Land Acquisition – Enhanced Compensation – Appeals filed by landowners challenging the High Court’s award of Rs. 780,000/- per acre – High Court had relied on previous decisions in Kapoor Singh and Surjit Singh cases – Supreme Court enhanced compensation further by Rs. 100,000/- per acre in cases relying on Kapoor Singh and Rs. 200,000/- per acre in cases relying on Surjit Singh – Interest on enhanced compensation denied from date of High Court judgment to filing of appeals [Paras 1-5].

Judicial Consistency – Application of Precedents – Supreme Court upheld the application of its earlier rulings in similar cases to ensure consistency and fairness in compensation awards – Emphasized the importance of uniformity in judicial decisions for similar fact situations [Paras 2-4].

Delay in Appeals – Interest Denied – Noted substantial delay in filing appeals – Denied interest on enhanced compensation for the period between High Court judgment and filing of appeals in Supreme Court [Para 4].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Enhanced compensation awarded with solatium as per statute – No interest on enhanced compensation for delay period – Compensation to be deposited within three months [Paras 5-6].

Environmental Law – Land Classification – State Government's refusal to change land classification from 'Johad' to 'Sawai Chak' challenged – High Court directed State Government to process the land allotment – Supreme Court upheld the decision, noting no environmental or catchment area concerns and compliance with necessary clearances [Paras 1-19].

Spot Inspection – Evidence of Land Status – Detailed inspections by Tehsildar confirmed no natural water bodies on the land – Reports unchallenged by State Government – High Court found no justification to deny land reclassification [Paras 7-8].

Judicial Review – Policy and Administrative Decisions – Court emphasized the importance of administrative fairness and adherence to factual reports by local authorities – State's reliance on misinterpreted precedents rejected [Paras 12-18].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – State Government directed to process land allotment within four weeks – Respondent-Company to file a fresh undertaking for compensatory measures [Paras 19].

Electoral Law – Promises and Freebies – Political parties challenged for promising and distributing free goods ('freebies') in election manifestos and speeches – Petitioners argued that such promises impact the economy and misuse taxpayer money to attract votes – Supreme Court emphasized the need for regulation but acknowledged the limited judicial intervention in fiscal policies – Directed further examination by a three-Judge Bench [Paras 1-14].

Policy Matters – Judicial Intervention – Issues of policy and fiscal decisions generally outside the Court's jurisdiction – Court considered formation of an expert body or commission to address the issue – Judicial intervention deemed limited in the absence of legislative guidelines – Directed the matter for extensive hearing and further deliberation [Paras 8-11].

Directive Principles vs. Fundamental Rights – Reconsideration of S. Subramaniam Balaji case – Petitioners argued the misinterpretation of Directive Principles overriding Fundamental Rights – Supreme Court directed the reconsideration of the said judgment by a larger Bench due to its complexity and significance [Paras 12-14].

Decision: Directed listing of petitions before a three-Judge Bench for detailed examination – Emphasized the need for comprehensive judicial scrutiny before any enforceable orders can be passed [Para 14].

Iron Ore Mining – Ceiling Limit Relaxation – Appeal to lift/relax the ceiling limit on iron ore production in the districts of Bellary, Chitradurga, and Tumkur. Supreme Court increases the ceiling limit from 28 MMT to 35 MMT for Bellary and from 7 MMT to 15 MMT collectively for Chitradurga and Tumkur, balancing economic development with environmental conservation [Paras 1-18].

Historical Context – Court-imposed Limits – Initial ceiling limits imposed by the Supreme Court in 2011 due to rampant illegal mining and environmental degradation. Incremental relaxations granted based on improvements and expert recommendations, leading to the current consideration of further relaxation [Paras 6-12].

Environmental Concerns – Sustainable Development – Emphasis on balancing ecological preservation with economic activity. The court acknowledges improvements but adopts a cautious approach to avoid regression to past issues of unmitigated mining [Paras 13-17].

Committee Reports – Differing Views – The Central Empowered Committee (CEC) and the State of Karnataka support lifting the limits entirely, whereas the Monitoring Committee highlights infrastructural constraints. Oversight Authority seeks further evidence on transport infrastructure capacity before concluding [Paras 12-13].

Decision: IA Nos. 83141/2017, 72931/2017, and 218/2014 are disposed of with increased ceiling limits – IA No. 10973/2018 to be considered separately [Paras 16-18].

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].

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].

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].

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].

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].