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].

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].