Injunction – Prima Facie Case, Balance of Convenience, Irreparable Injury – Appeals challenging temporary injunction granted by trial court and affirmed by High Court in a suit for specific performance – Supreme Court set aside the injunction, finding the Respondent’s claimed damages as adequate remedy, thereby negating the necessity for an injunction [Paras 1-18].

Temporary Injunction – Legal Standards – Reiterated principles for granting temporary injunctions: prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury – Respondent’s claim for substantial monetary damages indicated compensability, negating the 'irreparable injury' requirement for injunction [Paras 6, 14-17].

Specific Relief – Non-Enforceable Contracts – Cited provisions of Specific Relief Act under which agency contracts, being determinable and involving continuous duty, cannot be specifically enforced – Respondent’s contract did not qualify for specific performance, influencing decision to set aside injunction [Paras 7-11].

Court’s Discretion and Equity – Emphasized that injunctions should not be granted if monetary compensation suffices – Applied equitable principles to deny relief that extended beyond monetary damages claimed by the Respondent [Paras 15-18].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Temporary injunction orders by trial court and High Court set aside – No costs awarded [Para 18].

Constitutional Law – Article 14 – Equality before Law – Petitioners challenged the Government of India’s 2011 Hajj Policy which required private operators to have a minimum office area of 250 sq. ft. – High Court dismissed the challenge but gave directions for seat allocation – Supreme Court stayed the High Court’s order and later reviewed the policy – Emphasized the need for a transparent and equitable process in registration and seat allocation for private operators [Paras 1-12].

Judicial Review – Policy Scrutiny – Supreme Court decided to examine the Hajj policy comprehensively – Directed the Government to file an affidavit with the 2012 Hajj Policy – Various intervention petitions filed by private operators/travel agents highlighting eligibility conditions for registration [Paras 2-4].

Private Tour Operators (PTOs) – Eligibility Conditions – Supreme Court examined the eligibility conditions for registration as PTOs – Found no arbitrariness in the requirement for a minimum office area of 250 sq. ft. – Upheld conditions ensuring genuine operators and preventing malpractices – Emphasized protecting the interests of pilgrims [Paras 24-26].

Interim Relief and Final Adjudication – Supreme Court proposed dealing with priority issues in the 2012 Hajj Policy while leaving others for later adjudication – Affirmed the legality of stringent conditions for PTO registration to ensure quality service to pilgrims [Paras 19-26].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court’s directions set aside – Government of India’s 2012 Hajj Policy approved with certain recommendations for improvement in transparency and procedural fairness [Paras 34-36].

Criminal Law – Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence – Appellants convicted for the murder of Loganathan, the brother-in-law of accused Chandran, based on circumstantial evidence and extra-judicial confession – Supreme Court examined the reliability of the extra-judicial confession and the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution [Paras 1-36].

Extra-Judicial Confession – Weakness and Requirements – Supreme Court reiterated that an extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and must be corroborated by other reliable evidence – In this case, the confession was found to lack corroboration and to be surrounded by suspicious circumstances – Confession alone was insufficient for conviction [Paras 11-28].

Medical Evidence – Inconsistencies and Corroboration – Medical evidence presented by the prosecution contained inconsistencies regarding the time of death and the presence of kerosene on the deceased’s body – Supreme Court found these discrepancies weakened the prosecution’s case and undermined the reliability of the extra-judicial confession [Paras 22-23, 36-38].

Theory of Last Seen – Application and Limitations – Supreme Court discussed the application of the “last seen together” theory – Found that the time gap between when the deceased was last seen and the discovery of the body was too long to support a conviction solely on this basis – Witness statements did not conclusively establish the presence of the accused with the deceased at the relevant time [Paras 29-35].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction and life sentence set aside – Appellants acquitted due to lack of reliable evidence and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case – Directed that the benefit of this judgment be extended to the non-appealing accused, Chandran, who is in jail [Paras 39-41].

Criminal Law – Reversal of Acquittal – High Court reversed the Trial Court's acquittal of appellants, convicting them under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC – Supreme Court evaluated the evidence, including eyewitness testimonies and medical reports, finding no material contradictions that could overturn the High Court’s decision [Paras 1-17].

Eyewitness Credibility – Testimonies of PWs 5 and 6 were found consistent and reliable despite minor discrepancies – Supreme Court held that minor inconsistencies do not undermine the overall credibility of eyewitness accounts [Paras 9-13].

Medical Evidence – Corroboration with Eyewitness Accounts – Injuries on the deceased and injured witness matched the account given by eyewitnesses – Supreme Court upheld that medical findings supported the prosecution's case [Paras 22-23, 36-38].

Weapons Identification – Panch witnesses' identification of weapons recovered at the instance of the accused considered reliable – Supreme Court rejected the argument that non-recognition of weapons by eyewitnesses was fatal to the prosecution's case [Paras 24-25].

Behavior of Witnesses – Witness behavior during and after the incident considered realistic and within the realm of natural human response to traumatic events – Supreme Court dismissed arguments that unusual behavior should cast doubt on their testimonies [Paras 22-23].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and life sentence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC upheld – Appellants directed to be taken into custody to serve the sentence [Para 27].

Constitutional Law – Repugnancy and Supremacy of Parliament – Appeals questioned when the repugnancy between the Kerala Chitties Act, 1975, and the Central Chit Funds Act, 1982, arises – Supreme Court examined whether repugnancy occurred upon the Central Act’s enactment or its commencement in the State – Held that repugnancy arises when the Central Act is made (enacted) and not when it is brought into force in the State [Paras 1-17].

Legal Interpretation – Meaning of “Made” – Discussed the significance of the term "made" in Articles 245 and 254 of the Constitution – Supreme Court clarified that "made" refers to the legislative process being complete upon receiving the President's assent and publication in the Gazette – Enactment and not commencement determines the onset of repugnancy [Paras 16-17].

Precedent and Legislative Intent – Reviewed case law to support interpretation – Emphasized intention of Parliament to occupy the entire field of legislation regarding chit funds as indicated in the Central Act – Highlighted the importance of legislative intent in determining repugnancy [Paras 16-17].

Effect of Repeal – Discussed the effect of the repeal of State law under Article 254(1) – State law becomes void to the extent of repugnancy – Acknowledged that legislative vacuum should be avoided, but repugnancy is determined by legislative act, not by subsequent enforcement [Paras 16-17].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Kerala Chitties Act, 1975, held repugnant to Central Chit Funds Act, 1982, from the date the Central Act was enacted (August 19, 1982) – Section 4(1a) of the Kerala Act declared void for want of Presidential assent under Article 254(2) [Para 17].

Criminal Law – Conviction for Murder – Appellant convicted for the murder of Smt. Nagaratna – High Court affirmed Trial Court's judgment based on circumstantial evidence and eyewitness testimonies – Supreme Court reviewed evidence and upheld conviction, finding no material discrepancies that would overturn the High Court’s decision [Paras 1-17].

Eyewitness Testimonies – Reliability and Consistency – Statements of eyewitnesses PW1 and PW2 were found credible despite minor inconsistencies – Supreme Court held that minor discrepancies do not undermine the overall reliability of the accounts provided by these witnesses [Paras 9-13].

Circumstantial Evidence – Chain of Events – Evidence presented by prosecution established a consistent and credible chain of events leading to the appellant's guilt – Supreme Court upheld that circumstantial evidence sufficiently pointed to the appellant’s guilt [Paras 14-17].

Medical Evidence – Corroboration – Injuries on the deceased were consistent with the account provided by eyewitnesses – Supreme Court upheld the reliability of medical evidence supporting the prosecution’s case [Paras 22-23, 36-38].

Delay in FIR – Justification – Delay in lodging FIR was justified based on the circumstances surrounding the death of the deceased – Supreme Court held that the delay did not cast doubt on the prosecution's case [Paras 16].

Judicial Interpretation – Statements Under Section 313 CrPC – Appellant's denial of involvement and failure to provide explanation during Section 313 CrPC examination was considered by the Supreme Court – Adverse inference drawn from the appellant’s lack of explanation [Paras 17-19].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and life sentence under Section 302 IPC upheld – Directions for disciplinary action against negligent police officials [Para 26].

Arbitration – Appointment of Arbitrator – Petition for appointment of an arbitrator under Sections 11(5) and (9) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, due to disputes related to the supply of defective billets – Supreme Court appointed an independent and impartial arbitrator to resolve the disputes [Paras 1-19].

Contract Disputes – Quality and Specifications – Disputes arose from the supply of Prime Alloy Steel Billets not meeting specified quality and physical standards – Applicant claimed billets were defective, leading to multiple communications and failed attempts at joint inspection and amicable settlement [Paras 3-6].

Legal Precedents – Relevance and Application – Supreme Court referenced judgments in S.B.P. and Co. vs. Patel Engineering Ltd. and Another and National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. BogharaPolyfab Pvt. Ltd., emphasizing the wide ambit of arbitration clauses and the necessity of resolving genuine disputes through arbitration [Paras 9-12].

Arbitration Clause – Scope and Interpretation – Clause in the contract covered all disputes and differences arising from the contract, mandating resolution through arbitration as per Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Supreme Court upheld the clause's applicability to the present disputes [Paras 12-16].

Bonafide Disputes – Determination and Referral – Court found bonafide disputes existed regarding the quality of supplied billets, payment of amounts drawn against Letter of Credit, and additional costs incurred – Directed all disputes to be resolved through arbitration [Paras 16-17].

Decision – Petition allowed – All disputes referred to arbitration – Hon. Mr. Justice S.N. Variava appointed as Sole Arbitrator – Registry directed to communicate the order to the Sole Arbitrator for expeditious resolution [Paras 17-19].

Criminal Law – Conspiracy and Murder – Appellants convicted for murder and conspiracy to commit murder – High Court upheld the Trial Court's judgment based on consistent eyewitness testimonies and circumstantial evidence – Supreme Court reviewed and found no material discrepancies, thereby upholding the convictions and sentences [Paras 1-17].

Eyewitness Testimonies – Reliability and Consistency – Statements of eyewitnesses PW-10 and PW-11 were found credible despite minor inconsistencies – Supreme Court held that minor discrepancies do not undermine the overall reliability of eyewitness accounts [Paras 9-13].

Medical Evidence – Corroboration with Eyewitness Accounts – Injuries on the deceased matched the account given by eyewitnesses – Supreme Court upheld that medical findings supported the prosecution's case [Paras 22-23, 36-38].

Confessional Statements and Recoveries – Admissibility and Segregation – Supreme Court upheld the recovery of the motorcycle used in the crime based on the admissible part of the confessional statement made by the accused – Inadmissible parts were segregated [Paras 17-21].

Delay in FIR – Justification – Delay in lodging FIR explained based on the circumstances – Supreme Court held that the delay did not cast doubt on the prosecution's case [Paras 22, 26-30].

Judicial Interpretation – Conspiracy and Common Intention – Supreme Court upheld that Jitender Kumar was guilty of conspiracy under Section 120B IPC, which made him liable for the offense of murder committed in furtherance of the conspiracy [Paras 24-25].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Convictions and life sentences under Sections 302 and 120B IPC upheld – Directions for continued custody and serving of sentences [Para 57].

Admissions – Cancellation of MBBS Admissions – Appeals challenging cancellation of admissions to MBBS course based on alleged violations of procedural rules and fairness – Supreme Court reviewed the procedural irregularities and favoritism involved – Upheld the cancellation but provided conditional relief due to the substantial completion of the course by the appellants [Paras 1-17, 30-31].

Procedural Fairness – Violation of Natural Justice – Admissions were cancelled without providing an opportunity for appellants to be heard – Supreme Court acknowledged this procedural lapse but held that subsequent hearings at High Court and Supreme Court remedied the procedural fairness concern [Paras 43-44].

Inquiry Findings – Examination of Validity – Inquiry report found admissions were not based on a fake letter but rather through State PMT merit – Supreme Court found the inquiry inconclusive and emphasized arbitrary nature of admissions on 30th September 2006 [Paras 38-40].

Merit and Transparency – Adherence to Prescribed Rules – Supreme Court reiterated the need for strict adherence to admission schedules and procedures to maintain fairness and prevent favoritism – Highlighted consequences of deviations from these rules [Paras 20-28].

Equity and Conditional Relief – Acknowledged substantial course completion by appellants – Provided relief by allowing completion of the course upon payment of Rs. 5 lakhs each to the college – Emphasized that this decision does not set a precedent for similar cases [Paras 50-52].

Decision – Appeals dismissed on merits – Appellants permitted to complete MBBS course upon payment of Rs. 5 lakhs each within one week – Non-compliance to result in non-declaration of results and non-registration by Medical Council of India [Paras 1, 50-53].