Land Acquisition – Specific Performance – Compensation – The appellant executed an agreement to sell land to the respondent, which was later acquired by the state. The courts below granted specific performance. The High Court modified this to grant compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act, with deductions for expenses incurred by the original landowner. The Supreme Court upheld this modification, emphasizing that compensation under the Land Acquisition Act may be deemed an appropriate substitute for specific performance when the contract becomes impossible to fulfill through no fault of the plaintiff. [Paras 1-12].

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 21 – Award of Compensation – When specific performance of a contract becomes impossible due to land acquisition, the court is empowered to award compensation in lieu of specific performance. The compensation amount determined under the Land Acquisition Act is to be taken as the measure of damages, subject to deductions for the landowner's litigation costs. [Paras 7-11].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – The appellant is entitled to Rs. 300,000 from the compensation deposited by the acquiring body, with the balance amount, including interest and solatium, payable to the respondent. The decision of the High Court was modified to this extent, confirming the entitlement of the respondent to the compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act, less the specified deductions. [Paras 12-13].

Land Acquisition – Specific Performance – Compensation – The appellant executed an agreement to sell land to the respondent, which was later acquired by the state. The courts below granted specific performance. The High Court modified this to grant compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act, with deductions for expenses incurred by the original landowner. The Supreme Court upheld this modification, emphasizing that compensation under the Land Acquisition Act may be deemed an appropriate substitute for specific performance when the contract becomes impossible to fulfill through no fault of the plaintiff. [Paras 1-12].

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 21 – Award of Compensation – When specific performance of a contract becomes impossible due to land acquisition, the court is empowered to award compensation in lieu of specific performance. The compensation amount determined under the Land Acquisition Act is to be taken as the measure of damages, subject to deductions for the landowner's litigation costs. [Paras 7-11].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – The appellant is entitled to Rs. 300,000 from the compensation deposited by the acquiring body, with the balance amount, including interest and solatium, payable to the respondent. The decision of the High Court was modified to this extent, confirming the entitlement of the respondent to the compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act, less the specified deductions. [Paras 12-13].

Service Law – Termination – Back Wages – The respondent was appointed to a post based on a merit list, but due to an administrative error, another candidate (Respondent No. 2) did not receive the appointment letter and later contested her exclusion. The tribunal ordered the appointment of Respondent No. 2 and termination of Respondent No. 1, which was upheld by the Supreme Court. The Court emphasized the necessity of adhering to tribunal orders and noted the passage of nearly two decades, making it untenable to reinstate Respondent No. 1 or award back wages. The High Court's order to appoint Respondent No. 1 to another vacancy was set aside. [Paras 1-26].

Termination – Natural Justice – The failure to provide Respondent No. 1 an opportunity to show cause before termination was acknowledged, but it was deemed non-fatal due to the binding nature of the tribunal's earlier order and the specific circumstances of the case. [Paras 23-24].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order directing the appointment of Respondent No. 1 to another vacancy and upheld the termination as necessitated by compliance with the tribunal's binding order. The claim for back wages was also denied. [Paras 25-26].

Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 read with Section 34 – Murder – Common Intention – The appellants were convicted of murder based on the consistent, natural, and trustworthy testimony of key witnesses. The alleged omissions, such as not seizing the motorcycle or the gold chain of one of the victims, do not discredit the prosecution's evidence. The motive for the crime was established due to prior animosity regarding the payment of rent for a tractor. The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that all accused committed the crime with common intention. Both the trial court and the High Court's decisions were upheld. [Paras 16-22].

Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 read with Section 34 – Witness Testimony – Minor contradictions do not invalidate the testimony of witnesses. The court emphasized that only contradictions in material particulars can be grounds for discrediting witness testimony. The presence of injured witnesses at the scene and their injuries lend significant weight to their testimonies. The court noted that discrepancies that do not affect the core of the prosecution’s case are not fatal. [Paras 19-20].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, agreeing with the concurrent findings of the lower courts that the appellants were guilty of murder with common intention. The Court found no merit in the arguments presented by the defense and upheld the conviction and sentences imposed by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court. [Paras 21-22].

Income Tax – Section 80-IA(5) – Deduction – The scope of sub-section (5) of Section 80-IA is limited to the determination of the quantum of deduction under sub-section (1) by treating the eligible business as the only source of income. Sub-section (5) cannot be interpreted to limit the deduction to business income alone. The deduction is computed on the basis of net income from the eligible business, but it is allowed against the gross total income, including income from other sources, subject to the ceiling of the gross total income. [Paras 1-15].

Income Tax Act – Section 80AB – Computation of Deduction – Section 80AB pertains to the computation of the quantum of deductible income in the gross total income. It cannot curtail the width of Section 80-IA. Section 80A(2) stipulates that the aggregate amount of deductions under Chapter VI-A shall not exceed the gross total income of the assessee. [Paras 9-10].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act is not limited to business income. The deduction computed on the profits and gains from the eligible business can be set off against the gross total income, including income from other sources, subject to the ceiling of gross total income. [Para 15].

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 3(2)(v) – The conviction under this provision requires evidence that the offence was committed on the ground that the victim was a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. In this case, the evidence did not establish that the offence was committed solely on that ground. Hence, the conviction under Section 3(2)(v) was set aside. [Paras 1-11, 56-61].

Penal Code, 1860 – Section 376(1) – Rape – The conviction under Section 376(1) was upheld. The testimonies of the witnesses and medical evidence established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The nature and gravity of the offence, especially considering the victim's disability, warranted the imposition of life imprisonment. [Paras 1-11, 62-63].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act due to insufficient evidence but upheld the life imprisonment sentence under Section 376(1) of the IPC due to the serious nature of the offence and the victim's vulnerability. [Para 61-63].

Criminal Law – Bail – Grant of Bail – The High Court's decision to grant bail to the accused, a history-sheeter charged with murder and other serious offences, was challenged. The Supreme Court noted the potential threat to witnesses and the safety concerns of victims' families. It emphasized the need for courts to consider the impact of bail on the witnesses and the public, beyond just the parties involved in the case. [Paras 2-8].

Criminal Law – Bail Considerations – The court highlighted several considerations for granting bail, including the nature and gravity of the accusations, the severity of punishment, the potential for the accused to abscond, and the risk of witnesses being influenced or justice being thwarted. The Supreme Court stressed the importance of judicious, cautious, and compliant exercise of discretion by the High Court in line with established precedents. [Paras 9-11].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the order of the Allahabad High Court granting bail to the accused, recognizing the importance of safeguarding the life and liberty of victims and witnesses against potential threats from the accused. [Paras 12-13].

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 31(7) – Interest on Delayed Payment – The appellant was awarded a contract for upgrading a State Highway and sought interest on delayed payments as per the agreement. The agreement contained provisions for interest but did not specify the rate for local currency payments. The Tribunal awarded interest, but the Arbitration Court and High Court set aside this part of the award, interpreting the absence of a specified rate as a waiver of interest. The Supreme Court held that the blank space for the interest rate in the agreement does not imply zero or nil interest and that interest should be awarded at a reasonable rate. [Paras 3-17].

Contractual Interpretation – The Tribunal's interpretation of the contract as providing for interest on delayed payments, despite the blank space for the interest rate, was reasonable. The High Court's reasoning that the blank space implied no interest was flawed and speculative. [Paras 11-16].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, modifying the interest rate to 8% per annum simple interest. The award of the Tribunal for interest on delayed payments was upheld, but the rate was adjusted. The judgments of the Arbitration Court and the High Court were set aside. [Paras 17-18].

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Execution of Decrees – Abuse of Process – The appeals highlighted the constant abuse of procedural provisions by unsuccessful litigants, which obstructs the execution of decrees and justice. The Supreme Court emphasized that execution proceedings must not be allowed to become tools to delay justice. The Court provided detailed guidelines to streamline and expedite the execution process, including directions to ensure timely disposal of execution petitions, prevent frivolous objections, and use of technology. [Paras 2-43].

Execution of Decrees – Guidelines and Directions – The Supreme Court issued comprehensive directions to all courts dealing with execution proceedings to ensure timely execution and prevent abuse of process. This included mandatory examination of parties under Order X, production of documents under Order XI, appointment of Commissioners under Order XXVI, and specific directions for the disposal of execution proceedings within six months. The High Courts were directed to update their rules to align with these directions and the CPC. [Paras 42-43].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the High Court’s order. The Court also emphasized the need for cooperation with the executing court and warned against non-cooperation. [Para 44].