Trusts – Suit for Mandatory Injunction – Section 92 of CPC – High Court's finding that suit by Trust against Sevadar was not maintainable without complying with Section 92 CPC – Section 92 applicable to suits against Trusts, not by Trusts – High Court’s order erroneous – Suit maintainable and decree rightly passed by First Appellate Court [Paras 10-12].

Legal Representative – Sevadar – Appointment of Chela – Respondent Ram Niwas, Chela of deceased Sevadar, not vested with larger interest – Legal representative's status considered – Sevadar's services open to public [Paras 9-12].

Compensation – Misuse Concerns – Appellant as registered Society with statutory obligations – Apprehension of misuse of compensation beyond suit's scope [Paras 13-14].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Suit decreed [Para 15].

Criminal Law – Acquittal – Appeal against High Court’s order acquitting accused – High Court found prosecution case to suffer from serious infirmities and inconsistencies – Missing links in chain of circumstances – Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Acquittal upheld by Supreme Court [Paras 19-26].

Conspiracy – Circumstantial Evidence – Direct evidence of conspiracy seldom available – Conspiracy inferred from circumstances – Prosecution failed to prove complete chain of circumstances linking accused to crime – High Court's reasoning endorsed by Supreme Court [Paras 25-28, 29].

Evidence – Witness Credibility – Hostile Witnesses – Several key witnesses turned hostile – Inconsistencies in prosecution evidence – High Court's appreciation of evidence found to be correct – Acquittal upheld [Paras 30-40, 41-50].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – High Court’s judgment acquitting accused persons upheld [Para 50].

Town Planning – Demand of Premium – Letter of Intent (LOI) – LOI valid for three months – Delay in obtaining clearance from Coastal Zone Management Authority – Appellants failed to make representation to extend LOI – Premium demand in accordance with Government Resolution dated 16.04.2008 requiring payment of 25% of Ready Reckoner value for Slum Rehabilitation Schemes on government land – High Court's dismissal of writ and review petitions upheld [Paras 11-12].

Procedure – LOI Validity – Representation to Extend – Appellants' failure to extend LOI validity despite delay in obtaining necessary clearances – Government Resolution applies due to non-extension – No illegality in premium demand [Para 11].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – High Court's orders upheld – No order as to costs [Paras 12-13].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – High Court examined charges at pre-trial stage – Allegations of obtaining fake loans with the connivance of bank officials – High Court erred in quashing charges when allegations required proof in trial – Beneficiary status of respondents due to father's position as bank president prima facie indicates offenses under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC – Appeal allowed, High Court's order set aside [Paras 5-6].

Corruption – Beneficiary of Fake Loans – Accused obtained cash credit limits improperly while their father was bank president – Allegations suggest offense under Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120-B IPC – Proper documentation lacking for loan sanctioning – Allegations against other bank officials also supported charge under Prevention of Corruption Act [Para 5].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's order quashing charges against respondents set aside – Respondents may pursue other legal remedies as available [Para 6].

Rent & Eviction – Re-induction of Tenant – Statement by counsel in court – Landlord bound by counsel's statement regarding re-induction of tenant – High Court's decision to uphold counsel's statement in review petition justified – Counsel's statement binds landlord, cannot resile from it – Order for re-induction of tenant in reconstructed premises upheld with modifications [Paras 1-20].

Counsel Authority – Professional Responsibility – Lawyer's authority as agent of client – Counsel's statement within the scope of engagement binds client unless explicitly instructed otherwise – Reliance on Himalayan Coop. Group Housing Society vs. Balwan Singh & Ors. (2015) 7 SCC 373 for scope of lawyer's authority [Paras 5, 11].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – High Court's order modified – Landlord directed to provide specified portion of premises to tenant and pay compensation – Implementation supervised by court-appointed receiver [Para 19].

Mining Law – Transportation of Iron Ore – Appeal against High Court's order permitting JSPL to transport iron ore purchased from SMPL – Supreme Court's interim directions prohibited mining operations, not transportation of already mined, purchased, processed, and royalty-paid ore – High Court correctly allowed transportation – Appellants' objections concerning environmental clearance and application of MMDRA misplaced – Appeal dismissed subject to conditions [Paras 1-20].

Environmental Clearance – Mining Operations vs. Transportation – Clarification that "mining operations" as per Section 3(d) of MMDRA includes only extraction processes, not transportation – Interim directions by Supreme Court on mining operations do not bar transportation of legally procured minerals – High Court's reliance on Bihar Mines Ltd. case upheld [Paras 10-13, 18].

Intervening Applications – Financial Interests – Banks' intervention supporting JSPL's plea due to financial exposure – Allowed subject to compliance with directions to deposit proceeds in a Trust & Retention Account under SBI's supervision [Paras 15-16].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – JSPL allowed to transport iron ore post compliance by SMPL with Supreme Court's directions – All interim applications disposed of accordingly [Para 20].

Motor Vehicles Act – Cross-objection – Appeal against High Court's rejection of cross-objection in motor vehicle compensation case – Conjoint reading of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, Rule 249 of the Bihar Motor Vehicle Rules, and Order XLI Rule 22 of the CPC allows any party aggrieved by any part of the award to prefer an appeal – Respondents may file cross-objections even if they have not appealed – High Court erred in declining to consider the cross-objection on merits – Appeal allowed, matter remitted to High Court for decision on cross-objection [Paras 1-28].

Civil Procedure – Order XLI Rule 22 – Cross-objection maintainability – Sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of Order XLI CPC specifies that cross-objection must be heard even if the original appeal is withdrawn or dismissed for default – High Court required to decide cross-objection on merits despite dismissal of original appeal by Insurance Company – Appeal allowed, High Court's order set aside [Paras 27-28].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment and order set aside – Matter remitted back to High Court for deciding the cross-objection on merits – No order as to costs [Para 28].

Service Law – Termination – Challenge to High Court order upholding reinstatement – Termination order was a speaking order with reasons clearly stated – High Court erred in concluding the termination was without reasons – No legal or factual similarity between the cases of Ram Gopal and Shyam Behari Lal to warrant parity – Ram Gopal had not been in service since 1978, unlike Shyam Behari Lal who had served for 17 years – Respondent's writ petition was filed with an inordinate delay of 12 years without valid justification – Appeals allowed, High Court's orders set aside, and writ petition dismissed [Paras 1-20].

Equity – In Personam vs. In Rem – High Court's retention order for Shyam Behari Lal was not a judgment in rem – Equitable considerations in Shyam Behari Lal’s case not applicable to Ram Gopal – Fence-sitting and prolonged delay in filing writ petition cannot justify reinstatement – Legal principle of equity acts in personam, not in rem [Paras 13, 16-19].

Laches and Delay – Respondent's writ petition filed after 12 years – Courts reluctant to exercise discretionary jurisdiction in favor of those who sleep over their rights – Delay defeats equity – Legal tenets restated that unexplained delays and laches are valid grounds to deny relief [Paras 14-17].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Orders of Single Judge and Division Bench of High Court set aside – Writ petition dismissed – Interim order in contempt proceedings also quashed [Para 20].

Mining Law – Transportation of Iron Ore – Legislative Policy – Rule 12(1)(gg) of the Minerals Concession Rules grants lessees six months to remove mineral ore after lease termination – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, permitting transportation of royalty-paid iron ore mined before 15.03.2018 – State of Goa’s decision to allow such transportation upheld [Paras 1-37].

Judicial Review – Consistency with Supreme Court Orders – The High Court's interpretation restricting transportation was found incorrect – Orders dated 04.04.2018 and 11.05.2018 by the Supreme Court Bench allowed transportation of royalty-paid iron ore – Legislative intent and policy considered [Paras 19-32].

Environmental and Regulatory Compliance – Strict Monitoring – State to ensure only iron ore mined before 15.03.2018 is transported – Compliance with all other directions from Goa Foundation-II judgment mandated [Para 37].

Decision: Appeals allowed. The Supreme Court upheld the State of Goa’s decision dated 21.03.2018, allowing the transportation of royalty-paid iron ore mined prior to 15.03.2018. Transportation must be completed within six months from the judgment date.