Misappropriation of Government Funds – Initiation of Criminal Proceedings – The Supreme Court addressed the High Court’s direction for criminal proceedings against officers and office bearers for misappropriation of funds under a housing scheme. The High Court had ordered steps to be taken based on reports of mismanagement and irregularities. The appellants contended that they were not heard before such directions were issued and that no deficiencies were noted in the units constructed by the contractors【Paras 1, 7-12, 31-34】.

Public Interest Litigation – Principles of Natural Justice – The Court emphasized that public interest litigation should not bypass the principles of natural justice. The appellants, who were not party to the original proceedings, argued that the lack of opportunity to be heard resulted in significant prejudice against them, particularly as criminal proceedings were initiated based on the High Court's directions【Paras 14-16, 26, 35】.

Judicial Conduct and Delay in Pronouncement of Judgment – The judgment pronounced the operative part on 27.06.2019 but provided the reasons on 05.10.2020. The Supreme Court deprecated the High Court's conduct for not furnishing reasons immediately, noting it caused prejudice to the appellants who could not frame their grounds of appeal timely. However, the delay did not warrant setting aside the judgment due to interim orders providing relief to the appellants【Paras 25, 33-34】.

Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's directions to take steps for investigating and addressing irregularities in the housing scheme. The Court allowed the authorities to proceed with criminal investigations while emphasizing that the observations made should not preclude any defenses available to the appellants in the criminal proceedings【Paras 35-37】.

Declaration of Land as Forest Area – Validity of Revenue Entries – The Supreme Court held that entries in the revenue record without any supporting documents of creation of lease under the Forest Act are inconsequential and do not create any right, title, or interest over the land. The land vests in the Forest Department by virtue of notification published under the statute. The lessee must assert title on forest land through an agreement in writing by a competent authority, which was not produced in this case【Paras 10, 27-28】.

Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act – Objections by Forest Department – The Court found that the High Court erred in holding that objections by the Forest Department were barred by Section 49 of the Consolidation Act. Since the land vests in the Forest Department by statutory notification, the lessee must assert title through proper documentation. The lack of objections from the Forest Department earlier does not invalidate its claim【Para 28】.

Vesting of Estates in the State – Sections 4 and 117 of the Abolition Act – The Court emphasized that once the notification under Section 4 of the Abolition Act is published, all rights, title, and interest vest in the State, and only the State has the authority to transfer such lands by a general or special order. No such orders transferring land to the Gaon Sabha or any other local authority were present in this case【Paras 4-6, 16-17】.

Prohibition on Acquisition of Rights – Section 5 of the Forest Act – The notification under Section 4 of the Forest Act prohibits the acquisition of any right over the land except by succession or under a grant or contract in writing by or on behalf of the Government. The Gaon Sabha was not competent to grant lease in favor of the lessee without such a written contract【Para 19-20, 24-25】.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and restoring the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 08.07.2004. The Court concluded that the lessee has no right, title, or interest in the land based on the revenue record entries without supporting documents under the Forest Act【Paras 27-29】.

Execution of Money Decree – Compliance with Order XXI Rule 64 – The Supreme Court held that Order XXI Rule 64 mandates the executing court to sell only as much property as is necessary to satisfy the decree. Failure to adhere to this requirement constitutes a jurisdictional error. The appellant's repeated objections to the method of execution and the inclusion of the entire property in the sale, despite ample opportunities to raise these objections earlier, were not permissible【Para 19, 20, 22, 23】.

Res Judicata – Successive Petitions under Section 47 – The Court emphasized that the present petition under Section 47 CPC was barred by res judicata, as a previous petition under the same section had been filed and decided. The introduction of Explanation VII to Section 11 CPC by Act 104 of 1976 clarifies that the principles of res judicata apply to execution proceedings【Para 37(ii)】.

Adequate Opportunity to Object – Judgment-Debtor's Responsibilities – The sequence of events demonstrated that the judgment-debtor had sufficient opportunities to object to the inclusion of the entire property in the sale proclamation. The failure to raise these objections timely cannot be remedied in subsequent rounds of litigation【Para 30-33】.

Finality of Orders – Consequences of Absolute Sale – The Court reiterated that once the sale of immovable property in execution of a decree becomes absolute and a sale certificate is issued, the property vests in the purchaser. The judgment-debtor’s subsequent objections regarding the execution process are barred【Para 37(iv), 37(v)】.

Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's order that confirmed the dismissal of the appellant's application under Section 47 CPC. The Court highlighted the need for finality in litigation and prevented the appellant from raising issues that could have been addressed in earlier proceedings【Para 38】

Modification of Judgment – Miscellaneous Application – Appellant sought modification of the order for demolition of part of Tower T-17 – Court emphasized that such applications should not bypass procedures for review – Clarifications or modifications cannot serve as a backdoor for review – Reliefs sought amount to review and therefore not maintainable [Paras 1-88].

Building Regulations – Compliance and Violations – Sanctioned plans violated minimum distance requirements and green area provisions – Misrepresentations about building blocks to circumvent regulations – Fire safety norms breached – Lack of flat owners’ consent for plan changes – Violations of UP Apartments Act 2010 – Court affirmed the need for strict adherence to approved plans and regulations [Paras 185-186].

Judicial Finality – Stability of Judgments – Emphasized finality of judicial pronouncements – Repeated miscellaneous applications discouraged – Legal principle: mandated procedures must be followed as prescribed – Efforts to reopen concluded judgments through repeated applications is an abuse of process [Paras 8-15].

Decision – Miscellaneous Application Dismissed – Held – Appeal to modify demolition order of Towers T-16 and T-17 rejected – Court upheld original demolition order and emphasized compliance with statutory requirements and judicial procedures [Paras 14-15].

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].