Civil Procedure – Amendment of Plaint – Appellants challenged the High Court's decision to permit amendment of plaints to declare void ab initio mortgages created by the defendant hotel – Supreme Court held that allowing such amendments would change the nature of the suit and result in misjoinder of causes of action – Amendment not permissible as it alters the original cause of action from revocation of licenses to challenging mortgages [Paras 1-15, 8-10].

Civil Procedure – Impleadment of Parties – Application to implead mortgagee banks as defendants in the suit was granted by the High Court – Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs, as licensees, had no privity of contract with the mortgagee banks, and their rights were subject to existing mortgages – Impleadment inappropriate as it complicates the original suit on license revocation [Paras 3.3, 3.4, 5.5, 6.2, 9].

Arbitration – Applicability of Section 8 – Appellants argued that the suits should be stayed in view of the arbitration clause in the license agreement – Supreme Court noted that applications under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act were pending and should be decided first before any amendment or impleadment [Paras 5.2, 6.1].

Judicial Review – Scope of Amendment – Supreme Court emphasized that amendments changing the nature of the suit or resulting in misjoinder should not be allowed – Proper parties and causes of action must be maintained to avoid legal complications and ensure fair trial [Paras 8-10, 9.1, 10].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court's orders permitting amendment of plaints and impleadment of mortgagee banks set aside – Emphasized adherence to procedural propriety and original cause of action – No order as to costs [Paras 11].

Civil Procedure – Property Dispute – Suit filed in 1964 concerning possession of land resumed by the State – Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its approach by relying on inadmissible evidence and not properly considering relevant materials – Directed fresh consideration by the High Court emphasizing correct application of burden of proof and scrutiny of evidence [Paras 1-15, 29].

Evidence Law – Burden of Proof – Supreme Court noted that the burden of proof was wrongly placed on the defendant-appellant – Highlighted the need for the plaintiff to prove resumption of grant and continuous possession, which was not adequately established [Paras 10-16, 22].

Admissibility of Evidence – The Supreme Court criticized reliance on questionable documents like the Muafiat Register with suspicious entries and a letter with disputed signatures – Emphasized the importance of credible and admissible evidence in judicial findings [Paras 15-17, 24-26].

Judicial Review – Scope and Standards – High Court's judgment set aside due to reliance on assumptions and inadmissible evidence – Supreme Court stressed proper judicial review of all evidence before arriving at conclusions [Paras 29-32].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Matter remitted back to High Court for fresh consideration – Directed High Court to expedite the hearing and decide the appeal considering all relevant evidence and legal standards [Paras 30-33].

Criminal Law – Cheating and Criminal Breach of Trust – Appellants (bus conductors) convicted under various sections of IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act – Allegations included unauthorized printing and selling of bus tickets – Enquiry report by Inspection Committee not admitted as evidence due to lack of original documents – Recovery of tickets found invalid – Prosecution failed to prove possession and sale of tickets beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 1-8].

Secondary Evidence – Admissibility – Trial Court allowed secondary evidence of enquiry report subject to proof of original's existence and loss – State failed to prove existence and loss of original documents – High Court held enquiry report not a valid piece of evidence – Supreme Court upheld this view, emphasizing proper procedure for secondary evidence [Paras 6-13].

Burden of Proof – Incriminating Evidence – Seized tickets not sealed or connected to specific buses – Witnesses (PW-8 and PW-15) unable to verify tickets' relevance to appellants – Inspection Team's statements failed to validate ticket recovery – Supreme Court ruled evidence insufficient to support conviction [Paras 9-13].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Convictions and sentences set aside – Appellants acquitted of all charges – Bail bonds discharged [Paras 14-17].

Insolvency Resolution Process – Discretionary Power of NCLT – Section 7(5)(a) IBC – Appellant challenged the CIRP initiated by Axis Bank under Section 7 of IBC – NCLT and NCLAT held that once a debt and default were established, admission was mandatory – Supreme Court held that Section 7(5)(a) confers discretionary power on NCLT – NCLT should consider relevant factors including the financial health and viability of the corporate debtor – NCLT’s discretion should not be arbitrary and must be exercised judicially [Paras 56-88].

Award/Decree in Favor of Corporate Debtor – Effect on Admission of Application – Adjudicating Authority must consider the existence of an award or decree in favor of the corporate debtor, especially when the amount exceeds the debt claimed by the financial creditor – Example given where NCLT may keep the admission of the application in abeyance [Paras 88-90].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Orders of NCLT and NCLAT set aside – NCLT directed to reconsider the application for stay of CIRP on merits [Paras 91].

Culpable Homicide – Not Amounting to Murder – Section 304-II IPC – Appellants convicted for culpable homicide not amounting to murder – No premeditation to commit murder – Assault occurred during a sudden verbal altercation – Weapons (sticks and brick) were picked up from the scene – Single blow inflicted by each accused on the deceased – No unlawful assembly formed with a common object – Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside – Conviction under Section 304-II IPC and other sections maintained [Paras 21-23].

Injury and Weapon – Nature and Impact – Injuries inflicted with sticks and a brick during the altercation – Injuries on the vital parts (head and neck) sufficient in ordinary course to cause death but were unintentional – No repeated assault [Paras 19-21].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside – Appellants convicted under Section 304-II IPC – Sentence for the period already undergone – Appellants to be released forthwith unless required in any other case [Paras 24-25].

Environmental Law – Imposition of Damages – Section 33 Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 – Forest Department imposed damages of Rs. 10 Crores on respondents for discharging effluents causing environmental damage to the National Chambal Sanctuary – High Court set aside the order for violation of natural justice and lack of authority under Section 33 to impose damages – Supreme Court upheld High Court’s decision – Forest Department has wide powers under Section 33 to take steps for the security and preservation of wildlife and the sanctuary but cannot impose damages directly – Authority can seek closure of institution and other measures after following principles of natural justice – Appropriate proceedings must be initiated to determine damages [Paras 1-6].

Principles of Natural Justice – No Show Cause Notice – Order imposing damages found in violation of principles of natural justice – No show cause notice issued before imposing damages – High Court’s decision setting aside the damages upheld [Paras 3-4].

Decision: Appeals disposed of with observations – Authority may take necessary steps under Section 33 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 to stop effluent discharge and protect the environment and wildlife in accordance with law and principles of natural justice – No direct imposition of damages allowed [Paras 6-7].

Specific Performance – Readiness and Willingness – Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act – Plaintiff must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract – Plaintiff must show availability of funds or arrangement to pay the balance consideration – Mere statement or averment of readiness and willingness in plaint is insufficient – Both Trial Court and High Court erred in granting relief without adequate proof of plaintiff's readiness and willingness [Paras 1-52].

Equitable Relief – Discretionary Power of Court – Specific performance is discretionary – Courts should consider significant delay in filing suit, plaintiff’s conduct, and rise in property value – Long delay without justification can disentitle plaintiff from equitable relief [Paras 40-44].

Judicial Notice – Rise in Property Value – Court must take judicial notice of steep rise in property values over time – Time is relevant factor in deciding specific performance – Plaintiff’s delay in suit filing and lack of readiness can affect relief grant [Para 38].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court and Trial Court judgments and decrees set aside – Respondent to be refunded earnest money with interest – Plaintiff not entitled to relief of specific performance due to lack of readiness and willingness [Paras 51-52].

Anticipatory Bail – Section 438 CrPC – Seriousness of Offences – Respondent accused of physically assaulting and sexually exploiting the appellant, capturing obscene photographs and videos – High Court granted anticipatory bail despite ongoing investigation and non-cooperation from respondent – Supreme Court set aside anticipatory bail due to the seriousness of the offences and the need for custodial interrogation to recover evidence [Paras 1-18].

Cancellation of Anticipatory Bail – Grounds – High Court’s order was cursory, accepting respondent’s claims without sufficient scrutiny – Respondent, a police officer, misused his position to lodge false reports against the appellant – State’s detailed counter-affidavit supported the appellant’s claims and highlighted the need for further investigation [Paras 3-13].

Legal Principles – Anticipatory Bail – Courts must consider nature and gravity of accusation, role of accused, potential for influencing investigation, and likelihood of tampering with evidence – Grant of anticipatory bail should balance protection from unjustified detention and need for thorough investigation [Paras 14-15].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s order granting anticipatory bail set aside – Respondent to surrender within two weeks or face arrest – Regular bail application to be considered on merits without influence from current observations [Paras 18-21].

Auction Sale – Rule 60, Second Schedule, Income Tax Act – Recovery of Debts – The right to set aside an auction sale under Rule 60 is a valuable right for the judgment debtor to save his property – Mistake by Recovery Officer in specifying exact amount payable cannot prejudice the debtor’s right – Substantial compliance with Rule 60 must be considered if debtor acted promptly and in good faith – High Court's decision quashed for being overly technical and not considering the judgment debtor's bona fide compliance [Paras 6-8].

Valuable Right – Substantial Compliance – The legislative intent of Rule 60 is to give the debtor a final opportunity to save their property – Courts should not allow this right to be defeated on technical grounds – Judgment debtor should not suffer due to Recovery Officer’s error in specifying the amount payable [Paras 6.3-6.4].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – DRAT's decision to annul the auction sale restored – Appellant directed to compensate respondents with an additional sum for justice [Para 8].