Civil Procedure Code 1908 (CPC) - Commercial Suits - Time Limit for Filing Written Statement and Consequences of Default: Strict timelines for filing a written statement are mandated, with a maximum of 120 days allowed from the date of service of summons. Beyond this period, the defendant forfeits the right to file the written statement, and no court can extend this time​​.

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Application of CPC Provisions: Emphasizes that the Commercial Court must adhere to the CPC's provisions as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, particularly concerning the timelines for filing written statements and the consequences of failing to meet these deadlines​​.

Judicial Interpretation - Rules of Procedure and Justice: While procedural rules are intended to facilitate justice rather than punish, the court reiterated that, for commercial disputes, strict adherence to timelines is necessary to ensure efficiency and effectiveness in litigation. Exceptions to this rule are limited and require compelling reasons​​.

Impact of COVID-19 on Procedural Timelines: References to the Supreme Court's orders in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020, which extended limitation periods due to the pandemic, highlight the exceptional circumstances where procedural timelines may be adjusted​​.

Decision: Appeal dismissed. The court upheld the strict timelines for filing written statements in commercial suits and reiterated that no extensions beyond 120 days are permissible under the amended CPC provisions applicable to commercial disputes​​.

Insurance Law – Theft of Vehicle – Repudiation of Insurance Claim – Delay in Intimation: When the complainant lodged the FIR immediately after the theft and the police, after investigation, arrested the accused and filed a challan, the insurance company could not repudiate the claim solely based on the delay in notifying the insurance company of the theft. The Supreme Court held that the claim should not be denied if the theft claim is found genuine and the FIR was promptly filed​​.

Judicial Precedent – Contradictory Decisions – Three Judge Bench Clarification: Addressed conflicting judgments on whether delay in informing the insurance company disentitles the claimant. The three-judge bench in Gurshinder Singh vs. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. clarified that mere delay in intimation, when the FIR is lodged immediately and the claim is genuine, cannot be a ground for repudiation​​.

Contractual Obligations – Interpretation of Insurance Contracts: The court emphasized that the rules of interpretation applicable to general contracts also apply to insurance contracts, with specific nuances. The term "immediate" notice should be interpreted in context, and prejudice to the insurer is a key factor in determining compliance with the duty to cooperate​​.

Decision: Appeal allowed – The repudiation of the insurance claim by the insurance company was set aside. The NCDRC's order was found erroneous and was overturned, reinstating the orders of the District Forum and the State Commission that favored the insured​​.

Banking Law – Removal from Service – Appeal Against Removal: The appellant, a branch officer, sanctioned a loan limit of Rs. 150,000, later reduced to Rs. 75,000. There was no financial loss to the bank; the decision was in the bank's interest. The appellant had an unblemished service record for 28 years. The punishment of removal for the charges proved was found to be too harsh and disproportionate. The court substituted the punishment from removal of service to compulsory retirement, entitling the appellant to all benefits available under compulsory retirement​​.

Promotion Claim – Appeal Against Dismissal: The appellant sought promotion from Scale II to Scale III from the date juniors were promoted. The High Court did not address this claim independently but dismissed it following the removal order. The Supreme Court remanded the matter to the High Court for a fresh decision on merits​​.

Decision: Appeals allowed – The punishment was modified from removal of service to compulsory retirement. The High Court's dismissal of the promotion claim was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration​​.

Land Acquisition – Notification – Pending Proceedings: The acquisition and notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were already under consideration in other proceedings before the High Court. To avoid conflicting orders and ensure consistency, all appeals concerning the same acquisition should be heard together. The High Court erred in deciding the present appeal separately​​.

Judicial Efficiency – Avoidance of Conflicting Orders: The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of judicial efficiency and the avoidance of conflicting orders. It held that when multiple proceedings involve the same subject matter, they should be consolidated and heard together to ensure a coherent and just outcome​​.

Decision: Appeal allowed – The High Court's order was set aside. The matter was remanded to the Division Bench of the High Court to be heard along with other related appeals​​.

Motor Vehicles Act – Death in Accident – Compensation – Multiplier: The deceased, aged 54, died in a motor vehicle accident. The appropriate multiplier for calculating compensation was held to be 11. The appellants were awarded compensation of Rs. 2,433,064 with interest at 9% from the date of filing the claim application until realization​​ .

Judicial Precedents – Calculation of Compensation: The court referred to established precedents including Sarla Verma v. DTC and National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi to determine the compensation based on the deceased’s age and income at the time of death. The method of calculating the multiplier based on the age of the deceased was reiterated​​ .

Decision: The appeal was allowed. The compensation was enhanced to Rs. 2,433,064 with interest at 9% from the date of filing of the claim application till realization​​ .

Resignation – Constructive Dismissal – Sexual Harassment – Petitioner’s resignation from the post of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gwalior, dated 15th July 2014, cannot be construed as voluntary. Order dated 17th July 2014 accepting the resignation quashed – High Court's acceptance of resignation found without proper consideration of the coercive circumstances – Reinstatement ordered without back wages, but with continuity in service and all consequential benefits [Paras 1-10, 13, 19].

Procedure and Judicial Conduct – Transfer Policy – The transfer of the petitioner was found irregular and not in compliance with the Transfer Guidelines/Policy of the Madhya Pradesh High Court – Recommendations for her reinstatement were based on findings of the Judges Inquiry Committee (JIC) which expressed that the transfer was unbearable and led to her resignation [Paras 7-9, 14, 48].

Judicial Review – Delay and Laches – Petitioner’s representation to the President and the Chief Justice of India soon after her resignation indicates her resignation was not voluntary but out of frustration and compulsion – Delay in seeking redress not a ground to deny relief considering the continuous follow-up actions taken by the petitioner [Paras 11, 47].

Judicial Discretion – Transfer of Judicial Officers – The petitioner's mid-term transfer without considering her request for deferral due to her daughter's education and without compliance with the Transfer Policy provisions constitutes arbitrary use of judicial discretion – Reinforces the need for strict adherence to transfer policies to prevent arbitrary actions against judicial officers [Paras 12, 44-45].

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Orders by the High Court accepting resignation set aside – Directions issued for the petitioner's reinstatement with continuity of service and all consequential benefits but without back wages [Para 19].

SARFAESI Act – Mortgage – Discharge of Borrower’s Liability: The Supreme Court held that merely selling the mortgaged property or securing part of the outstanding dues does not discharge the borrower from the entire liability. The borrower’s liability with respect to the balance outstanding continues. The Division Bench of the High Court erred in directing the release of the mortgaged property and handing over possession along with the original title deeds to the borrower on the payment of Rs. 65.65 lakhs only​​.

Judicial Review – Section 13(8) of SARFAESI Act: The court reiterated that under Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, the secured asset cannot be sold if the borrower tenders the entire dues of the secured creditor together with all costs, charges, and expenses incurred by the creditor before the publication of the auction notice. The High Court's order was contrary to this provision as the dues were much more than Rs. 65.65 lakhs​​.

Auction and Redemption: The High Court's decision to treat the highest bid received as the market value of the property and order its release upon payment was found erroneous. The auction must realize the entire amount due to the creditor. Any interim order directing release of the property against partial payment was held to be unjustified​​.

Decision: Appeal allowed – The judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court was quashed. The order of the learned Single Judge was restored. The bank was permitted to proceed with the auction of the mortgaged property to recover the outstanding dues. The DRT was directed to decide and dispose of the securitisation application on its own merits​​.

Constitution of India – Article 21 – Premature Release – Application for Premature Release: The Supreme Court held that the order rejecting the application for premature release lacked application of mind to relevant circumstances. The order merely noted potential resentment among the victim's side and the petitioner's extremist nature without considering the petitioner's conduct in jail or prior criminal history. The court emphasized the need for a considered application of mind to the specific facts of each case when deciding on premature release​​.

Judicial Review – Non-Application of Mind: The court quashed the order rejecting the application for premature release, noting it was devoid of relevant considerations and displayed a patent non-application of mind. General observations about possible resentment and potential danger to society were deemed insufficient grounds for rejecting the application​​.

Policy Consideration – Date of Conviction: The application for premature release must be considered based on the policy as it stood on the date of the petitioner’s conviction. The court directed the state to reconsider the application without requiring a new application, emphasizing adherence to the policy in place at the time of conviction​​.

Decision: Petition allowed – The impugned order dated July 30, 2021, was set aside. The court directed the state to reconsider the application for premature release based on the policy as it stood on January 17, 2005. The reconsideration was to be completed within two months from the date of the order​​.

Civil Procedure Code (CPC) - Order II Rule 3 - Joinder of Causes of Action: Order II Rule 3 permits a plaintiff to unite different causes of action in the same suit. The failure to join all claims arising from a cause of action can lead to consequences as proclaimed in Order II Rule 2. However, non-joinder of necessary parties can be fatal to the suit if it impacts the substantive rights of the parties involved​​.

Partition Suit – Non-Inclusion of Properties – Non-Joinder of Necessary Parties: The Supreme Court held that in a suit for partition, all joint properties should ordinarily be included. Non-inclusion of certain properties and non-joinder of necessary parties can render the suit liable to be dismissed. However, exceptions can be made based on the facts of the case and the interests of justice​​.

Separate Properties – Admission in Pleadings: The appellant's admission in pleadings and evidence that the suit schedule properties were the self-acquired properties of R.M. Patil was decisive. The appellant's inconsistent claims regarding other joint family properties were not substantiated by evidence​​.

Decision – Appeal Dismissed: The appeals were dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision that the plaint schedule properties were the self-acquired properties of R.M. Patil, and no further joint family properties were available for partition. The issue of non-joinder of necessary parties did not warrant the dismissal of the suit in the facts of this case​​.