Town Planning – Demand of Premium – Letter of Intent (LOI) – LOI valid for three months – Delay in obtaining clearance from Coastal Zone Management Authority – Appellants failed to make representation to extend LOI – Premium demand in accordance with Government Resolution dated 16.04.2008 requiring payment of 25% of Ready Reckoner value for Slum Rehabilitation Schemes on government land – High Court's dismissal of writ and review petitions upheld [Paras 11-12].

Procedure – LOI Validity – Representation to Extend – Appellants' failure to extend LOI validity despite delay in obtaining necessary clearances – Government Resolution applies due to non-extension – No illegality in premium demand [Para 11].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – High Court's orders upheld – No order as to costs [Paras 12-13].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Allegations of providing sub-standard materials for a project – FIR filed in 2000, charge sheet in 2004, summons served in 2017 – No specific allegations of fraudulent or dishonest intention from inception – No vicarious liability established against Managing Director and Director – Company not made a party – Criminal proceedings quashed to prevent undue harassment [Paras 6-9].

Corporate Liability – Directors' Liability – No specific allegations of vicarious liability in the absence of company as a party – Inappropriate to proceed against directors alone without requisite allegations [Para 8.2].

Delay – Significant delay in serving summons post charge sheet filing – Contributing to decision for quashing proceedings [Para 8.3].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Criminal proceedings against appellants quashed – Proceedings against other accused to continue as per law [Paras 9-10].

Town Planning – Transferable Development Rights (TDR) – Allotment of Alternative Sites – High Court directed Municipal Corporation to allot alternative tenements to displaced tenants and consider TDR for landowners – Corporation's demolition of structures without due process found high-handed – Corporation's willingness to grant TDR acknowledged but relief of restitution balanced against public interest – Appeal dismissed, High Court's order upheld [Paras 7-8, 15-16].

Demolition without Due Process – High-handed Actions – Findings of High Court and Legal Services Committee – Structures existed prior to 1961, demolition conducted without following due process – High Court’s order granting alternative accommodation to eligible tenants and TDR to landowners upheld – Appeals dismissed [Paras 7-8, 12-13].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – High Court’s orders upheld – Corporation to grant TDR and alternative tenements as directed [Paras 19-20].

Criminal Law – Suppression of Criminal Case – Employment in Police Service – Respondent applied for constable position and falsely stated no involvement in any criminal case – Appointed but later found to be involved in a criminal case – Discharged for false statement – Tribunal upheld discharge, but High Court reversed, citing triviality and quashing of criminal case – Supreme Court reinstates discharge, emphasizing the significance of truthful disclosure for police employment [Paras 3-8].

Employment Law – Disclosure of Antecedents – Suppression of Material Facts – Police service requires truthful disclosure of criminal antecedents – Respondent suppressed involvement in non-trivial criminal case – Subsequent quashing of case on compromise does not mitigate initial suppression – High Court’s reinstatement order set aside [Paras 7-8].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – Tribunal’s order discharging respondent upheld – Original Application dismissed [Para 9].

Trusts – Suit for Mandatory Injunction – Section 92 of CPC – High Court's finding that suit by Trust against Sevadar was not maintainable without complying with Section 92 CPC – Section 92 applicable to suits against Trusts, not by Trusts – High Court’s order erroneous – Suit maintainable and decree rightly passed by First Appellate Court [Paras 10-12].

Legal Representative – Sevadar – Appointment of Chela – Respondent Ram Niwas, Chela of deceased Sevadar, not vested with larger interest – Legal representative's status considered – Sevadar's services open to public [Paras 9-12].

Compensation – Misuse Concerns – Appellant as registered Society with statutory obligations – Apprehension of misuse of compensation beyond suit's scope [Paras 13-14].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Suit decreed [Para 15].

Criminal Law – Acquittal – Appeal against High Court’s order acquitting accused – High Court found prosecution case to suffer from serious infirmities and inconsistencies – Missing links in chain of circumstances – Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Acquittal upheld by Supreme Court [Paras 19-26].

Conspiracy – Circumstantial Evidence – Direct evidence of conspiracy seldom available – Conspiracy inferred from circumstances – Prosecution failed to prove complete chain of circumstances linking accused to crime – High Court's reasoning endorsed by Supreme Court [Paras 25-28, 29].

Evidence – Witness Credibility – Hostile Witnesses – Several key witnesses turned hostile – Inconsistencies in prosecution evidence – High Court's appreciation of evidence found to be correct – Acquittal upheld [Paras 30-40, 41-50].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – High Court’s judgment acquitting accused persons upheld [Para 50].

Mining Law – Transportation of Iron Ore – Legislative Policy – Rule 12(1)(gg) of the Minerals Concession Rules grants lessees six months to remove mineral ore after lease termination – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, permitting transportation of royalty-paid iron ore mined before 15.03.2018 – State of Goa’s decision to allow such transportation upheld [Paras 1-37].

Judicial Review – Consistency with Supreme Court Orders – The High Court's interpretation restricting transportation was found incorrect – Orders dated 04.04.2018 and 11.05.2018 by the Supreme Court Bench allowed transportation of royalty-paid iron ore – Legislative intent and policy considered [Paras 19-32].

Environmental and Regulatory Compliance – Strict Monitoring – State to ensure only iron ore mined before 15.03.2018 is transported – Compliance with all other directions from Goa Foundation-II judgment mandated [Para 37].

Decision: Appeals allowed. The Supreme Court upheld the State of Goa’s decision dated 21.03.2018, allowing the transportation of royalty-paid iron ore mined prior to 15.03.2018. Transportation must be completed within six months from the judgment date.

Rent Control – Determination of Fair Rent – Appeal against High Court order dismissing challenge to fair rent determination – Application for fair rent can be made by both landlord and tenant even during the currency of contractual tenancy – Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of the appeal, affirming that the Rent Control Act provisions override contractual agreements and allow for fair rent determination to protect both parties [Paras 1-16].

Contractual Tenancy – Application for Fair Rent – Appellants argued that landlord cannot apply for rent enhancement during subsisting tenancy – Court rejected the argument, relying on precedents and statutory interpretation – Determination of fair rent is crucial to prevent exploitation of either party under the Rent Control Act [Paras 8-13].

Majority vs. Minority Judgments – Reliance on Majority Judgment – Appellants' reliance on minority judgment in M/s. Raval and Co. was rejected – Court adhered to majority opinion and subsequent seven-Judge Bench approval in V. Dhanapal Chettiar case [Paras 10-12].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Court found no merit in the appellants' submissions – Affirmed that fair rent can be fixed during the currency of contractual tenancy to ensure equitable treatment of both landlord and tenant [Para 16].

Service Law – Termination – Challenge to High Court order upholding reinstatement – Termination order was a speaking order with reasons clearly stated – High Court erred in concluding the termination was without reasons – No legal or factual similarity between the cases of Ram Gopal and Shyam Behari Lal to warrant parity – Ram Gopal had not been in service since 1978, unlike Shyam Behari Lal who had served for 17 years – Respondent's writ petition was filed with an inordinate delay of 12 years without valid justification – Appeals allowed, High Court's orders set aside, and writ petition dismissed [Paras 1-20].

Equity – In Personam vs. In Rem – High Court's retention order for Shyam Behari Lal was not a judgment in rem – Equitable considerations in Shyam Behari Lal’s case not applicable to Ram Gopal – Fence-sitting and prolonged delay in filing writ petition cannot justify reinstatement – Legal principle of equity acts in personam, not in rem [Paras 13, 16-19].

Laches and Delay – Respondent's writ petition filed after 12 years – Courts reluctant to exercise discretionary jurisdiction in favor of those who sleep over their rights – Delay defeats equity – Legal tenets restated that unexplained delays and laches are valid grounds to deny relief [Paras 14-17].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Orders of Single Judge and Division Bench of High Court set aside – Writ petition dismissed – Interim order in contempt proceedings also quashed [Para 20].