Eviction on Admission – Order XII Rule 6 of CPC – High Court decreed eviction on admission based on the defendants' written statement – Defendants claimed ownership through an agreement to sell, but such agreement does not confer ownership – High Court correctly interpreted admissions regarding plaintiff’s ownership and defendant No.1's tenancy – Appeal dismissed subject to outcome of pending suit for specific performance filed by defendant No.2 [Paras 1-10].

Admissions in Written Statements – Plaintiff filed suit for possession, claiming ownership and that defendant No.1 was a tenant – Defendants' written statement indicated an admission of tenancy and ownership but also claimed ownership through an agreement to sell – Court held agreement to sell does not transfer ownership without executed sale deed or decree for specific performance [Paras 8-9].

Pending Suit for Specific Performance – Defendant No.2’s suit for specific performance pending – High Court's decree of eviction subject to outcome of pending suit – If specific performance granted, necessary consequences to follow – Injunctions in favor of defendant No.2 to remain unaffected unless modified by trial court [Para 9].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – High Court’s order confirmed subject to pending suit's outcome – No order as to costs [Para 10].

Arbitration – Pendente Lite Interest – Clause barring interest in contract – Arbitrator cannot award pendente lite interest if contract explicitly bars it – Section 31(7)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 emphasizes parties' agreement over arbitrator’s power – High Court's rejection of pendente lite interest upheld [Paras 1-23].

Contractual Clauses – Validity under Section 28 of Indian Contract Act – Clause barring interest payments not ultra vires – Contracts can lawfully include terms that restrict interest payments – Interest Act, 1978 permits parties to waive interest by agreement [Paras 19-22].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – High Court's order upheld – Parties to bear their own costs [Para 23].

Lease Agreement – Termination and Payment Compliance – Dispute over non-payment within stipulated time – LOI required Rs. 9.34 crore within 30 days – Extensions granted but payment not completed within extended time – Termination of LOI upheld as justified – Amounts paid beyond deadlines ordered to be refunded – Appellant allowed to pursue civil suit for additional amounts [Paras 1-22].

Writ Jurisdiction – Contractual Disputes – High Court's dismissal of writ petition due to disputed facts upheld – Appropriate forum needed for resolution – High Court's assessment affirmed but modified to include specific directions for refund and further civil litigation [Paras 16-22].

Decision – Appeal Partially Allowed – High Court's order modified – Termination of LOI upheld – UAHCL directed to refund Rs. 4.11 crores paid after deadline – Appellant may file civil suit for recovery of Rs. 4.41 crores paid within extended time – Rs. 3 crores deposited in Supreme Court to be refunded to appellant with interest – No costs ordered [Para 22].

Anticipatory Bail – Dowry Death – Conduct and Gravity of Offense – High Court granted anticipatory bail to respondent accused despite her absconding for over two years – Absconding and the nature of the offense distinguished her from co-accused granted bail – High Court's decision set aside as it ignored relevant factors [Paras 2-14].

Bail Cancellation – Legal Principles – Cancellation of bail requires cogent reasons – Consideration of irrelevant factors or overlooking relevant material can render bail orders untenable – Societal impact and ensuring fair investigation are critical considerations [Paras 9-10].

Procedural Irregularities – Absconding and Bail – Procedural irregularities in declaring the accused an absconder do not justify anticipatory bail in cases of grave offense – Investigation integrity must be preserved [Para 13].

Parity in Bail – Misapplication – High Court wrongly applied parity with co-accused for respondent accused despite different allegations and conduct – Respondent accused's role and absconding period distinguished from co-accused [Para 14].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court's order granting anticipatory bail set aside – Respondent accused directed to surrender – Free to seek regular bail upon surrender, which should be considered on merits without influence from this order [Para 16].

COVID-19 Ex-Gratia Assistance – Guidelines and Compliance – National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) issued guidelines recommending Rs. 50,000/- ex-gratia assistance for kin of deceased due to COVID-19 – Assistance to be provided from State Disaster Response Fund (SDRF) – District Disaster Management Authority/District Administration responsible for disbursement – Guidelines for death certificate issuance and grievance redressal also outlined [Paras 1-12].

Death Certificates – Certification of COVID-19 Deaths – Guidelines require certification of COVID-19 deaths within 30 days of testing or clinical determination – Grievance redressal mechanism established for disputes regarding cause of death – Committee to verify and amend death certificates as necessary [Paras 5-12].

Directions Issued – Ex-gratia assistance of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid within 30 days of application – Wide publicity to be given for awareness – No denial based on cause of death not stated as COVID-19 in death certificate if other documents support COVID-19 cause – Specific timelines for committee formation and grievance resolution [Para 10].

Decision – Miscellaneous Application Disposed – Directions issued to all states and Union Territories to comply with guidelines and directions for ex-gratia assistance and death certification [Para 13].

First Appellate Court – Duty to Address All Issues – High Court failed to re-appreciate the evidence and did not comply with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC – Appellate court must frame points for determination and address all issues based on evidence – High Court's judgment set aside for non-compliance [Paras 6-7].

Willingness to Perform Contract – Specific Performance Suit – Plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform contract critical for decree – Plaintiff initially demanded eviction of tenants before executing sale deed – Plaintiff's affidavit in High Court stating willingness to purchase with tenants not considered as per original pleadings – Trial court's findings on willingness upheld [Paras 8-10].

Procedure for Amending Pleadings – Affidavit Filed Without Amendments – High Court improperly relied on plaintiff’s affidavit filed in appeal without amending the original plaint – Procedure adopted by High Court disapproved – Proper procedure under Order VI Rule 17 CPC required [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – High Court's judgment and decree set aside – Trial court's dismissal of specific performance suit restored – Appellant directed to refund advance payment with interest within eight weeks [Paras 10-11].

Occupancy Rights vs. Ownership Rights – Conflict of Acts – High Court annulled occupancy rights granted under the Inams Act in favor of ownership rights under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act – Tenancy Act’s Section 38-E(1) overrides the Inams Act – Protected tenants become full owners with effect from the date specified in the notification, superseding occupancy rights [Paras 1-23].

Protected Tenants’ Rights – Certification and Vesting – Ownership certificate under Section 38-E issued before the grant of occupancy rights – Protected tenants deemed full owners upon issuance of certificate – Oral surrender of tenancy rights by protected tenant deemed invalid under Tenancy Act [Paras 26-31].

Procedural Compliance – Certification under Section 38-E requires inquiry and conclusive evidence of protected tenant’s ownership – Provisions of the Tenancy Act prioritize tenant's rights and override conflicting provisions in Inams Act – Compliance with prescribed statutory procedures necessary for validity [Paras 34-37].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – High Court’s annulment of occupancy rights upheld – Tenancy Act’s provisions given precedence – Protected tenant’s ownership rights validated – No order as to costs [Para 46].

Arrears of Salaries – Compliance with Pay Commission Recommendations – High Court directed the appellant to pay salaries as per 5th and 6th Pay Commissions – Appellant’s failure to comply led respondents to approach Deputy Director (Education) – Submission to restrict arrears to three years preceding the writ petition rejected – Duty of institution to comply with pay scale revisions without requiring staff to repeatedly approach authorities [Paras 1-5].

Duty to Pay Revised Salaries – Legal Obligations – Entitlement to revised pay scales per Schedule C of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Rules – Arrears must be cleared without imposing limitations based on delayed compliance or procedural delays [Para 4].

Equitable Relief – Inaction and Liability – Lapse and inaction by appellant institution do not negate entitlement of staff to arrears – Respondents not to suffer due to institutional non-compliance – Arrears to be paid within eight weeks, failing which interest at 9% per annum applicable [Para 5].

Decision – Special Leave Petitions Dismissed – High Court’s order upheld – Appellants directed to clear arrears within eight weeks – Deputy Director (Education) to ensure compliance and disbursement to respondents [Paras 5-6].

DNA Testing – Personal Liberty and Privacy – High Court directed the plaintiff to undergo DNA test to prove biological relationship – Supreme Court held DNA tests should not be ordered as routine but only in deserving cases – Forcing DNA test on an unwilling plaintiff violates personal liberty and right to privacy – Plaintiff entitled to rely on other evidence without compulsory DNA testing [Paras 1-17].

Burden of Proof – Plaintiff’s Evidence – Plaintiff produced sworn affidavits, school leaving certificates, and domicile certificate to prove relationship – Defendants’ claim that plaintiff is not their brother not substantiated by compelling evidence – Court should not compel further evidence through DNA testing at defendants’ request – Suit to be decided based on available evidence [Paras 14-16].

Adverse Inference – Refusal to Undergo DNA Test – Refusal to undergo DNA test may allow court to draw adverse inference under Section 114 of the Evidence Act – Plaintiff’s refusal to be considered with other evidence presented – Case not warranting exceptional DNA testing [Para 15].

Right to Privacy – Judicial Principles – Courts must balance quest for truth with protection of individual rights – Proportionality test in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India applies to DNA testing orders – Right to privacy must be upheld unless there is an eminent need [Paras 13, 16].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Trial Court’s order dated 28.11.2017 restored – Suit to proceed without compulsory DNA test – Costs to be borne by respective parties [Paras 17-18].