Promissory Estoppel – Doctrine of estoppel will not be applied against the State in its governmental public or sovereign capacity – Exception where it is necessary to prevent fraud or manifest injustice – Section 174(2)(c) of the CGST Act rescinds earlier tax exemptions – Estoppel cannot operate against legislative functions – Union not bound by 2003 O.M. due to statutory changes – Appeals dismissed [Paras 31-55].

CGST Act – Section 174(2)(c) – Provision explicitly rescinds earlier tax exemptions – New GST regime provides 58% budgetary support instead of 100% exemption – Legislative changes override earlier promises – Doctrine of promissory estoppel not applicable against statutory mandates [Paras 28-31].

Public Interest – Withdrawal of exemptions in larger public interest – Consistent judicial stance that State can withdraw exemptions when public interest demands – Estoppel not applicable when policy change serves public interest [Paras 56-58].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Promissory estoppel claim rejected – Union's decision to provide 58% budgetary support upheld – No order as to costs [Para 63].

Land Acquisition Act – Determination of Compensation – High Court erred in reducing compensation from Rs. 1000/- per square yard to Rs. 166/- to Rs. 200/- per square yard – Original Reference Court's assessment of Rs. 1000/- per square yard restored – State's failure to appeal earlier Reference Court judgment noted – Assessment of compensation based on sale deeds examined – Appeals allowed to the extent of restoring compensation to Rs. 1000/- per square yard [Paras 5-10].

Market Value – Assessment – Sale deeds relied upon by landowners and State examined – Sale deeds closer to Section 4 notification date considered unreliable due to variance in price and small area – Compensation assessed based on fair market value [Paras 7-8].

Decision – Appeals allowed in part – High Court judgment quashed – Compensation set at Rs. 1000/- per square yard as per earlier Reference Court decision – No order as to costs [Paras 9-10].

Penal Code 1860 (IPC) – Murder – Acquittal – Discrepancies and inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses' evidence – Material contradictions noted in testimonies – Convictions and sentences set aside – Appeals allowed [Paras 1-62].

Discrepancies in Evidence – Vital discrepancies in prosecution's witnesses – Testimonies failed to corroborate key facts – Contradictory versions on who delivered the fatal blow – Witnesses were related, lacking independent evidence [Paras 41-52].

Inconsistent Testimonies – Material improvements and contradictions in testimonies of prosecution witnesses – Inconsistent statements regarding the assailants – Lack of clarity on crucial facts [Paras 40-43].

Independent Witnesses – Prosecution's failure to examine any independent witness – All witnesses related to each other – Evidence deemed unreliable due to contradictions [Paras 48-54].

Reappreciation of Evidence – Supreme Court reappreciated evidence due to misreading and misappreciation by lower courts – Found prosecution's evidence unreliable and insufficient for conviction [Paras 55-60].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Convictions and sentences set aside – Appellants acquitted of all charges – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 61-62].

Medical Education – Provisional Admission – High Court's orders granting provisional admissions beyond the cut-off date are not legally sustainable – Strict adherence to the admission schedule is mandated – Admissions based on merit-cum-preference through NEET examination – Appeals allowed, High Court's orders quashed [Paras 20-27].

Admission Schedule – Medical Council of India Regulations 2000 – Last date for admissions to post-graduate courses is 31st May – No deviation allowed – Orders extending admissions beyond this date are invalid [Paras 20-22].

Merit Principle – Provisional admissions ignored the principle of merit – High Court’s orders based on provisional basis, not considering merit ranks – Such admissions cannot be validated by the Court [Paras 24-26].

Sympathetic Consideration – Court refused to show sympathy for students admitted in contravention to regulations – Students admitted beyond cut-off date and without merit cannot be allowed to continue [Paras 25-26].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court's orders set aside – Provisional admissions annulled – No costs [Paras 27-28].

Defamation – Private Complaint by Minister/Public Servant – Special procedure under Section 199(2) CrPC does not eclipse general procedure under Section 199(6) – Public servant's right to file individual complaint preserved – Appeals concerning procedural objections dismissed [Paras 41-56].

Tweets and Defamation – Statement “your answer will disclose your scam” not per se defamatory – Summoning order against appellant for this statement quashed – Application of mind by Magistrate found lacking – Appeal by appellant who made the statement allowed [Paras 57-63].

Procedural Protection – Section 237 CrPC provides safety valve against malicious prosecution – Section 250 CrPC offers similar protection for individual complaints – No additional protection needed beyond existing statutory provisions [Paras 52-55].

Decision – Appeal by Manoj Kumar Tiwari (A-1) dismissed – Appeal by Vijender Gupta (A-5) allowed – Summoning order against A-5 quashed – Complaint to proceed against other accused [Paras 56-65].

Rent and Tax Liability – Lease Agreement stipulated payment of rent, maintenance charges, and GST – Tenant defaulted on GST payment – Trial Court struck off tenant's defence under Section 13(6) – High Court upheld decision – Supreme Court set aside striking off defence after tenant deposited GST arrears – Clarified on whether non-payment of tax can justify striking off defence [Paras 1-6].

Periodic Rent Increase – Lease Agreement provided for periodic rent increase of 15% every three years – Court directed tenant to pay rent with retrospective increases – Directed to pay increased rent and GST within six weeks [Paras 6.1-8].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court and Trial Court orders striking off defence quashed – Tenant permitted to defend eviction suit – Case remanded for disposal within six months – No order as to costs [Paras 8-10].

Murder – Non-recovery of Weapons – Non-recovery of weapons does not discard the evidence of injured eye witnesses – Conviction under Sections 302 and 149 IPC upheld – Appeals dismissed [Paras 1-22].

Unlawful Assembly – Common Object – Ten individuals assembled with firearms and lethal weapons – Violence and the ultimate act leading to murder indicates a common object to commit murder – Evidence from injured witnesses supported by medical reports [Paras 20-21].

Section 302 vs. Section 304 IPC – Contentions for altering conviction to Section 304 IPC rejected – No evidence to bring the act within exceptions to Section 300 IPC – Conviction under Section 302 IPC maintained [Paras 21-22].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Conviction and sentences under Sections 302 and 149 IPC upheld – No merit in contentions for altering conviction to Section 304 IPC [Para 22].

Murder – Acquittal – Absence of weapon recovery not a ground for acquittal – Eye witness testimony sufficient to convict – Contradictions in FIR timing not substantial – High Court's acquittal quashed and Trial Court's conviction restored – Respondents directed to surrender [Paras 1-10].

Eyewitness Testimony – Sole reliance on credible and reliable eyewitness testimony sufficient for conviction – No need for recovery of weapon if eyewitness accounts are trustworthy – Conviction can be based solely on reliable eyewitness evidence [Paras 6-8].

Contradictions in FIR – Minor contradictions regarding FIR timing and place not sufficient to acquit – Prosecution's case supported by consistent and reliable eyewitness testimony – High Court's reasons for acquittal not sustainable [Para 7].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court's judgment acquitting the accused set aside – Trial Court's conviction and sentence restored – Accused to surrender within six weeks or be taken into custody [Paras 9-10].

Second Appeal – Execution of Pronote – High Court interfered with concurrent findings of lower courts on execution of pronote – High Court set aside decrees on the ground of non-examination of attesting witness – Supreme Court found signature on pronote established by handwriting expert and execution by deed writer – High Court's interference unwarranted – Presumption under Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act upheld – High Court's decision quashed, decrees restored [Paras 5-7].

Presumption of Consideration – Section 118 NI Act – Execution of pronote by defendant established – Minor contradictions in witness depositions not sufficient to rebut presumption of consideration – Defendant failed to provide contrary evidence – High Court erred in allowing second appeal [Paras 6-6.1].

Non-examination of Witness – Non-examination of attesting witness to pronote not fatal to plaintiff's case – Execution and consideration sufficiently proved by other evidence – High Court's reasoning flawed [Paras 6-6.1].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment and order set aside – Trial Court and First Appellate Court's judgment and decree restored – No costs [Paras 7].