Constitutional Law – Parliamentary Privilege and Bribery - Scope of Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution - Whether legislators can claim immunity from prosecution on charges of bribery related to their speech or vote in the legislature - Majority in PV Narasimha Rao overruled; bribery not immune under parliamentary privilege - Bribery considered independent of legislator's function to vote or speak - Offense of bribery complete upon acceptance or agreement to accept illegal gratification, not contingent on performance of promised action [Paras 188.1-188.12].

Elections to Rajya Sabha - Voting by legislators in Rajya Sabha elections falls within the ambit of Article 194(2) - Voting considered part of legislative function, warranting protection to ensure free and fearless exercise of franchise [Paras 168, 184-187].

Constitutional Law – Parliamentary Privilege – Bribery and Corruption – The Supreme Court deliberated on whether the parliamentary privilege under Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution extends to immunity from prosecution for bribery in connection with a legislator's vote or speech. The Court evaluated the scope of these constitutional provisions and their application to allegations of bribery among members of Parliament and state legislatures. [Paras 92-98, 103-107, 113, 188.1-188.12]

Interpretation of Parliamentary Privilege – Held – Parliamentary privilege under Articles 105 and 194 does not grant immunity from criminal prosecution for bribery related to legislative activities. The Court clarified that while the privilege protects freedom of speech and voting in the legislature, it does not extend to criminal acts like bribery that are independent of legislative functions. [Paras 100-102, 188.4-188.7, 188.9-188.12]

Doctrine of Stare Decisis – Reconsideration of Precedents –  Court, while acknowledging the doctrine of stare decisis, decided to overrule the majority judgment in PV Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE) in light of the significant implications of the decision on public interest, probity in public life, and the foundations of parliamentary democracy. [Para 188.1]

Bribery as a Criminal Offence – The Court emphasized that the act of bribery is complete upon the acceptance or agreement to accept undue advantage, irrespective of the performance of the promised action. This finding led to the conclusion that bribery, being an independent criminal act, does not fall under the protection of parliamentary privilege. [Paras 111-117, 123-125]

Rajya Sabha Elections – Article 194(2) – The Court concluded that voting in Rajya Sabha elections by members of state legislatures falls within the ambit of Article 194(2), affirming the need for free and fearless exercise of franchise in these elections as integral to the functioning of the state legislatures and the federal structure of Indian democracy. [Paras 168-187]

Decision – Overruling PV Narasimha Rao Majority Judgment – Court, overruled the majority judgment in PV Narasimha Rao, thereby holding that parliamentary privilege does not provide immunity from criminal prosecution for bribery in legislative functions. The Court directed that the interpretation of Articles 105 and 194 should align with the foundational principles of democracy and the rule of law. [Paras 188, 189]

Will Genuineness Dispute – Question of genuineness of a Will dated 09.10.1984, executed by Palaniandi Udyar in favor of Navamani Ammal, was the central issue - Trial Court upheld Will's genuineness, reversed by First Appellate Court, but restored by High Court - Supreme Court evaluated evidence, testimonies, and circumstances surrounding Will's execution [Paras 1-2, 8-12]

Health and Consciousness of Testator – Evidence from various witnesses (PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4, DW1) considered to establish that the testator was in good senses and capable of understanding and making decisions at the time of executing the Will - Counterclaims of the testator’s ill health not found convincing [Paras 9-9.5]

Distribution of Property and Care of Testator – Testator left significant property, only a part bequeathed to respondent - Balance property for widow and daughter - Appellants not living with testator or caring for his property at his death - High Court's judgment held valid as testator's intent to provide for wife and daughter evident [Paras 10-12.2]

Admission and Denial in Pleadings – Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of specific para-wise replies in pleadings, referring to Order VIII Rules 3 and 5 of CPC - General or evasive denials insufficient - Proper compliance with these rules would streamline legal proceedings [Paras 14-15.6]

Decision: Appeal dismissed for lack of merit, upholding the High Court’s decision that the Will was not surrounded by suspicious circumstances and was genuine. [Para 16]

Arbitration – Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards – Conflict of Interest and Bias – challenge against enforcement of a foreign arbitral award on grounds of arbitrator's alleged bias and conflict of interest under Section 48 of the Indian Arbitration Act. The appellants contended that the presiding arbitrator had failed to disclose conflicts of interest, impacting his impartiality and independence, thus violating the public policy of India. [Para 6, 26-28]

Application of IBA Guidelines on Conflict of Interest – Evaluated – The court examined the application of the International Bar Association (IBA) Guidelines on Conflict of Interest in International Arbitration to determine whether there was a duty of disclosure by the arbitrator and if the alleged non-disclosure led to a conflict of interest. The court found that the arbitrator complied with the disclosure obligations, and no bias or improper conduct could be attributed to the arbitral award. [Para 30-37]

Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards – Upheld – Court underscored the need for minimal judicial intervention in foreign arbitral awards, highlighting the distinction between the standards of public policy applicable in domestic and international arbitration. The court held that refusal to enforce a foreign arbitral award on grounds of bias should be an exceptional circumstance, applying international standards over domestic ones. The award was found enforceable as the appellants failed to meet the high threshold for refusal under Section 48 of the Indian Arbitration Act. [Para 21, 27, 42-44]

Challenge at Enforcement Stage – Discouraged – The court discouraged the practice of raising challenges like arbitrator bias at the enforcement stage, stating such strategies prolong legal battles and delay the enforcement process. It emphasized the importance of timely and strategic resolution in arbitration cases, advocating for adherence to international standards in determining bias. [Para 29, 42]

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – The court dismissed the appeals, finding them devoid of merit and underscored the need for swift enforcement of the foreign arbitral award without further indulgence to the award debtors. [Para 44]

Suspension and Cancellation under PC&PNDT Act - Interpretation of Sections 20(1), (2), and (3) - The appeal focuses on the powers for cancellation, suspension, or suspension in public interest under the PC&PNDT Act - Concerns the case of suspension of registration of "Dev Hospital," Ahmedabad, without notice or hearing, deemed contrary to the provisions of the Act [Paras 2, 3, 5, 10-12, 17-18]

Administrative Action – Principles of Natural Justice – Emphasized the need for following principles of natural justice, such as issuing a show cause notice and providing an opportunity of hearing, before suspending or cancelling medical registration under the PC&PNDT Act. [Para 5, 13, 17]

Interpretation of Section 20(3) of PC&PNDT Act – Clarified – Held that the power under Section 20(3) for suspension in public interest is distinct and can be exercised independently of Sections 20(1) & (2). However, this power should be exercised sparingly and for interim periods, not indefinitely, and requires explicit reasoning demonstrating the necessity or expediency in public interest. [Para 11, 16, 17]

Decision – Upholding High Court's Judgment – The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat, which had set aside the suspension orders of the hospital's registration by the appropriate authority under the PC&PNDT Act, finding procedural impropriety and lack of adherence to principles of natural justice. [Para 13, 18]

Directive – No Additional Orders Required – Since the hospital in question is operational and the challenged suspension orders were implemented, no further orders were deemed necessary for reviving the registration. [Para 18]

Quashing of Tender Process – Civil Appeal – Tender irregularities and illegalities – Supreme Court sets aside High Court order allowing execution of project despite confirmed irregularities in tender process – Held that the action of HIMUDA (R-1) and M/s Vasu Constructions (R-2) in proceeding with the initial tender was mala fide and a misuse of legal processes, amounting to judicial oversight. Orders fresh tender process to be initiated in accordance with law. [Paras 1-14]

Due Process in Tendering – Analysis – Supreme Court criticizes HIMUDA for collusion and not acting in public interest – Emphasizes on fair and transparent tendering process in line with legal and procedural norms – Highlights the need for proper evaluation and qualification in tender processes. [Para 12]

Judicial Oversight – High Court’s Disposal of Writ Petition – Supreme Court finds fault with High Court’s acceptance of statements from respondent’s counsels without proper scrutiny – Terms the High Court’s decision as lacking proper application of mind and ignoring committee’s findings on irregularities and illegalities in the tender process. [Para 13]

Decision – Setting aside of High Court Order – Orders fresh tender process – Directs HIMUDA to deposit costs for misuse of judicial process – Supreme Court mandates HIMUDA to initiate a new, lawful, and transparent tender process, setting aside the High Court's order, and imposes a cost of Rs. 5,00,000 on HIMUDA for mala fide actions. [Para 14]

Agreement for Sale and Suit for Specific Performance – Appeal against High Court's judgment dismissing specific performance for a property sale agreement – Original agreement dated 16th January 1980 for a plot in Chandigarh – Dispute over price reduction and possession transfer – Plaintiffs, including Major Gen. Darshan Singh, alleged property possession and price reduction after the original agreement – Trial Court denied specific performance but granted damages of Rs.40,000/- [Paras 2-5].

Conduct of Plaintiffs and Suit Agreement – First plaintiff's inconsistent statements regarding possession and price of property – Suit property recognized as HUF property, contrary to plaintiff's claim in the plaint – Trial Court, Appellate Court, and High Court found plaintiffs' conduct disqualifying them from equitable relief of specific performance [Paras 10-14].

Discretionary Nature of Specific Performance – Specific performance as an equitable relief, dependent on plaintiff's conduct – Supreme Court affirmed lower courts' denial of specific performance due to plaintiffs' misleading claims and pursuit of full property rights despite knowing its HUF status [Paras 9, 14].

Modification of Trial Court's Decree – Supreme Court modifies decree to award interest at 6% per annum on Rs.40,000/- damages from the date of the Trial Court's decree until payment or realization [Para 15].

Partial Allowance of Appeal – Appeal partly allowed, modifying the Trial Court's decree concerning interest on damages – No order as to costs [Para 16].

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 – The Supreme Court considered the conviction of the appellant for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. The court thoroughly examined the evidence, including testimonies and forensic reports, to determine whether the elements of the offense were satisfied. [Para 3-44]

Evidence – Contradictions and Reliability – The Court noted substantial inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of key prosecution witnesses. It highlighted the discrepancies in the statements of family members of the deceased and the absence of critical evidence, such as the recovery of the poison or the container used for consumption. [Para 23-30, 44-45]

Abetment to Suicide – Legal Interpretation – The Court elaborated on the legal understanding of 'abetment' under IPC, especially focusing on the need for active instigation or aiding in committing suicide. It analyzed relevant case law to delineate the contours of 'instigation' and 'intention' in the context of abetment to suicide. [Para 31-39]

Forensic Evidence – Role in Suicide Cases – The judgment underscored the significance of forensic evidence in cases of death by poisoning. It emphasized the criticality of recovering traces of poison and establishing a clear link between the consumption of poison and the alleged act of abetment. [Para 41-46]

Decision - Evidence not sufficient to establish the charge of abetment to suicide - Conviction of the appellant under Section 306 IPC set aside - Bail bonds discharged [Paras 48-52].

Consumer Law – Consumer Complaint – Development Agreement – The Supreme Court considered appeals involving a development agreement dispute between the complainants and a developer, where the original developer died, and the obligations were in question. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's (NCDRC) orders were challenged, which held the legal heirs of the deceased developer responsible for completing obligations under the development agreement. [Para 1-2, 7-8, 11-12]

Obligations Under Development Agreement – Scope of Liability – The Court examined the extent to which obligations under a development agreement can be enforced against the legal heirs of a deceased sole proprietor. It delved into the nature of proprietary concerns and the distinction between proprietary and personal rights, emphasizing the inheritable and uninheritable nature of such rights. [Para 13-17, 22-24, 27-28]

Liability of Legal Heirs – Determination – The Court held that while the legal heirs are liable for monetary obligations from the estate of the deceased, they are not liable for obligations that are personal in nature and depend on the skills or expertise of the deceased. The obligations specific to the development agreement that required personal performance by the original developer were deemed unenforceable against the legal heirs. [Para 21, 26-28, 31]

Decision – Partial Discharge of Obligations – The Supreme Court set aside the part of the NCDRC's orders that imposed personal obligations under the development agreement on the legal heirs of the deceased developer. However, it upheld the orders regarding monetary payments to be made by the legal heirs from the estate of the deceased. [Para 31-32]

Amendment of Plaint in Partition Suit – High Court allowed respondents No. 1 and 2 to amend plaint for declaring a compromise decree as null and void – Appellant challenged this amendment, arguing it changed the nature of the suit from partition to declaration and was impermissible at the trial's end stage. [Paras 2, 3, 3.1]

Legal Principles on Amendment and Trial – Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC prohibits amendments after trial commencement unless due diligence is proven – Respondents failed to show due diligence in their amendment application filed at the trial's end. [Paras 3.1, 8]

Challenge to Compromise Decree – According to Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, a compromise decree can only be challenged in the court that passed it – Respondents' plea for declaring the decree null and void was time-barred under the Limitation Act. [Paras 3.4, 7]

Limitation Act – Challenge to Compromise Decree – Time Barred Amendment – The Court held that the application to amend the plaint seeking to challenge a compromise decree was time barred. The application, filed more than five years after the decree, was beyond the statutory limitation period for challenging a decree, thereby accruing rights in favor of the appellant that could not be disrupted through late amendments. [Para 12.1]

Judicial Estoppel – Impact of Consent Decree – Binding Nature unless Set Aside – The Court reiterated the principle of judicial estoppel, noting that a consent decree is binding and operates as an estoppel unless set aside by an order under the proviso to Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC. [Para 7]

Prejudice to Appellant and Suit Nature – Amendment, filed after 5 years of compromise decree, would cause undue prejudice to appellant and change the fundamental nature of the suit – Amendment sought was barred by limitation, impacting appellant's accrued rights. [Paras 12, 12.1]

Parties to Compromise Decree – Not all parties to the original compromise decree were part of the present litigation, further questioning the maintainability of the amendment. [Para 13]

Decision – Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and dismissed the application for amendment of the plaint – Respondents ordered to pay costs of ₹1,00,000/- to the appellant. [Para 14]