Facts:

The appellant filed a suit for specific performance in 2006.

The trial court decreed the suit, and both parties appealed the decision.

The appellate court confirmed the trial court's judgment, resulting in the merger of the two decrees.

The main issue revolved around the time frame for the deposit of the balance sale consideration.

The executing court rejected the objections of the respondents and allowed the appellant's execution petition.

The High Court set aside the executing court's order, citing a failure on the appellant's part to deposit the balance within the specified time.

Issues:

Applicability of the doctrine of merger.

Interpretation of Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act.

Validity of the High Court's decision regarding the time frame for depositing the balance sale consideration.

Held:

The Supreme Court emphasized the doctrine of merger, stating that once the appellate court confirms the trial court's judgment, there is a merger of the decrees. The court discussed the applicability of Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, which allows the court to rescind the contract or extend the time for compliance with the decree.

The court held that the appellant acted bona fide, and the executing court was justified in rejecting the objections of the respondents. The High Court's modification of the decree was deemed impermissible. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court's judgment.

Facts:

CCL Products (India) Limited, engaged in instant coffee manufacturing, faced complaints of environmental pollution.

Pollution Control Board issued directions, including the submission of bank guarantees, to ensure compliance with environmental standards.

Three bank guarantees were provided by the respondent, each covering specific compliance requirements.

Issues:

Whether the Pollution Control Board's invocation of bank guarantees was justified.

Whether principles of natural justice were followed in the invocation process.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that bank guarantees constitute independent contracts between the issuing bank and the beneficiary. Unless there is fraud, irretrievable injustice, or special equities, the court should not interfere with the invocation as long as it aligns with the terms of the bank guarantee. The Tribunal erred in requiring principles of natural justice to be followed in the context of bank guarantees. The invocation was justified based on non-compliance with environmental norms, and the court set aside the Tribunal's judgment. The appeal was allowed.

Facts:

The appellant, M/S PRRSAAR, appealed against the order dated 20.02.2017 by the Securities Appellate Tribunal, which upheld the Disciplinary Action Committee's decision of the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. The disciplinary action involved a fine and suspension imposed on the appellant for financial irregularities and misconduct in business conduct.

Issues:

The appellant argued that the penalty/fine could only be imposed in accordance with the Circular dated 27.06.2013, while the respondent relied on bye-laws, particularly Chapter IV Rule 1.

The appropriateness of suspending the trading membership and the quantum of penalty imposed by the relevant authority.

Held:

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and directed the appellant to reapproach the Securities Appellate Tribunal for reconsideration. The reconsideration is limited to the issue of the quantum of punishment awarded to the appellant. The Court noted that the Appellate Tribunal failed to address the appellant's contentions about the appropriateness of the order and the specific provisions in the Circular. The Tribunal is instructed not to delve into technicalities related to the withdrawal of a specific appeal but to decide the restored appeal expeditiously, focusing solely on the quantum of punishment. The Appeal is allowed.

Facts:

The respondent applied for the allotment of an LIG tenement in 1990.

The respondent deposited Rs 4,000 on 21 February 1991.

On 30 April 1992, a letter of allotment was issued, specifying a balance of Rs 47,674 payable at the time of possession.

The appellant claimed the allotment was canceled in 1994 due to the respondent's failure to deposit the balance.

The respondent contested, stating she did not receive a letter of possession.

Issues:

Whether the letter offering possession was made available to the respondent.

Whether the balance payment was required only at the time of possession.

Held:

The Court set aside the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's judgment, emphasizing the real dispute about the availability of the letter offering possession. The respondent's letters in 1996 and 2008 admitted financial inability to deposit the balance. The Court found the complaint filed in 2008 was time-barred. The appellant was directed to refund Rs 25,000, and the respondent was awarded a total of Rs 1 lakh, including litigation expenses. This decision was made under the Court's jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

Facts:

Fictitious bank account opened on 13.07.1992.

Forged credit entries and subsequent withdrawals.

Appellants (messenger and assistant clerk) implicated during investigation.

Issues:

Validity of prosecution sanction.

Appellants' involvement in opening the fictitious account.

Evidence supporting criminal conspiracy.

Critique of the investigation quality.

Held:

The trial court criticized the investigation but found strong evidence against the appellants.

Validity of prosecution sanction established.

Handwriting and signatures linked to appellants during investigation.

Evidence sufficient to establish conspiracy.

Fraud committed systematically by individuals well-versed in banking procedures.

No interference with the conviction; appeals dismissed.

Facts:

Appellant Sanjay Rajak convicted for kidnapping a 5-6 year old child in 2007.

Co-accused Balram acquitted by the High Court.

Child last seen with both accused.

Confessional statements indicated kidnapping, murder, and burial of the child.

Ransom calls made by Balram according to the parents.

Belongings of the deceased found in the appellant's house.

Issues:

Acquittal of co-accused affecting the appellant's conviction.

Reliability of witness testimonies.

Failure to recover the child's body and its impact on the prosecution's case.

Held:

The court considered the evidence, including witness testimonies, identification of the accused, recovery of belongings, and the failure to recover the body. The High Court's acquittal of the co-accused was deemed irrelevant, and the court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 364(A) IPC. The court emphasized that the failure to recover the body does not necessarily undermine a murder conviction based on circumstantial evidence. The appellant's denial and lack of explanation for the recovered belongings, coupled with strong circumstantial evidence, led to the dismissal of the appeal.

Facts:

The appellant initiated a public interest litigation.

High Court directed the State to make an administrative decision on Tripura Medical College.

State reconstituted the Society managing the college.

Issues:

Appellant challenged admission procedure and fees, seeking parity with other government medical colleges.

The writ petition was dismissed, leading to the present appeal.

Held:

Court's Jurisdiction and Policy Decision: The court highlighted that the appellant raised a policy issue, and it was inappropriate for the High Court to direct the government to run the college as a government institution. The chosen hybrid model with a society was upheld. (Para 8)

Grievance on Fees The appellant's grievance about student fees was advised to be considered by the regulatory committee in the state. (Para 9):

Appropriateness of Judicial Review: The court found it inappropriate to determine the correctness of a policy decision made by the State government. (Para 10)

Final Decision: The court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it. No costs were imposed. (Para 11)

Facts:

The dispute arose from a construction project where M/S Treaty Construction & another (appellants) undertook to build a structure with flats and shops. The purchasers formed a co-operative housing society (M/S Ruby Tower Co-op. HSG. Society Ltd.). The society alleged that the appellants failed to complete interior works, obtain necessary certificates, and borrowed money on false pretenses.

Issues:

The completion of construction, allegations of illegal alterations, and financial transactions between the parties.

Held:

The National Commission's direction to pay Rs.25,00,000/- by the appellants to the respondent was upheld. The appellants had agreed to this amount in meetings, and the National Commission rightly enforced this commitment.( Para 10)

The part of the order requiring the appellants to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- was set aside. The court found no evidence on record to establish the appellants' liability for compensation, and there was a lack of material proving loss suffered by the respondent-society.( Para 11)

The direction for the appellants to pay Rs.1,000/- per day after 60 days until obtaining full Occupancy Certificate was also set aside. The court considered the Municipal Corporation's objections and the ongoing dispute over alleged illegal constructions by the respondent-society.( Para 12)

In summary, the court partly allowed the appeal, directing the appellants to pay Rs.25,00,000/- to the respondent. The compensation and daily penalties were set aside. Both parties were instructed to fulfill their respective obligations within specified time frames. The court left open the option for the parties to seek appropriate remedies for future grievances.( Para 14)

Facts:

The first respondent was appointed as an Ayurvedic Medical Officer in the State of Bihar in 1989.

Bihar was reorganized in 2000, resulting in the creation of the State of Jharkhand.

The first respondent opted for Bihar but was later allocated to Jharkhand in 2007.

In 2010, the first respondent sought re-allocation to Bihar, which was granted.

The respondent continued to work in Jharkhand until retirement in 2017.

The first respondent filed a Writ Petition claiming non-relief from Jharkhand to join Bihar.

Issues:

Whether the non-relief by Jharkhand was a valid ground for seeking relief from the court.

Whether the first respondent, having retired, could be absorbed by the State of Bihar.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the first respondent did not pursue legal remedies when aggrieved by Jharkhand's decision not to relieve him. It deemed inappropriate to direct his absorption by Bihar after retirement. The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment. The judgment further stated that there shall be no order as to costs.