Urban Planning – Delhi – Monitoring Committee & Judicial Committee – Scope – Monitoring Committee was constituted to curb misuse of residential premises and lacked statutory sealing power vis-à-vis premises as such; sealing entails civil consequences and DMC Act provides statutory process/appeal – Judicial Committee’s 18.12.2023 common order did not examine individual units; SC reiterates case-by-case scrutiny and tests the applicant’s claim on its own facts – Held: Common order does not by itself entitle de-sealing; individual merits must govern [Paras 4–7, 10, 12].

Land Use – LSC Classification – New Rajinder Nagar is a shop-cum-residence Local Shopping Centre (designated LSC) under MPD-2021 – Ground floor sanctioned for commercial use; upper floors intended/reserved for residential use unless converted on payment of prescribed charges – FAR pattern (residential FAR applicable; sanctioned vs existing) confirms status; no proof of pre-1961 commercial first floor – Held: Only ground floor permitted commercially ab initio; upper floors require conversion and compliance [Paras 15–23].

Evidence/Documentary Proof – Third-party L&DO letter (1957) and generic lease deeds (1974/1975) not relied upon; 1987 conveyance recites single-storey; 1989 sale deed shows only ground-floor shop; 2005 sanctioned plan is for residential apartments over shop with basement for storage; 2018 DDA communication distinguishes planned vs designated LSCs – Held: Record rebuts claim of historic commercial use of upper floors [Paras 11, 16–19].

Municipal Law – De-sealing & Regularisation – Application for de-sealing rejected – MCD to conduct joint inspection, specify in a speaking order: (i) non-compoundable deviations to be removed, (ii) conversion charges for upper floors, (iii) penalty for excess FAR – Upon removal of non-compoundable works and payment of charges, applicant may carry on commercial activity in upper floors – Held: Relief moulded prospectively subject to statutory compliance; de-sealing not ordered now [Paras 22–24].

Decision: I.As seeking de-sealing and permission to use upper floors commercially rejected; directions issued to MCD for joint inspection and quantification of conversion/penalty charges; applicant permitted to regularise and thereafter use upper floors commercially upon compliance [Paras 23–25].

Education Law – RTE Act, 2009 – Section 23 – Minimum Qualifications for Teachers – Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) – Appellants appointed as Assistant Teachers in 2012 without TET qualification – First TET held in November 2011 – Both appellants cleared TET subsequently (2011 and 2014) – Their services terminated in 2018 for not possessing TET at the time of appointment – Amendment of 2017 to Section 23 permitted all teachers in position as on 31.03.2015 to acquire minimum qualifications within four years, i.e., up to 31.03.2019 – Held: Appellants having qualified TET before 31.03.2019 fulfilled statutory requirement – Termination illegal – Reinstatement ordered without back wages but with continuity of service and consequential benefits [Paras 8–14].

Teacher Appointment – Retrospective Compliance – Interpretation of Proviso to Section 23(2), RTE Act – Statutory window of four years for acquiring qualification applies to those appointed before 31.03.2015 – Appellants, having passed TET within that window, could not be treated as unqualified on termination date (12.07.2018) – High Court erred in upholding termination solely for absence of TET at appointment [Paras 10–13].

Relief – Reinstatement – Orders of High Court and BSA quashed – Appellants to be reinstated as Assistant Teachers in Jwala Prasad Tiwari Junior High School, Kanpur Nagar – No back wages but continuity of service, seniority, and consequential benefits granted [Para 14].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Orders of High Court and BSA set aside – Appellants directed to be reinstated as Assistant Teachers with continuity of service and consequential benefits but without back wages [Para 14].

Arbitration – Delay in Pronouncement – Validity of Award – Public Policy Conflict – Arbitral award pronounced after nearly 3 years and 8 months of reservation without explanation – Arbitrator’s delay resulted in demonstrable indecisiveness, non-application of mind, and denial of effective adjudication – Supreme Court held that while delay alone is not a ground under Section 34, where it materially impacts the quality and fairness of adjudication, it renders the award in conflict with public policy and patently illegal [Paras 1, 19–20, 46–48, 55].

Arbitration – Unworkable Award – Perversity – Incomplete Adjudication – Arbitrator invalidated sale deeds executed by the appellant but declined to determine compensation or finalize reliefs, leaving parties to litigate afresh – Findings held to be contradictory and Award declared ineffective – Held: Arbitrator failed to perform his core function of final dispute resolution, thereby defeating the purpose of arbitration – Award liable to be set aside for being unworkable and perverse [Paras 39–42, 44, 47–48, 55].

Section 14 vs. Section 34 – Independent Remedies – Not Mutually Exclusive – Supreme Court clarified that aggrieved party need not seek termination under Section 14(2) before challenging delayed award under Section 34 – Remedies under Sections 14 and 34 operate independently – Mandate of arbitrator can be challenged post facto under Section 34 based on effects of delay [Paras 15–16, 19–20].

Contractual Interpretation – Clauses 6(a)–(c) of Joint Development Agreement (JDA) – Arbitrator’s interpretation of “fit for occupation” under Clause 6(a) stretched beyond contractual text – Requirements of certificate by architect and application for completion certificate were fulfilled – Arbitrator’s finding of non-compliance held perverse and contrary to terms of JDA [Paras 53–54].

Arbitrator’s Interim Orders – Irreversible Consequences – Equity Consideration under Article 142 – Arbitrator’s interim order in 2010 shifted possession and altered parties' positions – Supreme Court held that reverting to status quo was impossible after 15 years and third-party rights had been created – Invoking Article 142, Court validated previously illegal sale deeds executed by appellant, directed forfeiture of ₹6.82 crore security deposit, and awarded ₹3.18 crore additional compensation to respondents – Ordered final settlement of rights to prevent further litigation [Paras 60–62].

Exercise of Article 142 – Final Settlement to Prevent Injustice – Held: When arbitral award fails to resolve core dispute and perpetuates litigation after extensive delay and altered circumstances, Supreme Court justified in invoking Article 142 to do complete justice – Power exercised in conformity with Gayatri Balasamy and Shilpa Sailesh to bring litigation to an end [Paras 57–60].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Arbitral award set aside – Sale deeds declared valid despite initial illegality – Security deposit of ₹6.82 crores forfeited and additional ₹3.18 crores to be paid by appellant to respondents – On full payment, appellant entitled to possession of its 50% share – Parties to bear own costs [Paras 64].

Criminal Law – Advocate–Client Privilege – Summoning of Advocates – Suo Motu proceedings arising from summons issued to an Advocate under Section 179 BNSS, for appearing as counsel for the accused – Advocate was summoned to disclose facts and circumstances of the case – Held: Such summoning without clear invocation of exceptions under Section 132 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023 is illegal and violates the statutory privilege conferred on Advocates and clients – Investigating agencies cannot summon an Advocate appearing in a case solely to obtain case details – Violation of this privilege also impacts Articles 19(1)(g), 20(3), 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution – Summons set aside – Directions issued to safeguard professional privilege [Paras 2, 3, 4, 32, 44, 48, 49, 50, 52, 67, 68].

Advocate–Client Confidentiality – Scope of Section 132 of BSA – Section 132 confers privilege upon clients and imposes duty of non-disclosure on Advocates – Covers all professional communications made in the course of service – Exception exists only for communications in furtherance of an illegal purpose or when crime/fraud is observed during engagement – This privilege survives even after professional relationship ceases – Advocate may invoke the privilege even in the absence of client – Disclosure by Advocate in violation may amount to professional misconduct – The statutory privilege is rooted in fundamental constitutional protections including Article 20(3) – Held: Blanket summoning violates these safeguards [Paras 5, 6, 7, 10, 18, 21, 32, 33, 42, 44].

Criminal Procedure – BNSS Powers of Investigation – Section 179 of BNSS permits summoning witnesses – However, such powers are limited when exercised against Advocates – Held: No summons can be issued to an Advocate representing a party in a case unless the exception under Section 132 applies and is explicitly stated in the summons – Written approval of a superior officer (not below SP rank) is mandatory – Advocate/client can seek judicial review under Section 528 BNSS [Paras 3, 11, 45, 49, 50, 52, 67.1.2, 67.1.3].

Judicial Oversight – Framing of Guidelines – Bar urged for framing guidelines similar to Jacob Mathew and Vishaka cases – Court declined – Held: Unlike Vishaka, there is no legislative vacuum or systemic failure requiring guideline formation – Existing statutory framework under BNSS and BSA sufficient – Issuance of new procedure would conflict with express legislative scheme and potentially impair investigations – Judicial review under Section 528 BNSS is the proper remedy for abuse [Paras 24–31, 44, 45, 67].

Production of Documents and Digital Devices – Section 94 BNSS – Held: Professional privilege under Section 132 does not extend to physical documents or digital devices – However, if document/device is in Advocate’s possession, it can only be produced before Court and not directly to I.O. – Any discovery from digital devices must occur in Court with presence of client and Advocate, and may require assistance of digital expert – Confidentiality of data concerning other clients must be safeguarded [Paras 54–58, 67.3, 67.3.1–3.3].

In-House Counsel – Applicability of Section 132 – Held: In-house counsel, being full-time salaried employees, do not fall under the definition of “Advocate” under the Advocates Act – Hence, they are not entitled to the privilege under Section 132 of BSA – May claim protection under Section 134 for personal communications made to their own legal advisers, but not employer–employee legal advice exchanges [Paras 59–66, 67.4].

Role of Advocate – Importance of Confidentiality – Reiterated that Advocate is not merely an agent but a dignified officer of Court – Upholds justice and ensures fair representation – Breach of privilege undermines adversarial system – Even occasional misconduct by lawyers does not justify systemic breach of confidentiality protections which are foundational to rule of law [Paras 17–23, 40, 43].

Comparative Jurisprudence – Common Law Systems – Privilege widely recognised in UK, US, Canada – Communication protected irrespective of ongoing litigation – In Greenough, Upjohn, Akzo Nobel and other cases, privilege preserved to ensure justice – Indian legal framework mirrors such protections, particularly in adversarial systems [Paras 34–36, 65].

Final Directions – Issued under Article 142 to clarify legal position – Held:

• Summons to Advocate cannot be issued unless falling within exceptions of Section 132 BSA [Para 67.1.1]

• Must be approved in writing by superior officer not below SP rank [Para 67.1.2]

• Must state specific facts and basis for exception [Para 67.1.2]

• Advocate/client may seek judicial review under Section 528 BNSS [Para 67.1.3]

• Privilege applies to litigation, pre-litigation and non-litigious engagements [Para 67.1.4]

• Production of documents governed by Section 94 BNSS, not protected by Section 132 [Paras 67.2–67.2.3]

• Digital devices to be produced only in Court; discovery to follow safeguards [Paras 67.3.1–67.3.3]

• In-house counsel excluded from Section 132 privilege [Paras 67.4, 67.4.1]

Decision: Summons issued to Advocate found to be illegal – Same set aside – Suo motu writ petition and connected matters disposed of – Strong caution issued to investigating agencies against transgressing legal privilege of Advocate–Client communications [Paras 48, 49, 50, 52, 67, 68].

Criminal Law – Juvenility – First-time claim before Supreme Court – Appellant No. 2, Ganesh Yadav, underwent ossification test which estimated his age as 19 years at the time of offence – Relying on precedent in Jaya Mala v. Home Secretary, court allowed a margin of error of 2 years – Held: Ganesh Yadav was 17 years old at the time of the offence and entitled to benefit of juvenility – Having served over 8 years in custody, he was ordered to be released [Paras 4-6].

Juvenile Justice – Maximum Punishment – Section 18 of JJ Act, 2015 – Juvenile can be detained for a maximum of 3 years in special home – Appellant Ganesh Yadav had already undergone over 8 years imprisonment – Held: Entitled to immediate release unless wanted in another case [Para 6].

Criminal Law – Age Discrepancy – Appellant No.1/Umesh Yadav claimed juvenility but failed to provide consistent or credible evidence – Being elder to Ganesh Yadav, court inferred he was not a juvenile – No benefit extended [Para 7].

Sentencing – Modification of Life Sentence – Delay of over 35 years since incident – No misconduct reported during custody – Appellants Baleshwar Pandit and Muneshwar Pandit aged 67 and 59 years respectively – Held: Life imprisonment modified to 14 years of actual imprisonment for them and Umesh Yadav – Appeal partly allowed [Paras 8-11].

Legal Profession – Enrollment Fees – Overcharging by State Bar Councils – Court’s direction in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India reiterated – Supreme Court observed that despite earlier directions dated 30-07-2024, some State Bar Councils continue to collect enrollment fees in excess of the statutory limit – Bar Council of India (BCI) reported it had communicated with State Bar Councils but without full compliance – Held: BCI to issue a formal written circular reiterating compliance requirements with clear warning of contempt consequences – State Bar Councils to respond immediately upon receipt of circular [Paras 2–6]

Contempt of Court – Non-compliance by State Bar Councils – Supreme Court warned that any future instance of overcharging will lead to contempt proceedings against responsible authorities – Directed BCI to explicitly highlight this in its circular to all State Bar Councils [Para 7]

Enrollment Documents – Withholding Prohibited – Applicants’ original documents submitted for enrollment cannot be withheld by State Bar Councils on grounds of non-payment of unauthorized fees – Held: Once statutory fees are paid, applicants are entitled to return of their documents on request – Failure to do so is unjustified and amounts to administrative overreach [Paras 8–9]

Decision: Bar Council of India directed to issue compliance circular within four weeks – State Bar Councils to respond promptly – Non-compliance will attract contempt – Matter to be listed after four weeks – Dasti permitted.

Insurance Law – Fire Insurance – Cause of fire immaterial in absence of insured-instigation – Surveyor’s inference of “non-accidental” fire found unreasoned – Incident held accidental – NCDRC’s finding on liability affirmed – Interest modified to 6% p.a. from three months after the incident – Appeals: insurer dismissed, insured partly allowed [Paras 1, 63].

Fire Insurance – Accidental Fire – Where loss by fire is established and there is no allegation or finding that the insured instigated the fire, the precise cause/source is immaterial – Final surveyor’s view that fire was “not accidental” lacked reasons and did not invoke any exclusion or fraud – Held: the incident was an accidental fire within policy terms – Repudiation arbitrary and perverse.

Policy Coverage – Meaning of “FFF” – Policy described risk as covering “FFF” – Court holds “FFF” can only mean furniture, fixtures and fittings – Exclusion of FFF by surveyor/NCDRC found contrary to record – Insured entitled to amounts under Building, Plant & Machinery, Showroom, Electrical Fittings, Furniture & Fixtures [Para 48].

Surveyor’s Report – Weight and Scrutiny – Final surveyor ignored 5,855 pages of contemporaneous business records, assigned a flat ₹450 per unit to “identifiable” stock and disregarded charred/unidentifiable stock – Approach termed perverse; cost sheets and stock records maintained in ordinary course accepted as reliable proof of quantity/value – Physical site visit by accountants/architect not sine qua non for valuing stock [Paras 36-47].

Evidence – Business Records & Secondary Evidence – Cost sheets, stock statements, production logs, purchase orders, cancellation emails, VAT returns and audited accounts treated as contemporaneous records admissible under Sections 34 and 65(g) of the Evidence Act – Random verification of cancelled-order entries largely tallied; minor variance explained by production exceeding order quantity [Paras 39-46].

Bank Valuation vs Insurance Loss – Bank stock valuation excluding samples serves different purpose; for insured, destruction of samples causes real loss requiring replacement – Insurer’s reliance on bank’s exclusion rejected [Para 49].

Interest – Modification – Simple interest @ 6% p.a. (not 9%) from three months after 25/09/2010 until payment – Appeal by insurer dismissed; appeal by insured allowed except to interest rate/period as specified [Para 63].

Decision: Appeal by Insurance Company dismissed – Appeal by Insured allowed in substance – Claim under “FFF” heads covered – Stock loss established on contemporaneous records – Interest awarded @ 6% p.a. from three months post-incident till payment – No order on exclusions/fraud as none established [Paras 48, 63].

Service Law – NIT Recruitment – One-Time Relaxation – Appellants recommended for promotion under one-time relaxation granted via GoI letter dated 06.10.2017 – Relaxation initially held ultra vires by High Court for lacking statutory support – Later validated by incorporation into First Statutes via Statute 9 of 2023 Statutes approved by the President – Held: Statute 9 has clarificatory and retrospective effect validating the 2018 selection process – High Court erred in holding amendment prospective and ordering fresh recruitment [Paras 13–18, 35–38].

Constitutional Law – Separation of Powers – Validating Legislation – Legislature cannot override court judgments but may remove statutory basis of judgment – Held: Amendment through Statute 9 did not overreach prior judgment but cured the procedural defect by incorporating relaxation into law – Action was legally valid and within legislative competence [Paras 32, 36].

Statutory Interpretation – Clarificatory Statute – Retrospective Effect – Statute 9 was explanatory of the executive relaxation dated 06.10.2017 and intended to validate the prior selection process – Held: Clarificatory statutes are presumed retrospective unless otherwise stated – Statute 9 permitted NIT Kurukshetra to complete the 2018 recruitment drive [Paras 28–31, 36].

Administrative Law – Judicial Review of Policy – High Court held 2023 amendment could not revive 2018 selection – Supreme Court held this view erroneous as the statutory change was clarificatory and lawful – Directed NIT Kurukshetra to act upon earlier recommendations [Paras 36–38].

Service Law – Notional Appointment – Relief Granted – Appellants to be considered for notional appointment as Associate Professors effective post 27.11.2018 – No financial or experiential benefit for promotion – Continuity allowed for terminal benefits only [Paras 38–40].

Decision: Appeals allowed in part – High Court judgment modified – NIT Kurukshetra to consider and process appointments of appellants/intervenors recommended under Advertisement No. 03/2018 – Appointments to be notional, without back wages or promotional experience – One-time relaxation deemed exhausted thereafter – No impact on NIT Jalandhar [Paras 38–45].

Specific Performance – Registered Agreement – Additional Consideration – Plaintiff entered into a registered agreement for sale dated 08.01.2010 for purchase of two items of property for a total sale consideration of Rs. 4,80,000 – Out of which, Rs. 4,70,000 was paid as advance on the date of agreement – Plaintiff placed in possession of the property – Subsequently, defendants demanded an additional Rs. 2,00,000 – Plaintiff paid Rs. 1,95,000 on 09.06.2010, which was acknowledged by endorsement on the reverse of the agreement – Trial court disbelieved transaction, treating it as a loan and held plaintiff not ready and willing – First appellate court reversed, upheld existence of valid sale agreement and additional consideration – Held: High Court erred in discarding endorsement without addressing findings of first appellate court – No perversity or misreading shown – Findings of fact binding under Section 100 CPC – Acceptance of further consideration after stipulated period proved contract remained subsisting [Paras 4, 6, 7, 14-21]

Termination of Contract – Necessity of Declaratory Relief – Respondents contended that without challenging the termination notice dated 20.08.2010, suit for specific performance was not maintainable – Supreme Court held: Agreement did not contain automatic termination clause – Vendor accepted additional Rs. 1,95,000 after six-month period, thereby waiving right to terminate – Plaintiff could treat agreement as subsisting and sue for enforcement – Suit for specific performance not barred for want of declaratory relief – Declaratory relief becomes necessary only where a cloud exists on title or subsistence of contract – Not applicable when termination itself is invalid or waived by conduct [Paras 21-33]

Readiness and Willingness – Plaintiff paid over 90% of consideration upfront and further agreed to pay additional amount demanded by vendors – No reason to doubt readiness and willingness to perform contract – High Court erred in holding otherwise – Acceptance of Rs. 1,95,000 after expiry of six-month term showed that time was not of the essence and defendants treated contract as ongoing – Mere delay in tendering balance Rs. 10,000 not fatal – Ready and willing conduct to be assessed holistically, based on facts and conduct of parties [Paras 18-21]

Discretion to Grant Relief – Clean Hands – Allegation of False Plea – High Court refused specific performance on grounds that plaintiff falsely claimed possession and fabricated additional consideration – Held: Absence of recital in agreement regarding possession not sufficient to prove falsehood – Claim may be unproved, but not necessarily false or dishonest – Additional consideration proved by endorsement and admitted signatures – No fraudulent conduct attributable to plaintiff – Court must consider substantial acts done in pursuance of contract and unjust enrichment of vendor – D-3 (Vasanthi), daughter of D-1, not a bona fide purchaser – Plaintiff entitled to relief under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Paras 34-39]

Interpretation – Time Not of the Essence – In contracts involving immovable property, time is ordinarily not of the essence unless specifically stipulated – Defendants' conduct of accepting additional consideration after expiry of six months indicated waiver of time clause – No notice given requiring performance within fixed time – Contract subsisted – Plaintiff’s failure to issue demand within six months not fatal in such circumstances [Paras 18-20]

Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – High Court reversed concurrent findings of fact without framing substantial question of law – Findings regarding genuineness of agreement, additional payment, readiness and willingness, were based on evidence and reasoning – No perversity, misreading, or exclusion of admissible evidence established – Held: High Court exceeded jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC – Interference with factual findings was unwarranted [Paras 15-17, 20, 38]

Appeal Allowed – Judgment and decree of High Court dated 02.02.2018 set aside – Decree of first appellate court restored – Plaintiff to deposit balance amount of Rs. 10,000 within one month in execution court if not already deposited – Specific performance of contract granted – Parties to bear own costs [Paras 40-41]