Contracts – Memorandum of Understanding – Appellant and State Government entered into MOU on May 15, 2002, for setting up a steel plant – State Government's later demand for a fresh MOU deemed arbitrary – Original MOU acted upon by both parties – High Court's ruling requiring fresh MOU set aside [Paras 1-24, 30-34].

Administrative Law – Legitimate Expectation – State Government's requirement for a fresh MOU during subsistence of original MOU arbitrary and unreasonable – Appellant altered position to detriment based on original MOU – Legitimate expectation of the appellant to be recommended for mining lease upheld [Paras 31-34].

Mining Law – Rule 59 MC Rules – Application for mining lease made under Rule 59(2) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 – State Government's rejection of application and recommendation of other applicants in violation of Rule 59(1) – Appellants entitled to similar benefits as other applicants [Paras 28, 33-34].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment and State Government's decision rejecting appellant's application for mining lease set aside – State directed to act in accordance with MOU dated May 15, 2002, and recommend appellant for grant of mining lease to Central Government [Para 34].

Criminal Law – Compounding of Offences – Petitioners sought quashing of criminal proceedings on basis of a compromise reached with complainant banks – Supreme Court held that non-compoundable offences could not be quashed merely due to settlement – Emphasis on the criminal intent of petitioners rather than the civil aspect of dues – Writ petition dismissed [Paras 1-22].

Inherent Powers – Scope of Section 482 CrPC and Article 142 – Powers to quash proceedings are not restricted by the non-compoundable nature of the offence but should be used sparingly – Precedents indicate that such powers must be exercised only in special circumstances to prevent abuse of process of law [Paras 9-18].

Judicial Precedents – Application and Interpretation – Reference to prior cases like Nikhil Merchant, B.S. Joshi, and Manoj Sharma where criminal proceedings were quashed due to settlements – Distinction made between cases involving primarily civil disputes with criminal aspects and cases with predominant criminal intent [Paras 10-17].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – High Court’s decision upheld – Emphasis on the criminal intent of the petitioners and the lack of sufficient grounds to quash proceedings despite the compromise – No costs awarded [Paras 21-22].

Criminal Law – FIR and Delay – The promptness in lodging the FIR provides assurance of the informant's version – Delay can introduce colored versions and concocted stories – FIR lodged promptly within two hours in this case considered reliable [Paras 11-12].

Bail – Anticipatory Bail – Distinction between regular bail (Section 439) and anticipatory bail (Section 438) – Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary privilege and should be granted only in exceptional cases – Court must ensure compliance with the conditions laid down in Section 438 CrPC [Paras 7-8, 13-14].

Judicial Discretion – Exercise of Discretion – Judicial discretion must be guided by law and cannot be arbitrary or fanciful – High Court's discretion in granting anticipatory bail was deemed improper due to the gravity of the offense and lack of proper application of mind [Paras 13, 21].

Judicial Discipline – Parameters for Anticipatory Bail – Court emphasized that anticipatory bail can only be granted where the applicant is falsely implicated and will not misuse the liberty – High Court failed to consider the gravity of the offense and the spontaneous nature of the FIR [Paras 17-18, 21].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court's orders granting anticipatory bail set aside – Anticipatory bail granted to respondents canceled – High Court to consider any future bail applications in accordance with law [Para 22].

Habeas Corpus – Custody Disputes – Writ petition by husband for custody of minor son – Habeas corpus writ should not be issued in such matters – Supreme Court held that non-bailable warrant against wife was uncalled for and illegal – High Court's order quashed [Paras 1-16].

Judicial Discretion – Exercise of Habeas Corpus – Court emphasized that habeas corpus should not be issued as a matter of course, particularly in custody disputes involving parents – High Court's issuance of non-bailable warrant against the wife found to be without proper justification [Paras 15-16].

Address Discrepancies – Misleading the Court – Husband provided different addresses for wife in simultaneous petitions before different courts – Supreme Court found this as misleading the court to obtain ex parte order – Allegations of illegal detention by mother deemed unfounded [Paras 13-15].

Legal Principles – Custody and Welfare of Child – Emphasis on the welfare of the minor child – Court considered the continuous residence of the child with the mother and found no evidence of illegal detention [Paras 13-16].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's order issuing non-bailable warrant quashed – Habeas Corpus Writ Petition withdrawn from Allahabad High Court and dismissed – No costs awarded [Paras 16].

Arbitration – Post-Award Interest – Arbitrator did not exercise discretion on post-award interest – High Court awarded 18% p.a. interest from the date of award until the date of actual payment – Supreme Court held that deposit of the award amount in the High Court constitutes payment, ceasing liability for post-award interest from that date – High Court's order modified accordingly [Paras 1-12].

Statutory Interpretation – Definition of Payment – Term 'payment' construed in context of Section 31(7)(b) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act – Payment signifies satisfaction of award – Deposit of award amount in court held as payment extinguishing liability for post-award interest [Paras 10-11].

Judicial Precedents – Application – Reference to precedent case State of Haryana Vs. S.L. Arora and Company emphasizing mandatory statutory rate of 18% p.a. interest in absence of arbitrator's discretion – Applied principle to determine cessation of interest liability upon deposit in court [Paras 8-9].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – High Court's order modified – Appellants liable to pay 18% p.a. interest from date of award until May 24, 2001 – No liability for interest post-May 24, 2001 – High Court to re-determine due amount and facilitate refund of any excess withdrawal by respondent [Paras 12-13].

Employment Law – Back Wages – Appellant awarded back wages by School Tribunal – High Court set aside the award – Supreme Court considered precedents on back wages entitlement even without specific assertion of non-employment – Settlement reached between parties for payment of Rupees one lakh towards back wages in full and final settlement [Paras 1-7].

Judicial Precedents – Application – Reference to U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Udai Narain Pandey, Reetu Marbles Vs. Prabhakant Shukla, and Metropolitan Transport Corporation Vs. V. Venkatesan – Contention that back wages could be awarded without specific assertion of non-employment during the period out of service – Settlement based resolution, no detailed judgment on merits [Paras 3-4].

Settlement – Amicable Resolution – Parties agreed to settle the claim for back wages for Rupees one lakh – Court endorsed settlement as basis for appeal disposal – Payment to be made within three months, failing which interest @ 10% p.a. applies [Paras 5-7].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – High Court's order modified – Appellant to be paid Rupees one lakh by respondents jointly and severally as full and final settlement for back wages – Payment within three months or with 10% p.a. interest thereafter – No costs [Paras 6-7].

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 – Section 3 – The possession of vacant land not taken over by the State Government or Competent Authority prior to the Repeal Act’s adoption would result in abatement of proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 – Mere vesting of vacant land without actual possession does not fulfill the requirements for the application of Section 3(1)(a) of the Repeal Act – Appeal allowed. [Paras 2-12]

Legal Procedure – Possession and Vesting of Land – Possession of land must be taken for the land to be vested with the State under Section 3 of the Repeal Act – Factual confirmation of non-possession by State Government mandates abatement of ongoing proceedings under the repealed Act. [Paras 7-10]

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's decision reversed – Proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976, regarding the subject property declared as abated due to lack of actual possession by the State Government. [Paras 12-13]

Employment Law – Pharmacists' Appointment – The court dealt with the interpretation of Rule 15(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Pharmacists Service Rules, 1980 – The Rule required appointments to be made batch-wise from each year of diploma holders – Several writ petitions challenged the advertisement dated 12.11.2007 for 766 vacancies for not adhering to this interpretation – High Court’s decision affirmed by Supreme Court – Reiterated that changes in policy could not retrospectively disadvantage candidates who were denied appointment under the same Rules – Special Leave Petitions dismissed. [Paras 2-13]

Rule 15(2) Interpretation – The provision requires earlier diploma holders to be appointed first against vacancies accruing each year, irrespective of their merit – Any deviation from this practice, especially retrospectively, was held to be arbitrary and unfair – Reaffirmed that subsequent policies could not disadvantage candidates previously affected under the original Rules. [Paras 3-8]

Decision: Special Leave Petitions dismissed – Appointments to be made in accordance with Rule 15(2) and candidates who were previously disadvantaged by the change in policy to be accommodated – No costs. [Paras 12-13]

Criminal Law – Conviction and Death Sentence – The appellant was convicted for the rape and murder of a three-year-old girl – The trial court sentenced him to death, which was upheld by the High Court – Supreme Court reviewed the evidence and circumstances, confirming the conviction and death sentence – Emphasized the heinous nature of the crime and the brutality involved. [Paras 1-19]

Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen Together – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence including "last seen together" principle – Multiple witnesses testified seeing the appellant with the victim – The chain of events pointed conclusively to the appellant’s guilt. [Paras 7-15]

Imposition of Death Penalty – The court applied the "rarest of rare" doctrine – The crime was exceptionally brutal, involving a helpless minor – The mitigating circumstances did not outweigh the aggravating factors – Death sentence deemed appropriate and justified. [Paras 16-19]

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Conviction and death sentence affirmed. [Paras 19]