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].

Selection Process – Award of Marks for Experience – Appellant contested the denial of marks for prior experience as a daily wager – High Court failed to consider the merits of this plea – Specific challenge was against the Selection Committee's decision – High Court should have adjudicated on whether the Selection Committee's actions were justified [Paras 2-3].

Eligibility Criteria – Qualifications of Selected Candidate – Appellant contended that respondent no.6 did not meet the eligibility criteria of having experience in a Computer Science Lab – High Court did not assess this claim on merits, deferring to the Selection Committee’s decision without judicial review – Matter remanded to Single Judge for fresh consideration on both issues [Paras 2-3].

Judicial Review – Scope of High Court’s Power – High Court’s refusal to interfere with the Selection Committee’s decisions on the grounds of judicial review was erroneous – High Court required to examine if the Selection Committee's actions were arbitrary or unjustified [Para 3].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Judgments of Single Judge and Division Bench set aside – Case remanded to Single Judge to reconsider writ petition on merits regarding the awarding of marks for experience and the qualifications of respondent no.6 – Parties allowed to submit additional documents within four weeks – Single Judge to complete hearing within six months [Paras 4].

Murder – Common Intention – Section 302/34 IPC – Conviction based on the non-cooperation of the accused in a test identification parade – Courts drew adverse inferences without considering the exposure of witnesses to the accused in the police station – Identification parade is part of the investigation and should not be overemphasized – Prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt – Prosecution’s evidence lacked reliability and consistency – Convictions and sentences under Section 302/34 set aside [Paras 1-15].

Test Identification Parade – Evidentiary Value – The evidence available on record must be scrutinized when the accused have been exposed to witnesses prior to the identification parade – Reliance on such evidence without corroboration is flawed – Prosecution failed to establish common intention and occurrence beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 3-14].

Constructive Liability – Section 34 IPC – Section 34 does not constitute an offence by itself but creates constructive liability based on proven foundational facts – Prosecution failed to demonstrate common intention and participation in the crime adequately – Evidence presented was inconsistent and not wholly reliable [Para 13].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302/34 IPC set aside – Appellants to be released forthwith [Paras 15].

Civil Law – Religious Endowments – Suit jewellery claimed by the appellant as private property – Jewellery kept in the Temple's Kudavarai and used for adorning the deity during festivals – Concurrent findings by three courts affirming the jewellery as a specific endowment to the deity – Dedication inferred from long possession and use for religious purposes [Paras 15-25].

Specific Endowment – Evidence and Inference – Evidence showed jewellery was donated by the ancestors of appellant – Suit jewellery recorded in the Temple's register as endowment – Long possession and usage for adorning the deity confirmed the public nature of the endowment – Appellant's claim based on inheritance from adoptive parents rejected [Paras 15-19].

Bar of Res Judicata – Prior Suit – Previous suit dismissed for technical reasons, not on merits – Subsequent suit for declaration of title and injunction not barred by res judicata or constructive res judicata – Plea of Order II Rule 2 of CPC also rejected as causes of action in the suits were different [Paras 26-34].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – High Court's judgment and decree of declaration of specific endowment upheld – Direction to appellant to hand over the keys of the Kudavarai and the suit jewellery to the Temple authorities during festival times – Appellant restrained from interfering with the Temple's right to use the jewellery [Paras 37-40].

Service Tax – Consulting Engineer – Definition – The definition of 'Consulting Engineer' under Section 65(31) of the Finance Act, 1994, includes a 'body corporate' – The amendment in 2005 clarifying the inclusion of 'body corporate' is not merely prospective but clarificatory in nature – Respondent providing consultancy engineering services liable to pay service tax [Paras 6-13].

Interpretation of Taxing Statutes – Strict Rule of Construction – Taxing statutes must be strictly interpreted but not to the extent of ignoring legislative intent – Courts may read in essential inferences to avoid absurdity – Exclusion of 'body corporate' would lead to unjust results and contradict legislative purpose [Paras 3.2-3.3, 8].

Prior Judicial Interpretations – Decisions of High Courts – Karnataka and Calcutta High Courts’ rulings in favor of including 'body corporate' within 'Consulting Engineer' supported – Earlier decisions of Delhi and Karnataka High Courts contrary to legislative intent and subsequent authoritative decisions [Paras 10.1-10.4, 11].

Decision – Appeal allowed – CESTAT's judgment set aside – Respondent liable to pay service tax under the pre-amendment definition of 'Consulting Engineer' – Case remanded to CESTAT to consider other grounds raised in the appeal [Paras 13-14].

Criminal Law – Bail – Rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act – Prima facie evaluation of the evidence suggests doubt about the prosecution's case – High Court’s view that rigours of Section 37 are not applicable upheld [Paras 13-16].

Evidence – Contradictory Statements – Statements of motorcar occupants versus initial complaint by SI create serious doubt – High Court rightly considered the contradiction while granting bail [Paras 16.1-16.2].

Section 27A NDPS Act – Financing Illicit Traffic – Prosecution failed to establish prima facie evidence for Section 27A – Single transaction not sufficient for charge of financing illicit trafficking [Paras 14.1, 16.3].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – High Court's order granting bail with stringent conditions upheld – No prima facie evidence supporting the allegations under Section 27A NDPS Act [Paras 19-21].

Civil Procedure – Abatement of Suit – Right to Sue – No abatement by party's death if right to sue survives – Procedures in case of death of one of several defendants or sole defendant – Appellate Court must examine if the right to sue survives against surviving respondents – Appeal dismissed due to non-bringing legal representatives on record without proper enquiry set aside – Directions to reconsider the matter on merits [Paras 9-10].

Order 22 CPC – Effect of Abatement – Consideration of each case's facts necessary – Appellate Court must examine impact of non-bringing legal representatives of some respondents – Proper representation of estate required – Consequences of failing to comply with procedural requirements under Order 22 CPC [Paras 9.1-9.7].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court’s order dismissing the appeal as having abated set aside – Directions issued for the High Court to reconsider the appeal on merits and in accordance with law [Para 10].