Second Appeal – Dismissal without Reasons – High Court must provide reasons for dismissing a second appeal at the admission stage – Essential for understanding and transparency – The absence of reasons invalidates the dismissal order [Paras 14-15].

Section 100 CPC – Substantial Question of Law – High Court to determine if the appeal involves a substantial question of law – Mandatory to formulate and address such questions – Dismissal without formulation of questions requires recorded reasons [Paras 9-11, 13].

Order 42 CPC – Application of Order 41 – Procedures of Order 41 applicable to second appeals to the extent possible – Emphasizes procedural adherence for fairness [Paras 12].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s dismissal order set aside – Case remitted back for fresh disposal in accordance with law and observations made [Para 16].

Forest Conservation – Felling of Trees – Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (DMRC) required to seek permissions under Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for construction of Phase-IV MRTS Project – Directions issued to file applications for diversion of forest land [Paras 1, 3-4, 18, 19].

Sustainable Development – Balancing Development and Environment – Emphasis on the need for environmental protection while undertaking development projects – Public interest in providing efficient transport versus ecological impact [Paras 28-34].

Citizen Participation – Reafforestation Efforts – Directive for a comprehensive plan involving citizens for planting and nurturing trees to offset environmental impact – Collaboration between government departments and civil society [Paras 39, 47(ix)].

Decision – Applications allowed – Directed DMRC to file applications for diversion of land, seeking permissions from Chief Conservator (Forest) and Nodal Officer, GNCTD, and MoEF&CC – Interim compliance measures outlined [Paras 47(i)-(vii)].

Public Contracts – Evaluation of Public Interest – State's claim of loss of public money cannot override contractual obligations without evidence – Contracts must uphold fairness and sanctity to ensure business confidence and economic stability [Paras 1-14].

Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel – Government bound by its promises unless substantial public interest is at stake – Mere change of government or executive head cannot invalidate prior commitments without proven public harm [Paras 55-60].

Judicial Review – Scope – Courts should ensure that administrative decisions are free from arbitrariness and bias – Reviewing tender processes requires balancing public interest with the need for procedural fairness [Paras 25-30].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – High Court's order upheld – CIDCO directed to honor the contractual obligations and permissions previously granted [Paras 72-73].

Civil Procedure – Fraud Allegations – General allegations of fraud without specific particulars are insufficient to sustain a suit – Merely using the words "fraud" or "fraudulent" does not meet the legal standard for pleading fraud under Order VI Rule 4 CPC – Allegations must be supported by material particulars to be legally valid [Paras 7.2-7.3].

Bar Under Section 34 SARFAESI Act – Civil courts barred from entertaining suits challenging measures taken under SARFAESI Act unless there is specific and particularized pleading of fraud – Clever drafting to avoid statutory bar is impermissible – Courts must not entertain suits that circumvent statutory provisions through vague allegations [Paras 7.2, 8].

Jurisdiction of Debt Recovery Tribunal – Appropriate forum for disputes involving secured creditors and debt under SARFAESI Act – Issues such as validity of the assignment deed and enforceability of debt to be decided by the DRT – Civil court's jurisdiction excluded in such matters [Paras 7.5, 8].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – High Court’s dismissal of suit upheld – Appellant permitted to file proceedings before DRT under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act – Observations on the merits of fraud claims reserved for determination by DRT [Paras 9].

Environmental Clearance – Requirement – Further construction of the appellant's project comprising six buildings cannot proceed without a new environmental impact assessment – Environmental clearance needed for any new construction beyond initial sanctions [Paras 3-4, 18-19].

Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation – Project proponents are entitled to operate under the environmental clearance regime existing at the time of their project approval – Retrospective changes impacting already granted clearances deemed unfair and impractical [Paras 20-25].

Judicial Review – Balance of Interests – Courts to ensure stability and predictability in government dealings with public – Projects commenced under valid permissions should be protected from subsequent policy changes unless substantial public interest dictates otherwise [Paras 21-23].

Decision – Appeals disposed of – NGT's protection of completed construction upheld – Further construction to proceed only with fresh environmental clearance from competent authority [Paras 26-27].

Hostile Witnesses – Credibility – Conviction based on evidence from hostile witnesses upheld – Courts may rely on credible parts of hostile witness testimonies if corroborated by other evidence – The evidence of PW1 and other eyewitnesses was found reliable despite initial hostility [Paras 1-22, 27].

Honour Killing – Hostile Social Norms – Case involved the brutal killing of individuals violating caste norms – Emphasized societal need to prevent caste-based violence – Highlighted the role of witness protection to ensure fair trial [Paras 22, 28-31, 39-40].

Section 149 IPC – Unlawful Assembly – Presence and participation in unlawful assembly suffices for conviction under Section 149 IPC – Vicarious liability for acts committed in prosecution of common object of the assembly even without active participation [Paras 35-38].

Witness Protection – State Obligation – Stress on the need for witness protection schemes to ensure free and fair testimony – Reference to Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, and directions for its implementation [Paras 28-31].

Decision – Appeals partly allowed – Some appellants acquitted due to lack of credible evidence and identification – Conviction and life sentences for remaining appellants upheld – Directions issued to ensure implementation of witness protection measures [Paras 48-51].

Service Law – Back-wages – In cases of wrongful termination, reinstatement with continuity of service and back-wages is the normal rule – Adjudicating authority must consider the length of service, nature of misconduct, financial condition of the employer, and similar factors – High Court correctly granted 50% back wages to the respondent [Paras 1-14].

Rule 161 RPF Rules – Dispensing Inquiry – Authorities can dispense with inquiry if it is not reasonably practicable to hold one – Reasons must be recorded in writing – Allegations of threat to witnesses and collusion in theft justify invoking Rule 161, but the absence of recorded reasons invalidates the order [Paras 4, 8-9].

Judicial Review – Back Wages – Grant of back wages depends on case specifics – Courts exercise discretion in awarding full or partial back wages, considering the overall fairness and circumstances of each case – 50% back wages upheld as fair and just in this case [Paras 11-13].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – High Court’s order upheld – Reinstatement with 50% back wages granted to respondent [Para 14].

Criminal Law – Attempt to Murder – Appellant, a police official, used his service pistol in an inebriated condition – Conviction under Section 307 IPC upheld as the intent to kill was evident from the appellant’s actions – Sentence reduced to the period already undergone [Paras 1-27, 36].

Arms Act – Misuse of Licensed Weapon – Conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act set aside – Illegal use of a licensed weapon does not constitute an offence under Section 27 without proving misdemeanour under Section 5 or 7 of the Arms Act – Appellant’s possession of the weapon was authorized [Paras 28-31].

Doctrine of Proportionality – Sentencing – Emphasized the need for proportionate sentencing based on the gravity of the offence, the overall conduct of the offender, and mitigating factors – Appellant’s clean record and absence of premeditation considered in reducing the sentence [Paras 32-35].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act set aside – Conviction under Section 307 IPC maintained – Sentence reduced to the period already undergone [Para 36].

Succession Law – Execution of Unprivileged Wills – High Court incorrectly formulated the question of law based on factual inquiry, contrary to Section 100 CPC – Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court had found the will not proved in terms of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act – High Court's detailed factual inquiry was impermissible [Paras 1-8].

Evidence – Reliability – Testimonies of witnesses supporting the will were disbelieved by lower courts due to contradictions and lack of confidence – High Court erred by re-evaluating these factual determinations – Mechanical compliance with Section 63 insufficient without reliable evidence [Paras 4-7].

Doctrine of Escheat – Rights of Legal Representatives – Legal heirs of Kishan Singh can question the State's claim over the land – Option open for legal representatives to bring appropriate actions under law [Paras 9-10].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court restored – Legal representatives of defendant nos. 2 to 4 may pursue claims as permitted by law [Paras 10-11].