Land Acquisition — De-Notification — Section 48(1) of Land Acquisition Act — Division Bench failed to consider gross illegality in de-notification ordered by the Minister — Possession already handed over to the State — Civil Court decree did not prevent authorities from taking possession through legal means — Single Judge's order restoring status quo upheld — Division Bench's order set aside [Paras 1-19].

Writ Jurisdiction — Article 226 of Constitution — High Courts have broad powers to correct manifest injustices and apparent errors — Court can issue orders to remedy gross illegalities and ensure justice — Judicial review appropriate where statutory authority exceeds jurisdiction or fails to administer the law correctly [Paras 14-18].

Procedural Regularity — Possession and Compensation — Possession taken and handed over to State following due process under Land Acquisition Act — Compensation paid and Mahazar drawn in presence of witnesses — Subsequent de-notification found to be without legal basis [Paras 2-12].

Decision — Appeals allowed — Division Bench order set aside — Single Judge's order dated 26.08.2002 restored — Legal principles reaffirmed on jurisdiction and procedural propriety [Paras 19-20].

Land Acquisition — Lapsing of Reservation — Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 — If land reserved under the Development plan is not acquired or no steps are commenced within six months of the notice under Section 127, the reservation lapses — Mere passing of a resolution or sending a letter to the Collector does not amount to the commencement of acquisition proceedings — Appeals dismissed [Paras 20-22].

Interpretation of Statutes — Procedural Safeguards — Statutory provisions ensuring the rights of landowners must be strictly followed — Section 127 provides a safeguard against the arbitrary and prolonged reservation of land without compensation — Failure to act within the stipulated period results in the lapsing of reservation [Paras 18, 21].

Judicial Review — Legislative Intent — The intent of the legislature is clear in ensuring timely action for the acquisition of land reserved under the Development plan — Any interpretation contrary to this intent would render the provisions unworkable and unjust to landowners [Paras 20-22].

Decision — Appeals dismissed — High Court's order upheld — Reservation of land in question lapsed as no steps were taken for its acquisition within the prescribed period [Para 23].

Patent Law — Patentability under Section 3(d) — Patents Act, 1970 — Appellant's claim for patent on beta crystalline form of Imatinib Mesylate — Assistant Controller and IPAB rejected the claim on grounds of anticipation by prior publication, obviousness, and non-patentability under Section 3(d) — IPAB reversed findings on anticipation and obviousness but upheld non-patentability under Section 3(d) — Supreme Court found no force in submission that development of Imatinib Mesylate from Imatinib constitutes a new invention outside the Zimmermann patent — Appeals dismissed [Paras 1-22, 36-41].

Interpretation of Section 3(d) — Enhanced Efficacy — The court emphasized that Section 3(d) requires a demonstration of enhanced efficacy for derivatives of known substances — Imatinib Mesylate in beta crystalline form found to lack substantial increase in efficacy over the known substance Imatinib — Application of Section 3(d) to prevent evergreening of patents affirmed [Paras 10-18, 32-35].

Impact on Public Health — Balancing TRIPS Obligations and Public Health — The court acknowledged the need to balance international obligations under TRIPS with public health considerations — Emphasized the importance of maintaining affordable access to life-saving drugs while promoting innovation — Doha Declaration's affirmation of TRIPS flexibilities noted [Paras 60-66].

Decision — Appeals dismissed — Application of Section 3(d) upheld — Beta crystalline form of Imatinib Mesylate not patentable due to lack of enhanced efficacy [Paras 22, 41].

Criminal Law – Vicarious Liability – Summoning of Directors and Officials: High Court quashed the summons issued against the directors and officials of India Infoline Ltd., holding that the complaint lacked specific allegations detailing the individual roles of the directors in the alleged offenses. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, emphasizing that criminal liability cannot be attributed to corporate officials without specific allegations indicating their direct involvement [Paras 1-22].

Complaint and Summoning Order – Specific Allegations Required: The Supreme Court highlighted that the complaint must contain specific allegations against each accused, detailing their individual roles and actions. Vague and general allegations are insufficient to summon corporate directors and officials [Paras 11-13, 18-19].

Abuse of Process – Summoning without Prima Facie Case: The Supreme Court stressed that summoning an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and should not be done mechanically. The Magistrate must apply judicial mind and record satisfaction about the prima facie case based on specific allegations and evidence. The Court found the summoning order in this case lacked such satisfaction and amounted to abuse of process [Paras 14-19].

Civil Dispute – Not a Criminal Offense: The Court reiterated that not every breach of trust or cheating constitutes a criminal offense. Situations where allegations predominantly point to a civil dispute should not be converted into criminal cases [Paras 13, 15].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to quash the summons against the directors and officials of India Infoline Ltd., emphasizing the necessity of specific allegations and proper judicial application before summoning in criminal cases [Paras 21-22].

Co-operative Societies – Bifurcation – Tenant-Members’ Rights: The Supreme Court addressed the prolonged litigation involving the bifurcation of the Bombay Catholic Co-operative Housing Society and the protection of tenant-members' rights. The appellants, tenant-members of the society, sought bifurcation to form a separate entity exclusively for tenant-members, claiming inadequate representation and protection of their interests [Paras 11-14, 21-22].

Interim Relief – Balance of Convenience: The Court considered the balance of convenience in granting or denying interim relief. It was noted that the appellant tenant-members, forming a small minority, were obstructing the redevelopment plan beneficial to a larger number of society members. The balance of convenience favored allowing the redevelopment to proceed [Paras 26-30].

Status of Tenant-Members – Cooperative Society Membership: The Court reaffirmed that tenant-members would not lose their cooperative society membership post-redevelopment. The new buildings would house both allottee-members and tenant-members, ensuring their continued membership in the redeveloped society [Paras 28-29].

Previous Litigation – Finality of Orders: The Court highlighted the finality of previous litigation upholding the society's redevelopment resolution dated 25.9.1966. The repeated challenges by the tenant-members had been dismissed at various levels, establishing the legality of the redevelopment plan [Paras 30-31].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench's order vacating interim protection for the tenant-members. The redevelopment plan approved by the society was allowed to proceed, with the tenant-members retaining their membership rights in the redeveloped property [Paras 34-35].

Criminal Law – Circumstantial Evidence – Standard of Proof: The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellants, emphasizing the adherence to the "five golden principles" for establishing guilt based on circumstantial evidence. The principles include that the circumstances must be fully established, consistent with the hypothesis of guilt, of a conclusive nature, excluding every possible hypothesis except guilt, and forming a complete chain of evidence [Paras 4-6].

Last Seen Theory – Reliability of Witnesses: The Court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, who claimed to have last seen the deceased in the company of the appellants, credible and reliable. This was corroborated by other circumstantial evidence, leading to the conclusion that the appellants were involved in the kidnapping and murder [Paras 11-12].

Motive – Hostile Relations: The prosecution successfully established that the appellants had a motive for committing the crime, rooted in hostile relations with the family of the deceased. The threats made by one of the accused further supported the motive [Paras 7, 13].

Recovery of Incriminating Articles: The recovery of blood-stained clothes from one of the accused, which matched the blood of the deceased, was a significant factor in affirming the guilt of the appellants. The forensic evidence corroborated the prosecution's case [Para 15].

Discrepancies in Evidence – Not Fatal: Minor discrepancies in the description of the dead body by prosecution witnesses were deemed insufficient to discredit the entire case, especially considering the condition of the body when found [Para 14].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – The Supreme Court affirmed the life sentences awarded to the appellants by the trial court and upheld by the High Court, finding the circumstantial evidence compelling and sufficient to support the conviction [Paras 16].

Civil Procedure – Execution of Decrees – Objection under Section 47 CPC: The Supreme Court evaluated the justifiability of the delay in filing a revision petition by the State after the dismissal of its objection under Section 47 CPC. The Court found that the objection to the execution of the decree, raised several decades after the original decree, was a tactic to delay the process unduly and lacked sufficient cause [Paras 7-12].

Limitation and Delay – Condonation – Sufficient Cause: The Court reiterated the principles guiding the condonation of delay, emphasizing that while a liberal approach is often adopted, especially for the State, there must be no gross negligence or deliberate inaction. The Court held that the State had not shown sufficient cause for the delay in challenging the decree, which had been affirmed in appeal long ago [Paras 9-11].

Article 227 – High Court's Supervisory Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court scrutinized the High Court’s exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, concluding that the High Court erred in adopting a lenient approach without considering the extensive delay and lack of sufficient cause [Paras 8, 12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order condoning the delay in filing the revision petition by the State. The application for condonation of delay was rejected, emphasizing the need for prompt action in litigation and the avoidance of unnecessary delays [Paras 12].

Mortgage – Redemption – Revenue Recovery: The Supreme Court held that the sale of the mortgaged property under revenue recovery proceedings for agricultural income tax arrears extinguished the mortgagor's rights. The Court emphasized that agricultural income tax is a personal liability of the landowner and not a charge on the land itself [Paras 16-21].

Statutory Interpretation – Section 76(c) of the Transfer of Property Act: The Court interpreted Section 76(c) of the Transfer of Property Act, clarifying that the mortgagee's obligation to pay "Government dues" pertains to charges of a public nature and not personal liabilities such as agricultural income tax [Para 26].

Contractual Obligations – Mortgage Deeds: The Court analyzed the mortgage deeds, concluding that the mortgagee was not contractually obligated to pay the agricultural income tax on behalf of the mortgagor. The mortgagee's responsibility was limited to Government dues directly related to the land [Paras 17-18].

Fraud and Collusion – Revenue Sale: The Court found no evidence of fraud or collusion in the public auction sale of the property. The sale was conducted to recover agricultural income tax dues, and the mortgagor's failure to challenge the sale promptly indicated a lack of bona fide dispute [Paras 21-22].

Decision: Appeals allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the First Appellate Court and the High Court, restoring the Trial Court's judgment that dismissed the suit for redemption. The sale under revenue recovery proceedings extinguished the mortgagor's rights [Para 27].

Minority Rights – Establishment and Administration of Institutions – State as Unit: The Supreme Court held that to claim linguistic minority status in a state, the institution must be established and administered by individuals who are minorities in that state. The Court emphasized that the place of residence of the trustees is relevant in determining minority status [Paras 13, 24].

Government Resolution – Recognition of Minority Status: The Government Resolution dated 4.7.2008 outlines the conditions for granting minority status to educational institutions. The Court upheld the withdrawal of the appellant's minority status as it did not meet the criteria specified, including the requirement that trustees should be residents of the state [Paras 17-19, 23].

Interpretation of Article 30: The Court reiterated that Article 30(1) provides protection to minorities to establish and administer educational institutions. However, the institution must be genuinely established by and for the minority community within the state where the minority status is claimed [Paras 25-26, 31].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the High Court and the competent authority's order, holding that the appellant does not qualify for linguistic minority status in Maharashtra as its trustees reside outside the state [Para 31].