Legal Profession – Enrollment Fees – Overcharging by State Bar Councils – Court’s direction in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India reiterated – Supreme Court observed that despite earlier directions dated 30-07-2024, some State Bar Councils continue to collect enrollment fees in excess of the statutory limit – Bar Council of India (BCI) reported it had communicated with State Bar Councils but without full compliance – Held: BCI to issue a formal written circular reiterating compliance requirements with clear warning of contempt consequences – State Bar Councils to respond immediately upon receipt of circular [Paras 2–6]

Contempt of Court – Non-compliance by State Bar Councils – Supreme Court warned that any future instance of overcharging will lead to contempt proceedings against responsible authorities – Directed BCI to explicitly highlight this in its circular to all State Bar Councils [Para 7]

Enrollment Documents – Withholding Prohibited – Applicants’ original documents submitted for enrollment cannot be withheld by State Bar Councils on grounds of non-payment of unauthorized fees – Held: Once statutory fees are paid, applicants are entitled to return of their documents on request – Failure to do so is unjustified and amounts to administrative overreach [Paras 8–9]

Decision: Bar Council of India directed to issue compliance circular within four weeks – State Bar Councils to respond promptly – Non-compliance will attract contempt – Matter to be listed after four weeks – Dasti permitted.

Insurance Law – Fire Insurance – Cause of fire immaterial in absence of insured-instigation – Surveyor’s inference of “non-accidental” fire found unreasoned – Incident held accidental – NCDRC’s finding on liability affirmed – Interest modified to 6% p.a. from three months after the incident – Appeals: insurer dismissed, insured partly allowed [Paras 1, 63].

Fire Insurance – Accidental Fire – Where loss by fire is established and there is no allegation or finding that the insured instigated the fire, the precise cause/source is immaterial – Final surveyor’s view that fire was “not accidental” lacked reasons and did not invoke any exclusion or fraud – Held: the incident was an accidental fire within policy terms – Repudiation arbitrary and perverse.

Policy Coverage – Meaning of “FFF” – Policy described risk as covering “FFF” – Court holds “FFF” can only mean furniture, fixtures and fittings – Exclusion of FFF by surveyor/NCDRC found contrary to record – Insured entitled to amounts under Building, Plant & Machinery, Showroom, Electrical Fittings, Furniture & Fixtures [Para 48].

Surveyor’s Report – Weight and Scrutiny – Final surveyor ignored 5,855 pages of contemporaneous business records, assigned a flat ₹450 per unit to “identifiable” stock and disregarded charred/unidentifiable stock – Approach termed perverse; cost sheets and stock records maintained in ordinary course accepted as reliable proof of quantity/value – Physical site visit by accountants/architect not sine qua non for valuing stock [Paras 36-47].

Evidence – Business Records & Secondary Evidence – Cost sheets, stock statements, production logs, purchase orders, cancellation emails, VAT returns and audited accounts treated as contemporaneous records admissible under Sections 34 and 65(g) of the Evidence Act – Random verification of cancelled-order entries largely tallied; minor variance explained by production exceeding order quantity [Paras 39-46].

Bank Valuation vs Insurance Loss – Bank stock valuation excluding samples serves different purpose; for insured, destruction of samples causes real loss requiring replacement – Insurer’s reliance on bank’s exclusion rejected [Para 49].

Interest – Modification – Simple interest @ 6% p.a. (not 9%) from three months after 25/09/2010 until payment – Appeal by insurer dismissed; appeal by insured allowed except to interest rate/period as specified [Para 63].

Decision: Appeal by Insurance Company dismissed – Appeal by Insured allowed in substance – Claim under “FFF” heads covered – Stock loss established on contemporaneous records – Interest awarded @ 6% p.a. from three months post-incident till payment – No order on exclusions/fraud as none established [Paras 48, 63].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Acquittal Reversed – Appellant convicted for the murder of her niece-in-law by pouring kerosene and setting her ablaze – Trial court acquitted the appellant due to inconsistencies in three dying declarations – High Court reversed acquittal relying on the first dying declaration made to an independent medical officer (PW-3) supported by forensic and medical evidence – Held: First dying declaration clear, voluntary, medically certified, and corroborated by recovery of kerosene container and burn pattern – Conviction under Section 302 IPC justified [Paras 1-3, 6, 10-12]

Dying Declarations – Admissibility – Multiple Versions – Discrepancies – Prosecution relied on three dying declarations made by deceased victim, two of which had minor inconsistencies – First dying declaration made before doctor (PW-3), a neutral witness, clearly implicated the appellant – Supreme Court held: Each dying declaration must be evaluated on its own merit – Merely because other declarations had discrepancies, the first declaration cannot be discarded if found truthful and voluntary – Statement corroborated by medical certificate and kerosene smell from body and site [Paras 6, 10, 13]

Medical Evidence – Corroboration of Dying Declaration – PW-3 (In-charge Medical Officer) testified that deceased was conscious, fit to speak, and provided consistent history implicating appellant – Medical Certificate (Exhibit 20) and Yadi to police corroborated dying declaration – Body of deceased had 100% burns and strong kerosene odour – Postmortem (Exh. 25) and physical evidence including empty kerosene container and kerosene-soaked soil further supported prosecution version – Held: High Court rightly relied on medical evidence to convict [Paras 6, 7, 10-12]

Criminal Procedure – Appeal Against Acquittal – Interference by Appellate Court – Trial court acquitted appellant citing benefit of doubt due to minor inconsistencies – Supreme Court held: Where only one view is possible on evidence and trial court failed to properly appreciate key facts, High Court justified in reversing acquittal – First dying declaration proved and corroborated – High Court rightly convicted under Section 302 IPC [Paras 4, 6, 13-14]

Defence – Accidental Fire Theory – Rejected – Defence claimed incident was accidental – However, victim's 4-year-old son who slept beside her suffered only 10-12% burns – Victim had 100% burns – Supreme Court held: Pattern of injury inconsistent with accidental fire – Appellant’s theory unsupported by evidence – Strong smell of kerosene on clothes, body, and site corroborated deliberate act [Paras 6, 11-12]

Appeal Dismissed – Supreme Court affirmed conviction under Section 302 IPC – Held: Trial court wrongly disbelieved trustworthy dying declaration given to doctor – Medical and circumstantial evidence support prosecution – High Court’s judgment restored – No interference warranted [Paras 14-15]

Family Law – Divorce – Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Parties living separately since April 2010 – Multiple litigations and failed reconciliation attempts – Held: Relationship has irretrievably broken down – No purpose in perpetuating a legally defunct marriage – Supreme Court exercises powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve the marriage [Para 8–9].

Maintenance – Domestic Violence Act and CrPC – Trial Court granted monthly maintenance, education expenses, residence rights, and compensation to wife and child under DV Act – Family Court also granted additional maintenance under Section 125 CrPC – High Court set aside Family Court’s order and partly allowed husband's revision – Held: In light of comprehensive settlement, all prior orders merged into final alimony award – All pending proceedings quashed [Paras 3.5, 3.7–3.9, 8–9].

Permanent Alimony – Settlement – Respondent-husband offered Rs.1 crore as full and final settlement for all claims by wife and minor son – Supreme Court found the amount fair and reasonable considering income, duration of litigation, and circumstances – Directed payment within three months – Upon receipt, no further claims to be raised by either party [Paras 7–9].

Constitution of India – Article 142 – Scope – Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to do complete justice – Dissolved marriage, settled all pending disputes, and quashed all civil/criminal proceedings arising from the matrimonial relationship – Held: Appropriate case for Article 142 relief due to protracted litigation and impossibility of marital reconciliation [Paras 8–9].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Marriage dissolved under Article 142 – Respondent-husband directed to pay Rs.1 crore as permanent alimony and final settlement to appellant-wife within 3 months – All civil and criminal proceedings between the parties arising from the marriage quashed – No further claims maintainable thereafter – Appellant to provide bank details – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 9–12].

Criminal Law – Sections 302, 376, 394 and 449 IPC - Circumstantial Evidence – Murder, Rape, and Robbery – Conviction Reversed – Appellant convicted for rape, robbery, and murder of 85-year-old woman – Prosecution case based solely on circumstantial evidence – Trial court and High Court convicted appellant based on alleged recovery of gold bangles and testimony of ‘last seen’ witness – Held: No eyewitness – Chain of circumstantial evidence incomplete – No forensic link between appellant and crime scene or victim – Guilt not established beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction set aside [Paras 1-4, 17-18, 24, 32-33]

Recovery Evidence – Credibility – Doubt Cast – Prosecution claimed recovery of gold bangles from appellant’s pocket at hospital following arrest – Appellant alleged police torture and false implication – Held: Recovery at 4:00 a.m., three days after incident, appears planted – Unlikely accused would carry stolen jewellery so long after crime – No evidence of proper seizure process or identity of informant leading to arrest – Recovery held unreliable [Paras 11, 22-23, 29]

Witness Testimony – Last Seen Theory – Weak Evidence – Prosecution relied on Senthil Kumar (PW-5) who saw appellant exiting compound at 2:45 a.m. – Did not see him exiting victim’s house – Did not find appellant suspicious – Akash Saksena (PW-6) stated appellant went out at 2:00 a.m. and returned perturbed – Held: Last seen evidence insufficient and uncorroborated – No link established between presence and commission of crime [Paras 8, 20, 28]

Investigation – Material Witness Not Examined – Marcus, who went with appellant to smoke at 2:00 a.m., never examined – Held: Marcus was last person seen with appellant before alleged time of offence – His omission casts serious doubt – Prosecution claim that he was not a material witness rejected – Non-examination of critical witness undermines prosecution case [Paras 21, 30]

Criminal Procedure – Deficiencies in Identification and Arrest – Prosecution failed to record identity or statement of informant who led to appellant’s arrest – No sketch or identification process followed – No test identification parade conducted – Held: Arrest narrative doubtful – Supports defence claim of earlier illegal custody and torture – Benefit of doubt to be given [Paras 22-23, 29]

Forensic Evidence – Absence of Corroboration – Sniffer dog, fingerprint and forensic teams visited crime scene – No fingerprints of appellant found – No biological samples (hair, blood, semen) linked to accused – Held: Lack of scientific evidence fatal in circumstantial case – Prosecution failed to connect accused to crime scene or victim [Paras 7, 24-25, 27]

Legal Principles – Circumstantial Evidence – Chain Must Be Complete – Reiterated: Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof – Missing links in chain fatal to conviction – Applied principles in Karakkattu Muhammed Basheer v. State of Kerala and Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh – Held: Conviction unsustainable in absence of cogent and conclusive evidence [Paras 17, 26, 31-32]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302, 376, 394 and 449 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Ordered to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case [Para 33]

Motor Vehicles – Compensation – Fatal Accident – Reassessment of Income – Deceased died in road accident due to negligent driving of bus which deviated from its permitted route – Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 18.86 lakhs based on notional income of Rs. 8,000/month – High Court reassessed income at Rs. 15,750/month with 40% future prospects, applying multiplier of 16 and appropriate deductions for dependents – Total compensation enhanced to Rs. 31.84 lakhs – Held: High Court correctly applied settled principles for assessing loss of dependency and consortium benefits [Paras 4–5.1].

Motor Vehicles – Insurance Liability – Route Permit Violation – Appellant-owner’s bus did not have permit to enter Channapatna City where accident occurred – High Court applied ‘pay and recover’ principle relying on Amrit Paul (2018) 7 SCC 558 – Held: Driving vehicle outside permitted route is a fundamental breach of policy – Insurer must first compensate third parties, but entitled to recover from insured – Deviation from permit route justifies application of ‘pay and recover’ principle [Paras 5.2–10].

Motor Vehicles – Insurance Law – 'Pay and Recover' Doctrine – Applicability – Court reaffirmed that in cases involving lack of valid permit, fake or no driving license, or unauthorized goods carriage, insurer is liable to third party but can recover from owner – Cited precedents in Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297, Kamla (2001) 4 SCC 342, Parminder Singh (2019) 7 SCC 217, S. Iyyapan (2013) 7 SCC 62 – Held: Principle balances rights of victims with contractual limitations of insurers – High Court’s direction upheld [Paras 7–10].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Compensation enhanced – Insurer directed to pay and recover from owner – No order as to costs [Para 11].

Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Civil Death – Respondent No.2 sought appointment on compassionate grounds after his father, a municipal employee, went missing on 01.09.2012 – High Court directed appointment by treating 01.09.2012 as date of death – Held: Under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, death is presumed only after a lapse of 7 years from the date of disappearance – No specific evidence adduced to prove earlier date of death – Civil Court decree did not fix a date of death – Presumption of death applies only from 01.09.2019 – Appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be based on presumed death before that date [Paras 3, 6–9]

Service Law – Retirement Benefits – Missing Employee – Despite disappearance, employee was deemed in service and retired on 31.01.2015 – Family accepted retiral dues and continues to receive pension – Held: Acceptance of retirement and benefits estops respondent from seeking compassionate appointment based on presumed earlier death [Paras 4, 9]

Administrative Law – Scope of Judicial Direction – High Court erred in directly ordering appointment – Held: Even where claim is maintainable, proper course is to direct consideration of the case, not straight appointment – Appointment can only follow satisfaction of prescribed criteria [Para 10]

Equitable Relief – Appointment on Merits – Though compassionate appointment was denied, Court left it open to the Corporation to consider respondent No.2 for appointment on merits, independently of his claim, subject to law and age relaxation if permissible [Para 11]

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment dated 18.07.2024 set aside – No entitlement to compassionate appointment – Liberty granted to consider respondent No.2 for appointment on other grounds.

Specific Performance – Registered Agreement – Additional Consideration – Plaintiff entered into a registered agreement for sale dated 08.01.2010 for purchase of two items of property for a total sale consideration of Rs. 4,80,000 – Out of which, Rs. 4,70,000 was paid as advance on the date of agreement – Plaintiff placed in possession of the property – Subsequently, defendants demanded an additional Rs. 2,00,000 – Plaintiff paid Rs. 1,95,000 on 09.06.2010, which was acknowledged by endorsement on the reverse of the agreement – Trial court disbelieved transaction, treating it as a loan and held plaintiff not ready and willing – First appellate court reversed, upheld existence of valid sale agreement and additional consideration – Held: High Court erred in discarding endorsement without addressing findings of first appellate court – No perversity or misreading shown – Findings of fact binding under Section 100 CPC – Acceptance of further consideration after stipulated period proved contract remained subsisting [Paras 4, 6, 7, 14-21]

Termination of Contract – Necessity of Declaratory Relief – Respondents contended that without challenging the termination notice dated 20.08.2010, suit for specific performance was not maintainable – Supreme Court held: Agreement did not contain automatic termination clause – Vendor accepted additional Rs. 1,95,000 after six-month period, thereby waiving right to terminate – Plaintiff could treat agreement as subsisting and sue for enforcement – Suit for specific performance not barred for want of declaratory relief – Declaratory relief becomes necessary only where a cloud exists on title or subsistence of contract – Not applicable when termination itself is invalid or waived by conduct [Paras 21-33]

Readiness and Willingness – Plaintiff paid over 90% of consideration upfront and further agreed to pay additional amount demanded by vendors – No reason to doubt readiness and willingness to perform contract – High Court erred in holding otherwise – Acceptance of Rs. 1,95,000 after expiry of six-month term showed that time was not of the essence and defendants treated contract as ongoing – Mere delay in tendering balance Rs. 10,000 not fatal – Ready and willing conduct to be assessed holistically, based on facts and conduct of parties [Paras 18-21]

Discretion to Grant Relief – Clean Hands – Allegation of False Plea – High Court refused specific performance on grounds that plaintiff falsely claimed possession and fabricated additional consideration – Held: Absence of recital in agreement regarding possession not sufficient to prove falsehood – Claim may be unproved, but not necessarily false or dishonest – Additional consideration proved by endorsement and admitted signatures – No fraudulent conduct attributable to plaintiff – Court must consider substantial acts done in pursuance of contract and unjust enrichment of vendor – D-3 (Vasanthi), daughter of D-1, not a bona fide purchaser – Plaintiff entitled to relief under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Paras 34-39]

Interpretation – Time Not of the Essence – In contracts involving immovable property, time is ordinarily not of the essence unless specifically stipulated – Defendants' conduct of accepting additional consideration after expiry of six months indicated waiver of time clause – No notice given requiring performance within fixed time – Contract subsisted – Plaintiff’s failure to issue demand within six months not fatal in such circumstances [Paras 18-20]

Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – High Court reversed concurrent findings of fact without framing substantial question of law – Findings regarding genuineness of agreement, additional payment, readiness and willingness, were based on evidence and reasoning – No perversity, misreading, or exclusion of admissible evidence established – Held: High Court exceeded jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC – Interference with factual findings was unwarranted [Paras 15-17, 20, 38]

Appeal Allowed – Judgment and decree of High Court dated 02.02.2018 set aside – Decree of first appellate court restored – Plaintiff to deposit balance amount of Rs. 10,000 within one month in execution court if not already deposited – Specific performance of contract granted – Parties to bear own costs [Paras 40-41]

Service Law – NIT Recruitment – One-Time Relaxation – Appellants recommended for promotion under one-time relaxation granted via GoI letter dated 06.10.2017 – Relaxation initially held ultra vires by High Court for lacking statutory support – Later validated by incorporation into First Statutes via Statute 9 of 2023 Statutes approved by the President – Held: Statute 9 has clarificatory and retrospective effect validating the 2018 selection process – High Court erred in holding amendment prospective and ordering fresh recruitment [Paras 13–18, 35–38].

Constitutional Law – Separation of Powers – Validating Legislation – Legislature cannot override court judgments but may remove statutory basis of judgment – Held: Amendment through Statute 9 did not overreach prior judgment but cured the procedural defect by incorporating relaxation into law – Action was legally valid and within legislative competence [Paras 32, 36].

Statutory Interpretation – Clarificatory Statute – Retrospective Effect – Statute 9 was explanatory of the executive relaxation dated 06.10.2017 and intended to validate the prior selection process – Held: Clarificatory statutes are presumed retrospective unless otherwise stated – Statute 9 permitted NIT Kurukshetra to complete the 2018 recruitment drive [Paras 28–31, 36].

Administrative Law – Judicial Review of Policy – High Court held 2023 amendment could not revive 2018 selection – Supreme Court held this view erroneous as the statutory change was clarificatory and lawful – Directed NIT Kurukshetra to act upon earlier recommendations [Paras 36–38].

Service Law – Notional Appointment – Relief Granted – Appellants to be considered for notional appointment as Associate Professors effective post 27.11.2018 – No financial or experiential benefit for promotion – Continuity allowed for terminal benefits only [Paras 38–40].

Decision: Appeals allowed in part – High Court judgment modified – NIT Kurukshetra to consider and process appointments of appellants/intervenors recommended under Advertisement No. 03/2018 – Appointments to be notional, without back wages or promotional experience – One-time relaxation deemed exhausted thereafter – No impact on NIT Jalandhar [Paras 38–45].