Consumer Protection – Jurisdiction – Telecom Services – Section 7B of the Telegraph Act provides for arbitration of disputes between telecom authorities and consumers – Consumer Protection Act, 1986, being a special and subsequent legislation, includes telecom services within its ambit – Existence of arbitration clause under the Telegraph Act does not oust the jurisdiction of the consumer forum – Consumer Protection Act aims to provide additional remedies for consumers [Paras 5-19].

Judicial Precedents – Interpretation of Statutes – Consumer Rights – Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and its successor, the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, intended to protect consumer interests – Remedies available under the Consumer Protection Act are additional and not in derogation of other laws – Telecom services fall within the definition of 'service' under both the 1986 and 2019 Acts [Paras 15-20].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Judgment of NCDRC affirmed – Consumer forums have jurisdiction to entertain complaints related to telecom services despite the provision of arbitration under Section 7B of the Telegraph Act [Paras 21-23].

Auction Sales – Setting Aside – Material Irregularity – Rule 107(14)(i) – Auction sale not to be set aside unless substantial injury due to irregularity, mistake, or fraud – Borrower did not seek setting aside within 30 days nor show substantial injury – High Court’s order setting aside sale on grounds of irregularity incorrect – Auction sale restored [Paras 7-7.2].

Statutory Interpretation – Rule 107(11)(f) – Auction Adjournment – No fresh proclamation required when sale adjourned due to court-ordered stay – Borrower’s action of obtaining stay and claiming fresh proclamation benefits cannot be rewarded – High Court’s interpretation reversed – Auction upheld [Paras 8-8.1].

Judicial Review – Conduct of Borrower – Borrower’s multiple litigations to stall recovery noted – No payment since 2010 – Efforts to delay auction despite substantial outstanding debt – Conduct considered in decision to uphold auction [Paras 11-12].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court’s judgment quashing auction set aside – Auction sale confirmed – Borrower’s writ petition dismissed [Paras 13].

Criminal Law – Murder – Common Intention – Section 34 IPC – Conviction of Krishnamurthy under Section 302 IPC upheld based on eyewitness testimonies and corroborating medical evidence – Assault on the deceased with the intent to cause death established – Other accused, Gopala and Thimmappa, given benefit of doubt regarding common intention – Their roles limited to holding and pulling the deceased before the assault by Krishnamurthy [Paras 3-7, 20-21].

Eyewitness Testimony – Reliability – Testimonies of eyewitnesses Channamma (PW-1) and Ramanjaneya (PW-4) found reliable – Specific acts attributed to Krishnamurthy corroborated by post-mortem report – Depositions of Dullaiah (PW-6) and Dodda Narasimha (PW-7) noted but partially accepted due to identical nature raising suspicion [Paras 3-7].

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death – Post-Mortem Report – Injuries inflicted by Krishnamurthy causing multiple fractures and internal injuries leading to death – Medical findings supported eyewitness accounts [Para 3].

Judicial Review – Sentencing – Life Imprisonment – Modification – Conviction of Krishnamurthy under Section 302 IPC modified to life imprisonment without stipulation of natural life term – Directions for non-premature release set aside as unjustified [Para 23].

Principles of Common Intention – Section 34 IPC – Liability – Co-perpetrators' intent and participation – Absence of premeditated intent by Gopala and Thimmappa to cause death as required under Section 34 IPC – Conviction converted to Section 323 IPC for causing hurt with common intention – Sentenced to one year [Paras 8-20].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Conviction of Krishnamurthy under Section 302 IPC confirmed with modification in sentence – Conviction of Gopala and Thimmappa modified to Section 323 IPC – All appellants to serve sentences concurrently – Surrender instructions issued for remaining sentence [Paras 21-24].

Debt Recovery – Interim Relief – Jurisdiction of High Court – High Court granted interim relief to auction purchaser during pendency of appeal before DRAT, effectively deciding the main issue – High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by making DRAT proceedings infructuous – Proper course was to allow DRAT to decide the appeal on merits – Impugned judgment and order of High Court quashed [Paras 3.2-3.3].

Procedural Law – Scope of Judicial Review – High Court’s Scope – High Court's review was limited to the non-grant of interim relief by DRAT – High Court erred in passing final orders affecting the merits of the case pending before DRAT – Appeals allowed and DRAT directed to decide the appeal on merits within four months [Paras 3.1-4].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court’s order granting interim relief set aside – DRAT to decide the appeal within four months from receipt of the present order [Paras 3.2-4].

Property Law – Lease Cancellation – Misrepresentation – Allotment of residential plot obtained by respondent through false affidavits – Lease cancellation justified as it was based on concealment of material facts and breach of allotment terms – High Court's order set aside – Respondent not entitled to equitable relief due to fraudulent conduct [Paras 3-7, 20-21].

Statutory Interpretation – Section 111(g) Transfer of Property Act – Determination of Lease – Lease cancellation due to fraudulent allotment does not require Chief Executive Officer’s prior permission – Any irregularity cured by subsequent approval of CEO [Paras 19-20].

Equity and Good Conscience – Filing False Affidavits – Respondent and wife filed false affidavits regarding non-ownership of other plots – Filing false affidavits disentitles the respondent to equitable relief – Lease cancellation upheld [Paras 20-21].

Judicial Precedents – Doctrine of Proportionality – Distinction from ITC Limited Case – Cancellation based on fraud vs. cancellation due to lease terms violation – Proportionality doctrine not applicable in fraudulent allotment cases [Paras 21-22].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – Respondent’s suit dismissed [Paras 23-24].

Consumer Protection – Transitional Provisions – Applicability of Acts – Complaints filed before the commencement of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 governed by the 1986 Act – Requirement under the 2019 Act for deposit of 50% of awarded amount not applicable to complaints filed under the 1986 Act – Appeal to be heard under provisions of the 1986 Act [Paras 2-4, 6, 27, 34].

Statutory Interpretation – Right to Forum – Right to forum is procedural and not a vested right – Section 6(e) of the General Clauses Act protects pending legal proceedings for enforcement of accrued rights but does not save the right to a particular forum [Paras 7, 25].

Judicial Review – Precedents – Several judgments, including Hoosein Kasam Dada (India) Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Garikapati Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Choudhry, and Neena Aneja v. Jai Prakash Associates Ltd., support that onerous conditions for appeal under the new law do not apply to cases initiated under the old law [Paras 8-11, 16-17, 25].

Decision – Appeal allowed – NCDRC order upheld but application to appeal governed by provisions of the 1986 Act – Deposit condition under the 2019 Act not applicable to appeals filed under the 1986 Act [Paras 34].

Juvenile Justice – Plea of Juvenility – Rule 12(3)(iii) – Birth certificate from municipal authority or panchayat relevant for determining juvenility – School record not deemed reliable if procured solely to support plea – Appellant failed to provide birth certificate in initial application – Plea of juvenility must be bona fide – Appellant’s reliance on dubious documents leads to rejection of juvenility claim [Paras 6-7, 8-9, 11-13, 37-38].

Evidentiary Value – Birth Certificate and School Records – Certificate issued after application under Section 7A deemed arranged and unreliable – School leaving certificate issued by unregistered school and bearing anomalies considered fabricated – Medical Board’s ossification test indicating age 23-24 years not conclusive but relevant [Paras 8-14, 15-17, 19-22].

Family Register – U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules – Entries in family register relevant but not conclusive – Family register maintained under statutory duty carries evidentiary value – Entries consistent with other records upheld as reliable evidence against juvenility claim [Paras 23-27, 32-36].

Legal Principles – Statutory Interpretation – Liberal interpretation of beneficial legislation must not favor fraudulent claims – Courts to ensure genuine reliance on statutory provisions for juvenility determination – Consistency with Supreme Court precedents in interpreting age determination procedures under JJ Act [Paras 18, 28-31, 38-39].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – High Court’s order upheld – Appellant to stand trial as an adult [Para 39].

Corporate Law – NCLT Proceedings – Continuation Beyond 8th Stage – Future Retail Limited (FRL) granted liberty to approach High Court for continuation of NCLT proceedings beyond the Meeting of Shareholders and Creditors – High Court directed to consider contentions and pass appropriate order uninfluenced by present observations – Parties' submissions regarding the impact on ongoing arbitration and regulatory decisions considered [Paras 1-16].

Regulatory Approvals – Amazon-Future Group Dispute – Arbitration – Emergency Arbitrator’s orders and High Court enforcement orders reviewed – CCI’s revocation of initial Amazon-FCPL share purchase noted – Continuation of NCLT proceedings essential for FRL due to imminent threat of insolvency and potential impact on employees – High Court to ensure procedural balance between parties [Paras 2-13, 15-16].

Judicial Process – Remand to High Court – Directions issued for expeditious resolution – Interim relief considerations acknowledged with directives to maintain fairness in ongoing NCLT and regulatory processes – NCLT to resume upon High Court's further order [Paras 16-17].

Decision – Civil Appeals disposed of – FRL authorized to approach High Court for further NCLT proceedings – High Court to pass orders considering all contentions and maintaining procedural balance [Para 17].

Administrative Law – Regulations – Quashing of Regulations for Lack of Approval – Council of Architecture issued regulations without the Central Government's approval as mandated by Section 45(1) of the Architects Act – High Court quashed the regulations – Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of Central Government approval for regulations under Section 45(1) – Appeal allowed, High Court's order set aside [Paras 1-20].

Legislative Interpretation – Section 21 vs. Section 45 – Minimum standards of architectural education can be prescribed by the Council of Architecture not only by regulations but also otherwise – However, if prescribed by regulations, Central Government approval is mandatory – Court held that Section 21 does not override the requirement of approval under Section 45(1) [Paras 9-15].

Locus Standi – Challenge by Society – Respondent society comprised of teaching faculty members challenged the regulations – Court held that the society had locus standi to challenge regulations affecting their professional standards and employment conditions – Emphasized the need for proper procedural adherence in issuing regulations [Paras 16-19].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's order quashing the "Minimum Standards of Architectural Education Regulations, 2017" set aside – Writ petition by the respondent society dismissed [Para 20].