Burden of Proof – Full and Final Settlement – Defendants admitted receipt of Rs. 1,050,000/- and partial repayment of Rs. 500,000/-, claimed it as full and final settlement – No written proof of settlement – Oral evidence of mediators insufficient without documentary evidence – Defendants failed to prove the onus of settlement – Plaintiff entitled to recovery despite discrepancies in her evidence [Paras 16-18].

Unauthorized Withdrawals – Business Dealings – Plaintiff alleged unauthorized withdrawals and transfers totaling Rs. 5,450,000/- by defendants – Defendants claimed amounts as investments in real estate business and partially as gratuitous payment – Defendants failed to produce business accounts to justify the amounts – Affidavit claiming gratuitous payment lacked plaintiff's signature and contradicted claims of settlement – Defendants' plea of gratuitous payment and full settlement not credible [Paras 19-24].

Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Section 70 – Non-gratuitous Acts – Defendants admitted receipt of money from plaintiff – Failed to prove payment was gratuitous – Defendants bound to compensate plaintiff for the amounts received and benefits enjoyed under Section 70 [Paras 25-27].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court’s judgment and decrees set aside – First Appellate Court’s judgment and decrees restored – Plaintiff entitled to costs of Rs. 50,000/- – Amount deposited by appellant with interest to be released to her [Para 28].

Land Acquisition – Notification under Section 48(1) – Notification for acquisition under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 takes away individual’s property rights, while a Notification under Section 48(1) confers benefits – Such notifications do not warrant notice or hearing to landowners – If anyone is aggrieved, it would be the beneficiary of the acquisition (Parishad) – Appeals allowed, High Court's order set aside, and writ petitions dismissed [Paras 1-27].

Fraud and Misrepresentation – Landowners obtained Notification under Section 48(1) by making false representations – Once the land was released, they started selling it, contradicting their earlier claims of religious sentiments and cemeteries – Notifications secured by fraud do not confer vested rights and can be rescinded [Paras 15, 24-25].

General Clauses Act, Section 21 – Power to issue Notification includes power to rescind – Notification under Section 48(1) is administrative, not quasi-judicial, allowing application of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act – Government can rescind such Notifications without fresh acquisition process [Paras 10, 20-23].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court’s orders set aside – Writ petitions dismissed – Parishad may proceed to implement the public purpose for which the land was acquired – No order as to costs [Para 27].

Compassionate Appointment – Application by Dependent Brother – Respondent sought compassionate appointment after the death of his unmarried sister who was an Assistant Teacher – Application rejected by the competent authority as the amendment extending benefits to unmarried dependent brothers came after the sister's death – Tribunal and High Court directed the state to consider the application – Supreme Court held that compassionate appointments are not automatic but subject to scrutiny of family’s financial condition – Amendment to the Rules not applicable retrospectively – Orders of Tribunal and High Court set aside – Application for compassionate appointment dismissed [Paras 1-21].

Retrospective Application of Amendments – Court analyzed decisions on the applicability of amended rules and schemes – Emphasized amendments enhancing benefits are not retrospective unless explicitly stated – Appointment on compassionate grounds governed by rules in force on the date of the employee's death – Differentiation between amendments withdrawing/diluting benefits and those enhancing them [Paras 7-20].

Legal Precedents – Referenced several cases addressing conflicting views on the application of amended schemes for compassionate appointments – Consistent principle that new or modified schemes cannot be applied retrospectively unless explicitly mentioned [Paras 11-19].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Orders of Tribunal and High Court set aside – Respondent’s application for compassionate appointment dismissed [Para 21].

Fake Motor Accident Claims – Investigation and Proceedings – 28 advocates accused in Uttar Pradesh for filing fake motor accident claims – Total of 92 criminal cases registered, involving 28 advocates in 55 cases – Charge sheets filed against 11 advocates in 25 cases – Special Investigating Team (SIT) tasked with expediting investigation and filing status reports on the progress of charge sheets and trials [Paras 1-4].

Bar Council's Role – Disciplinary Actions – Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh directed to maintain the purity of the legal profession by concluding disciplinary proceedings against errant advocates – Bar Council of India and Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to ensure timely completion of proceedings [Paras 5-6].

Modus Operandi – Fake Claims – Various methods identified for filing fake claims including non-road accident injuries converted to road accidents, false implantation of vehicles and drivers, multiple claims for the same accident, and fraudulent documents – SIT and insurance companies detailed these methods [Paras 7-7.4].

Preventive Measures – Suggestions for preventing fake claims include implementing Section 159 of the Motor Vehicles Act, utilizing the "VAHAN" and "SAARTHI" databases, and constituting SITs in all states to investigate suspicious claims [Paras 7.1-7.4].

Government Involvement – Ministry of Transport, Government of India, to be impleaded for suggestions on remedial measures – Additional Solicitor General requested to assist the Court with suggestions to curb the menace of fake claims [Para 8].

Decision: Notice issued to Ministry of Transport, Government of India – Case to be considered further on 25.01.2022 [Para 8].

Service Law – Submission of Documents – Applicants required to submit all necessary documents along with the application form by the cut-off date – Respondent failed to submit NCC 'B' certificate with original application – Certificate submitted three years after the cut-off date – Not entitled to additional five marks [Paras 1-10].

Judicial Review – Compliance with Advertisement – Candidates must comply with conditions and eligibility criteria as per the advertisement before the cut-off date – Only documents submitted with application to be considered – High Court erred in granting relief based on late submission of NCC 'B' certificate [Paras 6-9].

Procedural Fairness – Original Pleadings – Earlier writ petition lacked pleading of submitting NCC 'B' certificate with application – Subsequent claims of submission deemed afterthought – Division Bench erred in relying on unsubstantiated claims [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court order set aside – Single Judge's order dismissing the writ petition restored – No order as to costs [Para 10].

Limitation in Arbitration – Non-Extendable Period – High Court erred in applying Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone delay beyond the period prescribed under Section 34(3) of Arbitration Act – Proviso to Section 34(3) provides outer limit of 120 days for filing petition to set aside arbitral award – Extension beyond this period not permissible [Paras 1-11].

Judicial Interpretation – Exclusion of Section 5 – Section 34(3) imposes a strict timeline for challenging arbitral awards – Legislative intent clear in excluding application of Section 5 of Limitation Act – Previous judgments affirm non-applicability of Section 5 to extend limitation period under Arbitration Act [Paras 6-7].

Facts and Findings – Arbitrator dispatched award to parties; respondent refused service – High Court’s condonation of delay contrary to established law – Order of Division Bench set aside; Single Judge’s order restored [Paras 8-10].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court's order condoning delay set aside – Order of Single Judge dismissing petition under Section 34 restored [Para 11].

One Time Settlement (OTS) Scheme – Non-Performing Asset (NPA) – Bank initiated proceedings under SARFAESI Act – Respondent's loan account categorized as NPA – Respondent applied for OTS which was rejected by the bank due to eligibility criteria – High Court issued a writ of mandamus directing bank to consider the application positively – Supreme Court held that no borrower can demand OTS as a right – Bank's discretion under commercial wisdom to grant OTS based on eligibility and recoverability – High Court's direction set aside [Paras 1-13].

Judicial Review – Article 226 – Writ of Mandamus – High Court cannot compel a financial institution to grant OTS – Grant of OTS subject to bank's discretion and guidelines – Borrower’s capacity to pay and recoverability of loan crucial – Judicial interference limited to procedural propriety not commercial decisions [Paras 11-12].

Commercial Decisions – SARFAESI Act – Recovery Proceedings – Proper scrutiny required for declaring NPA – Auctioning of mortgaged property as a recovery method – Courts respect commercial wisdom of banks in financial matters – Encouraging honesty and fairness in loan repayment [Paras 8-10].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment and mandamus directing the bank to consider the OTS application positively set aside – Bank’s decision to reject OTS application upheld – No order as to costs [Para 13].

Arbitration Award – Setting Aside of Arbitral Award – Order passed by Facilitation Council without following arbitration procedure – Council’s order was challenged in writ petition – High Court dismissed the petition – Supreme Court held that the order of the Facilitation Council was a nullity as it bypassed mandatory arbitration procedure under MSMED Act and Arbitration and Conciliation Act – Appeal allowed, Council’s order set aside – Matter remanded to Council for arbitration proceedings as per law [Paras 1-14].

MSMED Act – Section 18 – Conciliation and Arbitration – Council must conduct conciliation before arbitration – Provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act apply to arbitration under MSMED Act – Council's failure to initiate arbitration after conciliation renders its order invalid – Proper opportunity to be given to parties for arbitration [Paras 7-13].

Judicial Review – Article 226 of the Constitution – Writ of Mandamus – High Court’s power to issue writ for non-compliance with statutory provisions – Court held that writ can be issued where statutory procedures are not followed – High Court erred in dismissing the petition without considering procedural lapses [Paras 12-13].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment and Facilitation Council’s order set aside – Case remanded to Facilitation Council for fresh arbitration proceedings as per statutory requirements – No order as to costs [Para 14].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Prosecution's burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt – Conviction based on interested and related witnesses' testimony – Court found inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, including discrepancies in witness statements, the manner of arrests, and lack of independent corroboration – High Court erred in confirming the death penalty without sufficient scrutiny – Appeals allowed, acquittal of all appellants ordered [Paras 1-86].

Burden of Proof – Section 27 of Evidence Act – Recovery of weapons and clothes allegedly used in the crime – Prosecution failed to provide independent witnesses for recoveries – Statements related to confessions inadmissible – Inconclusive forensic reports further weaken the prosecution's case – Accused benefit from reasonable doubt principle [Paras 54-57, 69-72].

Judicial Scrutiny – Death Penalty – Trial Court and High Court failed to exercise the necessary care and caution – Judgment based on conjectures and surmises – Proper legal standards for scrutiny in capital punishment cases not followed – Convictions and sentences set aside [Paras 72-83].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Conviction and death sentences of Momin Khan (A-1), Jaikam Khan (A-3), and Sajid (A-4) set aside – Appellants ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case – Appeal filed by P.W.1-Ali Sher Khan against acquittal of Nazra (A-2) dismissed [Paras 84-85].