Specific Performance – Non-service of Notice – Appeal against High Court’s rejection of condonation of delay due to non-service of notice following change of address – Appellant produced documents proving address change – High Court did not conduct proper inquiry or make findings disbelieving the appellant’s explanation – High Court erred in dismissing appeal solely on limitation grounds – Delay condoned and High Court directed to admit and expedite hearing of second appeal [Paras 1-14].

Condonation of Delay – Address Change – Appellant failed to receive notice due to address change from Amalner to Nashik – Produced voter list and Aadhar card as proof – Respondent contended appellant’s name still existed in voter list of Amalner – Proper inquiry not conducted by High Court – Application for condonation of delay should have been allowed [Paras 4-7, 14].

Appellate Jurisdiction – High Court’s Approach – High Court should take a lenient view on condonation of delay considering advocate-client communication gaps – Appellant deprived of hearing opportunity in specific performance suit – High Court directed to admit and dispose of appeal expeditiously [Paras 14-16].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment set aside – High Court directed to admit and expedite hearing of second appeal – No order as to costs [Paras 14-18].

Service Law – Selection Process – High Court set aside the appointment of the appellant to the post of Junior Lab Technician on grounds of arbitrariness in marks allocation for experience and interview – Selection Committee's criteria for allocating marks after advertisement found to change "rules of the game" – Division Bench of the High Court erred in examining the entire selection list to determine arbitrariness when the respondent only challenged appellant's selection [Paras 13-20].

Experience and Interview Marks – Appellant had relevant experience in government medical institutions, receiving higher marks in experience and interview categories compared to respondent who had lesser and private practice experience – Selection Committee's criteria to favor candidates with experience in government institutions justified – Division Bench's decision to quash selection based on alleged discrepancies in marks allocation erroneous [Paras 15-20].

Judicial Review – Scope and Limitations – Court should not sit in appeal over the decision of expert bodies like Selection Committees unless bias or mala fides are evident – High Court transgressed limits of judicial review by reassessing entire selection list and not just the specific appointment challenged [Paras 16-20].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment quashing appellant's appointment set aside – Appointment of appellant to the post of Junior Lab Technician upheld [Paras 21-22].

Anticipatory Bail – Cancellation – High Court granted anticipatory bail ignoring material aspects such as the nature and gravity of the offence and the specific allegations against the accused – Deficiencies in the investigation highlighted by JMFC and trial court, including failure to consider eyewitness statements, reliance on selective CCTV footage, and lack of fingerprint analysis – High Court's order set aside due to improper exercise of discretion in granting bail [Paras 1-20, 24-30].

Deficiencies in Investigation – Investigation ignored crucial evidence: failure to consider statements of eyewitnesses, reliance on CCTV footage post-incident, non-collection of relevant CCTV footage, reliance on call data records without verifying usage, and absence of fingerprint analysis – Orders for further investigation and supplementary challan indicated significant omissions by the investigating officer [Paras 11-28].

Legal Principles for Anticipatory Bail – Principles outlined in Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) reiterated – High Court's order quashed due to failure to consider relevant factors and clear deficiencies in the investigation – Importance of assessing the severity of the offence and ensuring justice highlighted [Paras 24-30].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court's judgments granting anticipatory bail to the respondents set aside – Anticipatory bail cancelled – Case remanded for further proceedings in line with the judgment.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Quashing of Complaint – High Court erred in quashing proceedings under Section 138 based on pending suit challenging compromise deed – Compliance with Section 138 NI Act constitutes an offence upon dishonour of cheques – Question of liability to be determined at trial – Quashing set aside, complaints reinstated [Paras 1-15, 33-54].

Compromise Deed – Legal Enforceability – Settlement agreement executed between parties not invalidated by pending challenge – Once compromise is entered, original complaint cannot proceed – Breach of settlement results in fresh cause of action under Section 138 – High Court's quashing based on compromise deed being contested was incorrect [Paras 18-45].

Multiple Prosecutions – Cheque Dishonour – Parties cannot be subjected to parallel proceedings under Section 138 for the same transaction – Settlement subsumes original complaint – Fresh cause of action arises from dishonoured cheques issued under settlement [Paras 34-40].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court's order quashing second complaint under Section 138 set aside – Original complaints quashed – Second set of complaints to proceed.

Industrial Disputes Act – Jurisdiction – Civil court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a suit structured on the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act – Plaintiff’s claim based on ID Act must be adjudicated by appropriate forums under the ID Act – High Court rightly set aside lower courts’ judgments favoring the plaintiff – Decree by civil court declared null and void due to lack of jurisdiction [Paras 2-16].

Termination of Employment – Continuous Service – Plaintiff claimed continuous service for 2778 days – Civil court found plaintiff had completed 240 days of continuous service as per Section 25B of the ID Act – Termination without complying with Section 25F of the ID Act invalidated – However, High Court ruled civil court could not adjudicate such matters [Paras 3-7].

Execution Proceedings – Decree and Jurisdiction – Objection to decree execution on grounds of jurisdiction raised by the defendant – High Court upheld objection, nullifying the civil court’s decree – Jurisdictional objection can be raised at any stage, including execution [Paras 7-10].

Equitable Relief – Back Wages – Considering the plaintiff’s hardship, arrears paid under the civil court’s decree not to be recovered despite decree’s nullity – Parties to bear their own costs [Para 17].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court’s judgment affirmed – Decree by civil court set aside due to lack of jurisdiction.

Criminal Law – Non-Joinder of Trials – The High Court's direction for retrial by combining FIRs for gang rape and abetment of suicide due to perceived prejudice from separate trials – Prosecution case involved gang rape resulting in the prosecutrix's suicide – High Court remitted conviction and acquittal orders for retrial under Section 223 CrPC – Separate trials not found to have caused prejudice – Retrial after significant lapse of time deemed to cause miscarriage of justice – High Court's order set aside [Paras 1-20].

Retrial – Principles and Discretion – Appellate court's power to order retrial to be exercised in exceptional circumstances – Retrial should avert miscarriage of justice – Multiple accused convicted/acquitted in separate trials – High Court's direction for retrial by combining FIRs found unjustified – Acquittal or conviction not to be set aside solely based on possibility of joint or separate trials – High Court's judgment criticized for failure to demonstrate clear prejudice [Paras 21-28, 33-54].

Joint and Separate Trials – Legal Framework – Application of Sections 218-223 CrPC governing joinder and separation of charges – Separate trials usual, joint trials exceptional unless proved to cause miscarriage of justice – Appellate court must determine prejudice from separate trials before ordering retrial [Paras 29-38].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court's judgment for retrial set aside – Convictions and acquittals from original separate trials maintained – Retrial found unnecessary and prejudicial [Paras 39-45].

Wills – Validity and Suspicious Circumstances – The Supreme Court underscores that mere exclusion of a beneficiary’s siblings from a will does not inherently create suspicion unless other circumstances support such an inference. The Court affirmed the validity of Exhibit P4, a registered will, properly executed and attested by the beneficiary’s siblings, dismissing concerns raised by a forged and fabricated subsequent will (Exhibit D1)【Paras 1-27】.

Civil Procedure Code – Section 96 – Appellate Review – The appellate court’s role under Section 96 is to re-evaluate the evidence and findings of the trial court. The Supreme Court criticizes the High Court for substituting its views without sufficient reasoning and without properly addressing the trial court's findings, especially when two views are possible, advising deference to the trial court's observations unless significantly flawed【Paras 21-23】.

Evidence Act – Sections 63 and 68 – Proof of Execution – The Court highlights compliance with Sections 63 and 68 of the Indian Succession Act and Evidence Act, noting that the will (Exhibit P4) was duly executed and witnessed by credible individuals. The presence and participation of the testatrix’s relatives during the execution added credibility to the will, mitigating any suspicion【Paras 14-16】.

Order VI of CPC – Pleadings and Relief – Emphasizes the necessity for specific pleadings and the impermissibility of granting relief beyond the scope of pleadings. The Court reiterates that relief should be confined to what has been explicitly stated and proven during the trial【Paras 20】.

Decision: The Supreme Court set aside the judgment and decree of the High Court, restoring the trial court’s judgment which had validated Exhibit P4 and dismissed Exhibit D1 as a forged document. The appeals were allowed, affirming the appellant's title to the suit property based on the valid will (Exhibit P4)【Paras 28-30】.

Regularization of Part-Time Employees – Entitlement and Policy – Part-time employees cannot claim regularization or permanent status as they are not working against sanctioned posts. The Supreme Court reiterates that regularization can only occur as per the State/Government's regularization policy and not as a matter of right. The High Court's direction to create and sanction posts was deemed beyond its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution【Paras 8, 8.4-8.8】.

Equal Pay for Equal Work – Part-Time vs. Full-Time Employees – The Court clarifies that part-time temporary employees cannot claim parity in salary with full-time regular employees under the principle of equal pay for equal work. The High Court's observation that part-time workers must have worked full days is unsupported by evidence and deemed speculative【Paras 8.4, 8.6】.

Judicial Review – Limitations on Policy Decisions – The Court emphasizes that policy formulation and creation of posts are the sole prerogatives of the government. The High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by directing the government to reformulate its policy and create posts for regularization of part-time employees【Paras 8.3, 8.4】.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's directions to reformulate the policy and sanction posts. However, it upheld the direction granting minimum basic pay to part-time workers who completed 20 years of service, as previously indicated in the interim order【Paras 8.9, 9】.

Suo Motu Jurisdiction of NGT – Legislative Intent and Interpretation – The Supreme Court held that the NGT is vested with suo motu power in the discharge of its functions under the NGT Act. The Court emphasized that the NGT Act, when read as a whole, provides the NGT with the leeway to go beyond a mere adjudicatory role. The Parliament’s intention was to create a multifunctional body capable of addressing environmental exigencies and fostering public interest in the environmental domain【Para 20-21】.

Environmental Justice and Equity – Role of NGT – The Supreme Court underscored the importance of environmental justice and equity, recognizing the NGT as a sui generis institution. The NGT’s role extends beyond resolving disputes; it includes taking preventative, ameliorative, and remedial actions to address environmental issues. The Court highlighted the need for the NGT to act proactively to protect the environment for present and future generations, adhering to the principles of environmental justice and sustainable development【Para 27-27.3】.

Procedural Flexibility – Ensuring Effective Environmental Governance – The Court ruled that the NGT must have the flexibility to address environmental damage and resultant climate change without waiting for a formal application to be filed. The NGT’s powers include taking suo motu cognizance of matters based on communications, media reports, or other sources, ensuring that environmental protection is not hampered by procedural constraints. The exercise of suo motu jurisdiction must adhere to principles of natural justice, providing affected parties an opportunity to be heard【Para 25.1-25.8】.

Decision: The Supreme Court affirmed the NGT’s power to exercise suo motu jurisdiction in the discharge of its functions under the NGT Act. It recognized the NGT’s responsibility to address environmental concerns proactively and to act in the public interest, ensuring environmental protection and sustainable development. The appeals were decided in favor of allowing the NGT to operate with the broad powers envisaged by the statute【Para 21.4, 27.3, 25.8】.