Municipal Law – Building Safety and Demolition – Building classified as C-1 (most dangerous) after structural audit – Demolition and eviction notices issued – High Court upheld notices, finding building unsafe – Supreme Court affirmed, citing compliance with legal procedures and protection of appellants' rights in redevelopment agreement [Paras 1-25].

Structural Audit – Legal Obligations and Findings – Building completed 55 years, mandatory structural audit declared it dangerous – Notices issued under Sections 354 and 353B of MMC Act – Compliance with statutory requirements upheld by Supreme Court [Paras 13-16].

Rights of Occupants – Redevelopment Agreement – Agreement protected appellants' rights, provided for larger flats and compensation during displacement – Court found appellants' rights sufficiently safeguarded in redevelopment process [Paras 18-20].

Public Interest and Safety – Judicial Notice of Structural Safety – Emphasized necessity of demolishing unsafe structures to prevent loss of life – Rejected appellants' plea for leniency due to seniority, prioritizing public safety [Paras 22-23].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court judgment upheld – Notices of demolition and eviction sustained – All pending applications and contempt petition disposed of [Paras 24-25].

Service Law – Cancellation of Appointments – Appellants qualified 6th Combined Civil Services Examination 2016, completed probation, and were appointed – High Court annulled appointments due to errors in qualifying marks and merit list preparation – Supreme Court found ambiguity in advertisement and upheld Commission's merit list preparation method – Appointments reinstated [Paras 1-48].

Examination Rules – Interpretation of Qualifying Marks – High Court misinterpreted Rule 16 of the 1951 Rules regarding qualifying marks – Supreme Court clarified qualifying marks should be read conjointly for all candidates, not isolated to specific provisions for SC/ST candidates – Past practice of merit list preparation by Commission deemed valid [Paras 37-46].

Equity and Public Service – Long-standing Appointments – Supreme Court emphasized fairness for candidates working for nearly two years – Past practice followed by Commission considered valid – High Court's decision to unsettle appointments overturned [Paras 44-45].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court judgment quashed – Appellants' appointments reinstated – Transfer petition dismissed – All pending applications disposed of [Paras 48-51].

Specific Relief – Specific Performance – Plaintiff breached essential contract conditions – Suit barred by delay and laches – Plaintiff delayed filing the suit by nearly five years – Supreme Court held plaintiff not entitled to specific performance due to their conduct – Relief under Section 12 not granted as delay and laches barred the claim [Paras 1-79].

Contractual Obligations – Time as Essence – Time stipulated for performance in contract – Plaintiff failed to pay balance within stipulated time – Court held time was essence based on contract terms and parties’ conduct – Breach of condition due to non-payment led to contract voidability [Paras 25-38].

Limitation – Article 54 of Limitation Act – Suit for specific performance filed after three years from fixed date – Court held suit barred by limitation as per first part of Article 54 – Legal notices did not remedy breach of time condition [Paras 30-38].

Discretionary Relief – Granting Specific Performance – Court held that discretion should be exercised judiciously – Relied on principles from earlier cases to deny specific performance due to delay and conduct of the plaintiff [Paras 57-72].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court judgment quashed – Relief of specific performance denied – Appellants directed to repay part consideration with interest at 7.5% p.a. within six months – All pending applications disposed of [Paras 79-81].

Criminal Law – Conspiracy and Conviction – Appeal against High Court’s confirmation of conviction for offences under Sections 201, 380, 435, 457, and 477 IPC read with Section 120B IPC – Appellant (A-3) convicted solely based on possession of one set of keys under the dual lock system – No direct or overt evidence linking Appellant to theft or conspiracy – Prosecution failed to prove explicit or circumstantial agreement between Appellant and co-accused (A-1 and A-2) – Supreme Court acquitted Appellant due to lack of evidence of conspiracy [Paras 1-28].

Ingredients of Conspiracy – Implied Agreement – Held, an implied agreement must manifest through circumstantial evidence – Mere possession of keys insufficient for conviction under Section 120B – Conspiracy requires proof of an agreement or prior meeting of minds [Paras 22-26].

Circumstantial Evidence – Dual Lock System – Bank’s dual lock system required presence of both key holders for operation – Prosecution did not establish Appellant’s exclusive role in the theft – Appellant’s possession of keys explained by standard procedure, not conspiracy [Paras 17-20].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court and Trial Court judgments quashed – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Parties to bear their own costs [Paras 27-28].

Income Tax – Bad Debt – Assessee’s claim for writing off Rs. 10 crores as a bad debt disallowed – Amount advanced to developer not substantiated by material evidence – Mere provision for doubtful debt not sufficient under Section 36(1)(vii) after 1.4.1989 – Supreme Court held that the deduction was not allowable as conditions under Section 36(2) were not met – Claim for deduction under Section 37 also not applicable since the expenditure related to acquisition of capital asset [Paras 1-24].

Interpretation of Sections – Distinction between Write Off and Provision – Section 36(1)(vii) distinguishes between write off and provision for doubtful debt – Provision for doubtful debt not included under ‘written off’ bad debt – Section 37 does not apply if item falls under Sections 30 to 36 but is excluded by Explanation to Section 36(1)(vii) [Paras 13-17].

Conditions for Deduction – Compliance Required – Assessee must satisfy conditions of Section 36(1)(vii) and Section 36(2) – Written off debt must be taken into account in computing income – Expenditure must relate to business and not capital stream to claim under Section 37 [Paras 12-20].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court and ITAT orders set aside – Revenue’s appeal succeeds – No order on costs [Paras 24].

Urban Development – Transferable Development Rights (TDR) – Calculation of FSI – Appellants contested the reduction of TDR from 100% FSI to 4% FSI by the Chief Minister of Maharashtra – The land was originally not designated under 'Hill Top/Hill Slope' zone but reserved for park purposes – Supreme Court found the cancellation of the original TDR and reduction to 4% FSI arbitrary – Directed respondents to restore possession of the land to appellants and compensate for the deprivation of land use [Paras 1-32].

Promissory Estoppel – Legitimate Expectation – Appellants surrendered land to the Pune Municipal Corporation based on the assurance of TDR @ 100% FSI – Application of promissory estoppel against the State – Supreme Court held respondents accountable to their original promise – State's retraction considered unjustifiable [Paras 13-14, 27].

Administrative Procedure – Reliance on Erroneous Legal Opinion – Respondents relied on an incorrect legal opinion regarding TDR calculation – No subsequent attempt to correct the error or seek fresh opinion – Supreme Court criticized the lack of transparency and due diligence in administrative decision-making [Paras 24-26].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment quashed – Respondents directed to return possession of the land to appellants within four weeks – Appellants entitled to use the land for residential purposes – Compensation awarded to appellants at ₹1 crore per year from 2004 for the deprivation of land use [Paras 31-32].

FERA – Limitation – Reasonable Period – Show cause notices issued in 2002 for transactions from 1992-1993 – Supreme Court held such delay unreasonable – Proceedings must be initiated within a reasonable period when no statutory period is prescribed – Eight-year record preservation limit under Banking Companies Rules supports unreasonableness of delayed notices – High Court's setting aside of proceedings upheld [Paras 18-27].

Administrative Law – Policy and Procedure – Reasonable Time – Proceedings initiated under statute without prescribed limitation period must be within reasonable time – Cited cases emphasize necessity of timeliness in administrative actions to ensure fairness – Delays beyond standard record-keeping durations viewed as unreasonable [Paras 19-23, 25-27].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court's judgments upheld – Show cause notices and proceedings initiated under FERA after long delays declared invalid [Paras 28-29].

Constitutional Law – Writ Jurisdiction – Private Unaided Minority Institution – High Court held writ petition maintainable against termination order by private unaided minority institution – Supreme Court found High Court erred – Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 maintainable only if public duty element present – Service disputes of private nature without statutory backing not amenable to writ jurisdiction.

Education Law – Service Contracts – CBSE Affiliation Byelaws – Dispute between private educational institution and employee purely contractual – Terms of service governed by CBSE Byelaws lack statutory force – Remedy for breach of service contract lies in civil suits, not writ petitions.

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Writ petition dismissed as not maintainable – Remedy lies in approaching appropriate civil forum.

Service Tax – Consulting Engineer vs. Works Contract – Services such as erection, installation, and commissioning of goods at customer sites cannot be classified as consulting engineer services – Tribunal correctly held that such services fall under works contract and are not liable for service tax as consulting engineering – Revenue's appeal dismissed [Paras 2-4].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Tribunal's decision upheld – No service tax liability on works contract for the period in question – No order as to costs [Paras 4-4.1].