Mutual Fund Regulations – Winding Up of Schemes – Unitholder Consent – Regulation 18(15)(c) requires consent of the unitholders for winding up a mutual fund scheme – Consent by majority of the unitholders who participate in the poll is sufficient, not the consent of the majority of all unitholders of the scheme [Paras 6-9, 16-18].

Interpretation of Consent – Practical Interpretation – For mutual funds with large and fluctuating unitholder numbers, requiring consent from the majority of all unitholders is impractical and absurd – Practical interpretation requires consent from the majority of participating unitholders [Paras 10-15].

Validity of E-Voting Process – The e-voting process supervised by an observer appointed by SEBI is valid – Minor irregularities in the voting process do not vitiate the consent given by unitholders for winding up [Paras 23-40].

Appointment of Independent Agency – SBI Funds Management Pvt. Ltd. appointed to undertake the exercise of winding up, including liquidation of holdings and distribution to unitholders – To ensure the best possible liquidation value and expeditious payment [Paras 41-42].

Decision: Appeals disposed of – Unitholders' consent for winding up the six schemes upheld – Directions for SBI Funds Management Pvt. Ltd. to handle the winding up process [Paras 42].

Disability Rights – Scribe Provision – Appellant with dysgraphia requested a scribe for the CSE, which UPSC denied citing guidelines restricting scribes to candidates with benchmark disabilities – Supreme Court interprets the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, emphasizing that benchmark disability is not a precondition for obtaining a scribe – Sections 2(r) and 2(s) distinguish between benchmark disabilities and broader categories of disabilities – Guidelines by MSJE are not exhaustive; UPSC required to provide reasonable accommodations for all persons with disabilities, not limited to those with benchmark disabilities [Paras 1-42].

Reasonable Accommodation – Rights of Persons with Disabilities – Appellant entitled to scribe based on reasonable accommodation principles under Section 3 of the Act – Statutory mandate to ensure equality and non-discrimination extends to all persons with disabilities – UPSC's interpretation limiting scribes to benchmark disabilities is flawed – Reasonable accommodation must be provided to ensure full and effective participation in society [Paras 43-57].

Legal Framework – Guidelines and Statutory Interpretation – UPSC and DoPT guidelines restricting scribe provision to benchmark disabilities are inconsistent with the RPwD Act, 2016 – MSJE’s guidelines are flexible, not restrictive – Statutory rights under Section 3 extend to all persons with disabilities, ensuring dignity and equality [Paras 19-24, 29-38].

Decision: Appeal allowed – UPSC directed to provide a scribe for the appellant in the CSE – Court underscores the need for inclusive interpretation of disability rights, ensuring reasonable accommodation beyond benchmark disabilities [Paras 57-60].

Writ Petition – Jurisdiction – Real Estate – Appellant seeks writs under Article 32 for various reliefs including cancellation of agreements, refunds, or completion of construction – Supreme Court holds it inappropriate to entertain such petitions under Article 32 due to existence of specific statutory provisions and remedies under the Consumer Protection Act, RERA, and IBC – Judicial review should not involve day-to-day supervision of a building project [Paras 1-8].

Alternative Remedies – Consumer Protection Act – RERA – IBC – Statutory mechanisms provide adequate relief for real estate purchasers – Representative complaints and class actions available – Real estate grievances to be addressed through statutory fora rather than direct intervention by Supreme Court under Article 32 [Paras 7-8].

Judicial Supervision – Limitations – Managing a construction project beyond judicial competence under Article 32 – Existing legal framework provides adequate procedural avenues for complaints, investigations, and redressal – Day-to-day supervision by court deemed inappropriate and inefficient use of judicial resources [Paras 6-8].

Decision: Writ petition under Article 32 dismissed – Petitioners directed to seek remedies under relevant statutory provisions – Clarification that this decision does not affect ongoing cases like Amrapali or Unitech projects where the Supreme Court has intervened for home buyers [Paras 9].

Arbitration – Appealability of Refusal to Condon Delay – Question of law whether a single Judge's order refusing to condone delay in filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 is appealable under Section 37(1)(c) – Supreme Court holds that an appeal under Section 37(1)(c) is maintainable against an order refusing to condone delay in filing an application under Section 34 – The decision emphasizes the importance of minimal judicial intervention in arbitration, but not at the expense of rights explicitly provided for in the Arbitration Act [Paras 1-38].

Condonation of Delay – Section 34 of Arbitration Act – Interpretation – Application under Section 34 must comply with both sub-sections (2) and (3) – Delay beyond prescribed period cannot be condoned under Section 5 of Limitation Act – Essence of appeal lies in the effect of refusal to condone delay, effectively denying the setting aside of an arbitral award [Paras 7-12, 19-23].

Precedent and Legal Interpretation – Reference to judgments under Section 39 of the 1940 Act – Court reaffirms the applicability of Essar Constructions judgment – Distinction between refusal to set aside award on merits and preliminary orders is crucial for appealability [Paras 10-22, 29-30].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of the Division Bench under appeal is set aside – Matter remitted to Division Bench of High Court of Delhi to decide on the Single Judge's refusal to condone delay [Paras 37-39].

Criminal Law – Custodial Death – Appellants, police officers, convicted for beating the deceased in police custody leading to death – High Court upheld convictions under Sections 324/34 IPC and 471/34 IPC – Appeal challenges conviction and seeks compounding of offences – Supreme Court rejects compounding, emphasizing severity of custodial violence and need for stringent punishment [Paras 1-38].

Compensation – Reduction of Sentence – Appellants over 75 years old and willing to compensate the deceased's family – Supreme Court reduces sentence under Section 324 IPC from one year to six months – Compensation of Rs. 3.5 lakhs each to be paid to the legal heirs in addition to compensation awarded by High Court [Paras 39-44].

Custodial Violence – Legal Principles – Emphasis on police responsibility to uphold law – Custodial violence viewed as crime against humanity and violation of Article 21 rights – Court underscores importance of deterrent punishment to maintain public confidence [Paras 40-43].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Sentence reduced to six months – Compensation enhanced – Court rejects compounding of offence considering nature and severity of custodial violence.

Consumer Protection – Delay in Filing Written Statement – Appellants challenged the rejection of their application for condonation of delay in filing the written statement to a consumer complaint – Written statement required within 30 days, extendable by a further 15 days under Section 13 of the Act – District Forum has no power to extend beyond this period – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-6].

Jurisdiction – Section 13 of Consumer Protection Act – No jurisdiction for consumer fora to accept written statements beyond 45 days – National Commission's decision aligned with Constitution Bench’s interpretation – Constitution Bench decision applies prospectively, but does not affect complaints filed prior to this decision – Condonation of delay cannot be granted as per precedent [Paras 3-6].

Procedure – Written Statement Submission – Despite sufficient time, appellants failed to file within prescribed limit – Citing precedents, court holds no merit in appeal – No jurisdiction to condone delay [Paras 4-6].

Decision: Special Leave Petition dismissed – Confirmation of the National Commission's decision rejecting condonation of delay in filing the written statement.

Disability Compensation – Heart Ailment – Seaman's claim for disability compensation due to Dilated Cardiomyopathy under the National Maritime Board Agreement – Supreme Court held heart ailment not covered as "injury" under Clause 5.9.F(ii) of the Agreement – Appellant's condition does not fall within the ambit of specified disabilities under either the 1995 or 2016 Disability Acts – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-19].

National Maritime Board Agreement – Interpretation – Clause 21 covers 100% disability due to injury while in employment – Clause 25 covers severance compensation for those medically unfit for sea service – Appellant's heart ailment not considered an "injury" suffered during sea service – Severance compensation under Clause 25 applicable, not disability compensation [Paras 8-15].

Disability Acts – Applicability – Heart ailment (Dilated Cardiomyopathy) not classified as a disability under the 1995 or 2016 Acts – Definition of disability under Sections 2(i) and 2(s) does not include heart ailments – Appellant not entitled to benefits under Section 47 of the Disability Act [Paras 16-18].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court judgment upheld – Appellant not entitled to 100% disability compensation – Appellant's condition does not qualify as a disability under relevant Acts.

Negotiable Instruments – Dishonour of Cheque – Presumption – High Court reversed acquittal by trial court – Supreme Court held once signatures on the cheque are established, statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 NI Act applies – Trial court erred in questioning complainant's evidence on source of funds – Presumption of debt shifts burden to accused – High Court did not err in discarding appellants' defence – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-22].

Presumption under NI Act – Reverse Onus – Once cheque is signed, presumption of debt or liability applies – Accused must rebut presumption by showing preponderance of probability – Mere denial or claims of blank cheque misuse insufficient – Defence must meet standard of probability [Paras 14-19].

Compensation and Punishment – Object of NI Act includes punitive, compensatory, and restitutive elements – Consistent approach needed in awarding compensation – Fine up to twice the cheque amount with interest generally imposed unless special circumstances exist – In this case, compensation claim not maintainable as respondent did not seek it in High Court – Amount deposited with Supreme Court to be transferred to respondent [Paras 20-22].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court judgment modified to remove imprisonment in light of cheque amount already deposited – Amount of Rs. 11.20 lakhs with interest to be transferred to respondent.

Forest Law – Compensation for Dispossession – Appellants challenged the High Court's direction to pay compensation to respondents for land declared non-vested under the 1971 Act but later as ecologically fragile under the 2003 Act – Supreme Court held respondents entitled to compensation for loss of enjoyment and benefits of the land prior to 2003 enactment – Directed payment of 50% of land value as assessed by the Tehsildar [Paras 1-14].

Ecologically Fragile Lands – Vesting and Compensation – Land declared ecologically fragile under 2003 Act, vesting in government with no compensation payable for the land itself – Supreme Court clarified that respondents' right to compensation for dispossession and lost benefits prior to 2003 Act remains – Judgment of High Court modified to award compensation for loss of benefits [Paras 7-14].

Legal Principles – Right to Compensation – Right to possession and enjoyment of land established by prior judgment – State's inability to restore land necessitates compensation for deprivation period – Equitable relief granted by awarding 50% of assessed land value [Paras 12-14].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Judgment of High Court modified – Respondents awarded compensation at 50% of land value as assessed by Tehsildar, payable within three months or with interest thereafter.