Doctrine of Frustration – Lease Agreements – Contractual Disputes – Frustration of Contract – Breach of Contract – Civil Remedies: The Supreme Court dealt with the enforceability of lease agreements and BOT contracts where subsequent governmental decisions and the expiration of the lease term caused frustration of the contract. The court held that the doctrine of frustration applies where the lease ends by efflux of time and MPRTC's heavy indebtedness prevented continuation. The appeal for specific performance of contract under Article 226 was declined, directing the appellants to pursue civil remedies for breach of contract. [Paras 54-59]

Scope of Judicial Review – Contractual Matters – Public Interest: The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in contractual matters, especially where one party is a state or its instrumentality. It reiterated that judicial review should be confined to legality and fairness, and not to the merits of the contract. The court further noted the necessity of maintaining public interest over contractual obligations when state instrumentalities are involved. [Paras 51-52]

Privity of Contract – Lease Renewal – Contract Construction – Rights of Parties: The court found no privity of contract between Sri Ram Builders and IDA, thus denying specific performance claims. It was clarified that lease renewal requires express consent of the lessor and is not automatic. The court ruled that MPRTC's unauthorized creation of third-party rights for premium collection was invalid. [Paras 53-55]

Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's decision that directed Sri Ram Builders to seek civil remedies for breach of contract. The court affirmed the principle that contractual disputes involving public entities and public interest should be cautiously handled under Article 226. [Para 61]

Criminal Law - Conviction and Sentencing - Criminal Appeal challenging the death sentence - High Court affirmed the death sentence and conviction for murder and attempted rape - Appellant's young age (21 years) and no past criminal antecedents considered - Supreme Court commuted death sentence to life imprisonment due to possibility of reformation - Other convictions and sentences affirmed. [Paras 1-48]

Evidence - Circumstantial Evidence - Held - Strong circumstantial evidence linked the appellant to the crime - Sniffer dog tracking, recovery of blood-stained clothes, and past misconduct with the victim established guilt - Statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act corroborated by other evidence. [Para 30]

Sentencing - Mitigating Factors - Age of the appellant (21 years) and potential for reformation considered - Court held that the case did not fall under "rarest of rare" category warranting death penalty - Life imprisonment substituted for death sentence. [Paras 42-47]

Decision - Sentence Commuted - Supreme Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment considering the mitigating factors and affirmed other parts of the conviction and sentence. [Para 48]

Criminal Law - Dowry Death – Conviction under Section 304B IPC – Appeal against High Court’s dismissal of appellant’s challenge to conviction and sentence by Trial Court – Appellant convicted for persistent demands for dowry and cruelty leading to wife's suicide within four years of marriage – Appeal dismissed, confirming findings of lower courts. [Paras 1-25]

Provisions and Presumptions – Analysis of Sections 304B IPC and 113B Evidence Act – Held – Prosecution successfully established that death was caused by poison and occurred within seven years of marriage – Evidence showed cruelty and harassment soon before death, fulfilling requirements for presumption of dowry death. [Para 10-20]

Evidence – Weight and Admissibility – Testimonies of deceased’s mother and mediator – Corroborated by medical evidence indicating death by pesticide poisoning – Rejection of appellant’s defence of death due to pregnancy complications – Persistent demands for dowry and harassment proven. [Paras 18-20]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 304B and 498A IPC upheld – Appellant to be taken into custody to serve remaining sentence. [Paras 21-24]

Constitutional Law - Validity of Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas (Amendment) Act, 2012 - Writ petitions filed under Article 32 challenging the extension of the Lokayukta's term from six to eight years - Petitioners argued the amendment was unconstitutional and the procedure followed violated Articles 197, 198, and 199 - Supreme Court held that the Amendment Act is valid, the term extension is a legislative policy decision, and procedural irregularities cannot invalidate the Act - The decision of the Speaker on Money Bills is final and non-justiciable - Articles 199 and 212 protect legislative procedures from judicial scrutiny. [Paras 1-43]

Quo Warranto - Continuation of Lokayukta - The court upheld the validity of Justice N.K. Mehrotra's continuation as Lokayukta under the amended Act - Directed the State to expedite the appointment of a new Lokayukta within six months - Reaffirmed the principle that legislative actions conforming to constitutional provisions are valid. [Paras 21, 43]

Decision - Petitions dismissed, validity of Amendment Act upheld - Court recognized the legislative competence and procedural propriety in passing the Amendment Act as a Money Bill - Directed the State to appoint a new Lokayukta as per the amended Act's provisions within six months. [Para 44]

Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Maintainability - Appeal against High Court order dismissing writ petitions challenging the suspension of the managing committee and the auction of society land – Held, writ jurisdiction not the appropriate remedy for resolving disputes involving complex questions of fact and evidence such as fraud and valuation of property – Appropriate remedy would have been a civil suit. [Para 32]

Co-operative Societies - Suspension and Removal of Managing Committee - Challenge to Validity - Appeals against suspension and removal of managing committee under Sections 34(1) and 34(2) of the Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 – Suspension and removal found valid – No illegality in the decision of Registrar – General Body Meeting’s resolution to sell land considered valid – Held, suspension and removal decisions taken based on substantial evidence of irregularities. [Para 27-29]

Land Auction - Validity and Adequacy of Price - Challenge to auction sale of society land on grounds of under-valuation and procedural irregularities – Auction price enhanced from Rs. 46 lakhs per acre to Rs. 70 lakhs per acre by High Court – Held, auction conducted fairly under supervision of Sales Committee – No substantial evidence to prove under-valuation – Enhanced compensation upheld as fair and just. [Para 30-31]

Principles - Majority Decision in Co-operative Society - General Body Resolution to auction sale land taken by majority of members cannot be overruled by a minority of disgruntled members without substantial proof of fraud or mala fide – Held, resolution taken by majority members reflects collective decision and should be upheld unless proven otherwise. [Para 35]

Civil Procedure - Need for Civil Suit in Cases Involving Factual Disputes - Matters involving complex factual disputes such as allegations of fraud, malafide, and property valuation require evidence – Writ petitions not suitable for such matters – Civil suits in competent courts should be filed for adequate relief. [Para 32]

Decision: Appeals dismissed. Auction sale held valid. Enhanced compensation of Rs. 70 lakhs per acre with 6% interest upheld. No order as to costs. [Paras 34, 39]

Constitutional Law – Article 14 – Right to Equality – Institutional Preference in Admissions – Post Graduate Medical and Dental Courses – KarnatakaThe Supreme Court held that Sub-clause (a) of Clause 2.1 of the Information Bulletins for PGET-2014, which provided for eligibility criteria favoring candidates of Karnataka origin, was ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. The clause was found discriminatory as it debarred candidates who studied MBBS/BDS in Karnataka but did not fulfill the Karnataka origin requirement from appearing in the entrance tests for postgraduate courses. The court reiterated the principles laid down in Dr. Pradeep Jain’s case, emphasizing that institutional preference must not compromise merit and should ensure equality of opportunity. [Paras 1-25]

Institutional Preference – Admission Criteria – Validity – Held – Sub-clause (a) of Clause 2.1 struck downThe court examined the legitimacy of institutional preference as defined in the Information Bulletins and concluded that the exclusion of certain candidates based on Karnataka origin was contrary to the constitutional mandate of equality. The preference should be limited to those who have passed MBBS/BDS from Karnataka institutions without additional domicile restrictions. [Paras 10-12]

Decision – Declaration of Sub-clause (a) of Clause 2.1 as Ultra Vires – Direction for Fresh Information BulletinsThe court allowed the petitions, declaring the impugned sub-clause as null and void. The respondents were directed to issue fresh Information Bulletins and conduct admissions based on the entrance test results, adhering to constitutional principles and ensuring equality. The specific time schedule for admissions was adjusted for the academic year 2014-2015. [Paras 12-25]

Criminal Law - Quashing of Charges – High Court's Refusal – Appeal: The Supreme Court addresses the appeals challenging the High Court’s refusal to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal charges framed against the appellants. The appellants, accused of conspiring to execute a sting operation to expose corruption by a Union Minister, sought quashing of the charges, asserting the lack of criminal intent. The High Court's decision to not interfere with the trial court’s framing of charges was upheld, as prima facie evidence supported a fuller investigation into the accused's roles in the alleged conspiracy. [Paras 1-18]

Sting Operation – Legal and Ethical Considerations – Journalistic Intent vs. Criminal Liability: The Court delved into the legitimacy and ethical considerations of sting operations, emphasizing that such operations, even if claimed to be in public interest, do not inherently extinguish criminal liability. The necessity of establishing mens rea (criminal intent) was highlighted, noting that this could only be determined through evidence presented at trial. The potential implications for journalistic integrity and public interest were considered, with the Court noting that where a journalist has no stake in the favour sought in exchange for a bribe, criminal intent might not be imputed. However, a deeper probe is warranted when such a stake is alleged. [Paras 10-16]

Entrapment – Jurisprudence in Different Jurisdictions – Applicability in India: The judgment compared the jurisprudence of entrapment in jurisdictions like the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, where sting operations are recognized within certain parameters. In India, the legal acceptance of such operations by private individuals, as opposed to state agencies, remains unestablished. The Court refrained from endorsing a blanket principle for sting operations, advocating for a case-specific approach to determine criminal liability. [Paras 11-13]

Prima Facie Evidence – Necessity for Trial – Criminal Intent and Conspiracy: The judgment underscored that the presence of prima facie evidence necessitates a trial to ascertain the true nature of the accused's actions and their intent. The appellants' assertion of a journalistic purpose behind the sting operation requires verification through witness testimonies and material evidence. The gap between the sting operation and its public release, along with potential misuse for ensuring delivery of favours, were noted as relevant aspects for examination during the trial. [Paras 15-17]

Decision – Appeals Dismissed: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the High Court's order dated 30th May 2008, thereby allowing the trial to proceed on the charges framed against the appellants under Section 120B IPC read with Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. [Para 18]

Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation Calculation – Civil Appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the High Court – Deceased, a government employee, died in a road accident – Tribunal and High Court calculated compensation based on 'take home salary' after deducting contributions like GPF, house rent, insurance, and income tax – Supreme Court ruled that only income tax deductions should be considered for net salary calculation – Contributions towards GPF, insurance, etc., are savings and should not reduce compensation – Appellant entitled to higher compensation. [Paras 1-14]

Net Salary Determination - Contributions Exclusion – Held – For calculating net monthly income of the deceased, voluntary contributions towards GPF, insurance, house rent should not be deducted – Only income tax should be deducted from gross salary – Applying this principle, net salary of the deceased was recalculated, enhancing the compensation. [Para 13]

Interest Rate Adjustment – Held – Appellant entitled to an interest rate of 6% p.a. on the enhanced compensation amount from the date of filing the petition till payment. [Para 14]

Decision – Appeal allowed – Judgments of the Tribunal and High Court set aside – Compensation recalculated considering the revised net salary – Enhanced compensation awarded with adjusted interest rate. [Paras 14-15]

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence – Appeal against High Court judgment affirming death sentence – Appellant convicted of murdering Pushpa Devi and her two children, with their bodies found in a soak-pit near their home – Prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including appellant’s inconsistent statements and his intimate relationship with the deceased – Sessions Judge and High Court found the circumstantial evidence sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt – Supreme Court reaffirms conviction and modifies death sentence to 30 years of incarceration without remission. [Paras 1-9]

Circumstantial Evidence – Chain of Evidence – Analysis – Supreme Court holds that the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete, indicating the appellant’s guilt – Evidence included appellant’s intimate relationship with the deceased, discovery of bodies in proximity to appellant’s residence, and lack of plausible explanation from the appellant – Considers case law on circumstantial evidence and the burden of proof on the appellant. [Para 7]

Sentencing – Appropriateness of Death Penalty – Analysis – Supreme Court evaluates the appropriateness of the death penalty, considering the brutality of the crime and previous case law – Modifies death sentence to a 30-year term of incarceration without remission – Notes that while the crime was brutal, long-term incarceration is a fitting punishment in line with precedents. [Paras 8-9]

Decision – Modification of Death Sentence – Supreme Court modifies the death sentence to a 30-year incarceration term without remission, in addition to the time already served – Holds that this is appropriate given the nature of the crime and the circumstantial evidence presented. [Para 9]