Registration of Documents – Duties of Registering Officer – Role of Registering Officer is not merely mechanical – Required to independently verify statutory compliance – Failure to verify powers of attorney and other statutory requirements can invalidate registration [Paras 1-9, 58].

Judicial Review – High Court's Jurisdiction – Under Article 226 – High Court can review actions of Registering Authority to ensure statutory duties are performed – Review is permissible even if other civil remedies are available [Paras 10-54].

Powers of Attorney – Authentication vs. Registration – Distinction clarified – PoA must be authenticated, not necessarily registered – Registering Officer must ensure PoA's compliance with statutory requirements [Paras 13-24, 46].

Civil vs. Writ Jurisdiction – Scope of Challenge – Execution of document to be challenged in civil court – Procedural lapses by Registering Authority can be challenged via writ petition [Paras 53-55].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Held – Registration of sale deed by the Registering Authority set aside due to failure to adhere to statutory duties – Order of the Division Bench reversed – Order of the Single Judge restored [Paras 59].

Criminal Law – Circumstantial Evidence – Conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence requires a conclusive chain of circumstances – The last seen theory, arrest of the accused, recovery of material objects, and call details do not conclusively establish guilt – Conviction based on probabilities and inferences drawn from call records inadmissible without proper certification [Paras 1-23].

Motive and Last Seen Theory – Inconsistent Testimonies – High Court's reliance on call records to establish motive and last seen theory rejected due to inconsistencies and lack of certification under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act [Paras 10-22].

Admissibility of Electronic Evidence – Certification Requirement – Call records produced without the mandatory certification under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act held inadmissible – Oral evidence in place of certification insufficient [Para 20-21].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Held – Conviction of Ravinder Singh @ Kaku under Sections 302 and 364 IPC set aside due to inconclusive circumstantial evidence and inadmissible electronic evidence – Acquittal of co-accused upheld – Ravinder Singh @ Kaku to be released immediately unless required in any other case – Appeals filed by the State dismissed [Paras 22-23].

Constitutional Law – Legislative Competence – Concurrent List – Subject of Arbitration falls under Entry 13 of List III – State Legislature can enact law on arbitration subject to President's assent – State Act reserved for and received President's assent prevails over Central law – State Act within legislative competence of State Legislature [Paras 1-9].

Arbitration – Revocation and Reopening of Awards – State Act – State Act cancelling arbitration clauses and revoking arbitrator’s authority – Provides for suit filing and appeal by State Government against awards – Enactment not arbitrary or discriminatory – Law impacts only specific project agreements [Paras 10-40].

Separation of Powers – Judicial Encroachment – State Act alleged to interfere with judicial power by revoking arbitration clauses – Supreme Court held no encroachment on judicial function – State Act provides for judicial determination of disputes post-revocation [Paras 41-49].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Held – Kerala Revocation of Arbitration Clauses and Reopening of Awards Act, 1998 upheld as constitutional – Legislative competence affirmed – No violation of separation of powers doctrine – Awards under the Act subject to judicial scrutiny [Paras 50-57].

Income Tax – Reassessment Notices – Transition to New Provisions – High Courts quashed reassessment notices issued under unamended Section 148 after 01.04.2021 – Supreme Court converted such notices into those issued under Section 148A (new provisions) – Directed Revenue to comply with new procedural requirements – Notices deemed to be issued under amended Act to protect public exchequer and reduce litigation [Paras 1-11].

Statutory Interpretation – Finance Act, 2021 – Amendments to Sections 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act – New provisions remedial and benevolent – Ensure compliance and reduce litigation – New provisions apply to notices issued after 01.04.2021 [Paras 6-7].

Judicial Review – Article 142 of the Constitution – Supreme Court exercised power to provide relief to Revenue and assessees – Avoid multiplicity of proceedings – PAN INDIA application to similar judgments and orders of High Courts [Paras 9-12].

Decision: Appeals allowed in part – Held – Reassessment notices issued under unamended Section 148 deemed to have been issued under Section 148A (new provisions) – Assessing Officers to follow new procedure within stipulated time – High Court orders modified to this extent – Present order applicable PAN INDIA to similar cases and pending writ petitions [Paras 10-12].

Service Law – Discharge for Suppression of Information – RPF Recruitment – Appellant discharged for not disclosing past criminal case in attestation form – Case was trivial, appellant acquitted honorably – Competent authority failed to consider the nature of post, duties, and triviality of case [Paras 1-16].

Judicial Precedents – Avtar Singh v. Union of India – Summarized principles for suppression of material information – Trivial cases and clean acquittals should be considered objectively [Paras 12-18].

Nature of Post and Duties – Importance of Context – Suitability for the post must consider the nature of the role and duties – Blanket discharge for all types of suppression deemed arbitrary [Paras 17-18].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Held – Discharge order dated 24th April 2015 and review order dated 23rd December 2021 quashed – Appellant to be reinstated as Constable with notional benefits including pay, seniority, and other consequential benefits – No arrears of salary for the period not served – Orders to be executed within one month [Paras 19-20].

Medical Education – NEET PG Admission – Reduction in Percentile – Central Government reduced minimum marks by 15 percentile for all categories – Petitioners sought further reduction by 5 percentile to fill remaining vacancies – Government opposed additional reduction citing academic interests [Paras 2-7].

Judicial Review – Policy Decisions – Courts should not interfere with educational policies ensuring quality and standards – Decision based on data and expert consultation upheld – No manifest arbitrariness in not reducing percentile further [Paras 8-9].

Decision: Miscellaneous Application dismissed – Held – Government's decision to not reduce minimum marks further upheld – Balance between public interest in filling vacancies and maintaining standards in medical education – No arbitrariness found in decision-making process [Paras 9-10].

Foreign Medical Graduates – Licentiate and Internship Regulations – Constitutionality – Regulations 4(a)(i), 4(a)(ii), 4(b), and 4(c) of the Licentiate Regulations and Schedule II, 2(a), and 2(c)(i) of the CRMI Regulations challenged – High Court upheld regulations ensuring minimum standards for foreign medical graduates [Paras 1-10].

Judicial Review – Standard of Education – Role of Courts – Courts should not interfere with educational policies ensuring quality and standards – Regulations based on expert recommendations and past experiences – Aim to prevent commercialisation and maintain quality of medical education [Paras 10-38].

Internship Requirements – Duration and Location – Requirement for 12-month internship in foreign institution and 12-month supervised internship in India upheld – Ensures foreign medical graduates meet Indian standards [Paras 50-58].

Extraterrestrial Legislation – Applicability to Foreign Graduates – Regulations do not impose on foreign countries but set standards for practice in India – Reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6) for public interest [Paras 56-57].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Held – Licentiate and CRMI Regulations are valid and constitutional – Necessary to maintain minimum standards and quality of medical education – High Court's dismissal upheld – Costs imposed by High Court waived off considering appellant's status as a student [Paras 60-61].

Insurance Law – Terrorism Exclusion Clause – Policy Definitions Govern – Insurance claims cannot be rejected based on the definition of terrorism in penal laws – Exclusion Clause in insurance policy defines terrorism – Rights and liabilities of parties governed by terms of policy – Definitions from penal statutes irrelevant [Paras 1-14].

Consumer Protection – Repudiation of Insurance Claims – Burden of Proof – Insurer must prove exclusion clause applicability – Ambiguities in exclusion clauses construed in favor of insured – Insurer failed to prove act of terrorism as defined in policy [Paras 8-13].

Riot and Violent Means – Policy Coverage – Insurance policy explicitly covers damage caused by riots or violent means – Exclusion Clause improperly applied – Insurer's decision to repudiate policy unsustainable [Paras 14-15].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Held – Impugned judgment and order set aside – Complaint restored to file – Commission directed to decide complaint afresh within four months – Respondent to deposit Rs. 8,900,000/- with Commission within one month – Liberty to appellant to apply for withdrawal of amount pending complaint [Paras 16-18].

Service Law – Recovery of Excess Payments – Misrepresentation and Error – Recovery of increments granted to appellant after ten years of retirement held unjustified – Excess amounts not paid due to any misrepresentation or fraud by appellant – Payments made due to error in interpreting Kerala Service Rules – Equity and judicial discretion favor relief from recovery [Paras 1-16].

Recovery of Benefits – Judicial Precedents – Various precedents affirming that recovery of excess payments not resulting from misrepresentation or fraud is inequitable – Relief against recovery granted in several cases where payments were made due to administrative errors [Paras 9-13].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Held – Recovery of increments after ten years of retirement unjustified – High Court's judgment and recovery notice set aside – No costs awarded [Paras 15-16].