(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Rejection of technical bid - Legality - Technical bid of appellant was rejected on the ground that 'haisiyat praman patra' submitted by appellant was issued by private architect and not by District Magistrate - No condition in NIT stated that 'haisiyat praman patra' must be issued only by a District Magistrate in terms of a Govt. notification - Plea that such condition was implied could not be accepted since respondent was a body constituted under a statute and nothing was placed on record to show that government notification was applicable to all tenders floated by respondent - Rejection of appellant's technical bid was quashed being dehors the terms of NIT - Matter was remanded for reconsideration of technical bid of respondent. (Para 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19)

(B) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Rejection of technical bid - Additional ground raised before Supreme Court - Permissibility - Technical bid of appellant was rejected on the ground that 'haisiyat praman patra' submitted by appellant was issued by private architect and not by District Magistrate - Additional ground was raised before the Supreme Court that since the certificate did not disclose encumbrances, if any, on the asset, it could not be termed as a 'haisiyat praman patra' indicating net worth of bidder - If valuation certificate showed that worth of appellant's share in the asset far exceeded Rs.10 crores as required under the NIT, and respondent doubted that the asset was encumbered, it ought to have enquired from appellant - An order of rejection must be sustained on grounds stated therein and additional grounds cannot be raised subsequently. (Para 16, 17)

(A) Insurance Act (4 of 1938), Preamble - Consumer Protection Act (68 of 1986), S.2(1)(g) - Fire insurance - Compensation claim - Insurance Company repudiated claim stating that fire was not accidental and hence not covered under the policy - Actual fire damage was proved by police investigation report , preliminary Surveyor's report and photographs of fire - National Commission stated that final surveyor had not proved that fire was not accidental and Insured's bank auditor, architect, and CA reports were adequate to assess the loss - Plea of insurer that Insured failed to prove that cause of fire was accidental and provided no forensic or expert evidence and claims for furniture, fittings, and fixtures (FFF) were not covered under the policy , not acceptable as Insured had provided 5855 pages of documents proving its loss - Final surveyor never alleged fraud or deliberate act and his conclusion that fire was "not accidental" was not supported and therefore fire was deemed to be accidental and covered by policy - Since policy explicitly used the term "FFF", Furniture, Fixtures, and Fittings, insured was entitled to claim under FFF - Final surveyor failed to analyse detailed documents and arbitrary valuation and disregard of records rendered report perverse and unreliable - Fire was accidental and it was covered under the policy - Insurer was held liable to pay compensation to insured. (Para 41, 42, 48, 55, 57, 58, 63)

(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 3 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 302, S. 449, S. 376, S. 394 - Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Accused had allegedly committed robbery at the house of 85 years old lady, raped and murdered her - Prosecution had failed to connect accused to offence through medical or forensic evidence as his blood, hair, skin, or fingerprint was not found on body of deceased, recovered articles, or at place of occurrence - Witness had failed to link accused to place of occurrence as his testimony had only established proximity to place of occurrence - Factum of informant having seen accused on an over-bridge at 4 am was doubtful since identity of informant was not disclosed - It was not clear as to how police had identified accused when none of the police officials had any occasion to see him - Doubt was also cast upon cause of injury on left leg of accused as accused had denied injury having been caused due to jumping from over-bridge and claimed that he was tortured in police custody - Recovery of two gold bangles from pocket of accused was doubtful - Non-examination of person, who had accompanied accused for a smoke at 2:00 a.m. from house of his friend and who was only person with whom accused had last gone out of house was also material since offence was committed between 2:00 a.m. and 3:00 a.m. - There was strong possibility of false implication - Chain of circumstances was not complete - Benefit of doubt was given to accused. (Para 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32)

(A) Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 302, S. 307, S. 149, S. 34 - Murder, attempt to murder, unlawful assembly and common object - Reversal of order of acquittal - Challenge against - Appellants along with other accused persons, had allegedly attacked deceased with sharp weapons causing his death on spot and serious injuries to other persons - Consistent testimonies of eyewitnesses established that while two appellants transported the armed assailants to the spot and facilitated attack, another appellant inflicted injuries during assault -Medical evidence corroborated ocular evidence and showed brutal and coordinated nature of attack - Timing, nature and multiplicity of injuries indicated deliberate and orchestrated assault executed in furtherance of a common unlawful object - Nature of weapons used, ferocity and precision of the attack, showed that the common object of the assembly extended beyond merely causing hurt - Evidence on record conclusively established that all three appellants were members of an unlawful assembly that carried out a premeditated and violent attack on deceased and the injured - Role of appellant who inflicted serious injuries upon witness demonstrated his direct involvement and awareness of collective design - Appellants who transported armed assailants to the scene, played crucial role by facilitating the attack and ensuring its execution in furtherance of common object - High Court had rightly reversed acquittal of appellants (Para 43, 44, 45, 46, 47)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 142 - Dissolution of marriage - Irritrievable breakdown of marriage - Parties had been living separately for more than fifteen years - Attempt at reconciliation through mediation had also failed - Despite wife contesting grant of divorce, there was no marital bond surviving between them - Husband was ready to pay an additional amount as permanent alimony and for settlement of all pending dues , over and about what had already been paid by him - Amount offered by husband was reasonable - Marriage between parties was dissolved. (Para 8, 9)