Amendment of Pleadings – Legal Principles – High Court permitted plaintiffs to amend plaint seeking enhancement of damages in a suit for specific performance – Supreme Court reiterated principles under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC: amendments should be allowed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided they do not cause injustice, withdraw admissions, or introduce time-barred claims – Emphasized liberal approach before trial commencement, ensuring opposite party can meet amended case [Paras 19-30].

Bar under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC – Supreme Court clarified Order 2 Rule 2 CPC applies to subsequent suits, not amendments within the same suit – Rejected appellant’s contention that amendment should be barred under Order 2 Rule 2 – Cited past judgments reinforcing that bar is only on subsequent suits based on same cause of action [Paras 43-50].

Doctrine of Constructive Res Judicata – Doctrine inapplicable as there was no formal adjudication between parties – Amendment allowed to enhance damages did not alter the nature of the suit for specific performance [Para 52].

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Proviso to Section 21(5) and Section 22(2) of Specific Relief Act discussed – Court’s discretion to award compensation in lieu of or in addition to specific performance highlighted – Amendment to enhance damages aligned with reliefs permissible under the Act [Para 54].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court’s decision to allow amendment upheld – Emphasized discretion of courts to permit amendments that facilitate effective adjudication and justice.

Arbitration – Post-Award Interest – Arbitrator has discretion to grant post-award interest on part of the sum – Section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not fetter arbitrator’s discretion – If arbitrator does not grant post-award interest, award-holder is entitled to interest at eighteen percent per annum – Arbitrator’s discretion must be exercised reasonably and in good faith [Paras 19-22].

Interpretation of “Sum” and “Unless the Award Otherwise Directs” – Phrase “sum” includes principal and pre-award interest – Phrase “unless the award otherwise directs” qualifies only the rate of post-award interest, not the arbitrator’s discretion on granting post-award interest on part of the sum – Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd. v. State of Orissa overruled SL Arora to the extent it restricted post-award interest on principal and pre-award interest [Paras 14-22].

Purpose of Post-Award Interest – Ensure award-debtor does not delay payment – Arbitrator must consider financial standing of award-debtor and circumstances of parties – Discretionary power to grant post-award interest should be exercised reasonably, taking cognizance of relevant circumstances [Paras 21-22].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Delhi High Court’s judgment upheld – Arbitrator’s award of post-award interest on principal amount does not suffer from error [Paras 23-24].

Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process – Limitation Act Applicability – The appeal centers on the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963 to applications filed under Section 7 of the IBC. The Supreme Court reaffirms that Section 18 of the Limitation Act applies, thereby allowing acknowledgment of debt to reset the limitation period. NCLAT’s reliance on Babulal Vardharji Gurjar case was deemed incorrect for overlooking the acknowledgment of debt by the Corporate Debtor [Paras 1-26].

Default and Acknowledgment of Debt – The Court highlighted the legal provisions under Section 7 of the IBC and the definition of default under Section 3(12). It held that the application was within limitation due to acknowledgment of debt by the Corporate Debtor through Balance and Security Confirmation letters [Paras 7-14, 19].

Corporate Debtor’s Winding Up Order – The Supreme Court clarified that the initiation of CIRP is independent of winding-up proceedings and upheld the maintainability of the application under Section 7 IBC, despite a prior winding-up order by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay [Paras 5-6].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order of NCLAT set aside – The application filed by the appellant-Bank under Section 7 IBC was within the period of limitation, considering the acknowledgment of debt. The matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the judgment [Para 26].

Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Recovery and Presumption – Appellant convicted for possessing 47.370 Kgs. of ganja – Conviction based on the testimony of the investigating officer (PW-7) and lack of corroboration by independent witnesses who turned hostile – Supreme Court highlights procedural lapses and inconsistencies, particularly regarding the involvement and statements of independent witnesses [Paras 1-34].

Independent Witnesses – Hostile Testimony – Independent witnesses CW-1 and CW-2 denied witnessing the search and seizure, contradicting the investigating officer's testimony – Their explanation for signing documents under different circumstances casts doubt on the prosecution’s case – Supreme Court underscores the necessity of reliable witness testimony in NDPS cases [Paras 19-32].

Burden of Proof – Section 54 NDPS Act – Presumption from possession requires clear proof of recovery from the accused – Supreme Court holds that the prosecution failed to establish a credible recovery, thus the presumption under Section 54 cannot apply – Appellant granted benefit of doubt [Paras 33-34].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant to be released forthwith unless in custody for another case [Para 34].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Appeal against conviction under Sections 302/34 IPC – Appellants convicted for the murder of Amar Tanti based on the testimonies of the deceased's parents, alleged eyewitnesses (PW-2 and PW-3) – Supreme Court finds inconsistencies and improbabilities in their testimonies, leading to reasonable doubt about the appellants' guilt – Benefit of doubt granted [Paras 1-22].

Eyewitness Testimony – Credibility – PW-2 and PW-3 claimed to have witnessed the assault but their conduct post-incident was deemed unnatural and unreasonable – Supreme Court highlights the importance of credible and consistent witness testimonies in criminal cases – Absence of independent witness support weakens prosecution case [Paras 15-18].

Reasonable Doubt – Benefit to Accused – Emphasizes the principle that any reasonable doubt arising in a criminal case must be resolved in favor of the accused – In this case, the prosecution's failure to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt warrants acquittal of the appellants [Paras 19-20].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellants acquitted – Ordered immediate release unless held in other cases [Paras 21-22].

Land Allotment – Disabled Ex-Servicemen – Allotment Cancelled Due to Non-Compliance – Appeal concerns land allotment to a disabled ex-serviceman which was deemed canceled due to non-possession within six months as per Rule 7(4) – Supreme Court emphasizes that inter-departmental communication cannot be treated as a letter of allotment, and claims based on such communication after 30 years are invalid [Paras 1-18].

Inter-Departmental Communication – Legal Status – Inter-departmental letters do not constitute enforceable orders – Supreme Court reiterates the principle that official actions and decisions must be formally expressed and communicated as required by law – Previous judgments cited to affirm this principle [Paras 14-15].

Alternative Land Allotment – High Court Overreach – Criticism of the High Court’s intervention in directing the allotment of land close to a National Highway – Supreme Court finds the High Court’s actions unwarranted and the writ petition to be without merit [Paras 16-18].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s order set aside – No order as to costs [Paras 19].

Judicial Service Examination – Procedural Fairness – Appeal challenging the dismissal of a writ petition concerning discrepancies in the written examination for direct recruitment to Punjab and Haryana Superior Judicial Services. The appellant's objections regarding missing questions in the Criminal Law paper, lack of instructions for the General Knowledge paper, and the non-disclosure of marks were considered [Paras 1-22].

Examination Irregularities – Missing Question in Criminal Law Paper – The court found merit in the appellant's claim about the missing question in the Criminal Law paper, acknowledging the procedural lapse. The respondents' defense of an inadvertent error was not accepted, leading to the direction for reevaluation of the remaining questions in the paper [Paras 30-33].

Right to Information – Non-disclosure of Marks – The appellant's request for marks under the Right to Information Act was initially denied. The court upheld the principle that marks should not be disclosed before the completion of the selection process to ensure impartial evaluation [Paras 28-29].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Respondents directed to reevaluate the marks for the valid questions in the Criminal Law paper and declare fresh results for the written examination. Candidates qualifying in the revised result to be called for viva-voce with a common interview board [Paras 34-37].

Gratuity for Teachers – Constitutional Validity – The appeal addresses the constitutional validity of amendments extending gratuity benefits to teachers with retrospective effect. The Supreme Court upheld the amendments, emphasizing their purpose to rectify the omission of teachers from gratuity benefits and to ensure equitable treatment [Paras 1-22].

Retrospective Legislation – Judicial Review – The court examined the power of the legislature to enact retrospective laws, affirming that such amendments can correct legislative mistakes and extend intended benefits. The challenge to the retrospective effect on grounds of separation of powers and unreasonableness was rejected [Paras 12-14].

Financial Implications – Reasonableness – Arguments that the amendments impose unreasonable financial burdens on private schools were dismissed. The court noted the amendments’ role in correcting discrimination against teachers and upheld the statutory cap on gratuity payments, mitigating financial concerns [Paras 15-20].

Repealing Act – Legal Effect – The court clarified that the Repealing and Amending Act, 2016, does not affect the amendments made by the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2009. The continuity of the amendments was affirmed under Section 4 of the Repealing Act and Section 6A of the General Clauses Act [Paras 23-24].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Constitutional validity of the amendments upheld – Directions for payment of gratuity to teachers along with interest, with enforcement mechanisms specified for default [Paras 25-26].

Iron Ore Mining – Ceiling Limit Relaxation – Appeal to lift/relax the ceiling limit on iron ore production in the districts of Bellary, Chitradurga, and Tumkur. Supreme Court increases the ceiling limit from 28 MMT to 35 MMT for Bellary and from 7 MMT to 15 MMT collectively for Chitradurga and Tumkur, balancing economic development with environmental conservation [Paras 1-18].

Historical Context – Court-imposed Limits – Initial ceiling limits imposed by the Supreme Court in 2011 due to rampant illegal mining and environmental degradation. Incremental relaxations granted based on improvements and expert recommendations, leading to the current consideration of further relaxation [Paras 6-12].

Environmental Concerns – Sustainable Development – Emphasis on balancing ecological preservation with economic activity. The court acknowledges improvements but adopts a cautious approach to avoid regression to past issues of unmitigated mining [Paras 13-17].

Committee Reports – Differing Views – The Central Empowered Committee (CEC) and the State of Karnataka support lifting the limits entirely, whereas the Monitoring Committee highlights infrastructural constraints. Oversight Authority seeks further evidence on transport infrastructure capacity before concluding [Paras 12-13].

Decision: IA Nos. 83141/2017, 72931/2017, and 218/2014 are disposed of with increased ceiling limits – IA No. 10973/2018 to be considered separately [Paras 16-18].