Rent and Eviction - Mesne Profits - Termination of Tenancy - After passing the decree of eviction, the tenancy terminates, and from the said date, the landlord is entitled to mesne profits or compensation for being deprived of the use of the premises. The determination of mesne profits should be equivalent to the market rent required to be paid by a person holding over the property​​.

Rent and Eviction - Mesne Profits - Appellate Court Jurisdiction - The appellate court has the jurisdiction to impose reasonable terms and conditions, including the determination of mesne profits, to compensate the decree holder for the loss occasioned by the delay in the execution of the decree while granting a stay​​.

Old Act vs. New Act - The suit filed under the provisions of the Old Act before the commencement of the New Act continues to be governed by the Old Act, as per Section 32(3) of the New Act. Thus, the provisions of the New Act, including the limit on mesne profits, do not apply to pending suits under the Old Act​​.

Decision: Appeals dismissed - The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's order directing the appellants to pay mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 250,000 per month. The court found the determination of mesne profits just, equitable, and reasonable, considering the location and commercial nature of the property​​.

Disciplinary Proceedings - Nullity - Time Limit - The High Court held that the disciplinary proceedings were nullity as they were not completed within the time limit prescribed by the Tribunal. The Supreme Court, however, clarified that fixing a time limit by the Tribunal does not equate to a statutory mandate that renders proceedings null and void if not adhered to​​.

Extension of Time - The Supreme Court emphasized that Courts/Tribunals have inherent power to extend time periods set for procedural compliance and that such periods are often in terrorem to prevent dilatory tactics rather than absolute cut-offs​​.

Procedural Mandates - The Supreme Court observed that procedural mandates, such as time limits for completing disciplinary proceedings, should not invalidate substantive proceedings unless explicitly stated as a consequence of non-compliance​​.

Decision: Appeal allowed - The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and reinstated the Tribunal's order, allowing the respondent to prefer an appeal against the disciplinary authority's order within 30 days, which should be considered on merits without influence from previous observations​​.

Service Law – Direct Recruitment – Inter-se merit list – Preparation of inter-se merit list of selected candidates is inevitable even in the absence of an explicit provision in the rule or policy. The recruitment authority cannot place the candidates inter-se in the select list under the rule of thumb or by adopting a methodology inconsistent with the spirit of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution [Paras 15-16, 29]​​.

Service Law – Promotion – Merit-cum-seniority – For promotion based on merit-cum-seniority, seniority by itself is not the only qualification. Comparative merit must be evaluated, with seniority being one of the factors only. Even a junior person may be promoted over seniors based on merit [Para 16]​​.

Rosters and Reservation – Roster points – Roster system is for ensuring the quantum of reservation in the recruitment process. It does not determine the inter-se seniority among those recruited collectively or deemed to be appointed on the same date [Paras 16, 29]​​.

Decision – Special Leave Petition Dismissed – Seniority should be fixed in accordance with merit determined by the Public Service Commission and not based on roster points. High Court's decision affirmed, emphasizing the precedence of merit over roster points for seniority purposes [Paras 32-33]​​.

Criminal Law – Conviction and Sentencing – Appellant convicted for murdering his uncle by striking him with a wooden cot leg ('Bahi') – Incident followed a quarrel the previous day – Trial Court acquitted appellant due to inconsistencies in evidence and delay in FIR – High Court reversed acquittal, emphasizing credibility of eye witnesses and medical evidence – Supreme Court re-evaluated the intention and knowledge, concluding it was culpable homicide not amounting to murder [Paras 1-19]​​.

Criminal Law – Evidence and Testimony – High Court erred in dismissing Trial Court's findings on delay in FIR and credibility of witnesses – Supreme Court noted the complainant's priority to save the victim justified delay – Minor inconsistencies in site plan and bed head ticket not sufficient to overturn otherwise credible eye witness and medical evidence [Paras 10-12]​​.

Criminal Law – Culpable Homicide vs. Murder – Distinction between Section 302 and Section 304 IPC – Absence of intention to kill deduced from circumstances – Single blow with a non-dangerous weapon – Lack of premeditation – Conduct of appellant indicated culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part-II IPC) rather than murder (Section 302 IPC) [Paras 13-17]​​.

Decision – Appeals Partly Allowed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside – Conviction under Section 304 Part-II IPC imposed – Sentence reduced to period already undergone – Appellant to be released if not required in any other case [Paras 18-19]​​.

Service Law – Selection Criteria – The Board of Examiners altered the selection criteria by introducing interviews and merit-based assessments not prescribed by the statutory rules. The eligibility and procedure for promotion from Class-IV to Class-III positions, as per the Executive Council’s rules, emphasized seniority and passing departmental tests without mandating interviews. The Board's unauthorized changes were deemed illegal [Paras 1-12, 14-20]​​.

Service Law – Estoppel and Acquiescence – The Division Bench erred in applying the principles of estoppel and acquiescence over statutory service rules. Statutory rules take precedence over any principle of estoppel. The participation of the appellants in the selection process did not bar them from challenging the unauthorized changes as it violated statutory rules [Paras 22-23, 30-31]​​.

Decision – Appeals Allowed – The judgment of the Division Bench was set aside, and the judgment of the learned Single Judge was restored. BHU was directed to conduct fresh selections for promotion in accordance with the existing rules, ensuring all eligible appellants receive due promotions and consequential benefits. Benefits to be extended to legal heirs of deceased appellants [Paras 32-34]​​.

Court Fees – Suit Valuation – Nature of relief decisive for suit valuation – Market value of property involved in litigation not decisive for suit valuation – Plaintiff entitled to value the relief of injunctions and damages separately – High Court erred in considering market value for determining suit valuation [Paras 1-15]​​.

Injunctions – Suit for Mandatory and Prohibitory Injunctions – Suit for mandatory injunction to remove defendants from property after termination of license maintainable – Valuation for mandatory injunction not required to be at market value of property – Plaintiff valued reliefs appropriately under Section 7(iv)(d) of the Court Fees Act [Paras 9-10, 13-15]​​.

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court's order returning plaint for re-filing based on market value set aside – Trial Court's order rejecting defendant's application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC restored – No observations on merits of the case, left open for pending appeal [Paras 14-15]​​.

Constitutional Law – Double Jeopardy – Accused having undergone trial and acquitted of offences under Sections 504 and 506 IPC cannot be subjected to another trial for the same charges on the same facts – Re-trial would violate Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300 CrPC [Para 24.2]​​.

Criminal Procedure – Territorial Jurisdiction – Offences under Section 376 IPC occurred in Delhi and were separate from those under Sections 504 and 506 IPC which occurred in Chamoli – Charges under Sections 504 and 506 IPC, already tried and concluded, do not form the same transaction as Section 376 IPC – Sessions Judge rightly discharged the accused for lack of territorial jurisdiction for Section 376 IPC [Paras 1-26]​​.

Criminal Procedure – Separate Charges – Offences under Sections 504, 506, and 376 IPC not forming part of the same transaction cannot be tried together under Section 220 CrPC – Alleged rape (Section 376 IPC) distinct and separate from alleged insults and threats (Sections 504 and 506 IPC) [Paras 20-22.2]​​.

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Discharge of the accused under Section 376 IPC by the Sessions Judge upheld – No re-trial for offences under Sections 504 and 506 IPC due to acquittal and bar of double jeopardy [Paras 25-26]​​.

Criminal Law – Private Defense – Appellant, a BSF constable, fired at intruders in self-defense – Right of private defense extends to causing death if there is reasonable apprehension of danger to life – Incident occurred in a high-risk area near the Bangladesh border with history of smuggling and attacks on BSF personnel – Court held that actions were in exercise of the right of private defense as the appellant was confronted by armed intruders and had no recourse to State aid – Conviction for murder altered to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 300 Exception 2 IPC [Paras 1-27]​​.

Evidence – Testimonies and Circumstances – Court relied on testimonies of witnesses and the specific topography of the crime scene – Discrepancies in witness statements regarding the positioning of the deceased and the appellant explained by the uneven terrain – Right of private defense supported by the presence of immediate threat and absence of malice [Paras 8-25]​​.

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside – Conviction altered to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC – Considering the appellant had already served over eleven years in prison, sentence deemed sufficient – Appellant released for time served, and bail bonds discharged [Paras 26-27]​​.

Civil Law – Presumption of Marriage – Long cohabitation between a man and a woman raises a presumption of marriage under Section 114 of the Evidence Act – The High Court erred in denying partition of property based on the legitimacy of the plaintiff – Sufficient evidence of long cohabitation and recognition of the relationship by society supports the presumption of marriage and legitimacy of the offspring [Paras 1-27]​​.

Civil Procedure – Final Decree Proceedings – Trial Courts should not adjourn matters sine die after passing a preliminary decree for partition – Courts must proceed suo motu for drawing up the final decree under Order 20 Rule 18 CPC to avoid undue delay in the realization of the decree’s benefits – Separate final decree proceedings are discouraged to streamline the process and ensure timely relief [Paras 29-33]​​.

Decision – Appeals Allowed – The High Court's judgment set aside – Trial Court's decree for partition restored – Directive issued to Trial Courts to automatically proceed with final decree steps after a preliminary decree without requiring separate proceedings [Paras 28, 34]​​.