Contract Law – Time of Essence – Determination – Whether time is of the essence of a contract must be derived from the entire contract and surrounding circumstances – Merely having an explicit clause is insufficient – Extensions granted indicate time was not of the essence – Contract provided for extensions and imposition of liquidated damages, suggesting timely performance was not strictly essential [Paras 26-31].

Liquidated Damages – Waiver and Re-imposition – ONGC waived liquidated damages initially, indicating a lack of intent to enforce strict timelines – Subsequent extensions with liquidated damages not justified unless clearly accepted by parties – Tribunal's award based on actual loss sustained is upheld [Paras 32-35].

Judicial Review – Arbitral Awards – Scope of Section 34 – Courts should not interfere with arbitral awards unless there is patent illegality – Arbitral Tribunal's interpretation, if reasonable, should be respected – High Court and District Court overstepped their jurisdiction under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act [Paras 23-25, 35].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court and District Court orders set aside – Arbitral Tribunal's award upheld – Parties to bear their own costs [Paras 36-37].

Service Law – Appointment Validity – Appellants were appointed temporarily on leave vacancies and did not pass the speed test for Hindi Stenographers – High Court rightly quashed their appointments and upheld the termination of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 who were selected through due process – Rule 14(3) validity of the select list was one year, expired on 13.07.1988 – No appointments could be made from this expired list [Paras 2-9].

Financial Burden – State Implications – Court noted that appointing two persons on one sanctioned post would financially burden the state – Highlighted the necessity to maintain appointments in accordance with legal provisions to avoid such burdens [Paras 9-10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court's order upheld – No relief granted to appellants as their appointments were legally untenable – Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to be accommodated as per due process [Paras 9-10].

Service Law – Promotion Requirements – Passing of SAS Part II exam was mandated for promotion from Superintendent (D/A) to AAO but not for direct recruits to AAO – Amended notification dated 02.01.2010 requiring SAS Part II for promotion to AO found arbitrary and illogical – High Court read down the requirement, holding it applicable only to promotion from Superintendent (D/A) to AAO and not for promotion to AO [Paras 2-8].

Seniority and Promotion – Litigation and Seniority – Direct recruits' regular appointment and seniority determined by Supreme Court in 2015 – Promotions made before this were set aside – High Court rightly directed reconsideration of promotions to AO, providing seniority and benefits from initial appointment date [Paras 6-8].

Equity and Relief – Reversion and Promotion – Appellants promoted to AO since 2010 argued against reversion – Supreme Court rejected this plea, emphasizing necessary consequences and re-shuffling of promotions to maintain fairness and legality [Paras 8-9].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court's judgment upheld – Promotions to AO to be reconsidered, ensuring compliance with legal requirements and proper seniority [Para 9].

Arbitration Law – Appellate Jurisdiction – Distinction – High Court erroneously acted as an appellate forum in a regular civil suit, rather than under the limited scope of Section 37 of the Arbitration Act – District Judge rightly rejected the petition under Section 34, finding no basis for interfering with the arbitral award – High Court's judgment set aside as it exceeded its jurisdiction [Paras 11-13].

Arbitral Award – Reasoned Findings – Sole arbitrator provided detailed reasons based on evidence, upholding the appellants' defense of sub-standard supplies – High Court failed to appreciate the arbitral findings and incorrectly decreed the respondents' claims [Paras 10-12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – District Judge's order rejecting the petition under Section 34 upheld – Respondents' appeal dismissed [Paras 13-14].

Tender – Transportation of Rice – Continuation of interim arrangements for transportation without fresh tenders at old rates from 2017-18 caused significant financial loss to the State – High Court directed immediate steps for fresh tenders – Supreme Court upheld and directed issuance of fresh NIT within 10 days, ensuring fair and transparent process through e-Tender, to be completed within six weeks [Paras 2-6].

Administrative Lethargy – Financial Implications – State’s failure to issue fresh tenders criticized as causing financial loss – Directed to ensure maximum price and avoid cartels – Current arrangement to continue only until 31.12.2021 to prevent inconvenience to beneficiaries [Paras 4-6].

Decision: Appeal disposed of – Respondents directed to issue fresh NIT within 10 days and complete process within six weeks – State to submit compliance report – Non-compliance to be viewed seriously [Paras 6-7].

Criminal Law – Attempt to Murder – Conviction and Sentence – Appellants used deadly weapons, inflicting grievous injuries on the vital parts of the victims' bodies – Stab injuries on stomach and near the chest warranted conviction under Section 307 IPC – Conviction upheld as per evidentiary value of injured eye-witnesses and nature of injuries [Paras 2-4].

Evidentiary Value – Injured Eye-witnesses – Testimonies of injured eye-witnesses carry great weight and were consistent with other prosecution witnesses – No compelling reason to doubt their statements [Para 2].

Nature of Injuries – Vital Parts of Body – Injuries caused by sharp cutting instruments on vital body parts like stomach and chest are grievous – Application of Section 307 IPC justified – Court noted the intention of the accused from the weapon used and the manner of attack [Paras 3-4].

Precedent – Relevance – Previous case law distinguished based on facts, weapon used, and nature of injuries – Subsequent decisions considered [Para 5].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC upheld [Para 5].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Specific role attributed to the accused in the FIR – High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC by quashing the FIR without considering the allegations properly – Reliance on draft charge-sheet which was not yet submitted to the Magistrate was inappropriate – High Court's order set aside [Paras 20-21, 23].

Draft Charge-sheet – Inadmissibility – High Court cannot rely on a draft charge-sheet for quashing an FIR – Investigation and charge-sheet submission process must follow due procedure, and draft charge-sheet has no legal standing until submitted to the Magistrate [Paras 20-21].

Concurrent Findings – High Court's overreach – High Court's approach in treating the investigation process akin to appellate review led to erroneous quashing of the FIR – Proper exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC necessitates careful consideration of allegations in the FIR without unwarranted interference [Paras 22-24].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court's judgment quashing the FIR set aside – FIR and consequential proceedings to continue in accordance with law [Paras 27-28].

Service Law – Misconduct – Quantum of Punishment – Respondent, a CRPF constable, misbehaved, abused, and injured a doctor on duty and made false criminal charges of sexual harassment against the doctor – High Court substituted the penalty of removal from service with confinement in quarter guard jail – Supreme Court held that the punishment by the disciplinary authority was appropriate and not shockingly disproportionate – High Court's interference in the penalty was unwarranted [Paras 21-26].

Judicial Review – Limited Scope – The scope of judicial review on the quantum of punishment is limited – Courts should not substitute their own decision for that of the disciplinary authority unless the punishment is shockingly disproportionate – The High Court's substitution of the penalty was beyond its jurisdiction [Paras 22-25].

Penalty Proportionality – Serious Misconduct – Given the gravity of the misconduct, the penalty of removal from service was justified – Misconduct in disciplined forces like CRPF demands strict penalties to maintain discipline [Paras 21-24].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment substituting the penalty of removal from service set aside – Respondent's removal from service upheld [Paras 29-30].

Real Estate Regulation – Pre-deposit Requirement for Appeals – The requirement under Section 43(5) for promoters to deposit at least 30% of the penalty or the total amount to be paid to the allottee including interest and compensation before an appeal is heard is not violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. This pre-deposit ensures that the determined amount is safeguarded if the appeal fails, thus protecting homebuyers' interests [Paras 122-137]​​​​.

Real Estate Projects – Mandatory Registration –Sections 3 and 3(1) mandate prior registration of real estate projects with the Real Estate Regulatory Authority, including ongoing projects without completion certificates. This provision is prospective in application and does not violate vested rights. It ensures transparency and accountability in the real estate sector, protecting the interests of both promoters and homebuyers [Paras 6-10, 138-140]​​.

Delegation of Authority – The Real Estate Regulatory Authority can delegate its powers to a single member for deciding complaints under Section 31. This delegation is valid under Section 81 and necessary for the expeditious disposal of complaints [Paras 111-120]​​.

Statutory Provisions –The court also considered the adequacy of remedies provided under the Act for allottees and the conditions imposed on promoters, including the requirement of pre-deposit for appeals and the distinction between refund and compensation claims [Paras 70-76]​​.

Decision: Appeals dismissed. The conditions imposed by the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, including pre-deposit requirements and registration mandates, are upheld as valid and constitutional.