Banking Law – Lockers – Banks’ Liability – Banks are responsible for ensuring the safety of lockers and cannot disclaim liability for the loss of locker contents. The bank must exercise due diligence in maintaining and operating locker systems, including using modern technology to safeguard against unauthorized access [Paras 1-15].

Duty of Care – Consumer Protection – Banks owe a duty of care to their customers to protect locker contents, maintain proper records, and follow due process before breaking open lockers. Failure to do so constitutes a gross deficiency of service [Paras 12-15].

Compensation for Loss – Even if the value of the locker contents is disputed, the bank's negligence in breaking the locker without due cause warrants compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by the locker holder. The bank is directed to pay Rs. 500,000 as compensation and Rs. 100,000 as litigation costs [Paras 13-14].

Direction to RBI – Comprehensive Guidelines – RBI is directed to issue detailed guidelines within six months on locker management and the responsibilities of banks regarding locker safety, access control, and liability for loss of contents [Para 15.1].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – The bank's liability affirmed for negligence in breaking the locker – Compensation awarded to the appellant – RBI directed to issue guidelines on locker management [Paras 14-16].

Consumer Protection – Delivery of Old Car – Liability of Manufacturer – The dealer sold a 2009 model car, which had been used, as a new 2011 model – Absence of dealer during proceedings led to finding of deficiency on its part – No evidence of manufacturer's direct involvement or knowledge of the dealer's misrepresentation – Relationship between manufacturer and dealer on principal-to-principal basis absolves manufacturer of liability [Paras 1-29].

Manufacturer's Liability – Deficiency in Service – The manufacturer's liability cannot be inferred in the absence of specific allegations or proof of its knowledge or involvement in the dealer's misrepresentation – Special knowledge or direct involvement by the manufacturer must be established to hold it liable for deficiency in service [Paras 26-29].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Findings against the manufacturer set aside – Respondent Vaz may seek alternative relief (refund with interest) through the district forum – Amounts deposited during the appeal to be refunded to the appellant with interest [Paras 29].

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 – Section 3 and Section 4 – Determination of Possession – Proceedings for excess land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, are liable to abate if possession of the land has not been taken by the State Government before the Repeal Act came into force – The appellant claims possession of the land through a sale deed but the partition deed and sale deed were not produced – The competent authority claims possession was taken before the Repeal Act – Matter involves conflicting factual assertions requiring remand for determination [Paras 15-19].

Possession and Ownership – Burden of Proof – Appellant's claim of possession through a sale deed must be substantiated by documentary evidence – Competent Authority's claim of possession before the Repeal Act must be verified – Absence of conclusive evidence on either side necessitates a detailed factual inquiry [Paras 16-18].

Decision: Impugned judgment set aside – Matter remitted to the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court to consider the case afresh – Directions for determination of possession and ownership, with liberty to parties to present additional evidence [Paras 20-22].

Arbitration Clause – Writ Jurisdiction – The presence of an arbitration clause does not bar the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to ensure fairness and prevent arbitrary state actions – The court can inquire whether the state or its instrumentalities acted arbitrarily, violating Article 14 – The arbitration clause within a contract is not an absolute bar to invoking public law remedies under Article 226 [Paras 32-33].

Contractual Dispute – Refund of Payments – Development project agreement where the title to land was later found to be invalid – The appellant (Unitech) paid Rs. 165 crores based on the agreement – Supreme Court directed a refund of the principal amount with interest calculated from the dates of payment – The agreement stipulated compensatory payment at SBI-PLR rate, but the Court decided interest without compounding, due to conscionability issues [Paras 38-39].

Apportionment of Liability – Successor States – Dispute between TSIIC and APIIC on liability apportionment under the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act 2014 – Liability to refund lies primarily with TSIIC, with the liberty to recover from APIIC based on a population ratio of 58:42 as per the demerger scheme [Paras 40-43].

Decision: Appeals disposed of – Directed TSIIC to refund the amount due to Unitech with interest – The amount to be paid by TSIIC initially, with the liberty to recover proportionately from APIIC – Development Agreement to be registered and assessed for stamp duty [Paras 44-45].

Court Fees – Refund – Settlement of disputes outside court – Section 69A of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955 and Section 89 of CPC – Court fees to be refunded even for private settlements without court intervention – Narrow interpretation of the provisions would lead to unjust outcomes – Equitable and purposive interpretation required to encourage settlements and reduce court burdens [Paras 11-21].

Interpretation of Statutes – Purposive Interpretation – Courts may mold or creatively interpret legislation to avoid absurdity or injustice resulting from ambiguity – Statutory provisions must be interpreted in line with their overarching object and purpose to achieve justice [Paras 13-15].

Decision: Petitions dismissed – High Court’s order upheld – Appellant directed to refund court fees deposited by Respondent within six weeks [Paras 22-23].

Consent Decree – Mesne Profits – Correction of Typographical Error – Appeal against the High Court's order held that the mesne profits payable are to be increased by 10% every year – The Trial Court awards a 10% increase only on each alternate year i.e. 01.04.2011, 01.04.2013, 01.04.2015, and so on – The original terms of the license agreement between parties also incorporated a 10% increase in license fee once every 30 months/2.5 years – The Single Judge's order caused confusion – The compromise intended a 10% increase in mesne profits every alternate year – Typographical error in the consent decree rectified [Paras 25-29].

Consent Decree – Estoppel – Consent decrees create estoppels by judgment against parties to prevent further litigation – However, they do not create estoppels where the compromise was vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake – Clerical or arithmetical errors in consent decrees can be rectified by the court [Paras 18-20].

Decision: Petition partly allowed – Consent decree modified to reflect a 10% increase in mesne profits every alternate year – Petitioner directed to hand over possession of the entire suit property measuring 5472 sq. ft. to the Respondent within eight weeks – Registry directed to release arrears of mesne profits to the Respondent – Costs of Rs. 1 lakh to be paid to the Respondent by the Petitioner [Paras 30-33].

Civil Procedure – High Court's Power in Second Appeals – Section 100 CPC – Section 103 CPC – High Court's duty to either remand the matter or decide issues of fact when lower appellate courts have failed to properly determine them – High Court erred in mechanically upholding trial court judgment without proper assessment of evidence – Case remanded for fresh consideration [Paras 10-14].

Judicial Review – Findings of Fact – High Court can interfere with findings of fact if they are based on non-consideration of relevant evidence, or are perverse, or defy logic – Section 103 CPC provides for High Court to determine factual issues if sufficient evidence is on record [Paras 11-12].

Decision: Impugned order of High Court set aside – Matter remanded to High Court for fresh consideration on facts and law – High Court directed to dispose of matter within six months [Paras 14-17].

Pre-deposit Requirement – Waiver – Recovery of Debts Act – The High Court does not have the power to waive the pre-deposit requirement under Section 21 in its entirety – The provision mandates a pre-deposit of fifty percent of the debt due, which can be reduced to not less than twenty-five percent for reasons recorded in writing – The High Court’s order of total waiver is against the statutory provision [Paras 9-14].

Pre-deposit – Discretion of DRAT – The DRAT can exercise discretion to reduce the pre-deposit amount to twenty-five percent of the debt due – In the present case, considering the facts, the pre-deposit is reduced to twenty-five percent of Rs. 681,892,841/- [Paras 15-17].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – High Court's order set aside – DRAT's order modified to allow twenty-five percent pre-deposit – Respondents to deposit twenty-five percent of Rs. 681,892,841/- within eight weeks to prosecute the appeal [Paras 20].

Medical Education – Eligibility Criteria – Equivalence Certificate – The requirement for equivalence in qualification is not limited to the level of a 10+2 requirement but extends to the ‘standard and scope’ of the examination, ensuring that candidates have studied Physics, Chemistry, and Biology including practical tests in these subjects along with English – Equivalence certificates must reflect this standard and cannot be merely formal [Paras 11-21].

Admission Criteria – Interpretation of Regulations – The eligibility criteria under Regulation 4(2) of the Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997, must be interpreted to ensure that candidates have undergone the necessary years of study in all stipulated subjects, maintaining the consistency and intent of the regulations [Paras 19-22].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court order set aside – University’s decision to treat the respondent as ineligible for admission upheld [Para 23].