Murder – Common Intention – Section 302/34 IPC – Conviction based on the non-cooperation of the accused in a test identification parade – Courts drew adverse inferences without considering the exposure of witnesses to the accused in the police station – Identification parade is part of the investigation and should not be overemphasized – Prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt – Prosecution’s evidence lacked reliability and consistency – Convictions and sentences under Section 302/34 set aside [Paras 1-15].

Test Identification Parade – Evidentiary Value – The evidence available on record must be scrutinized when the accused have been exposed to witnesses prior to the identification parade – Reliance on such evidence without corroboration is flawed – Prosecution failed to establish common intention and occurrence beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 3-14].

Constructive Liability – Section 34 IPC – Section 34 does not constitute an offence by itself but creates constructive liability based on proven foundational facts – Prosecution failed to demonstrate common intention and participation in the crime adequately – Evidence presented was inconsistent and not wholly reliable [Para 13].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302/34 IPC set aside – Appellants to be released forthwith [Paras 15].

Selection Process – Award of Marks for Experience – Appellant contested the denial of marks for prior experience as a daily wager – High Court failed to consider the merits of this plea – Specific challenge was against the Selection Committee's decision – High Court should have adjudicated on whether the Selection Committee's actions were justified [Paras 2-3].

Eligibility Criteria – Qualifications of Selected Candidate – Appellant contended that respondent no.6 did not meet the eligibility criteria of having experience in a Computer Science Lab – High Court did not assess this claim on merits, deferring to the Selection Committee’s decision without judicial review – Matter remanded to Single Judge for fresh consideration on both issues [Paras 2-3].

Judicial Review – Scope of High Court’s Power – High Court’s refusal to interfere with the Selection Committee’s decisions on the grounds of judicial review was erroneous – High Court required to examine if the Selection Committee's actions were arbitrary or unjustified [Para 3].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Judgments of Single Judge and Division Bench set aside – Case remanded to Single Judge to reconsider writ petition on merits regarding the awarding of marks for experience and the qualifications of respondent no.6 – Parties allowed to submit additional documents within four weeks – Single Judge to complete hearing within six months [Paras 4].

Auction Sale – Rule 60, Second Schedule, Income Tax Act – Recovery of Debts – The right to set aside an auction sale under Rule 60 is a valuable right for the judgment debtor to save his property – Mistake by Recovery Officer in specifying exact amount payable cannot prejudice the debtor’s right – Substantial compliance with Rule 60 must be considered if debtor acted promptly and in good faith – High Court's decision quashed for being overly technical and not considering the judgment debtor's bona fide compliance [Paras 6-8].

Valuable Right – Substantial Compliance – The legislative intent of Rule 60 is to give the debtor a final opportunity to save their property – Courts should not allow this right to be defeated on technical grounds – Judgment debtor should not suffer due to Recovery Officer’s error in specifying the amount payable [Paras 6.3-6.4].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – DRAT's decision to annul the auction sale restored – Appellant directed to compensate respondents with an additional sum for justice [Para 8].

Civil Law – Religious Endowments – Suit jewellery claimed by the appellant as private property – Jewellery kept in the Temple's Kudavarai and used for adorning the deity during festivals – Concurrent findings by three courts affirming the jewellery as a specific endowment to the deity – Dedication inferred from long possession and use for religious purposes [Paras 15-25].

Specific Endowment – Evidence and Inference – Evidence showed jewellery was donated by the ancestors of appellant – Suit jewellery recorded in the Temple's register as endowment – Long possession and usage for adorning the deity confirmed the public nature of the endowment – Appellant's claim based on inheritance from adoptive parents rejected [Paras 15-19].

Bar of Res Judicata – Prior Suit – Previous suit dismissed for technical reasons, not on merits – Subsequent suit for declaration of title and injunction not barred by res judicata or constructive res judicata – Plea of Order II Rule 2 of CPC also rejected as causes of action in the suits were different [Paras 26-34].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – High Court's judgment and decree of declaration of specific endowment upheld – Direction to appellant to hand over the keys of the Kudavarai and the suit jewellery to the Temple authorities during festival times – Appellant restrained from interfering with the Temple's right to use the jewellery [Paras 37-40].

Civil Procedure – Striking Off Defense – Defendant tenant failed to deposit due rent despite requirements under Order XV Rule 5 CPC – Trial Court and Revisional Court struck off defense for non-payment – High Court reversed this decision, granting indulgence to the tenant – Supreme Court held that mere denial of landlord-tenant relationship does not absolve tenant from depositing due rent – High Court's order set aside; defense struck off as per lower courts' orders [Paras 11.1, 12, 15, 18].

Eviction Suit – Denial of Title – Defendant's denial of plaintiff's title and landlord-tenant relationship deemed insufficient to avoid compliance with Order XV Rule 5 CPC – Supreme Court emphasized that tenant must deposit rent unless able to show lawful payment [Paras 13-14].

Discretionary Power – Application – High Court's discretionary power to strike off defense must be exercised with great circumspection – Discretionary power is not meant for routine relaxation but to address bonafide situations; not applicable in this case of deliberate non-performance by tenant [Paras 10.1, 10.3, 17].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's order set aside – Trial Court's order striking off defense restored – Suit to proceed with reasonable priority for expeditious disposal [Paras 22-23].

Consumer Law – Delay in Delivery of Possession – Builder delayed delivery of possession of the flat due to delayed regulatory clearance – Appellant (allottee) entitled to compensation for delay from March 2011 till fresh offer of possession – Modification of contractual terms regarding compensation upheld – National Commission's modification of compensation to 6% p.a. set aside; State Commission's direction of Rs.10 per sq. ft. per month restored [Paras 22-27, 29(iv)].

Maintenance Charges – Liability and Payment – Direction to allottee to pay maintenance charges held erroneous as the entity entitled to receive such charges was not a party to the proceedings – Declaratory relief cannot be given in vacuum – Orders of the National and State Commissions directing payment of maintenance charges set aside [Paras 15-19, 29(i)-(ii)].

Offer of Possession – Validity and Conditions – Letter dated 10th June 2013 offering possession deemed invalid due to conditional nature and illegal demand – Proper fresh offer of possession to be issued within eight weeks from date of judgement – Execution of Deed to follow within specified period [Paras 28-29(iii)].

Decision – Appeals disposed of in specified terms – Directions for compensation and issuance of fresh offer of possession upheld – Erroneous direction for maintenance charges payment set aside [Paras 30-31].

Customs – Classification of Goods – Dried pomegranate seeds (Anardana) classified under Heading 1209 as seeds, not under Heading 0813 as dried fruit – CESTAT's classification upheld based on the common parlance test and policy conditions in the Import Policy – Revenue's contention rejected due to insufficient evidence to reclassify Anardana under a different heading [Paras 1-3, 25].

Common Parlance Test – Interpretation of Taxing Statutes – Words in taxing statutes should be construed according to their commonly accepted meaning in trade and popular sense – Common parlance test applied to determine that Anardana is not considered a dried fruit but a spice or medicinal seed [Paras 12-13, 19].

Import Policy – Influence on Classification – Policy condition attached to sub-heading 1209.99.00 of the Import Policy supports classification of Anardana under Heading 1209 – Import Policy's correlation with sub-heading 1209.99 considered valid in the absence of specific exclusion or inclusion in the Customs Tariff Act [Paras 21-22].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Classification of Anardana under Heading 1209 upheld – CESTAT’s decision affirmed – Suggested Revenue to consider a policy decision on classification of Anardana to avoid future litigation [Paras 26-28].

Contempt of Court – Wilful Disobedience – Respondents failed to deposit shortfall amount to maintain USD 60 million in Corporation Bank account despite Supreme Court’s orders – Defence of insufficient funds and inability to comply rejected – Conduct amounted to deliberate and wilful disobedience – Respondents liable for punishment under Contempt of Courts Act [Paras 10-12].

Execution of Court Orders – Contempt vs. Execution – Contempt proceedings maintainable even if the order is executable – Contempt proceedings and execution proceedings are separate remedies and can be invoked simultaneously – Supreme Court emphasized the need to maintain rule of law and judicial authority [Paras 8-9].

Legal Principles – Non-Compliance – Mere non-compliance due to lack of funds not a valid defence – Repeated failure to comply with court orders despite opportunities considered wilful disobedience – Supreme Court’s directions must be followed to uphold the authority of the judiciary [Paras 7, 10-11].

Decision – Respondents held guilty of contempt – Further opportunity given to comply with the order within four weeks – Matter adjourned for consideration of punishment [Paras 12].

Sales Tax – Classification of Product – 'KADIPROL' sold by the respondent categorized by Deputy Commissioner as 'Drug and Medicine' under Entry 26(1) of Schedule II Part A of the GST Act – Tribunal upheld this classification – High Court reversed and categorized it as 'Poultry Feed' under Entry 25 of Schedule I – Supreme Court found merit in Revenue’s contention that the product should be classified as a drug due to its medicinal properties and primary use in preventing infections in poultry – However, as issue was deemed academic with no revenue implication, proceedings were closed without a definitive ruling on classification [Paras 2, 4-8].

Common Parlance Test – Application in Tax Law – Supreme Court noted the importance of the common parlance test in determining the classification of goods for tax purposes – High Court’s reliance on previous decisions without detailed examination critiqued – Issue of applying common parlance test left open for consideration in future cases [Paras 5.6, 7-8].

Decision – Appeal disposed of on grounds of academic interest – No tax dues or revenue implication – Larger question on common parlance test kept open for future consideration [Paras 7-8].