Environmental Clearance – Requirement – Further construction of the appellant's project comprising six buildings cannot proceed without a new environmental impact assessment – Environmental clearance needed for any new construction beyond initial sanctions [Paras 3-4, 18-19].

Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation – Project proponents are entitled to operate under the environmental clearance regime existing at the time of their project approval – Retrospective changes impacting already granted clearances deemed unfair and impractical [Paras 20-25].

Judicial Review – Balance of Interests – Courts to ensure stability and predictability in government dealings with public – Projects commenced under valid permissions should be protected from subsequent policy changes unless substantial public interest dictates otherwise [Paras 21-23].

Decision – Appeals disposed of – NGT's protection of completed construction upheld – Further construction to proceed only with fresh environmental clearance from competent authority [Paras 26-27].

Hostile Witnesses – Credibility – Conviction based on evidence from hostile witnesses upheld – Courts may rely on credible parts of hostile witness testimonies if corroborated by other evidence – The evidence of PW1 and other eyewitnesses was found reliable despite initial hostility [Paras 1-22, 27].

Honour Killing – Hostile Social Norms – Case involved the brutal killing of individuals violating caste norms – Emphasized societal need to prevent caste-based violence – Highlighted the role of witness protection to ensure fair trial [Paras 22, 28-31, 39-40].

Section 149 IPC – Unlawful Assembly – Presence and participation in unlawful assembly suffices for conviction under Section 149 IPC – Vicarious liability for acts committed in prosecution of common object of the assembly even without active participation [Paras 35-38].

Witness Protection – State Obligation – Stress on the need for witness protection schemes to ensure free and fair testimony – Reference to Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, and directions for its implementation [Paras 28-31].

Decision – Appeals partly allowed – Some appellants acquitted due to lack of credible evidence and identification – Conviction and life sentences for remaining appellants upheld – Directions issued to ensure implementation of witness protection measures [Paras 48-51].

Service Law – Back-wages – In cases of wrongful termination, reinstatement with continuity of service and back-wages is the normal rule – Adjudicating authority must consider the length of service, nature of misconduct, financial condition of the employer, and similar factors – High Court correctly granted 50% back wages to the respondent [Paras 1-14].

Rule 161 RPF Rules – Dispensing Inquiry – Authorities can dispense with inquiry if it is not reasonably practicable to hold one – Reasons must be recorded in writing – Allegations of threat to witnesses and collusion in theft justify invoking Rule 161, but the absence of recorded reasons invalidates the order [Paras 4, 8-9].

Judicial Review – Back Wages – Grant of back wages depends on case specifics – Courts exercise discretion in awarding full or partial back wages, considering the overall fairness and circumstances of each case – 50% back wages upheld as fair and just in this case [Paras 11-13].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – High Court’s order upheld – Reinstatement with 50% back wages granted to respondent [Para 14].

Criminal Law – Attempt to Murder – Appellant, a police official, used his service pistol in an inebriated condition – Conviction under Section 307 IPC upheld as the intent to kill was evident from the appellant’s actions – Sentence reduced to the period already undergone [Paras 1-27, 36].

Arms Act – Misuse of Licensed Weapon – Conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act set aside – Illegal use of a licensed weapon does not constitute an offence under Section 27 without proving misdemeanour under Section 5 or 7 of the Arms Act – Appellant’s possession of the weapon was authorized [Paras 28-31].

Doctrine of Proportionality – Sentencing – Emphasized the need for proportionate sentencing based on the gravity of the offence, the overall conduct of the offender, and mitigating factors – Appellant’s clean record and absence of premeditation considered in reducing the sentence [Paras 32-35].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act set aside – Conviction under Section 307 IPC maintained – Sentence reduced to the period already undergone [Para 36].

Succession Law – Execution of Unprivileged Wills – High Court incorrectly formulated the question of law based on factual inquiry, contrary to Section 100 CPC – Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court had found the will not proved in terms of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act – High Court's detailed factual inquiry was impermissible [Paras 1-8].

Evidence – Reliability – Testimonies of witnesses supporting the will were disbelieved by lower courts due to contradictions and lack of confidence – High Court erred by re-evaluating these factual determinations – Mechanical compliance with Section 63 insufficient without reliable evidence [Paras 4-7].

Doctrine of Escheat – Rights of Legal Representatives – Legal heirs of Kishan Singh can question the State's claim over the land – Option open for legal representatives to bring appropriate actions under law [Paras 9-10].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court restored – Legal representatives of defendant nos. 2 to 4 may pursue claims as permitted by law [Paras 10-11].

Consumer Protection – Allegations of Coercion – Allegations by the complainant of being coerced and threatened to sign blank papers for settlement – National Commission’s orders requiring personal appearance and issuing bailable warrants against Director of appellant company found premature and unwarranted without detailed examination of allegations [Paras 1-5].

Judicial Procedure – Issuance of Bailable Warrants – Bailable warrants to be issued as a last resort – Inappropriate when parties are represented and participating in proceedings – Orders set aside, but National Commission retains authority to require appearance if necessary in the future [Paras 5.1, 6].

Free Access to Justice – Importance of Unfettered Access – Court emphasizes the need for unobstructed access to justice and condemns any attempt to impede or coerce parties – Allegations to be thoroughly examined by National Commission [Para 5.1].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Orders of National Commission requiring personal appearance and issuing bailable warrants quashed – National Commission to examine allegations in detail and decide review application without being influenced by present order [Para 6].

Property Law – Declaration of Ownership – High Court erred in denying declaration of ownership solely because plaintiffs failed to establish possession – Proviso to Section 34 Specific Relief Act not a bar if consequential relief sought but not granted on merit – Plaintiffs entitled to declaratory decree of ownership even if injunctive relief denied [Paras 15-19].

Possession – Requirement for Injunction – Plaintiffs failed to establish possession of suit property – Injunctive relief rightly denied – Earlier suit dismissed for lack of possession evidence does not bar subsequent suit for declaration with new cause of action [Paras 11, 19].

Suit Maintainability – Proviso to Section 34 Specific Relief Act – Proviso bars declaration suits without further relief only if plaintiff omits necessary relief – No bar if consequential relief sought but not established on merit – Suit maintainable despite failure on possession claim [Paras 15-16].

Doctrine of Res Judicata – Earlier suit dismissal does not bar present suit under Order II Rule 2 CPC – New incidents of interference provided fresh cause of action for declaratory relief [Paras 17-18].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – High Court’s denial of injunctive relief and refusal to amend plaint for possession upheld – High Court’s denial of declaration of ownership set aside – Plaintiffs granted declaratory decree of ownership of suit property [Paras 20-21].

Arbitration – Scope of Arbitrator's Jurisdiction – Arbitrator exceeded jurisdiction by passing the award on contracts beyond the Bina Project agreement – High Court rightly set aside the award concerning other projects/contracts – Arbitrator bound by the specific agreement referred to arbitration [Paras 1-5].

Arbitration Award – Partial Upholding – High Court should have upheld the award related to the Bina Project – High Court's quashing of the entire award was excessive – Confirmation of award for Bina Project amount of Rs. 5,99,158/- deemed appropriate [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – High Court's judgment modified – Award by Arbitrator for Bina Project confirmed – Award for other projects/contracts rightly quashed by High Court – Excess amount deposited by respondent to be returned if withdrawn by appellant [Para 7].

Criminal Law – Appeal against acquittal – The High Court acquitted 11 accused persons based on the reasoning that the eyewitnesses had not named the accused specifically or assigned specific roles – Supreme Court finds the High Court’s approach contrary to settled legal principles – Single witness testimony found reliable can be the basis of conviction – High Court's acquittal order reversed – Conviction and sentence by the Trial Court against 6 accused restored [Paras 1-25].

Witness Testimony – Reliability – Eyewitness accounts provided by PW1, PW2, PW24, PW25, and PW27 found consistent and credible – Presence and participation of accused confirmed – Supreme Court stresses that even a single reliable witness can be sufficient for conviction – Testimony of PW6 not considered due to inconsistency with other eyewitness accounts [Paras 10-12, 17, 23].

Section 149 IPC – Common Object – Analysis of whether the accused shared a common object – Supreme Court applies the principle from Masalti v. State of U.P. for determining liability of accused who did not commit overt acts but were part of unlawful assembly – Accused with specific allegations and overt acts convicted – Acquittal of others confirmed due to lack of specific evidence against them [Paras 18-24].

Decision – Appeals partly allowed – Conviction and sentence restored against original accused A1, A6, A7, A8, A10, and A13 – Acquittal of other accused confirmed due to benefit of doubt – Accused to surrender within four weeks or be taken into custody to serve sentence [Paras 24-25].