Telecom Law – Cancellation of Licences – Appellant’s demand for a refund of entry fee post-cancellation of UAS licenses in 2G spectrum allocation – Supreme Court held appellant in pari delicto with DoT and officials of the Union government – Claim for refund rejected based on the principle that courts do not assist a party equally at fault – Appellant benefitted from arbitrary and unconstitutional policy [Paras 1-20, 54-55].

Jurisdiction of TDSAT – TDSAT's adjudicatory powers under Section 14(a) of the TRAI Act – Appellant's claim for refund of entry fee does not fall under contractual disputes envisaged by Section 14(a) – Claim of refund had to be addressed by Supreme Court post-decision in CPIL – TDSAT lacks jurisdiction to entertain claim [Paras 25-38].

Doctrine of Frustration and Restitution – Applicability of Section 56 and 65 of the Indian Contract Act – Court analyzed whether appellant’s contract became void due to supervening impossibility or illegality – Appellant in pari delicto hence ineligible for restitution under Section 65 – Principles of public policy and justice prevent restitution where both parties are equally responsible for the illegality [Paras 39-54].

Policy of Set-Off – Government’s policy allowing set-off of entry fee against earnest money for new auction participation – Supreme Court upheld policy aimed at ensuring industry stability and public interest – No manifest arbitrariness found in the policy [Paras 56-59].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Appellant not entitled to refund of entry fee – Supreme Court underscores in pari delicto condition and principles of public policy in denying claim [Paras 60-61].

Service Law – Suspension and Reinstatement – Appellant's dismissal set aside by appellate authority – Appellate authority directed period of suspension and dismissal to be treated as dies non – Supreme Court held appellate authority's order imposing dies non not a recognized penalty – Remitted case to competent authority to determine how period should be treated [Paras 1-17].

Rule 15(v)(f) – Entitlement to Salary – Authority must decide treatment of period from suspension to reinstatement – Automatic entitlement to salary for entire period not implied – Remand to determine salary and benefits due [Paras 15-16].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Orders treating period as dies non set aside – Remanded to competent authority to determine treatment of suspension period and entitlement to salary [Para 17].

Specific Relief – Injunction – Plaintiff's suit for cancellation of sale deed and declaration dismissed – Permanent injunction granted by trial court restraining defendant from disturbing plaintiff's possession – High Court upheld injunction – Supreme Court held once plaintiff lost title claim, no injunction should be granted against true owner – Injunction as consequential relief fails if declaratory relief is denied [Paras 1-14].

Limitation and Possession – Plaintiff's suit for declaration and cancellation barred by limitation – Permanent injunction as consequential relief also barred – Registered sale deed in favor of defendant upheld, indicating defendant's lawful ownership and possession – Plaintiff’s possession not lawful without title [Paras 8-9].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of trial court and High Court set aside – Suit for permanent injunction dismissed – No costs [Para 14].

Constitutional Law – Quo Warranto – Petition challenging appointment of Vice Chancellor of Sardar Patel University – Allegation of non-compliance with UGC Regulations mandating ten years’ experience as professor – Search committee composition questioned – Supreme Court held UGC Regulations binding on state universities receiving central financial assistance – Appointment of Vice Chancellor contrary to UGC Regulations warrants issuance of writ of quo warranto [Paras 1-17].

UGC Regulations – Supremacy and Compliance – UGC Regulations framed under Section 26 have statutory force – Binding on states and universities receiving central financial aid – State legislation in conflict with UGC Regulations void to extent of repugnancy – Proper composition of search committee crucial for valid appointment [Paras 11-16].

Decision: Petition allowed – Writ of quo warranto issued – Appointment of respondent as Vice Chancellor set aside – State directed to amend legislation to align with UGC Regulations before future appointments [Paras 17-17.2].

Criminal Law – Kidnapping for Ransom – Appellants convicted under Sections 364A and 120B IPC – High Court upheld convictions and sentences – Dr. Shashi Kumar Sinha and Salauddin were kidnapped on 7th February 2006 – Ransom of Rs. 1200000/- paid to Deepak Kumar – Subsequent arrest and rescue operations led to convictions – High Court's acquittal of Santosh not challenged by State [Paras 1-3].

Evidence and Standard of Proof – Convictions upheld based on depositions, identification by victims, and recovery of ransom money – Doubts about the involvement of Kanhaiya Lal, Ramjee Prajapati, and Abhay Kumar led to their acquittal – Prosecution failed to conclusively prove their involvement or agreement to the conspiracy [Paras 4-17].

Judicial Reasoning – Analysis of Inspector K.K. Singh (PW-4) and I.O. Yogesh Chandra (PW-8) depositions led to the benefit of doubt for Kanhaiya Lal – Ramjee Prajapati and Abhay Kumar’s actions were deemed neutral, showing concern rather than participation in the crime [Paras 11-17].

Decision – Appeals by Desh Deepak Kumar Vihangam, Bimlesh Kumar Singh, and Madan Prasad Thathera dismissed; convictions and sentences affirmed – Appeals by Kanhaiya Lal, Ramjee Prajapati, and Abhay Kumar allowed; convictions set aside – Deepak Kumar to surrender within 10 days to serve life imprisonment and pay the fine [Paras 18-19].

Insolvency Law – Withdrawal of CIRP Proceedings – Majority of home buyers settled dispute with developer – NCLAT upheld NCLT's admission of insolvency proceedings – Supreme Court exercised powers under Article 142, permitting withdrawal of CIRP proceedings in larger interest of home buyers awaiting possession for over eight years – Ensured business continuity and completion of real estate project [Paras 1-14].

Article 142 Powers – Supreme Court facilitated settlement, permitted withdrawal of insolvency proceedings – Emphasized larger interest of home buyers over prolonged insolvency process – Directed developer to complete project within one year and provide possession [Paras 9-13].

Decision: Appeal allowed – CIRP proceedings withdrawn – Developer to complete project within one year – Conditions and undertakings to be complied with, enabling home buyers to receive possession after prolonged delay [Paras 14-17].

Criminal Law – Murder – Eyewitness Testimony – Appellant convicted for participating in group assault resulting in murder – Conviction based on testimonies of eyewitnesses who identified appellant as present and armed – Medical evidence corroborated gunshot injuries – Discrepancies in witness statements deemed minor and not affecting core prosecution case [Paras 1-46].

Medical Evidence – Post mortem examination supported eyewitness accounts of multiple gunshot injuries causing death – Injuries inflicted by different firearms confirmed participation of multiple accused [Paras 13-16, 36-40].

Legal Principles – Doctrine of Severability – Not applicable to witness statements in criminal trials – Entire statement to be accepted or rejected – Conviction can be based on credible parts of hostile witnesses’ testimony [Paras 31-33].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Concurrent findings of guilt by Trial Court and High Court upheld – Minor discrepancies in witness statements do not undermine overall credibility of prosecution case – Appellant's presence and participation in assault established beyond reasonable doubt [Para 47].

Service Law – Promotion and Seniority – Appellant's promotion to Office Superintendent quashed by High Court – High Court favored respondent due to earlier entry into service and promotion by reservation benefit – Supreme Court emphasized seniority-cum-merit criterion, upheld higher pay scale and unblemished record of appellant as basis for promotion – Promotion to selection post requires consideration of merit alongside seniority – Chargesheet against respondent indicated dereliction of duty [Paras 1-26].

Merit and Seniority – Importance of Clean Record – Seniority-cum-merit involves evaluating both seniority and merit – Clean service record of appellant considered significant – Higher pay scale in feeder cadre supports seniority claim – Respondent's disciplinary issues and resultant penalty factored against promotion [Paras 17-26].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Appellant's promotion reinstated – Board's decision to prefer appellant over respondent upheld based on unblemished record and higher pay scale [Para 26].

Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ Petition - Specific Performance of Contract - High Court issued a writ of mandamus virtually granting specific performance of a work order in a writ petition under Article 226 - Supreme Court held such a writ could not be issued when there were disputed questions of fact and no evidence that goods were manufactured as per specifications [Paras 8-8.1].

Suspension/Cancellation of Work Order - Decision based on Government Resolution due to COVID-19 Pandemic - Municipal Council suspended/cancelled the work order due to lack of funds and closed schools - High Court's decision to set aside the suspension/cancellation was erroneous [Para 8.1].

Decision - Appeal Allowed - High Court order quashed - Original writ petition dismissed - Liberty granted to the original writ petitioners to file a civil suit for damages/losses suffered [Para 9].