Specific Performance – Contract Law – Appellant filed a suit for specific performance of a contract to sell 1/3rd share in property by Respondent's power of attorney holder – Respondent denied execution of power of attorney for alienation, asserting it was for management only – Trial Court decreed the suit, High Court reversed, setting aside the decree based on inadequate consideration and rise in property value – Supreme Court found High Court erred in not addressing the validity of the power of attorney and proper application of law [Paras 2-24].

Admissibility and Proof of Documents – Secondary Evidence – Trial Court’s acceptance of a photocopy of the power of attorney without proper foundational evidence was incorrect – Respondent only admitted signature, not contents – Supreme Court emphasized the need for strict adherence to provisions for secondary evidence and the requirement of proving documents’ authenticity and relevance [Paras 10-12].

Judicial Review – Appellate Court Obligations – High Court failed to comply with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC by not formulating proper points for determination and independently assessing evidence – Supreme Court highlighted the appellate court’s duty to fully consider and adjudicate issues raised, providing well-reasoned findings [Paras 16-19].

Equitable Relief – Discretion and Fairness – Specific performance being discretionary relief, courts must consider fairness and balance – Issues of inadequate consideration and property value rise should be weighed against contractual obligations and proven conduct of parties – High Court’s failure to properly address discretionary factors noted [Paras 20-23].

Decision:

Appeal Allowed – Held – High Court’s judgment set aside – Matter remitted to High Court for fresh decision in accordance with law, to be expedited given long pendency – Directions issued to ensure proper adjudication on all relevant issues, including power of attorney validity and compliance with evidentiary standards [Paras 23-24].

Inter-State Sales – Section 3(a) CST Act – Assessee engaged in manufacturing and selling electrical fans and other goods – Contended that goods transported to out-of-state depots were stock transfers not subject to CST – High Court dismissed revision, affirming transactions as inter-State sales – Supreme Court examined whether transactions were inter-State sales or branch transfers, scrutinizing agreement between Assessee and Usha Sales Ltd. (UIL) [Paras 1-12].

Nature of Transactions – Sales Agreement – Agreement required Assessee to supply goods to UIL's godowns across states – Indents from UIL specifying model and quantity triggered movement of goods – Goods moved to fulfill contractual obligations under agreement – Movement of goods in pursuance of contract constitutes inter-State sales, not branch transfers [Paras 21-23, 39-40].

Presumption of Inter-State Sales – Legal Burden – Section 3(a) CST Act presumes inter-State sale if sale occasions movement of goods across states – Assessee bears burden to rebut presumption with evidence of stock transfers for self-consumption – Evidence indicated transactions were for fulfilling sales agreement, reinforcing inter-State sale presumption [Paras 17-20, 34-36].

Judicial Review – Fact-Finding by Lower Authorities – Findings of assessing authority, Tribunal, and High Court confirmed by Supreme Court – No perverse or erroneous conclusions found in evaluation of voluminous correspondence and transactional evidence – Supreme Court upheld findings of inter-State sales based on detailed assessment of contractual and transactional context [Paras 38, 45].

Decision:

Appeal Dismissed – Held – Transactions deemed inter-State sales under Section 3(a) of Central Sales Tax Act – High Court's dismissal of Assessee’s revision petition affirmed – No order as to costs [Paras 45-46].

Land Grabbing – Procedural Requirements – Appeals challenged the High Court’s decision mandating the Special Tribunal and Special Court to call for a report from the Mandal Revenue Officer and publish a notification in the Gazette – Supreme Court held that it is not mandatory to call for such a report under Section 7A or Section 8 of the Act and Rule 6 of the Rules – However, notification of taking cognizance in the Gazette is mandatory under the proviso to Sub-section (4) of Section 7A and Sub-section (6) of Section 8, as well as Rule 7 of the Rules – High Court’s order set aside and matter remanded for further consideration on merits [Paras 1-17]​​.

Mandate of Notification – Statutory Interpretation – The Court emphasized that the use of 'shall' in the provisions concerning notification and publication in the Gazette indicates a mandatory requirement, ensuring due process and the protection of interests of all stakeholders – Procedural provisions are meant for ensuring fairness and avoiding prejudice [Paras 13-16]​​.

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court's orders quashing the proceedings before the Special Tribunal set aside – Matters remanded for reconsideration on the necessity of referring the case to the Mandal Revenue Officer and further proceedings on merits [Paras 17]​​.

Land Acquisition – Procedural Requirements – Appeals challenged the High Court’s decision related to procedural requirements under the Land Acquisition Act – Supreme Court held that the final price for the housing scheme, including land cost, development charges, and construction cost, was not required to be fixed within three years from the date of allotment, despite the tentative price being provided – The delay due to litigation and encroachments justified – High Court’s order set aside and appeals allowed [Paras 1-17]​​.

Fixation of Final Price – Determination Beyond Three Years – Supreme Court clarified that the TNHB was entitled to determine the final price beyond the stipulated period, taking into account all relevant costs including land acquisition compensation, development charges, and construction costs – No provision in the contract to make the tentative price final in case of delay beyond three years [Paras 12-14]​​.

Interest on Outstanding Amounts – The demand for increased price was accompanied by interest; however, the Supreme Court adjusted the rate of interest to 9% per annum, aligning with contractual provisions and High Court's directions [Paras 27-28]​​.

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court’s orders quashing the proceedings before the Special Tribunal set aside – TNHB directed to re-calculate the outstanding amounts with interest at 9% per annum and permit payment in installments – Remanded for reconsideration on the necessity of referring the case to the Mandal Revenue Officer and further proceedings on merits [Paras 27-28]​​.

Legislative Competence – Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors Act – Appeal challenged the Madras High Court’s decision upholding the constitutional validity of the Tamil Nadu Act – Supreme Court held that the act is within the legislative competence of the State Legislature – The Act aimed at protecting depositors from fraudulent financial establishments falls under Entries 1, 30, and 32 of the State List (List II) of the Seventh Schedule – Overlapping with central legislation (Banking Regulation Act, Companies Act, etc.) is incidental – High Court’s decision upheld [Paras 1-33]​​.

Constitutional Validity – Public Interest and Protection – The Supreme Court emphasized the act's purpose to provide a speedy remedy for depositors deceived by fraudulent financial establishments – The provisions for attachment and sale of properties to recover dues are valid – The act does not violate Articles 14, 19(1)(g), or 21 of the Constitution – Measures are deemed necessary to protect depositors and maintain public confidence in financial dealings [Paras 34-45]​​.

Doctrine of Pith and Substance – Interpretation – The Court applied the doctrine of pith and substance, holding that the act substantially falls within the powers of the State Legislature despite incidental encroachment on the central legislative field – The act addresses economic and social issues caused by fraudulent financial establishments, which is a state concern [Paras 22-28]​​.

Decision – Appeal dismissed – The impugned Tamil Nadu Act upheld as constitutionally valid – The act’s provisions for protecting depositors and facilitating recovery of dues through attachment and sale of properties are confirmed – No costs [Paras 45]​​.

Service Law – Regularization of Casual Labourers – Appellants challenged the High Court’s directions to regularize services of casual labourers employed by BRO – Contention that circular relied upon by High Court was an internal communication, not a final scheme – Supreme Court held that inter-departmental communications do not create enforceable rights – High Court’s order set aside [Paras 1-19].

Constitutional Law – Articles 14, 15, 16 – Casual labourers’ claim for regularization based on prolonged service – Supreme Court emphasized that regularization cannot be claimed if initial appointment was not as per recruitment rules – Mere prolonged casual service does not entitle one to regularization – Upheld principles from Umadevi’s case [Paras 16-18].

Conduct of Union of India – Employment Practices – Supreme Court noted with disapproval the practice of giving artificial breaks to avoid conferring permanent status on casual workers – Urged Union of India to consider enacting a scheme for regularization [Para 20].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court’s orders set aside – Directed Union of India to consider appropriate scheme for regularization of long-serving casual workers in BRO [Paras 19, 21-22].

Market Fee – Certified Seeds – Show Cause Notices – Appellants dealing in certified seeds challenged show cause notices for market fee under Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 – High Court dismissed suits challenging notices, made observations on merits – Supreme Court held High Court should not have gone into merits while deciding validity of notices – Directed Market Committees to follow procedure of fixing date, time, and place for hearing appellants and deciding matter by reasoned order [Paras 3-7].

Principles of Natural Justice – Hearing Requirement – After High Court's decision, Market Committees issued direct notices for payment without hearing – Supreme Court found violation of natural justice – Set aside notices dated 27.07.2005 – Directed fresh notices with proper hearing opportunity to appellants [Paras 5-7].

Decision:

Appeals Disposed of – Held – Notices dated 27.07.2005 set aside – Market Committees permitted to issue fresh notices, fix hearing, allow appellants to present objections and materials, and decide by reasoned order – Observations by High Court not to influence decision – No comments on merits of controversy [Paras 7-9].

Market Fee – Certified Seeds – Show Cause Notices – Appellants dealing in certified seeds challenged show cause notices for market fee under Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 – High Court dismissed suits challenging notices, made observations on merits – Supreme Court held High Court should not have gone into merits while deciding validity of notices – Directed Market Committees to follow procedure of fixing date, time, and place for hearing appellants and deciding matter by reasoned order [Paras 3-7].

Principles of Natural Justice – Hearing Requirement – After High Court's decision, Market Committees issued direct notices for payment without hearing – Supreme Court found violation of natural justice – Set aside notices dated 27.07.2005 – Directed fresh notices with proper hearing opportunity to appellants [Paras 5-7].

Decision:

Appeals Disposed of – Held – Notices dated 27.07.2005 set aside – Market Committees permitted to issue fresh notices, fix hearing, allow appellants to present objections and materials, and decide by reasoned order – Observations by High Court not to influence decision – No comments on merits of controversy [Paras 7-9].

Appointment of Central Vigilance Commissioner – Legality – Shri P.J. Thomas appointed as CVC on recommendation by High Powered Committee (HPC) – Petitioners challenged appointment due to pending criminal case and alleged violation of institutional integrity – Supreme Court held that while personal integrity of candidate is important, institutional integrity must also be considered – HPC's recommendation and decision-making process found lacking in consideration of relevant materials affecting institutional integrity – Appointment of P.J. Thomas as CVC set aside [Paras 1-33].

Judicial Review – Decision-Making Process – Supreme Court emphasized difference between judicial review and merit review – Court’s role limited to ensuring legality of decision-making process, not reassessment of candidate’s qualifications – Failure of HPC to consider past notings recommending disciplinary proceedings and pending criminal case against P.J. Thomas – Appointment process found arbitrary and in violation of statutory provisions [Paras 32-33, 44-45].

Principles of Natural Justice – Fair Procedure – Supreme Court directed that fair hearing and consideration of all relevant materials is crucial in appointments to high public offices – Emphasized that institutions must function without external influences and uphold public interest [Paras 5-7, 46-48].

Decision:

Writ Petitions Allowed – Held – Appointment of Shri P.J. Thomas as CVC declared non-est in law – HPC's recommendation dated 3rd September 2010 set aside – Directed reconsideration of appointment process in accordance with principles of institutional integrity and statutory provisions [Paras 32-33, 49-50].