Telecom Law – Cancellation of Licences – Appellant’s demand for a refund of entry fee post-cancellation of UAS licenses in 2G spectrum allocation – Supreme Court held appellant in pari delicto with DoT and officials of the Union government – Claim for refund rejected based on the principle that courts do not assist a party equally at fault – Appellant benefitted from arbitrary and unconstitutional policy [Paras 1-20, 54-55].

Jurisdiction of TDSAT – TDSAT's adjudicatory powers under Section 14(a) of the TRAI Act – Appellant's claim for refund of entry fee does not fall under contractual disputes envisaged by Section 14(a) – Claim of refund had to be addressed by Supreme Court post-decision in CPIL – TDSAT lacks jurisdiction to entertain claim [Paras 25-38].

Doctrine of Frustration and Restitution – Applicability of Section 56 and 65 of the Indian Contract Act – Court analyzed whether appellant’s contract became void due to supervening impossibility or illegality – Appellant in pari delicto hence ineligible for restitution under Section 65 – Principles of public policy and justice prevent restitution where both parties are equally responsible for the illegality [Paras 39-54].

Policy of Set-Off – Government’s policy allowing set-off of entry fee against earnest money for new auction participation – Supreme Court upheld policy aimed at ensuring industry stability and public interest – No manifest arbitrariness found in the policy [Paras 56-59].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Appellant not entitled to refund of entry fee – Supreme Court underscores in pari delicto condition and principles of public policy in denying claim [Paras 60-61].

Constitutional Law – Quo Warranto – Petition challenging appointment of Vice Chancellor of Sardar Patel University – Allegation of non-compliance with UGC Regulations mandating ten years’ experience as professor – Search committee composition questioned – Supreme Court held UGC Regulations binding on state universities receiving central financial assistance – Appointment of Vice Chancellor contrary to UGC Regulations warrants issuance of writ of quo warranto [Paras 1-17].

UGC Regulations – Supremacy and Compliance – UGC Regulations framed under Section 26 have statutory force – Binding on states and universities receiving central financial aid – State legislation in conflict with UGC Regulations void to extent of repugnancy – Proper composition of search committee crucial for valid appointment [Paras 11-16].

Decision: Petition allowed – Writ of quo warranto issued – Appointment of respondent as Vice Chancellor set aside – State directed to amend legislation to align with UGC Regulations before future appointments [Paras 17-17.2].

Specific Relief – Injunction – Plaintiff's suit for cancellation of sale deed and declaration dismissed – Permanent injunction granted by trial court restraining defendant from disturbing plaintiff's possession – High Court upheld injunction – Supreme Court held once plaintiff lost title claim, no injunction should be granted against true owner – Injunction as consequential relief fails if declaratory relief is denied [Paras 1-14].

Limitation and Possession – Plaintiff's suit for declaration and cancellation barred by limitation – Permanent injunction as consequential relief also barred – Registered sale deed in favor of defendant upheld, indicating defendant's lawful ownership and possession – Plaintiff’s possession not lawful without title [Paras 8-9].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of trial court and High Court set aside – Suit for permanent injunction dismissed – No costs [Para 14].

Service Law – Suspension and Reinstatement – Appellant's dismissal set aside by appellate authority – Appellate authority directed period of suspension and dismissal to be treated as dies non – Supreme Court held appellate authority's order imposing dies non not a recognized penalty – Remitted case to competent authority to determine how period should be treated [Paras 1-17].

Rule 15(v)(f) – Entitlement to Salary – Authority must decide treatment of period from suspension to reinstatement – Automatic entitlement to salary for entire period not implied – Remand to determine salary and benefits due [Paras 15-16].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Orders treating period as dies non set aside – Remanded to competent authority to determine treatment of suspension period and entitlement to salary [Para 17].

Criminal Law – Murder – Eyewitness Testimony – Appellant convicted for participating in group assault resulting in murder – Conviction based on testimonies of eyewitnesses who identified appellant as present and armed – Medical evidence corroborated gunshot injuries – Discrepancies in witness statements deemed minor and not affecting core prosecution case [Paras 1-46].

Medical Evidence – Post mortem examination supported eyewitness accounts of multiple gunshot injuries causing death – Injuries inflicted by different firearms confirmed participation of multiple accused [Paras 13-16, 36-40].

Legal Principles – Doctrine of Severability – Not applicable to witness statements in criminal trials – Entire statement to be accepted or rejected – Conviction can be based on credible parts of hostile witnesses’ testimony [Paras 31-33].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Concurrent findings of guilt by Trial Court and High Court upheld – Minor discrepancies in witness statements do not undermine overall credibility of prosecution case – Appellant's presence and participation in assault established beyond reasonable doubt [Para 47].

Service Law – Promotion and Seniority – Appellant's promotion to Office Superintendent quashed by High Court – High Court favored respondent due to earlier entry into service and promotion by reservation benefit – Supreme Court emphasized seniority-cum-merit criterion, upheld higher pay scale and unblemished record of appellant as basis for promotion – Promotion to selection post requires consideration of merit alongside seniority – Chargesheet against respondent indicated dereliction of duty [Paras 1-26].

Merit and Seniority – Importance of Clean Record – Seniority-cum-merit involves evaluating both seniority and merit – Clean service record of appellant considered significant – Higher pay scale in feeder cadre supports seniority claim – Respondent's disciplinary issues and resultant penalty factored against promotion [Paras 17-26].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Appellant's promotion reinstated – Board's decision to prefer appellant over respondent upheld based on unblemished record and higher pay scale [Para 26].

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 468 - Limitation Period - Cognizance of Offence - Relevant Date - The date of filing of the complaint or institution of prosecution is the relevant date for computing the period of limitation under Section 468 CrPC, not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance. High Court’s decision set aside for being contrary to the law declared by the Constitution Bench in Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases by its Director Dr. K.M. Cherian [Paras 1-13].

Bar to Taking Cognizance After Lapse of Limitation - The complaint filed on 10.07.2012 and cognizance taken on 04.12.2012 within the limitation period concerning the alleged offence committed on 04.10.2009. The High Court erroneously considered the date of cognizance as decisive [Paras 10-13].

Decision - Appeal Allowed - High Court order set aside - Trial Magistrate to proceed with the trial expeditiously - Measures to prevent delay or obstruction by the accused respondents, including possible cancellation of bail or imposition of monetary conditions [Paras 13-15].

Civil Procedure - Execution of Decree - Mandatory Procedure - Order XXI, Rule 34 CPC - Decree for specific performance - Draft sale deed not served to judgment debtor - Court's duty to serve draft, invite objections, and consider them before execution - Execution of sale deed without following procedure quashed [Paras 9-16].

Execution of Decree - Non-Compliance with Procedural Requirements - The decree-holder must deliver the draft document to the court, which must then serve it on the judgment debtor - Failure to follow this procedure led to the setting aside of the executed sale deed [Paras 10-14].

Decision - Appeal Allowed - High Court order set aside - Execution court directed to serve draft sale deed on appellant and consider objections before proceeding with execution - Executed sale deed to be re-evaluated for conformity with the decree - Process to be completed within four months [Para 16].

Customs Act, 1962 - Section 129E - Pre-Deposit Requirement - Applicability - Appellant penalized for smuggling - Tribunal dismissed appeal for non-compliance with pre-deposit requirement under amended Section 129E - High Court upheld Tribunal's order - Appeal to Supreme Court on grounds that amended provision should not apply to acts committed before its substitution [Paras 1-3].

Pre-Deposit Requirement - Legislative Intent - Substitution of Section 129E intended to replace earlier regime with a new one - New provision reduces pre-deposit to a percentage but removes discretion to waive pre-deposit - Argument that pre-substitution provisions should apply to pre-substitution acts rejected - Legislative intent is clear in applying new provisions to appeals filed after substitution [Paras 6-10].

Decision - Appeal Dismissed - Extended period for compliance with Section 129E granted - No merit found in appellant's contention that pre-substitution provision's discretionary waiver should apply while benefiting from reduced pre-deposit of the new regime [Para 11].