Consumer Protection Act – Condonation of Delay – Written Statement – Application for condonation of delay in filing written statement filed before the Supreme Court judgment in New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited – Supreme Court held that the judgment should apply prospectively – Delay of 7 days in filing written statement condoned on payment of costs [Paras 1-6].

Prospective Application – Constitution Bench Judgment – Supreme Court emphasized that the Constitution Bench judgment in New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited was to operate prospectively – Applications filed prior to the judgment should be considered on merits [Para 2].

Condonation of Delay – Meritorious Consideration – Delay of 7 days in filing written statement considered minor and justifiable – Supreme Court condoned the delay on payment of Rs. 25,000 as costs – Directions given for expeditious disposal of the complaint by the NCDRC [Paras 5-6].

Decision - Appeal Allowed – NCDRC's order rejecting the application for condonation of delay set aside – Delay of 7 days in filing the written statement condoned on payment of Rs. 25,000 as costs – NCDRC directed to accept the written statement and expedite the disposal of the complaint within six months [Paras 3-6].

Criminal Procedure Code – Compensation for Accusation without Reasonable Cause – The appellants, accused of involvement in a fight resulting in deaths, were granted bail with a condition to deposit Rs. 2 lakh each as compensation to the victims – Supreme Court held that the CrPC does not permit the imposition of such a condition at the stage of bail – Condition set aside [Paras 1-18].

Judicial Precedents – Compensation in Criminal Cases – Reference made to Palaniappa Gounder vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors (1977) 3 SCR 132, highlighting the principle that compensation can only be awarded post-trial and conviction – Compensation at bail stage found inappropriate [Paras 12-16].

Bail Conditions – Proportionality and Fairness – Court emphasized the importance of proportionate and fair bail conditions – Monetary conditions can be imposed for offences against property but not as compensation pre-trial – Condition for compensation replaced with restriction from entering Amreli, except for court appearances and marking presence [Paras 20-22].

Decision - Appeal Allowed – Condition for deposit of Rs. 2 lakh each towards compensation set aside – New condition imposed prohibiting entry into Amreli for six months except for necessary legal processes – Parties to bear their own costs [Paras 22-23].

Penal Code – Murder – Non-recovery of Weapon – Conviction for murder can be sustained even if the weapon used in the commission of the offence is not recovered – The credibility of reliable eyewitnesses and corroborating medical evidence can be sufficient to uphold the conviction [Paras 1-18].

Judicial Precedents – Ballistic Report – Discrepancy between the ballistic report and the recovered weapon does not necessarily invalidate credible eyewitness testimony – Court emphasized that the recovery of the weapon is not a sine qua non for conviction if other reliable evidence supports the prosecution's case [Paras 11-12].

Eyewitness Credibility – Reliable Testimony – Eyewitness accounts from PW1 and PW2 were deemed trustworthy and reliable – Minor contradictions in testimony that do not affect the core of the prosecution's case do not undermine the credibility of eyewitnesses [Paras 9-11].

Section 34 IPC – Common Intention – Conviction under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC upheld where the accused acted with a common intention – Evidence showed that the accused participated in the crime together, supporting the application of Section 34 IPC [Paras 12-13].

Decision- Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC upheld – Court affirmed the credibility of eyewitnesses and corroborating medical evidence despite the non-recovery of the weapon used in the crime [Paras 15].

Registration Act – Compulsory Registration – Compromise Decree – A compromise decree regarding land not the subject matter of the suit but part of a settlement between family members does not require compulsory registration under Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act 1908 – A family settlement recognizing pre-existing rights among family members does not create new rights necessitating registration [Paras 1-17].

Judicial Precedents – Family Settlements – Kale vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others (1976) 3 SCC 119 – Family settlements aim to avoid prolonged litigation and are binding without the need for registration if they acknowledge pre-existing rights – The principle that family settlements declare already possessed rights, not creating new ones, is upheld [Paras 10-11].

Enforcement of Family Settlements – Applicability of Section 17(2)(v) and (vi) – Settlements among family members that include property not directly subject to the suit can be enforced without registration – The compromise decree is valid without registration if it only acknowledges pre-existing rights [Paras 6-12].

Decision - Appeal Allowed – High Court's judgment and decree set aside – The compromise decree recognizing the family settlement does not require compulsory registration – Suit decreed in favor of the appellant [Paras 17-18].

Industrial Disputes Act – Locus Standi – Registered Trade Union – The appellant, a registered trade union, sought to modify the standing order concerning the retirement age of employees – Supreme Court held that the union had locus standi to file such an application – Technical objections to locus standi by the employer at the implementation stage of settlements were dismissed [Paras 1-8].

Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act – Section 38(2) – Application for Modification – Section 38(2) allows an 'employee' to apply for modification of standing orders – The union, representing employees, can initiate such applications on their behalf – The Court emphasized the spirit of the settlements agreed upon between the employer and employees [Paras 6-8].

Judicial Precedents – Settlements and Implementation – Court emphasized that settlements under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, especially those culminating in an award, should be respected and implemented in good faith – Employer’s attempt to resile from the settlement on technical grounds rejected [Para 8].

Decision- Appeal Allowed – The Industrial Court and High Court judgments set aside – Registered trade union granted locus standi to file an application under Section 38(2) for modifying the standing order – All consequential benefits to be given to the employees within six months [Paras 8].

Education Law – Conditional Affiliation – Pharmacy Colleges – The petitioner colleges sought affiliation for the academic year 2020-2021 – Supreme Court directed that the norms and regulations set by the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) must be followed for degrees and diplomas in pharmacy – Conditional affiliation was granted by the State Government on 19.03.2021 – The University directed to grant affiliation and permit students to participate in special examinations for the academic year 2020-2021 [Paras 1-10].

Precedent – Similar Cases – Reference made to the decision in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 390 of 2021 (VIIT Pharmacy College vs. Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University) where the University was directed to grant affiliation – Similar facts found in the present petitions, warranting the same relief [Paras 2-4].

Legal Authority – Pharmacy Council of India – PCI approval dated 10.04.2021 with intake capacity of 60 students each granted to the petitioner colleges – Affiliation by the State Government in compliance with High Court orders – University required to organize special examinations for the students [Paras 8-10].

Decision:

Writ Petitions Allowed – University directed to grant affiliation to the petitioner colleges for the academic year 2020-2021 – Students permitted to participate in special examinations organized by the University – The judgment and order applicable to the specific academic year as per the State Government notification [Paras 10-11].

Disaster Management – Ex gratia assistance for Covid-19 deaths – Petitioners sought directions for ex gratia monetary compensation to families of Covid-19 victims under Section 12(iii) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. The Supreme Court directed the National Disaster Management Authority to recommend guidelines for ex gratia assistance considering the requirement and availability of funds under the National Disaster Response Fund and State Disaster Response Fund [Paras 1-56].

Issuance of Death Certificates – Simplified Procedure – The Court mandated the issuance of simplified guidelines for the issuance of death certificates stating the exact cause of death as "Death due to Covid-19." This aims to ensure families of the deceased can access benefits of governmental schemes and avoid discrepancies in death records [Paras 57-70].

Constitutional and Statutory Obligations – The Court emphasized the statutory duty under Section 12 of the DMA 2005 and the constitutional obligation under Article 21 to recommend guidelines for minimum standards of relief, including ex gratia assistance. The term "shall" in Section 12 was interpreted as mandatory, ensuring the provision of sustenance assistance to affected families [Paras 73-80].

Decision – Writ Petitions Partly Allowed – The Supreme Court directed the NDMA to frame guidelines for ex gratia assistance for Covid-19 deaths and issue proper death certificates. The matter was remanded to determine a reasonable amount for ex gratia assistance based on fund availability and other relief obligations [Paras 76-80].

Civil Procedure – Compromise Decree – Bar to Separate Suit – The appellants challenged the validity of a compromise decree passed in a partition suit, alleging fraud and misrepresentation. The High Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the challenge to the compromise decree must be brought before the same court that recorded the compromise, as per Order XXIII Rule 3A of the CPC. The Supreme Court upheld this view, emphasizing that a separate suit challenging the compromise decree is not maintainable under Rule 3A [Paras 1-56].

Reunion in Joint Family – Partition and Subsequent Conduct – The appellants contended that the joint family continued to function as such even after the partition deed dated 07.11.1960. The court considered the concept of reunion in Hindu law, stating that the intention of the parties and subsequent conduct are crucial in determining whether a joint family continues after partition. However, it was noted that the registered partition deed could not be ignored, and any claim of reunion must be strictly proved [Paras 73-80].

Residential Property – Tatabad House – The appellants claimed a share in the residential property at Tatabad, which was allegedly purchased from joint family funds but not included in the compromise decree. The court noted that this property was not part of the original suit and compromise, thus allowing the consideration of the appellants' claim for a share in this property [Paras 57-70].

Decision – Appeals Partly Allowed – The appeals were partly allowed. The Supreme Court affirmed the bar on a separate suit challenging the compromise decree under Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC but allowed the consideration of the appellants' claim regarding the Tatabad house property. The matter was remanded for consideration of the appellants' share in the residential property [Paras 76-80].

Criminal Law – Traffic Accident – Conviction and Sentence – The appellant, a bus driver, was convicted under Sections 279, 337, and 338 of the IPC for causing an accident that resulted in injuries to the driver of another vehicle. The trial court sentenced him to six months of imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500 under Section 337 IPC. On appeal, the High Court upheld the conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the sentence, substituting the imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000 each under Sections 279 and 338 IPC, and maintaining the fine under Section 337 IPC [Paras 1-12].

Mitigating Factors – Passage of Time – The Supreme Court took into account the passage of 26 years since the incident and the fact that the appellant was on bail throughout the period. Given these circumstances, the court deemed it appropriate to substitute the imprisonment with a fine, emphasizing the harshness of sending the appellant to jail after such a long time [Paras 10-11].

Precedents Cited – The court referred to similar cases where the imprisonment sentence was converted to a fine due to the significant passage of time and the appellant’s continued bail status, including A.P. Raju v. State of Orissa (1995 Supp. (2) SCC 385) and Prakash Chandra Agnihotri v. State of M.P. (1990 Supp. SCC 764) [Paras 7-9].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Conviction affirmed, but sentence of six months imprisonment under Sections 279 and 338 IPC substituted by a fine of Rs. 1,000 each. The fine of Rs. 500 under Section 337 IPC is maintained. The total fine of Rs. 2,000 to be deposited within one month in the trial court. Failure to pay will result in default imprisonment. The judgments of the lower courts are modified accordingly [Paras 11-12].