Civil Law - Appeal from decree for possession and injunction – Equity vs. Statute – CPC O.2 R.2, O.2 R.4, O.20 R.12; Specific Relief Act Ss. 21, 38, 41; Constitution Art. 142 – The plaintiff sued only for possession and injunction without seeking damages/mesne profits – The High Court, while affirming possession, directed payment of compensation/interest and permitted a separate suit for damages – Held: Courts cannot grant damages or mould relief in equity contrary to statutory scheme when no such relief was claimed – Equity must yield to law [Paras 14, 16-17, 21-22].

Order 2 Rules 2, 3 and 4 CPC – Whole claim rule and joinder – A plaintiff must include the whole claim arising from the cause of action (O.2 R.2) – Claims for mesne profits/damages related to recovery of immovable property can be joined without leave (O.2 R.4) – If omitted, plaintiff cannot indirectly secure such relief through appellate directions; damages require proper pleading and court fee, and ordinarily a preliminary decree under O.20 R.12 for inquiry [Paras 15-17].

Appellate jurisdiction – Section 96 CPC vs. Articles 226/227 – Moulding relief – In first appeal, the High Court acts within the four corners of the CPC; it cannot exercise a roving “equity” jurisdiction akin to writ review – Any moulding of relief must be anchored in O.7 R.7 CPC and the pleadings; otherwise impermissible [Paras 18-19, 21-22].

Framing of points in first appeal – Order 41 Rule 31 CPC – The High Court ought to formulate points for determination arising from the pleadings and issues; framing new issues not arising from the suit/appeal and granting relief thereon is irregular [Para 23].

Principle – What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly – Having omitted to claim damages/mesne profits, the plaintiff could not be awarded the same through an appellate “equitable” order; English unjust enrichment cases inapplicable given the statutory framework in India [Paras 17, 20-21].

Decision – Appeal disposed of – High Court’s directions awarding compensation/interest and liberty for damages set aside – No opinion on entitlement to damages otherwise – In exercise of Article 142, costs of ₹50,000 imposed on the appellant under Section 35A CPC, in addition to costs already awarded below [Para 24].

Recruitment – Cut-off marks – Judicial review – High Court cannot direct lowering of cut-offs – Employer/Expert body has prerogative to fix rational, category-wise cut-offs; courts will not intermeddle absent arbitrariness – Held: Cut-offs @ General 71, OBC 56, SC/ST 20 were rational; direction to lower cut-offs set aside [Paras 10-11].

Reserved vacancies – Filling with general/OBC candidates – Eligibility must still be met – Even if policy permits using unfilled SC/ST slots, general/OBC candidates must satisfy their own eligibility/cut-off; SC/ST benchmark cannot be applied to them – High Court erred in appointing OC/OBC candidates against SC/ST quota by borrowing SC/ST cut-off [Paras 12-13].

Right to appointment – None, even if selected/wait-listed – Candidates have only a right to be considered under extant rules; no vested right to appointment; writ of mandamus to appoint unsustainable [Paras 14, 16-17].

De-reservation / Carry forward – Choice of administration – Whether to de-reserve or carry forward is for the employer; courts should not compel a particular course [Para 15].

Participation estoppel – Candidates who sat knowing the procedure cannot later challenge it because results were adverse – Challenge after unsuccessful participation barred [Paras 18-19].

Railway Board Circular (12.03.1976) – Non-compliance does not mandate illegal appointments – Even assuming a policy to fill unfilled reserved posts from unreserved category, general candidates must still meet eligibility/cut-offs; plea not raised before CAT; no mala fides established [Para 12-13].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s direction to appoint respondents by lowering cut-offs and adjusting against SC/ST vacancies set aside – No costs [Para 21].

Bribery by Public Servant – Acceptance of Illegal Gratification – Conviction sustained – Section 161 IPC and Section 5(1)(d) r/w Section 5(2) PC Act – Appellant, a clerk, was caught accepting Rs. 200 in trap operation conducted by Lokayukt – Defence claimed he was only a conduit for a superior officer – Held: Once acceptance is proved, presumption under Section 4 of PC Act arises, and even acceptance on behalf of another attracts liability – Trial Court erred in acquittal – High Court rightly reversed it [Paras 1-3, 16-22].

Presumption under PC Act – Rebuttal requirement – Section 4(1), PC Act – Once acceptance of bribe is proved, presumption arises that it was illegal unless rebutted – Accused’s defence of denial insufficient to rebut presumption – Held: Mere claim of being scapegoat or innocent carrier does not exonerate accused from criminal liability under anti-corruption law [Paras 19-22, 30].

Police and Complainant Testimony – Credibility of Interested Witnesses – PW1 (Complainant) and PW10 (Inspector) evidence relied on – Trial Court wrongly discarded testimony for being 'interested' – Held: No blanket disqualification of police or complainant witnesses if their evidence is otherwise cogent and trustworthy – Independent corroboration not a legal necessity [Paras 23-24].

Appeal Against Acquittal – Interference by High Court – Permissible Scope – High Court reversed acquittal based on evidence on record – Held: Appellate Court has full power to reappreciate evidence – Presumption of innocence does not bar reversal where reasoning of Trial Court is legally flawed – High Court justified in setting aside acquittal and convicting the accused [Paras 27-30].

Posthumous Appeal – Right of Legal Heirs – Section 394(2) CrPC – Deceased appellant’s widow allowed to continue appeal – Delay condoned – Held: Right to appeal survives for limited purpose where conviction affects civil consequences like pensionary rights – But sympathy cannot override merits of conviction [Paras 10, 31].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – High Court conviction upheld – Consequence on pensionary rights of deceased does not warrant interference – Sympathy plea rejected – Conviction maintained [Paras 31-32].

Writ Petition – Ban on Slaughter of Animals – Policy Matter – Petitioners sought total ban on slaughter of cows, buffaloes, horses and chameleons citing religious and constitutional grounds under Article 48 – Held: Such matters fall within the domain of legislative and executive policy – Court cannot direct the government to enact a specific law or impose a total ban through judicial mandate – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-4].

Judicial Review – Limitation on Legislative Directions – Article 32 – The Supreme Court reiterated its consistent view that courts cannot issue writs to direct Parliament or State Legislatures to enact any law – Legislative function cannot be usurped by judicial orders – Doctrine reaffirmed through reliance on Prakash P. Hinduja, Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Assn., State of J&K v. A.R. Zakki, and A.K. Roy [Para 3].

Directive Principles – Article 48 – Non-Enforceability – Petitioners relied on Article 48 (Directive Principle for cow protection) – Held: Though part of directive principles, Article 48 is not enforceable by courts – No mandamus can be issued to enforce it in absence of legislation – Court reiterated that personal beliefs or interpretations cannot override constitutional processes [Paras 3-4].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Supreme Court found no merit in reliefs sought – Ban on slaughter is within legislative domain – Court declined to interfere – Writ petition dismissed without issuing any directions [Para 4].

Discharge Application – Section 227 CrPC – Summary Rejection by High Court – Set Aside – The trial court refused discharge for offences under Sections 376 and 406 IPC based on the prosecutrix’s Section 164 statement and case diary materials – The High Court dismissed the challenge summarily – Held: High Court ought to address the specific submissions and examine whether the ingredients of Sections 376 and 406 are prima facie made out on a plain reading of the FIR and materials – Summary dismissal unsustainable – Matter remitted for fresh consideration [Paras 3, 4, 6, 8, 21].

Rape – Consent on Promise to Marry – Section 375 read with Section 90 IPC – Legal Position Restated – “Consent” requires voluntary participation after intelligent understanding and choice – Consent vitiated if obtained under fear of injury or misconception of fact, and if the accused knew or had reason to believe so – A mere breach of a promise to marry does not, by itself, amount to misconception of fact – However, a promise made without intention to marry from the inception can vitiate consent – No straitjacket formula; each case depends on its facts and surrounding circumstances [Paras 9–12, 15, 18–20].

Criminal Breach of Trust – Sections 405/406 IPC – Entrustment Essential – On a bare reading of the materials, there is no allegation of entrustment of property or dominion over property – Prima facie Section 406 does not apply [Para 6].

Section 164 CrPC Statement – Evidentiary Use at Discharge Stage – The prosecutrix’s statement acknowledged initial sexual relationship on promise of marriage and a subsequent temple marriage alleged by her – These assertions required judicial evaluation against the legal tests of consent and intention; the High Court was required to address them with reasons rather than dismiss summarily [Paras 3, 5, 8–12, 20–21].

Evidentiary Concepts – Evidence Act Section 3 – Intention as a “fact” – A misrepresentation as to present intention (to marry) may constitute a “fact” for purposes of Section 90 IPC and can vitiate consent if shown to be a hoax from inception [Paras 17–20].

Alternative Offences – Sections 415/493 IPC – The State suggested applicability of cheating and cohabitation caused by deceit – Court refrained from expressing views, emphasizing that charges may be altered during trial, but the immediate question was the legality of the summary rejection of discharge under Sections 376/406 IPC [Para 7].

Decision – Appeal Allowed in Part – Orders of the High Court rejecting the discharge application summarily set aside – Matter remitted to the High Court for fresh, reasoned consideration of discharge under Section 227 CrPC in light of the principles on consent and ingredients of the alleged offences – No opinion on merits of guilt or specific sections at this stage [Paras 8, 21–22].

Arbitration – Default in Appointment of Arbitrator – Section 11(6) of Arbitration Act – Power of Court to Appoint – Respondent issued notices under Section 11 seeking appointment of arbitrator; Appellant failed to appoint within 30 days – Respondent filed petition under Section 11(6) before Delhi High Court – Appointment of arbitrator by appellant after filing of petition held invalid – Once Section 11(6) petition is filed, the right of the other party to appoint an arbitrator under contract stands extinguished [Paras 7-9, 14-16].

Contractual Arbitration Clause – Adherence to Clause after Delay – Clause 24 of agreement provided appointment by Director General of Supplies & Disposals – Appellant appointed arbitrator after petition under Section 11(6) was filed – Held: Clause 24 cannot be invoked post filing of petition – Court rightly appointed independent arbitrator [Paras 6, 9, 16].

Distinguishing Precedents – Appointment Outside Agreement – Cases relied on by appellant (M.P. Gupta and S. Rajan) found distinguishable – In those cases, appointment outside agreement occurred before Section 11(6) petition was filed – Present case involved appointment after filing, hence precedent not applicable [Paras 10-13].

Decision – Datar Switchgears and Punj Lloyd Applied – Once party fails to appoint arbitrator within 30 days and other party approaches court under Section 11(6), right to appoint stands forfeited – High Court rightly appointed arbitrator – Appeal dismissed [Paras 14-17].

Service Law - Voluntary Retirement – Withdrawal before acceptance – Effect of scheme clause barring withdrawal – The FCI VRS, 2002 (Clause VIII(d)) stated that once an employee applies for VRS, withdrawal is not permitted and the competent authority shall decide within three months – Respondent applied for VRS on 13.09.2004, withdrew on 27.09.2004, but FCI accepted on 09.11.2004 – Held: Even where the scheme forbids withdrawal, the employee can withdraw the offer any time before acceptance; the bar does not operate to prevent pre-acceptance withdrawal – High Court rightly quashed the acceptance issued after withdrawal [Paras 4-6].

Precedents – Distinction between schemes – O.P. Swaranakar and Romesh Chander Kanoji – Supreme Court clarified that where a scheme (e.g., SBIVRS) provides a specific window for withdrawal, it must be exercised within that period; where the scheme bars withdrawal altogether (as in nationalised banks/FCI), withdrawal is still effective if made prior to acceptance – Applied: State Bank of Patiala v. Romesh Chander Kanoji – Distinguished/Explained: Bank of India v. O.P. Swaranakar [Paras 5-6].

Construction of VRS terms – Decision window of the employer – Clause VIII(d) grants up to three months to accept/reject; if the employee withdraws before acceptance, the offer lapses and cannot be acted upon thereafter – Acceptance after a valid withdrawal is ineffectual [Para 6].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – High Court order upheld – Respondent’s withdrawal dated 27.09.2004, made before employer’s acceptance on 09.11.2004, rendered the subsequent acceptance invalid – No order as to costs [Para 6].

Murder – Eyewitness Testimony – Credibility of Sole Witness – Conviction Upheld – Sarabjit Singh, grandson of one of the deceased, was the sole eyewitness – Though some discrepancies existed in his statement regarding dying declarations, Supreme Court held his testimony regarding witnessing the attack and presence of accused was credible and reliable – Minor contradictions did not discredit core testimony – Conviction under Section 302 IPC sustained [Paras 3–9].

Evidence – Dying Declaration – Discrepancy in Statements – No Material Impact – FIR stated both victims made dying declarations; in evidence, only one was claimed to have spoken – Court held this discrepancy immaterial as conviction was not solely based on dying declarations – Oral testimony and corroborating forensic evidence sufficient for conviction [Paras 7–9].

Recovery Evidence – Forensic and Circumstantial Corroboration – Murder weapons (gandasi and danda), fingerprints, locket, and clothes recovered at instance of accused – Injuries on accused matched timing – Recovery evidence provided corroboration of eyewitness testimony and established guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Para 4, 13].

Death Sentence – Commutation to Life Imprisonment – Not ‘Rarest of Rare’ Case – Supreme Court found that though the crime was brutal, it appeared to have been committed in a fit of passion – No evidence of prior planning or extreme depravity – Death sentence commuted to life imprisonment – Crime did not meet threshold for ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine [Para 14].

Decision – Conviction under Section 302 IPC upheld – Death sentence set aside – Life imprisonment awarded – Appeal partly allowed to extent of sentence reduction [Para 14–15].

Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings – Minor Penalty – Personal Hearing Not Mandatory – Rule 21 of Punjab Civil Services Rules – High Court's Error in Quashing Penalty – The respondent, a Sub-Divisional Engineer, was awarded the penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect after the disciplinary authority disagreed with the Enquiry Officer’s exoneration – On review, the High Court set aside the punishment on the ground that no personal hearing was provided during review proceedings – Held: Under Rule 21, personal hearing is not mandatory for minor penalties such as stoppage of increments – High Court’s reasoning was incorrect and unsustainable [Paras 5-6].

Speaking Order – Review Rejection Reasoned – Finding of High Court Unjustified – The High Court also held that the review order was not a speaking order – Held: The order dated 24.6.2004 was reasoned and based on material on record – High Court's contrary conclusion was not supported by the record [Para 6].

Judgment – Appeal Allowed – Disciplinary Authority’s Action Restored – Supreme Court restored the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and set aside the High Court’s decision – Writ petition dismissed [Paras 7-8].