Public Service – Reporting of Vacancies – Candidates included in ranked list – No right to claim all vacancies must be reported – Candidates have right against reported vacancies only – State must provide explanation if vacancies not reported – Arbitrary non-reporting can be challenged – KAT misdirected inquiry into vacancies arising from promotions – Department's reporting of all possible vacancies accepted – Appeals allowed, KAT's and High Court's orders set aside [Paras 18-27].

Right to Appointment – Ranked List Candidates – Right limited to reported vacancies – Non-reporting of vacancies can be judicially challenged – State explanation required for non-reporting – KAT's assumption of vacancy from promotions without evidence incorrect [Paras 25-27].

Judicial Review – Administrative Decisions – State duty to act bona fide – Vacancies must be reported transparently – Non-reporting subject to scrutiny – Courts to ensure no arbitrariness [Paras 25-27].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned judgment and orders of the High Court and KAT set aside – No order on costs [Para 27].

Motor Accident – Compensation Reduction – Deceased aged 33 years at the time of death – High Court reduced compensation from Rs. 22,60,000 to Rs. 17,00,000 without assigning reasons – Supreme Court recalculated compensation considering loss of future prospects, spousal consortium, and conventional expenses – Total compensation determined as Rs. 31,01,000 [Paras 1-16].

Loss of Future Prospects – Deceased self-employed with a fixed salary – 40% addition to established income as deceased was below 40 years – Adjusted compensation considering future prospects [Paras 13-15].

Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act – Appeal as continuation of original proceedings – High Court’s duty to provide reasons for modifying Tribunal’s award – Supreme Court found High Court’s reduction arbitrary [Paras 12, 17].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Compensation enhanced to Rs. 31,01,000 – Insurer directed to deposit balance amount with interest at 7.5% per annum within eight weeks – Disbursement to claimants as directed by Tribunal [Para 17].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Presumption and Rebuttal – Dishonour of cheque raises presumption of legally recoverable debt – Presumption is rebuttable by proving to the contrary – Onus on accused to raise a probable defence – Standard of proof is on preponderance of probabilities – High Court's conviction of appellant upheld – Appeal dismissed [Paras 11-19].

Presumption Under Section 139 – Once cheque execution is admitted, presumption under Section 139 arises – Accused can rebut presumption by relying on materials brought by complainant or through own evidence – Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn from materials and circumstances [Paras 8, 10, 14].

Prior Transaction – Defence of forceful obtaining of cheque and signatures by complainant not accepted – Prior financial transactions between parties considered – Complainant’s discharge of initial burden established [Paras 12-17].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court’s conviction and sentence upheld [Paras 18-19].

Civil Suit – Declaration of Ownership – Registration of Sale Deed – Registration subject to adjudication by competent civil court – Cancellation deed cannot be registered unilaterally – Subject matter of pending suit – High Court's reliance on Satya Pal Anand v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2016) 10 SCC 767 correct – Suit to determine rights – Appeal disposed of with directions for expeditious disposal of pending suit [Paras 14-17].

Registration of Document – Rights Adjudication – Registration does not affect parties' rights adjudication by civil court – Appellants entered appearance in pending suit – Civil court to decide validity of cancellation deed – Thota Ganga Laxmi & Anr. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (2010) 15 SCC 207 distinguished [Paras 14-16].

Status Quo – Pending Suit – Parties directed to maintain status quo regarding possession until disposal of suit – Suit to be disposed of within one year [Para 17].

Decision: Appeal disposed of – Rights of parties to be governed by judgment in pending suit – Status quo to be maintained – Suit to be decided on merits within one year – No order as to costs [Para 17].

Consumer Protection – Pre-deposit Condition – Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Pre-deposit of 50% mandatory for appeal before National Commission – Intended to avoid frivolous appeals – Pre-deposit condition distinct from conditions for stay – National Commission can conditionally stay State Commission orders with deposit of entire or higher amounts – Such orders must be reasoned and not mechanical – Appeals partly allowed, matters remanded to National Commission for fresh consideration of stay applications [Paras 10-16].

Stay of Orders – Discretionary Power – National Commission's discretion to conditionally stay orders – Speaking order required for conditional stay – Stay akin to money decree under Order XLI Rule 5 CPC – Detailed reasoning necessary for stay on deposit of entire amount or higher than 50% [Paras 13-15].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – National Commission to reconsider stay applications with reasoned orders – Status quo to be maintained until new orders – National Commission to decide within eight weeks [Paras 16-17].

Criminal Conspiracy – Evidence Requirement – To prove conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC, an agreement between parties for an unlawful act must be established – Difficult to prove by direct evidence, but must show meeting of minds – Conviction based on bits of evidence or confessional statements of co-accused without corroboration not safe – Prosecution failed to prove conspiracy against appellant – Appeal allowed, conviction and sentence set aside [Paras 12-14].

Confessional Statements – Admissibility – Confessions made to police officers inadmissible under Evidence Act – Statements of co-accused without corroborative evidence insufficient for conviction – Indra Dalal v. State Of Haryana (2015) 11 SCC 31 applied [Paras 12-14].

Review of Evidence – High Court's Role – Confirmation of conviction requires analysis and sound reasons – High Court failed to consider evidence properly – Uppa alias Manjunatha v. State of Karnataka (2013) 14 SCC 729 applied [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Appellant to be released unless required in connection with any other case [Para 15].

Criminal Law – Concurrent Sentencing – Section 427 CrPC – Discretionary power to run subsequent sentences concurrently – Discretion to be exercised judiciously – Nature of offence and societal impact to be considered – Offences under NDPS Act severe and against societal interest – No discretion in favor of accused indulging in drug trafficking – Appeal dismissed [Paras 8-12].

Section 427 CrPC – General Rule – Subsequent sentences to run consecutively unless directed otherwise by the court – Concurrent sentencing discretionary and based on case specifics – Applicable principles summarized – Case involves different transactions and judgments – No direction for concurrent sentencing by lower courts [Paras 8.1-8.3.6, 9-10].

Judicial Discretion – Sentencing under NDPS Act – Serious nature of offences – Impact on society – No leniency or concurrent sentencing for drug traffickers – Interest of society paramount [Paras 11-12].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Sentences to run consecutively as per Section 427(1) CrPC – No direction for concurrent running of sentences [Paras 12].

Civil Procedure – Additional Evidence in Appeal – Section 107 and Order 41 Rule 27 CPC – Appellate Court's discretion to admit additional evidence – High Court erred in dismissing appeal without deciding application for additional evidence – Appellate Court should consider application and evidence when deciding appeal – Dismissal of appeal without considering application for additional evidence can lead to miscarriage of justice – Appeal allowed, case remitted to High Court for fresh disposal [Paras 8-11].

Production of Additional Evidence – Requirements – Application should include list of documents and copies served on other party – High Court must decide on application before final judgment – Appellate Court as last fact-finding court must ensure all relevant evidence is considered [Paras 8-10].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Matter remitted to High Court for fresh consideration in light of observations – No order as to costs [Paras 11-12].

Insurance Law – Mediclaim Policy – Repudiation – Insured sought mediclaim policy for travel abroad – Insured disclosed diabetes mellitus but not hyperlipidaemia – Suffered heart attack abroad and claimed under policy – Insurance company repudiated citing non-disclosure of hyperlipidaemia – NCDRC upheld repudiation – Supreme Court held policy repudiation illegal – Insured entitled to indemnification for medical expenses abroad – Appeal allowed, NCDRC order set aside [Paras 1-71].

Duty of Disclosure – Principle of Uberrimae Fidei – Insured must disclose all material facts known to them – Insurance contracts require utmost good faith – Non-disclosure must be material and known to insured – Repudiation for non-disclosure requires proof that non-disclosed fact was known and material [Paras 29-41].

Contra Proferentem Rule – Interpretation Against Drafter – Ambiguities in insurance contracts interpreted against insurer – Insurer must clearly express exclusions – Ambiguous terms resolved in favor of insured [Paras 44-45].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Respondent directed to indemnify appellant for medical expenses with interest – Costs awarded to appellant [Paras 69-71].