Criminal Law – Bail – NDPS Act – Section 37 – High Court granted bail without proper application of mind – Seriousness of allegations and involvement in an international drug syndicate not considered – High Court's reasons, including respondent's education, irrelevant to bail decision – Appeal allowed, bail canceled [Paras 7-13].

Bail – Judicial Application – High Court's order lacked consideration of legal principles and rival submissions – Serious infraction by the High Court in applying the law – High Court misapplied law to the facts [Paras 10-13].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's order granting bail set aside – Respondent's bail canceled – Respondent to surrender forthwith [Paras 13-14].

Employee State Insurance Act – Wages – Section 2(22) ESI Act – Travelling Allowance – Conveyance Allowance – Definition of wages excludes travelling allowance – Conveyance Allowance is akin to travelling allowance – High Court and ESI Court rightly excluded Conveyance Allowance from wages [Paras 11-30].

Service and Labour Laws – Definition of Wages – Conveyance Allowance – Travelling Allowance – ESI Act – Conveyance Allowance intended to cover costs incurred on travel from residence to workplace – Payment of Conveyance Allowance excluded from definition of wages [Paras 12-15].

Judicial Interpretation – ESI Act – Conveyance Allowance and Travelling Allowance – Interpretation in favour of employees – Inclusive interpretation of travelling allowance to cover conveyance allowance [Paras 26-28].

Decision – Special Leave Petition dismissed – High Court and ESI Court's concurrent findings upheld – Conveyance Allowance excluded from wages under Section 2(22) of ESI Act [Para 30].

Criminal Law – Bail – IPC Sections 302, 307 – Arms Act – High Court granted bail to accused on the basis of parity – Co-accused's bail subsequently canceled by Supreme Court – Orders granting bail to respondents set aside – Respondents to surrender and may apply for fresh bail [Paras 1-19].

Bail – Judicial Discretion – High Court granted bail without proper application of judicial mind – Seriousness of offense and nature of allegations not considered – Parity with co-accused not justified as co-accused's bail was canceled by Supreme Court [Paras 11-18].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court's orders granting bail to respondents canceled – Respondents to surrender within 24 hours – Liberty granted to apply afresh for bail [Paras 18-19].

Central Excise – Classification – Electrical Relays – Chapter 85 vs. Chapter 86 – Relays manufactured by the appellant solely for railway signaling equipment – Approved classification list reclassified under Chapter 86 – Revenue's invocation of Note 2(f) of Section XVII unjustified – 'Sole or principal use' test under Note 3 overlooked – Appeal allowed [Paras 15-39].

Limitation – Section 11-A Central Excise Act – Show Cause Notices – Period of limitation – Notices issued after approved reclassification – No fraud, collusion, or willful misstatement – Invocation of Section 11-A time-barred – Appeal allowed [Paras 40-47].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Orders of the Original Authority, Appellate Authority, and CESTAT set aside – Show cause-cum-demand notices set aside [Para 47].

Penal Code – Voluntarily Causing Hurt – Summoning Order – Quashing – The delay in filing the private complaint and material improvements from the earlier NCR No. 158/2012 noted – Trial courts have a duty to prevent frivolous litigation at the initial stage – Summoning order quashed [Paras 1-20].

Evidence Act – Judge's Power – Section 165 – Empowering judges to order production of material and put forth questions marks the influence of inquisitorial processes in Indian legal system – Important for uncovering truth and preventing misuse of judicial process [Paras 13-15].

Criminal Procedure – Summoning Order – Importance – Magistrate must exercise caution and judicial mind in issuing summoning orders – Orders should reflect thorough examination of allegations and evidence [Paras 12-14].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Proceedings – Inherent Powers – High Courts and Supreme Court have inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC and Article 142 of the Constitution to quash proceedings instituted with malafide intentions or after undue delay [Paras 22-23].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Summoning order dated 04.04.2019 and subsequent proceedings quashed – All criminal proceedings between parties related to the incident quashed to prevent further misuse of judicial process [Paras 24-28].

Arbitration – Appointment of Arbitrator – Prima Facie Test – The Supreme Court held that a deeper consideration of whether an arbitration agreement exists between the parties must be left to an arbitrator who is to examine the documentary evidence produced before him in detail after witnesses are cross-examined. The Court set aside the Delhi High Court's judgment insofar as it conclusively found that there is an arbitration agreement between the parties. However, the Court upheld the appointment of Justice G.S. Sistani, a retired Delhi High Court Judge, as the sole arbitrator to first determine as a preliminary issue whether an arbitration agreement exists between the parties [Paras 1-27].

Prima Facie Review – Existence of Arbitration Agreement – The Court noted that at the stage of reference to arbitration under Sections 8 and 11 of the Arbitration Act, the court should apply the prima facie test to determine the existence of an arbitration agreement. A more detailed examination should be left to the arbitrator, especially when the facts are contested or unclear [Paras 10-17].

Judicial Interpretation – Anomaly in Sections 11(7) and 37 – The judgment pointed out an anomaly where a refusal to refer parties to arbitration under Section 8 is appealable under Section 37(1)(a), but a similar refusal under Section 11(6) read with Sections 6(A) and 7 is not appealable. The Court suggested that Parliament may need to re-look at Sections 11(7) and 37 to align the appealability of orders made under Sections 8 and 11 [Paras 21-23].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court's conclusive finding of an arbitration agreement but upheld the appointment of Justice G.S. Sistani as the sole arbitrator. The arbitrator will determine the existence of the arbitration agreement as a preliminary issue and proceed to the merits only if such an agreement is found to exist [Para 27].

Consumer Protection – Delay in Possession – Compensation – The Supreme Court upheld the NCDRC's decision that the appellant was liable to pay compensation for the delayed handing over of possession of a residential unit. The Court noted that the delay was not justified under the force majeure clause, and the compensation rate stipulated in the contract was one-sided and constituted an unfair trade practice. The Court modified the NCDRC's order regarding the date from which interest would become payable and the rate of interest [Paras 1-13].

Force Majeure – Inapplicability – The Court rejected the appellant's defense that delays caused by contractor disputes and boundary wall issues constituted force majeure events. The appellant, being an experienced developer, could not claim routine business delays as force majeure. This defense was similarly rejected in DLF Home Developers Ltd v. Capital Greens Flat Buyers Association [Paras 11-12].

Unfair Trade Practice – One-Sided Clauses – The Court agreed with the NCDRC that the contract's clause stipulating compensation at Rs. 2 per sq. ft. per month for delay was unfair and constituted an unfair trade practice. This clause was significantly more favorable to the developer compared to the penalties imposed on the buyer for delayed payments [Para 8].

Decision: Appeal partially allowed – The Supreme Court modified the NCDRC's order as follows:

(i) The appellant shall pay simple interest at the rate of 7% per annum from January 1, 2016, until July 26, 2018, the date on which possession was handed over to the respondent.

(ii) The award of Rs. 200,000 towards loss of rent was set aside in light of the interest compensation.

(iii) The appellant was directed to complete all necessary formalities for documentation, including registration, within one month [Paras 13-15].

Service Law – Reservation – Sections 27 and 27(f) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 – Reservation in direct recruitment – Meritorious candidates from reserved categories to be considered in the General Turn first – Backlog vacancies to be filled first among reserved category candidates – Misinterpretation of Section 27(f) caused dispute in selection process – Appeals dismissed [Paras 1-30].

Reservation – Meritorious Candidates – Reserved category candidates securing high marks to be adjusted against General Turn vacancies first – Followed by filling backlog vacancies and then current vacancies for reserved categories [Paras 23-27].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Orders of the High Court upheld – Reserved category candidates securing merit positions to be adjusted against General Turn vacancies first [Paras 30-31].

Criminal Procedure Code – Section 482 – Quashing of FIR – High Court cannot pass a blanket order of protection from arrest – Proceedings ended once High Court declined to quash the FIR – Remedies under CrPC available to accused for protecting liberty – Blanket direction impedes investigation – Appeal allowed, High Court order set aside [Paras 2-11].

Judicial Procedure – Anticipatory Bail – Section 438 CrPC – Accused can seek anticipatory bail or regular bail under Section 439 CrPC – High Court's blanket protection from arrest unjustified – Investigation and enforcement of criminal justice obstructed by such orders [Paras 8-10].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court's blanket order restraining arrest set aside – Third respondent to surrender and apply for bail – Regular bail application to be considered after hearing the public prosecutor [Paras 12-13].