Contempt of Court – Non-Compliance with Orders – Petitioner filed contempt petitions alleging non-compliance with Supreme Court's directions to determine and pay arrears of family pension – Supreme Court had previously directed the Accountant General, Uttar Pradesh, to address grievances and determine the amount payable [Paras 1, 4-5].

Disputed Facts – Jurisdiction Limits – Petitioner's change in stand regarding last pay drawn by her deceased husband led to factual disputes – Contempt jurisdiction requires clear, undisputed facts for adjudication of wilful disobedience – Supreme Court found conflicting claims regarding the last pay drawn, preventing summary adjudication [Paras 10-12].

Compliance with Directions – Affidavit by Accountant General – Respondents claimed compliance with Supreme Court's order, stating pension arrears and revised pension were being paid – Accountant General's affidavit indicated alignment with Basic Shiksha Adhikari's calculations, found no discrepancies [Paras 8-10].

Decision – Contempt petitions dismissed – No wilful disobedience found – Supreme Court closed Contempt Petition Nos. 6/2009 and 7/2009 as not requiring further orders [Paras 12].

Notice Under Section 80(1) CPC – Requirement – Respondent filed suit against State without complying with mandatory notice requirement under Section 80(1) CPC – Filed application under Section 80(2) CPC seeking exemption from notice requirement due to urgency – Trial Court and High Court presumed application under Section 80(2) granted without explicit order, rejected appellants’ applications for plaint rejection [Paras 3-10].

Legal Principle – Application of Section 80(2) CPC – Supreme Court held that mere filing of application under Section 80(2) CPC does not imply automatic grant – Court must explicitly decide application after hearing parties to determine urgency and need for immediate relief – Without such decision, irregularity of non-compliance with Section 80(1) CPC continues [Paras 24-26].

Rejection of Applications – Premature – Supreme Court found Trial Court erred in rejecting applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC without first deciding on Section 80(2) application – High Court wrongly upheld Trial Court’s decision [Paras 25-27].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court and Trial Court orders set aside – Directed Trial Court to first decide application under Section 80(2) CPC, then address applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC based on outcome [Paras 28-29].

Admissions – NEET Validity – Goa State Rules – Admission to postgraduate medical courses challenged based on the NEET results after the MCI regulations were quashed. Despite the High Court's order allowing NEET-based admissions, the State Government canceled these admissions following the Supreme Court’s judgment, leading to a legal tussle between students admitted under NEET and those qualifying under State Rules. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of NEET-qualified students, protecting their admissions as valid under the final judgment, and criticized the State Government for its imprudent cancellation order [Paras 1-23].

Judicial Overreach – High Court’s Interim Order – The High Court entertained a writ petition and passed an interim order allowing provisional admissions despite ongoing proceedings and interim orders by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court disapproved of the High Court's decision to intervene, stating that it should have refrained from passing any orders given the Supreme Court’s involvement in the matter [Paras 10-12].

Equity and Future Admissions – The Supreme Court, under Article 142, directed the State of Goa to allocate 21 medical seats and 7 dental seats transferred to the State quota from the All India quota to students admitted under the 2004 Rules. These seats were to be filled based on merit and inter se merit among these students without encroaching on the streams already allotted to NEET-qualified students. Requests for increasing seats for 2013-14 or adjusting students in the next academic year were denied to avoid prejudice against future candidates [Paras 24-32].

Decision: Writ Petition disposed of – The Supreme Court upheld the NEET-based admissions and directed the State to allocate certain transferred seats to students admitted under the 2004 Rules based on their merit, ensuring no encroachment on seats allotted to NEET-qualified students.

Striking Off Defence – Order XV Rule 5 CPC – Tenant Default – The tenant's failure to deposit rent and other charges as required under Order XV Rule 5 led to the striking off the defense by the trial court. The High Court set aside this order exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court restored the trial court's order, emphasizing that the tenant's consistent default justified the striking off of the defense [Paras 10-15].

Revisional Jurisdiction – High Court's Scope – Article 227 – The Supreme Court reiterated that the High Court should not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts unless there is a jurisdictional error or perversity. The High Court’s order lacked sufficient grounds to justify the interference with the well-reasoned orders of the lower courts [Paras 16-17].

Discretionary Power – Order XV Rule 5(2) CPC – The court highlighted the discretionary nature of the power under Order XV Rule 5(2), which allows the court to consider representations by the tenant regarding delays in rent payment. The trial court had properly exercised this discretion after noting several defaults by the tenant, thus justifying the striking off of the defense [Paras 11-12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court order set aside – Trial court order striking off the defense restored.

Contract Law – Specific Performance – Agreement of Sale – The plaintiff sought specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding the plaintiff not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The High Court reversed this decision, granting specific performance. The Supreme Court upheld the trial court's findings, emphasizing the importance of the plaintiff's readiness and willingness, and the discretion of the court under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act [Paras 1-29].

Time is of the Essence – Agreement Interpretation – The Supreme Court reiterated that while time is generally not of the essence in contracts for the sale of immovable property, it can become so if explicitly stated or inferred from the contract's terms. In this case, the agreement specified time for performance, making it an essential condition. The plaintiff's failure to perform within the stipulated time justified the refusal of specific performance [Paras 18-20].

Discretionary Relief – Equity and Hardship – The court's discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act was highlighted. Specific performance is an equitable relief, not granted automatically but based on the conduct of the parties and the surrounding circumstances. The plaintiff's inability to demonstrate readiness and willingness, coupled with the vendors' need for timely completion, justified the denial of specific performance [Paras 21-28].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Trial court judgment restored, dismissing the suit for specific performance.

Land Acquisition – Validity of Award – Section 11A – The court examined whether the Award made by the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) beyond the statutory period of two years from the publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was valid. The period during which a stay order was operative is excluded from this computation, but not the time taken to obtain a copy of the order vacating the stay. The court held that the Award was invalid as it was made beyond the statutory period even after excluding the period of the stay [Paras 7-12, 14-15].

Limitation Act – Applicability – The court discussed the inapplicability of Section 12 of the Limitation Act to the computation of the period under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act. The Limitation Act does not apply to the making of an Award by the LAO. Therefore, the time taken to obtain a copy of the judgment or order does not extend the period within which the Award must be made [Paras 13, 15-22].

Doctrine of Casus Omissus – Interpretation of Statutes – The court ruled that the doctrine of casus omissus, which allows courts to supply omissions in statutes, does not apply in this case as there was no ambiguity or unintentional omission in Section 11A. The absence of a provision for excluding the time taken to obtain a copy of the judgment is deliberate and cannot be supplied by the court [Paras 16-22].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – The Award by the LAO was invalid and the acquisition proceedings were deemed to have lapsed concerning the respondents.

Service Law – Deputation – Pay Fixation – The respondent, while on deputation, was given a higher pay scale. Upon repatriation and promotion in the parent department, his pay was fixed considering the deputation pay. The appellant (UOI) argued this was erroneous and needed rectification. The Supreme Court held that the fixation of pay at a higher scale due to deputation was indeed incorrect and required rectification. The court clarified that upon repatriation, pay should be fixed according to the parent department's rules, not the deputation post's pay scale [Paras 1-22].

Recovery of Excess Pay – The respondent was paid excess amounts due to erroneous pay fixation. The court considered earlier judgments and principles regarding recovery of excess pay and held that no recovery should be made from the respondent due to the lack of misrepresentation or fraud on his part. The court emphasized that rectification of pay does not automatically warrant recovery if the employee was unaware of the overpayment [Paras 14-23].

Natural Justice – Notice and Opportunity – The court stressed the importance of providing an opportunity to be heard before revising the pay or pension benefits, adhering to the principles of natural justice [Paras 16-17].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – The orders of the tribunal and the High Court were set aside regarding the fixation of pay and pension. The respondent's pension was directed to be fixed based on the corrected pay. However, the court ordered that no recovery of the excess amount already paid to the respondent should be made [Paras 22-23].

Murder – Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC – Sudden Fight – The appellant was convicted for the murder of the deceased following a trivial quarrel and a subsequent sudden fight. The Supreme Court examined whether the case fell under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, which applies when the act is done without premeditation, in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion, without taking undue advantage or acting in a cruel manner [Paras 3-9].

Culpable Homicide – Distinction Between Sections 302 and 304 – The Court analyzed the distinction between culpable homicide amounting to murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It considered whether the appellant had the intention to cause death or merely the knowledge that the act was likely to cause death [Paras 8-15].

Sentencing – Factors for Consideration – The Court noted several factors for consideration in determining the appropriate sentence, including the absence of premeditation, the trivial nature of the initial quarrel, the appellant’s lack of prior enmity with the deceased, and the fact that the injury was inflicted in the heat of passion during a sudden fight [Paras 15-17].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The conviction under Section 302 IPC was altered to Section 304 Part II IPC. The appellant was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50,000. The fine was directed to be paid as compensation to the widow and child of the deceased. In case of default in payment of the fine, the appellant would undergo an additional two years of imprisonment. If the appellant had already served the term, he was to be released forthwith unless required in connection with any other case [Para 17].

Animal Welfare – Transport and Slaughter – Compliance with Rules – The Supreme Court addressed concerns regarding the effective functioning of committees constituted to oversee the implementation of the Transport of Animals (Amendment) Rules, 2001, and other related regulations. The court emphasized the importance of proper implementation of these rules to prevent cruelty to animals during transportation and at slaughterhouses [Paras 1-3].

Committee Functioning – State Compliance Reports – The court directed all State Governments and Union Territories to file action taken reports detailing the functioning of the committees constituted to oversee the implementation of animal welfare regulations. The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) was instructed to finalize guidelines for the effective and proper functioning of the state committees [Para 2].

Guidelines for Animal Transportation and Slaughterhouses – The court reiterated the importance of following the guidelines issued by the MoEF, which cover various aspects such as the certification of animals for transportation, loading and unloading supervision, provision of shelter, food, and water, and inspection of slaughterhouses. These guidelines aim to ensure humane treatment of animals and proper waste management at slaughterhouses [Paras 3-4].

Decision: The court directed all State Governments and Union Territories to follow the MoEF guidelines and submit action taken reports within three months. The States of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala, Delhi, Maharashtra, and Uttar Pradesh were specifically instructed to implement the provisions of the relevant Acts and guidelines, and to file compliance reports [Para 4].