Freedom Fighter's Pension – Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme – Appeal against High Court's direction for grant of pension – Respondent's initial application in 1997 rejected – Second application in 2017 without fulfilling scheme requirements – High Court issued directions without notice to appellant – Supreme Court emphasized compliance with scheme criteria and procedural fairness [Paras 1-32].

Judicial Review – Procedural Fairness – High Court’s direction for grant of pension without notice and opportunity for appellant to respond – Rejection of initial application not disclosed in second application – High Court erred in issuing positive directions for pension without examining compliance with scheme conditions [Paras 16-28].

Eligibility Criteria – Scheme Compliance – Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme mandates specific documents and recommendations – Respondent failed to provide required proof – Competent authority to evaluate eligibility – High Court’s order set aside for not considering documentary evidence and procedural requirements [Paras 24-31].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Writ petition dismissed – Compliance with scheme criteria mandatory for pension eligibility [Para 32].

Arbitration Law – Appointment of Arbitrator – Dispute over Development Agreement for Wind Farm Project – Arbitration clause under the Agreement – Respondent's invocation of arbitration and nomination of arbitrator – Appellant's registration under MSMED Act and referral to Facilitation Council – High Court's observation on lack of provision for counter-claims under MSMED Act – Agreement to refer disputes to arbitration under 1996 Act – Appointment of Sole Arbitrator by Supreme Court [Paras 1-8].

MSMED Act – Counter-Claims – No provision under MSMED Act for counter-claims – Parties’ Development Agreement referred all disputes under 1996 Act – MSMED Act's overriding effect not applicable due to absence of provision for counter-claims – Facilitation Council proceedings closed [Paras 6-9].

Decision – Appeal disposed of – Justice K. Kannan appointed as Sole Arbitrator – Arbitral proceedings to be conducted under 1996 Act by Madras High Court Arbitration Centre – Facilitation Council proceedings closed [Para 10].

Pension Scheme – Cut-Off Date – Retired Employees – Appeal against High Court's decision quashing cut-off date for pension eligibility – Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) governed employees retired before 05.06.1995 – Pension Scheme introduced from 05.06.1995 – High Court held cut-off date arbitrary – Supreme Court upheld the validity of the cut-off date as approved by Cabinet – Pension Scheme not applicable to employees retired prior to 05.06.1995 [Paras 1-22].

Homogeneous Class – Classification Justification – Employees retired before and after cut-off date constitute different classes – CPF beneficiaries received benefits on retirement – Pensioners and CPF beneficiaries not a homogeneous class – Financial constraints and policy decisions justified fixing cut-off date [Paras 9-21].

Judicial Review – Cut-Off Date – Limited Interference – Financial considerations valid for policy decisions – Courts should not interfere unless classification is arbitrary or capricious – High Court's lack of independent assessment led to erroneous judgment [Paras 18-22].

Decision – Civil appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Writ petition dismissed – Cut-off date of 05.06.1995 for Pension Scheme upheld [Paras 21-22].

Registration Act – Family Settlement – Non-registration of decree – Decree based on admission recognizing pre-existing rights under a family arrangement does not require registration under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act – Family settlement exempted from registration if it pertains to the subject matter of the suit [Paras 1-20].

Family Settlement – Definition of Family – Settlement must involve parties related to one another with a possible claim to the property – Broader interpretation of "family" includes those related by love and affection or potential succession – Nephews of a widow not considered strangers for the purposes of family settlement [Paras 21-28].

Hindu Succession Act – Succession of Female Hindus – Section 15(1)(d) includes heirs of the father as successors – Heirs of the father are not strangers to the family – Widow's absolute ownership upheld under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act [Paras 26-28].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – High Court judgment upheld – Decree based on family settlement not requiring registration affirmed – Defendants-respondents recognized as legitimate beneficiaries under the family settlement [Para 29].

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Appointment of arbitrator – Contract Agreement executed for construction works on the Punatsangchhu-I Hydro-electric Project in Bhutan – High Court held that Clause 67(ii) of the Agreement did not imply cessation of the 1996 Act upon enactment of the Bhutan Act – The Bhutan Act 2013 does not make the 1996 Act inapplicable – Arbitration to be governed by the 1996 Act – Court exercised jurisdiction under Section 11 and appointed arbitrator due to Hydro-electric Authority's failure to do so – High Court Order modified with parties’ consensus to conduct arbitration under the Bhutan Act 2013 with the seat of arbitration at Thimphu [Paras 1-9].

Appointment of Arbitrator – Clause 67 of Contract – Arbitration under Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 maintained despite enactment of Bhutan Act 2013 – Section 11 application filed due to failure of appointing arbitrator – Delhi High Court directed appointment under 1996 Act – Supreme Court modifies order for arbitration under Bhutan Act 2013 by mutual agreement – Seat of arbitration agreed to be at Thimphu with tribunal liberty for venue adjustments [Paras 6-9].

Decision: Appeal disposed of with modification of High Court order – Arbitration to proceed under Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of Bhutan 2013 – Seat of arbitration at Thimphu – Tribunal may consult parties for convenient venues – No order as to costs.

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].