Consumer Law – Definition of Consumer – Appeals centered on whether vehicles purchased by a company for the use of its directors fall within the definition of "commercial purpose" under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act – National Commission held that purchases for the personal use of directors did not amount to "commercial purpose" – Supreme Court upheld this interpretation, confirming that such purchases are not for profit-generating activities and hence do not exclude the buyer from being a consumer [Paras 1-17, 26-29].

Commercial Purpose – Dominant Purpose Test – The Court reiterated that the determination of "commercial purpose" depends on the facts and circumstances of each case – Emphasized that the dominant purpose of the purchase must be examined – Purchases for personal use of directors not linked to profit generation are not considered "commercial purpose" [Paras 11-16, 29].

Defects in Goods – Deficiency in Service – Respondents-complainants reported defects in vehicles, particularly overheating issues – National Commission found the appellants liable for deficiencies in service – Supreme Court upheld the finding, directing compensation to the complainants [Paras 18-25, 30-37].

Unfair Trade Practice – Misrepresentation – National Commission found that appellants misrepresented the safety features of the vehicles, constituting an unfair trade practice under Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act – Supreme Court agreed, awarding compensation for unfair trade practice [Paras 31, 34, 39].

Decision – Appeals Partly Allowed and Dismissed – Supreme Court modified the National Commission's order to permit the respondent to retain the vehicle and directed the appellant to refund a reduced amount considering the long usage of the vehicle – Other appeals dismissed, confirming the National Commission's orders on deficiencies and unfair trade practices [Paras 40-40(II)].

Partition Suit – Burden of Proof – Matrimonial Relations – Appellant filed a suit for partition and separate possession, claiming to be the son of respondent from his marriage with Padminibai. Trial Court and First Appellate Court decreed the suit, but High Court reversed these decisions, finding inconsistencies in the evidence. Supreme Court upheld High Court’s judgment, emphasizing the heavy burden of proof on the appellant to establish the matrimonial relationship and his legitimacy, which he failed to discharge satisfactorily [Paras 1-7].

Re-Appreciation of Evidence – Scope in Second Appeal – Appellant contested the High Court’s re-evaluation of evidence in second appeal, arguing that such re-appreciation was beyond its jurisdiction. Supreme Court found that the High Court was justified in reassessing the evidence due to significant discrepancies in the appellant’s case, particularly concerning the alleged marriage and legitimacy claims [Paras 4-6].

Delay in Filing Suit – Impact on Credibility – Suit was filed approximately 16-17 years after the appellant attained majority, without any prior claim or dispute raised. This delay, combined with the lack of substantial evidence regarding the matrimonial relationship and appellant’s birth from that wedlock, weakened the appellant’s case [Para 5].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court’s judgment affirmed – Appellant failed to establish the claimed matrimonial relationship and his legitimate claim to the property. The court found no merit in the appeal and upheld the dismissal of the suit, with no order as to costs [Para 7].

Civil Procedure – Jurisdiction – Punjab Land Reforms Act – Appellants filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction asserting that land dedicated to the religious and charitable shrine Dam Dama Sahib of Una was wrongfully transferred and declared surplus. The trial court dismissed the suit; the First Appellate Court partly allowed it. The High Court set aside the First Appellate Court's judgment, citing jurisdictional bar under Section 21 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act. Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its interpretation as the issue of jurisdiction was not raised during the trial and the suit did not challenge the validity of any proceedings under the Act [Paras 1-8].

Land Reforms – Civil Court's Jurisdiction – Section 21 of Punjab Land Reforms Act – Section 21 bars Civil Court jurisdiction in specific cases: suits for specific performance of a land transfer contract and suits questioning the validity of proceedings under the Act. Appellants’ suit for declaration regarding ownership of the land did not fall under these categories. Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide if the land belonged to a religious shrine or an individual [Paras 6-7].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's order set aside – Matter remitted back to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits. No order as to costs [Paras 8-10].

Criminal Procedure – Summoning of Additional Accused – Section 319 CrPC – Respondent summoned by Trial Court to face trial for corruption charges based on witness deposition – High Court quashed the order due to lack of prior sanction under Section 19 of the P.C Act – Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, emphasizing mandatory requirement of prior sanction for public servants [Paras 1-11].

Sanction for Prosecution – Section 19 P.C Act – Requirement of Prior Sanction – Court held that prior sanction is a sine qua non for taking cognizance of offences under the P.C Act – Even under Section 319 CrPC, prosecution must first obtain sanction before summoning a public servant – Trial Court erred in not insisting on prior sanction [Paras 7-11].

Legal Precedents – Application of Dilawar Singh v. Parvinder Singh (2005) 12 SCC 709 – Supreme Court cited precedents affirming that Section 19 of P.C Act overrides Section 319 CrPC – Cognizance of offence against public servant invalid without requisite sanction [Paras 8-10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order of High Court upheld – Trial Court's order summoning respondent set aside due to lack of prior sanction under Section 19 of P.C Act.

Criminal Law – Discharge Application – Appellant sought discharge from charges of rape and criminal intimidation – Lower courts dismissed the application, framing charges based on prima facie evidence – Supreme Court re-evaluates the sufficiency of evidence, including contradictions in prosecutrix’s statements and lack of material evidence [Paras 1-19].

Consent – Misconception of Fact – Supreme Court examines the concept of consent under Section 90 IPC – Finds that prosecutrix’s consent was not vitiated by misconception or coercion – Relationship was consensual, allegations of blackmail and threats not substantiated by evidence [Paras 20-24].

Evidence – Lack of Corroboration – Court notes the absence of critical evidence such as photographs, mobile phone, and financial transactions – Finds that the prosecutrix’s claims are unsupported by tangible proof, weakening the prosecution’s case [Paras 17, 24].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Orders of the High Court and Sessions Judge set aside – Criminal proceedings quashed – Supreme Court emphasizes that continuing the trial would be an abuse of judicial process due to lack of credible evidence and consensual nature of the relationship [Paras 25-28].

Arbitration Law - Limitation for Setting Aside Award - Appellant State challenged arbitral award dated June 30, 2022 - Petition under Section 34 filed on October 31, 2022 after Pooja vacation - High Court dismissed the petition for being time-barred - Supreme Court affirmed High Court's decision - Held, limitation period expired on September 30, 2022 - No benefit under Section 4 of Limitation Act since prescribed period expired before court vacation - Petition under Section 34 not filed within extended period allowed by proviso to Section 34(3) [Paras 1-11].

Period of Limitation - Calculation under Arbitration and Conciliation Act - Limitation period for challenging arbitral award is three months - Computation of period excludes the date of receipt of award - Application filed beyond the three-month period plus maximum allowable extension of 30 days is time-barred [Paras 5-8].

Section 4 of Limitation Act - Applicability to Arbitration Cases - Explained that 'prescribed period' does not include the 30-day extension under Section 34(3) proviso - Section 4 not applicable where the original period of limitation expired before the court's closure [Paras 9-10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed - High Court's dismissal of the petition under Section 34 for being time-barred upheld - No merit in appellants' argument for extension under Limitation Act provisions [Para 11].

Criminal Law - Conviction for Murder and Unlawful Assembly - Appellants challenged the conviction under Sections 147, 148, 302 r/w 149, and 307 r/w 149 IPC - Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentences - Appellants' participation as part of the unlawful assembly with common object to commit murder established - No active role needed for conviction under Section 149 IPC [Paras 1-33].

Unlawful Assembly - Common Object - Presence of appellants at the crime scene with other accused persons sufficient for conviction under Section 149 IPC - Evidence of eye-witnesses substantiating appellants' presence and common intention - Conviction upheld despite no specific roles assigned to appellants [Paras 17-30].

Life Imprisonment - Minimum Sentence for Murder - Appellants' plea for reduction of sentence due to long incarceration rejected - Minimum sentence for murder is life imprisonment - Appellants may apply for remission or premature release as per State policy [Paras 31-32].

Decision: Appeals dismissed - Conviction and sentence upheld - Appellants may seek remission or premature release in accordance with State policy [Para 33].

Central Excise – Determination of Valuation – Issue concerning the applicability of Section 4 or Section 4A of the Central Excise Act for the goods sold by the respondent – Tribunal’s decision set aside by the Supreme Court – Section 4A applies when there is a statutory requirement to declare retail sale price on the package – HDPE bags sold by the respondent to distributors containing poly packs were held not intended for retail sale, thus exempt from Section 4A application [Paras 1-19].

Packaging Rules – Retail vs. Wholesale Packages – Analysis of whether the respondent’s packaging constitutes group packages for retail sale or wholesale packages – HDPE bags containing 100 poly packs sold to distributors held as wholesale packages not intended for retail sale – Exemption under Rule 34(b) applied due to the nature and weight of the packages [Paras 11-17].

Details of Allegations – Show Cause Notices – Allegations that the respondent-assessee was packing 33 pouches of 6 gms each of chewing tobacco and one pouch of 15 gms of chewing tobacco in a larger poly pack – Poly packs labeled with MRP considered group packages intended for retail sale – Contention by revenue that such packaging requires duty payment under Section 4A of the Excise Act – Respondent’s defense that HDPE bags containing poly packs were not meant for retail sale, and hence Section 4A was inapplicable [Paras 1-4, 7-9].

Tribunal’s Findings – Tribunal relied on the decision in Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi v. Kraftech Products Inc. to conclude that Section 4A was not applicable – Tribunal's conclusion supported by the Supreme Court, emphasizing that HDPE bags were wholesale packages and not intended for retail sale [Paras 4, 18-19].

Commissioner’s Order – Initial Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner confirming demand for differential duty, interest, and penalty on the poly packs – Commissioner’s findings that poly packs were intended for retail sale based on declarations made on the packages – HDPE bags were considered wholesale packages, not subject to retail sale price declaration requirements under Rule 29 [Paras 3-4, 14-16].

Legal Provisions – Interpretation of Section 4A of the Excise Act in conjunction with the Standards of Weights & Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules – Definition and differentiation of group packages and wholesale packages under Rules 2(g) and 2(x) – Retail sale defined under Rule 2(q) – Application of Rule 34(b) exemption for packages containing commodities sold by weight with net weight not exceeding 10 gms [Paras 9-11].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Tribunal’s judgment upheld – Section 4A(1) of the Excise Act not applicable to the goods subject matter of the show cause notices – HDPE bags treated as wholesale packages exempt from declaring retail price [Paras 18-19].

Service Law – Reservation for Disabled Candidates – The respondent, a 100% visually impaired candidate, appeared in the CSE-2008 but was denied an appointment – Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the Delhi High Court directed the Union of India to fill backlog vacancies as per the PWD Act, 1995 – Supreme Court upholds CAT and High Court decisions, directs the Union of India to reconsider the backlog vacancies and accommodate the respondent and other similarly placed candidates [Paras 1-5].

Compliance with PWD Act – The Supreme Court observed that the Union of India failed to implement the provisions of the PWD Act, 1995, resulting in unfilled backlog vacancies – It was noted that IRS (IT) and IRS (C&E) services were not exempted from the reservation for the visually impaired as per Section 33 of the PWD Act – Court directed the Union of India to redo the exercise of ascertaining backlog vacancies for visually impaired candidates [Paras 6-11].

Section 36 of the PWD Act – The Court emphasized the need for interchange of vacancies among different categories of disabilities as per Section 36 of the PWD Act to ensure that eligible candidates are accommodated – This was particularly important given the gross default by the Union of India in implementing the PWD Act provisions [Paras 10-15].

Decision – Appeal disposed of with directions – Union of India to consider respondent no.1 and other eligible visually impaired candidates for appointment against backlog vacancies within three months – Appointments to be prospective, with no arrears of salary or seniority benefits – Directions issued as a one-time measure under Article 142 of the Constitution of India [Paras 15-15(e)].