Civil Law – Permanent Injunction – Appeal against High Court's decision affirming the first appellate court's decree for permanent injunction – Based on an unregistered agreement to sell on ten rupees stamp paper – Supreme Court holds that such an unregistered document is inadmissible in evidence for substantive relief – Plaintiff cannot obtain relief indirectly which is otherwise not permissible directly [Paras 1-8].

Unregistered Documents – Admissibility and Collateral Use – Unregistered agreement to sell can only be used for collateral purposes – However, relief for permanent injunction cannot be granted when specific performance is not achievable due to the document's unregistered status – Trial court's dismissal of suit for permanent injunction and allowance of defendant's counter-claim for possession restored [Paras 5-7].

Procedural Impropriety – Clever Drafting – Plaintiff's attempt to circumvent the inadmissibility of the unregistered document by seeking permanent injunction without specific performance – Supreme Court emphasizes that clever drafting cannot be used to achieve what is otherwise legally untenable [Paras 6-7].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment and decree set aside – Trial court's judgment dismissing the suit for permanent injunction and allowing the counter-claim for possession restored – No order as to costs [Paras 7-8].

Criminal Law – Bail Cancellation – High Court granted bail to the respondent based on parity with co-accused – Supreme Court finds that bail granted to co-accused was previously disapproved – Bail order found to suffer from illegality and impropriety – High Court failed to consider the gravity of the offense and relevant factors – Impugned order set aside [Paras 1-18].

Parity in Bail – Relevance and Limitations – Bail cannot be granted solely on the ground of parity without independent consideration of the individual case's facts – Supreme Court emphasizes that each bail application must be assessed on its own merits, considering the nature of the crime and the role of the accused [Paras 12-17].

Seriousness of Crime – Consideration of Facts – Daylight murder with multiple grievous injuries – Respondent named in the FIR as one of the assailants – Supreme Court underscores the need to consider the crime's seriousness and potential impact on public interest and justice administration [Paras 16-17].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's order granting bail set aside – Respondent directed to surrender forthwith – Liberty granted to respondent to apply for bail afresh after surrendering – Application to be considered on its own merits at an appropriate stage [Paras 18-20].

Admiralty Law – Addition of Parties – Appealability – Commercial Division (Single Bench) of the High Court ordered the addition of Gulf Petroleum FZC as a party in the admiralty suit – Division Bench set aside this order – Supreme Court finds that an order under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC is not appealable under Section 14 of the Admiralty Act – Intra-court appeals in admiralty matters are restricted to orders specified under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC as per Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act – Division Bench erred in setting aside the Single Bench's order [Paras 54-89].

Harmonious Interpretation – Non-obstante Clauses – Admiralty Act and Commercial Courts Act both contain non-obstante clauses – Conflict resolved by considering the purpose and policy underlying the enactments – Special statutes prevail over general statutes – Appeal from an interim order in an admiralty suit must be read in harmony with Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC [Paras 67-88].

Procedural Law – Necessary and Proper Parties – Single Bench added Gulf Petroleum FZC as it was necessary for the effective adjudication of the dispute – Division Bench's decision to set aside this order was incorrect – Presence of Gulf Petroleum FZC is essential for resolving all questions involved in the suit [Paras 51-52, 82-83].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Division Bench's order set aside – Single Bench's order adding Gulf Petroleum FZC as a defendant restored – No order as to costs [Paras 89-90].

Service Law – Adverse Entries in ACR – Respondent's ACRs for 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 were "Very Good" but downgraded to "Good" for 2007-2008 by the same reviewing officer – No valid reasons provided for the downgrade – Tribunal and High Court directed Department to reassess respondent’s suitability for SAG excluding the 2007-2008 ACR – Appeal by Union of India dismissed [Paras 1-10].

Administrative Law – Representation Against Adverse Entries – Tribunal and High Court found that the representation against the adverse entry was not considered objectively – Departmental Promotion Committee's rejection of the respondent's representation was arbitrary and inconsistent – Opportunity for representation must be given within a reasonable time and considered fairly [Paras 6-10].

Judicial Review – Standard of Review – Courts will intervene if adverse entries in ACRs are found to be arbitrary, inconsistent, or lacking bona fides – Consistent performance in previous years must be considered – Reviewing authority's discretion subject to principles of natural justice and fair play [Paras 5-10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court's judgment and Tribunal's order upheld – Department directed to reassess respondent’s suitability for SAG excluding the ACR for 2007-2008 [Paras 10].

Service Law – Disciplinary Enquiry – High Court found the enquiry against the respondent was conducted in violation of principles of natural justice – Respondent was not given a copy of the Inquiry Officer’s Report nor an opportunity to comment on it – High Court ordered reinstatement with full back wages – Supreme Court held that proper remedy is to remit the case to the Disciplinary Authority to conduct the enquiry from the stage it stood vitiated [Paras 1-7].

Natural Justice – Opportunity to be Heard – Principles of natural justice require that the delinquent employee be given a copy of the Inquiry Officer's Report and an opportunity to submit comments – Non-compliance with these principles vitiates the disciplinary proceedings – Proper course is to remit the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority for fresh enquiry from the point of violation [Paras 6-7].

Judicial Review – Scope and Limits – Court should not order reinstatement when the disciplinary enquiry is set aside for procedural lapses – Instead, the matter should be remanded to the Disciplinary Authority to rectify the lapses and conclude the enquiry [Paras 6-7].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – High Court's order of reinstatement with back wages set aside – Matter remitted to the Disciplinary Authority to conduct the enquiry afresh from the stage it stood vitiated – Appellant to pay costs of Rs. 50,000 to the respondent [Paras 7].

Customs Law – Demand of Duty – Fraudulent DEPB Licenses – DEPB licenses found to be forged/fake are void ab initio – Fraud vitiates everything – Department justified in invoking the extended period of limitation – Duty liability confirmed by the Department, Tribunal, and High Court upheld by Supreme Court [Paras 1-12].

Extended Limitation – Justification – Fraud as a basis for invoking extended period of limitation – Department acted within legal bounds – Supreme Court emphasizes that fraudulent DEPB licenses cannot grant valid exemption from customs duty – Timely payment of customs duty under protest by appellant noted but does not absolve duty liability [Paras 8-11].

Fraud and Knowledge – Penalty Considerations – Knowledge of fraud or forgery by buyers impacts penalty imposition – Not relevant for determining duty liability – Tribunal’s remand on penalty proceedings noted, directing expedited adjudication [Paras 11-12].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court’s judgment confirming duty liability upheld – Penalty proceedings on remand to be completed within six months from the date of the judgment [Paras 12].

Service Law – Illegal Termination – Reinstatement and Back Wages – Appellant, a watchman, terminated without notice or procedure under Industrial Disputes Act – Labour Court and Single Judge found termination illegal, ordered reinstatement without back wages – Division Bench replaced reinstatement with lump sum compensation – Supreme Court restores reinstatement with back wages for two years prior to judgment [Paras 1-15].

Judicial Review – Delay in Litigation – Impact on Relief – Management's prolonged litigation unjustifiably delayed appellant’s reinstatement – Denial of back wages during such delay amounts to punishment for judicial delay – Reinstatement ordered with back wages for two years to mitigate unfairness [Paras 10-14].

Employment Law – Adverse Inference – Non-production of Records – Labour Court rightly drew adverse inference against management for failing to produce complete muster rolls – Evidence indicated junior employees were retained while appellant was unfairly terminated [Paras 4-9].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment set aside – Appellant to be reinstated with back wages from 01.01.2020 to 01.01.2022 – Continuity of service restored – Back wages to be paid within six weeks [Paras 14-15].

Land Acquisition – Compensation – Enhancement – Appeals challenge compensation awarded by the High Court – Supreme Court enhances compensation further by Rs. 100,000 and Rs. 200,000 per acre for different sets of appeals, following precedent cases – Delay in filing appeals leads to denial of statutory benefits including interest from the date of the High Court judgment until the appeals were filed [Paras 1-6].

Delay and Statutory Benefits – Consequence of Delay – Significant delay in preferring first appeals noted – Supreme Court denies statutory benefits, including interest on enhanced compensation, for the period between High Court judgments and the filing of appeals in Supreme Court – Balance compensation to be paid promptly [Paras 5-6].

Precedent Application – Reliance on Prior Cases – High Court relied on previous decisions in Surjit Singh and Kapoor Singh cases – Supreme Court follows its earlier enhancement rulings in these cases, ensuring consistent compensation [Paras 3-5].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Compensation enhanced as specified – Statutory benefits including interest denied for specified delay period – Enhanced compensation to be deposited within three months [Paras 6-7].

Motor Accident Claims – Compensation Enhancement – Deceased persons were drivers with valid licenses – Tribunal awarded compensation based on Rs. 7500/- per month income – High Court enhanced to Rs. 8500/- per month – Supreme Court further enhances considering income as Rs. 10000/- per month with 40% future prospects [Paras 2-4].

Loss of Dependency – Income Assessment – Considering drivers' earnings and adding 40% for future prospects – Deducting 1/3rd for personal expenses – Applying relevant multiplier for compensation calculation [Paras 4.1-4.2].

Interest on Compensation – Balance enhanced amount to be deposited within eight weeks – Failure to deposit will attract 7.5% interest throughout [Para 5.1].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Compensation enhanced – Respondents to deposit balance enhanced amount with Tribunal within specified time [Paras 5-5.1].