose from a sudden quarrel over land dispute – No premeditation or preplanning – Appellant convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC – Sentence reduced from ten years to two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine [Paras 1-13].

Background of Dispute – Civil Suit Pending – Dispute over pathway between adjoining lands – Civil suit pending with injunction in favor of appellant – Complainant's family violated injunction leading to quarrel – Appellant’s female family members assaulted prompting retaliation [Paras 3-7].

Judicial Precedents on Sentence Reduction – Cited cases where sentences were reduced due to lack of premeditation and sudden quarrel – Court took into account background facts, antecedents of accused, and nature of assault [Paras 10-11].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC confirmed – Sentence reduced to two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000 – In default, three months rigorous imprisonment [Para 13].

Civil Services – Preference in Selection – Respondent applied for multiple posts through a single advertisement, giving preference to Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) – Found ineligible for DSP due to height requirement – High Court directed consideration for next preferred post (CMO) – Supreme Court held respondent's initial preference and selection in main list precludes consideration for other posts – Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside [Paras 1-20].

Eligibility Criteria – Binding Declarations – Respondent declared he met all eligibility criteria including physical measurements – Found ineligible for DSP due to height – Selection process and rules clear; candidate's preference and declaration binding – Allowing reconsideration for other posts would disrupt administrative process and affect other candidates [Paras 10-19].

Literal vs. Beneficial Interpretation – Court emphasized adherence to explicit rules and declarations in selection process – Beneficial interpretation of rules not applicable where candidate’s own declarations and preferences are clear and binding [Paras 17-19].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court order set aside – Respondent not entitled to consideration for next preferred post – Writ Petition dismissed [Para 20].

Murder – Cancellation of Bail – High Court granted bail to the accused without adequate reasoning – Accusations are serious, involving murder and attempted murder – High Court’s orders set aside – Respondent to surrender [Paras 1-32].

Grant of Bail – Judicial Discretion – Courts must consider the nature of accusations, severity of punishment, and potential impact on witnesses and evidence – Orders must provide reasons for granting bail, balancing accused's rights with the need for a fair trial [Paras 25-28].

Criminal Antecedents – Public Safety – Respondent has criminal history and absconded for seven months – Likely to threaten witnesses and tamper with evidence – Bail granted in cryptic orders without considering these aspects [Paras 29-31].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court’s orders granting bail set aside – Respondent to surrender within two weeks [Para 32].

Consumer Protection – Joint Complaint – Complaint by multiple consumers not necessarily representative – 91 purchasers of 51 apartments filed complaint; National Commission allowed representative capacity – Supreme Court held complaint maintainable as joint complaint, not representative – Respondents can represent themselves, not all 1134 apartment owners [Paras 1-41].

Interpretation of Consumer Protection Act – Section 35(1) allows single or joint complaints – For representative complaints, numerous consumers must have same interest – Joint complaint permissible without invoking Order I Rule 8 CPC – Clarity on representative capacity essential [Paras 14-38].

Relief and Directions – Complaint treated as joint complaint for named respondents – Others may join if grievances align with original complaint – National Commission to allow impleadment of such parties [Paras 40-41].

Decision: Appeal allowed – NCDRC order modified – Complaint treated as joint complaint, not in representative capacity – Other purchasers may join upon satisfying grievance criteria [Para 41].

Limitation in Arbitration – Non-Extendable Period – High Court erred in applying Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone delay beyond the period prescribed under Section 34(3) of Arbitration Act – Proviso to Section 34(3) provides outer limit of 120 days for filing petition to set aside arbitral award – Extension beyond this period not permissible [Paras 1-11].

Judicial Interpretation – Exclusion of Section 5 – Section 34(3) imposes a strict timeline for challenging arbitral awards – Legislative intent clear in excluding application of Section 5 of Limitation Act – Previous judgments affirm non-applicability of Section 5 to extend limitation period under Arbitration Act [Paras 6-7].

Facts and Findings – Arbitrator dispatched award to parties; respondent refused service – High Court’s condonation of delay contrary to established law – Order of Division Bench set aside; Single Judge’s order restored [Paras 8-10].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court's order condoning delay set aside – Order of Single Judge dismissing petition under Section 34 restored [Para 11].