Criminal Law – Murder and Attempted Murder – Appeals challenging High Court's judgment upholding conviction and sentences – Alleged discrepancies in evidence, inconsistencies in witness testimonies, lack of material recoveries, and dubious dying declarations raised – Supreme Court found significant contradictions and deficiencies in prosecution's case – Benefit of doubt extended to accused leading to acquittal [Paras 1-30].

Eyewitness Testimonies – Contradictions and Unnatural Conduct – Eyewitnesses PW-1 and PW-6 presented inconsistent statements and exhibited questionable conduct – Court found their testimonies unreliable due to these inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence at the crime scene [Paras 12-19].

Material Evidence – Absence of Blood and Weapon Recovery – Lack of blood evidence at crime scene despite severe injuries – No recovery of empty cartridges, pellets, or weapons – Prosecution's failure to present ballistic expert opinion further weakened the case [Paras 20-23].

Dying Declarations – Inconsistencies and Reliability – Two dying declarations with significant inconsistencies regarding motive, location, and presence of witnesses – Court found it unsafe to rely on these declarations due to inconsistencies and lack of medical certification for the first declaration [Paras 24-28].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentences quashed – Accused acquitted of all charges and bail bonds discharged – Pending applications disposed of [Para 30].

Municipal Law – Building Safety and Demolition – Building classified as C-1 (most dangerous) after structural audit – Demolition and eviction notices issued – High Court upheld notices, finding building unsafe – Supreme Court affirmed, citing compliance with legal procedures and protection of appellants' rights in redevelopment agreement [Paras 1-25].

Structural Audit – Legal Obligations and Findings – Building completed 55 years, mandatory structural audit declared it dangerous – Notices issued under Sections 354 and 353B of MMC Act – Compliance with statutory requirements upheld by Supreme Court [Paras 13-16].

Rights of Occupants – Redevelopment Agreement – Agreement protected appellants' rights, provided for larger flats and compensation during displacement – Court found appellants' rights sufficiently safeguarded in redevelopment process [Paras 18-20].

Public Interest and Safety – Judicial Notice of Structural Safety – Emphasized necessity of demolishing unsafe structures to prevent loss of life – Rejected appellants' plea for leniency due to seniority, prioritizing public safety [Paras 22-23].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court judgment upheld – Notices of demolition and eviction sustained – All pending applications and contempt petition disposed of [Paras 24-25].

Service Law – Cancellation of Appointments – Appellants qualified 6th Combined Civil Services Examination 2016, completed probation, and were appointed – High Court annulled appointments due to errors in qualifying marks and merit list preparation – Supreme Court found ambiguity in advertisement and upheld Commission's merit list preparation method – Appointments reinstated [Paras 1-48].

Examination Rules – Interpretation of Qualifying Marks – High Court misinterpreted Rule 16 of the 1951 Rules regarding qualifying marks – Supreme Court clarified qualifying marks should be read conjointly for all candidates, not isolated to specific provisions for SC/ST candidates – Past practice of merit list preparation by Commission deemed valid [Paras 37-46].

Equity and Public Service – Long-standing Appointments – Supreme Court emphasized fairness for candidates working for nearly two years – Past practice followed by Commission considered valid – High Court's decision to unsettle appointments overturned [Paras 44-45].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court judgment quashed – Appellants' appointments reinstated – Transfer petition dismissed – All pending applications disposed of [Paras 48-51].

Specific Relief – Specific Performance – Plaintiff breached essential contract conditions – Suit barred by delay and laches – Plaintiff delayed filing the suit by nearly five years – Supreme Court held plaintiff not entitled to specific performance due to their conduct – Relief under Section 12 not granted as delay and laches barred the claim [Paras 1-79].

Contractual Obligations – Time as Essence – Time stipulated for performance in contract – Plaintiff failed to pay balance within stipulated time – Court held time was essence based on contract terms and parties’ conduct – Breach of condition due to non-payment led to contract voidability [Paras 25-38].

Limitation – Article 54 of Limitation Act – Suit for specific performance filed after three years from fixed date – Court held suit barred by limitation as per first part of Article 54 – Legal notices did not remedy breach of time condition [Paras 30-38].

Discretionary Relief – Granting Specific Performance – Court held that discretion should be exercised judiciously – Relied on principles from earlier cases to deny specific performance due to delay and conduct of the plaintiff [Paras 57-72].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court judgment quashed – Relief of specific performance denied – Appellants directed to repay part consideration with interest at 7.5% p.a. within six months – All pending applications disposed of [Paras 79-81].

Criminal Law – Conspiracy and Conviction – Appeal against High Court’s confirmation of conviction for offences under Sections 201, 380, 435, 457, and 477 IPC read with Section 120B IPC – Appellant (A-3) convicted solely based on possession of one set of keys under the dual lock system – No direct or overt evidence linking Appellant to theft or conspiracy – Prosecution failed to prove explicit or circumstantial agreement between Appellant and co-accused (A-1 and A-2) – Supreme Court acquitted Appellant due to lack of evidence of conspiracy [Paras 1-28].

Ingredients of Conspiracy – Implied Agreement – Held, an implied agreement must manifest through circumstantial evidence – Mere possession of keys insufficient for conviction under Section 120B – Conspiracy requires proof of an agreement or prior meeting of minds [Paras 22-26].

Circumstantial Evidence – Dual Lock System – Bank’s dual lock system required presence of both key holders for operation – Prosecution did not establish Appellant’s exclusive role in the theft – Appellant’s possession of keys explained by standard procedure, not conspiracy [Paras 17-20].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court and Trial Court judgments quashed – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Parties to bear their own costs [Paras 27-28].

Income Tax – Bad Debt – Assessee’s claim for writing off Rs. 10 crores as a bad debt disallowed – Amount advanced to developer not substantiated by material evidence – Mere provision for doubtful debt not sufficient under Section 36(1)(vii) after 1.4.1989 – Supreme Court held that the deduction was not allowable as conditions under Section 36(2) were not met – Claim for deduction under Section 37 also not applicable since the expenditure related to acquisition of capital asset [Paras 1-24].

Interpretation of Sections – Distinction between Write Off and Provision – Section 36(1)(vii) distinguishes between write off and provision for doubtful debt – Provision for doubtful debt not included under ‘written off’ bad debt – Section 37 does not apply if item falls under Sections 30 to 36 but is excluded by Explanation to Section 36(1)(vii) [Paras 13-17].

Conditions for Deduction – Compliance Required – Assessee must satisfy conditions of Section 36(1)(vii) and Section 36(2) – Written off debt must be taken into account in computing income – Expenditure must relate to business and not capital stream to claim under Section 37 [Paras 12-20].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court and ITAT orders set aside – Revenue’s appeal succeeds – No order on costs [Paras 24].

Urban Development – Transferable Development Rights (TDR) – Calculation of FSI – Appellants contested the reduction of TDR from 100% FSI to 4% FSI by the Chief Minister of Maharashtra – The land was originally not designated under 'Hill Top/Hill Slope' zone but reserved for park purposes – Supreme Court found the cancellation of the original TDR and reduction to 4% FSI arbitrary – Directed respondents to restore possession of the land to appellants and compensate for the deprivation of land use [Paras 1-32].

Promissory Estoppel – Legitimate Expectation – Appellants surrendered land to the Pune Municipal Corporation based on the assurance of TDR @ 100% FSI – Application of promissory estoppel against the State – Supreme Court held respondents accountable to their original promise – State's retraction considered unjustifiable [Paras 13-14, 27].

Administrative Procedure – Reliance on Erroneous Legal Opinion – Respondents relied on an incorrect legal opinion regarding TDR calculation – No subsequent attempt to correct the error or seek fresh opinion – Supreme Court criticized the lack of transparency and due diligence in administrative decision-making [Paras 24-26].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment quashed – Respondents directed to return possession of the land to appellants within four weeks – Appellants entitled to use the land for residential purposes – Compensation awarded to appellants at ₹1 crore per year from 2004 for the deprivation of land use [Paras 31-32].

Electricity Law – Power Purchase Agreements (PPA) – Change in Law – Adani Power entitled to carrying cost with compound interest – Dispute arose from a Change in Law event requiring Adani Power to install Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) unit – Appellants contested compound interest on carrying cost, arguing for simple interest – Supreme Court upheld compound interest, emphasizing restitutionary principles and time value for money [Paras 1-20].

Restitutionary Principles – Compound Interest – Carrying Cost – Appellate Tribunal correctly applied compound interest to carrying cost – Supreme Court affirmed that restitution required full compensation for interest paid by Adani Power to banks – Restitutionary principle embedded in Article 13 of the PPA applied for compensating affected party to original economic position as if Change in Law event had not occurred [Paras 12-19].

Statutory Interpretation – No explicit prohibition on compound interest in Electricity Act, 2003 or PPAs – Supreme Court rejected argument that compound interest was not covered – Emphasized interpretation aligned with restitution and fair compensation principles [Paras 18-19].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Appellate Tribunal's decision upheld – Adani Power entitled to compound interest on carrying cost from the date of Change in Law event (29th January 2014) until actual payment [Paras 20].

Consumer Law – Refund and Interest – State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission directed refund of Rs. 21.18 lakhs with 9% simple interest per annum due to incomplete construction – National Commission reduced the refund amount to Rs. 16.18 lakhs – Supreme Court found National Commission's partial reversal erroneous – Order of State Commission restored – Respondent directed to comply within two months if not already refunded [Paras 1-6].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order of National Commission set aside – Order of State Commission dated 15.10.2020 restored – Respondent to refund Rs. 21.18 lakhs with 9% simple interest per annum from 19.01.2015 till realization and Rs. 5000 as litigation expenses within two months from today if not already refunded [Paras 4-6].