DNA Testing – Personal Liberty and Privacy – High Court directed the plaintiff to undergo DNA test to prove biological relationship – Supreme Court held DNA tests should not be ordered as routine but only in deserving cases – Forcing DNA test on an unwilling plaintiff violates personal liberty and right to privacy – Plaintiff entitled to rely on other evidence without compulsory DNA testing [Paras 1-17].

Burden of Proof – Plaintiff’s Evidence – Plaintiff produced sworn affidavits, school leaving certificates, and domicile certificate to prove relationship – Defendants’ claim that plaintiff is not their brother not substantiated by compelling evidence – Court should not compel further evidence through DNA testing at defendants’ request – Suit to be decided based on available evidence [Paras 14-16].

Adverse Inference – Refusal to Undergo DNA Test – Refusal to undergo DNA test may allow court to draw adverse inference under Section 114 of the Evidence Act – Plaintiff’s refusal to be considered with other evidence presented – Case not warranting exceptional DNA testing [Para 15].

Right to Privacy – Judicial Principles – Courts must balance quest for truth with protection of individual rights – Proportionality test in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India applies to DNA testing orders – Right to privacy must be upheld unless there is an eminent need [Paras 13, 16].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Trial Court’s order dated 28.11.2017 restored – Suit to proceed without compulsory DNA test – Costs to be borne by respective parties [Paras 17-18].

Occupancy Rights vs. Ownership Rights – Conflict of Acts – High Court annulled occupancy rights granted under the Inams Act in favor of ownership rights under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act – Tenancy Act’s Section 38-E(1) overrides the Inams Act – Protected tenants become full owners with effect from the date specified in the notification, superseding occupancy rights [Paras 1-23].

Protected Tenants’ Rights – Certification and Vesting – Ownership certificate under Section 38-E issued before the grant of occupancy rights – Protected tenants deemed full owners upon issuance of certificate – Oral surrender of tenancy rights by protected tenant deemed invalid under Tenancy Act [Paras 26-31].

Procedural Compliance – Certification under Section 38-E requires inquiry and conclusive evidence of protected tenant’s ownership – Provisions of the Tenancy Act prioritize tenant's rights and override conflicting provisions in Inams Act – Compliance with prescribed statutory procedures necessary for validity [Paras 34-37].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – High Court’s annulment of occupancy rights upheld – Tenancy Act’s provisions given precedence – Protected tenant’s ownership rights validated – No order as to costs [Para 46].

Insolvency Law – Limitation – Application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code – Burden of proving the occurrence of default and the application within the limitation period is on the financial creditor – Adjudicating Authority can consider material from both financial creditor and corporate debtor – Application not barred by limitation if there is acknowledgment of debt within the prescribed period [Paras 13-23].

Power of Attorney – Maintainability of Application – Application under Section 7 can be filed by a duly authorized person through power of attorney – General authorization given to an officer to commence legal proceedings includes filing applications under Section 7 – Authorization validated by prior resolutions of the Board [Paras 7-12].

Section 18 of Limitation Act – Acknowledgment of Debt – Fresh period of limitation starts from acknowledgment of liability – Section 18 applies to proceedings under Section 7 of the Code – Material indicating acknowledgment within three years allows for extension of limitation period [Paras 21-23].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Application under Section 7 was filed within the extended period of limitation due to acknowledgment of debt – Proper authorization for filing the application established [Para 24].

Evidence Law – Exclusion of Oral Evidence – Oral evidence to contradict written agreements is generally excluded – Exception exists when the document is alleged to be a sham transaction – No evidence of fraud, intimidation, illegality, or failure of consideration was present to permit oral evidence against the sale deed – Findings of the First Appellate Court and High Court set aside [Paras 1-29].

Contract Law – Consideration – Sale deed executed out of natural love and affection between brothers – Recital of nominal sale consideration in sale deed is sufficient – Discharge of debts by appellant for respondent established consideration – Registered sale deed carries presumption of correctness [Paras 19-22].

Res Judicata – Applicability – Second suit barred by res judicata principles – Issues already decided in the first suit – Appeals against both suits decided together, affirming first suit’s findings and dismissing the second suit [Paras 13-16].

Amendment of Pleadings – Discretion of Appellate Court – Amendment allowed at the first appeal stage – No new evidence led post-amendment – Arguments against amendment not examined as suits were decided together [Paras 15-16].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court and the High Court set aside – Trial court’s judgment in Special Civil Suit No. 55/77/I restored – Special Civil Suit No. 71/80/I dismissed – Respondents granted two months to vacate and hand over possession of the property [Paras 30].

Service Law – Promotion – Respondent's promotion withheld due to disciplinary action leading to 'censure' – Bank’s rules specify 'censure' as a minor penalty – Adoption of sealed cover procedure for respondent’s promotion due to pending disciplinary action – Supreme Court held that promotion recommendations in a sealed cover cannot be effected if a minor penalty like 'censure' is imposed [Paras 1-11].

Sealed Cover Procedure – Guidelines and Application – Circular No.118 of SBI specifies sealed cover for officers with pending disciplinary actions – Sealed cover not to be opened if disciplinary action results in minor penalties – Recommendations of selection committee kept in sealed cover to be considered only in next promotion cycle after conclusion of disciplinary proceedings [Paras 6-10].

Judicial Precedents – Supreme Court references to prior rulings affirming the principle that even minor penalties prevent implementation of sealed cover recommendations – Relevant cases cited include State of M.P. & Anr. vs. I. A. Qureshi and Union of India & Ors. vs. A.N. Mohanan, reinforcing the non-application of sealed cover outcomes if disciplinary penalties are imposed [Paras 8-9].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned orders of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench set aside – Promotion recommendations in sealed cover not to be implemented due to the minor penalty of 'censure' – Respondent to be considered for promotion in the next cycle as per bank’s rules [Paras 11-12].

Contract Law – Lease Agreement – Lease deed dated 08.11.2011 was the basis of the appellant's application for dealership – Lease to commence from the date of approval of the petrol pump – Lease deed considered a firm offer rather than an effective lease as of the application date [Paras 4-14].

Registration Act – Section 47 – Application – Registered document operates from the time it would have commenced if no registration was required – Does not predate the commencement of the lease period stipulated in the lease deed [Paras 5, 15].

Transfer of Property Act – Lease Definition – Lease of immovable property transfers the right to enjoy the property for a specified period – Lease period in this case was to begin only after the approval of the petrol pump, thus not in effect on the application date [Paras 10-14].

Judicial Review – Decision on Largesse – Public authorities have a degree of discretion in interpreting terms for awarding largesse – Rectification deed executed post-application to correct lease terms viewed skeptically [Paras 17].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Appellant not entitled to 35 marks for the lease – Lease deed effective only from future approval date, not on the application date – High Court judgment upheld [Paras 16-18].

Pension Law – Late Entrant – Regulation 15 of Pension Regulations, 1961 – Officer not eligible as "late entrant" – Resignation vs. Voluntary Retirement – Resignation does not qualify for pensionary benefits under Regulation 15 – Respondent's resignation based on lack of promotional prospects – No entitlement to relaxation under "late entrant" category – Appeal allowed, Tribunal's order set aside [Paras 6-11].

Pension Regulations – Application – Pension Regulations, 2008 not applicable – Respondent governed by Pension Regulations, 1961 – New pension regulations do not have retrospective effect – Pre-commission service not counted towards qualifying service under 1961 regulations [Paras 9-10].

Distinction – Resignation vs. Voluntary Retirement – Resignation forfeits service benefits – Voluntary retirement permissible after qualifying service – Resignation tendered before completion of qualifying service not eligible for pension benefits [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Respondent not entitled to pensionary benefits as a "late entrant" – Armed Forces Tribunal's judgment quashed – No order as to costs [Para 12].

Insurance Law – Motor Vehicles – Expired Temporary Registration – The vehicle's temporary registration had expired before the theft – Driving or using a vehicle without valid registration constitutes a fundamental breach of the policy – Insurance claim for theft denied due to violation of Sections 39 and 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Paras 10-13].

Consumer Protection – Jurisdiction – National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) – The NCDRC dismissed the insurer's revision petition – The Supreme Court held that the NCDRC erred in disregarding binding precedent and failing to recognize the fundamental breach of the insurance policy [Paras 14-15].

Decision: Appeal allowed – NCDRC and State Commission's orders set aside – Respondent's complaint dismissed – No order as to costs [Para 15].

Constitutional Law – Recruitment – Articles 14 and 16 – Upper age limit – Rehbar-e-Taleem (Re-T) scheme – The scheme and advertisement specified 'as far as possible' the upper age limit as 35 years – High Court held this phrase to be directory – However, Supreme Court held that interpreting it as directory would give unbridled discretion to authorities – Provision relating to upper age limit must be mandatory to ensure uniformity and prevent arbitrary selections – Upper age limit of 35 years upheld [Paras 6-8].

Civil Procedure – Upper Age Limit – Advertisement for Re-T teachers – Words 'as far as possible' in age qualification are directory only in specific contexts where the structure of the rule supports flexibility – In this case, directory interpretation would violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution – Uniformity in eligibility criteria for public posts necessary [Paras 7-8].

Judicial Review – Appointments – Continuation of Respondent No. 2 – High Court erred in directing both respondents' appointments for a single post – Directions to continue Respondent No. 2 set aside – State directed to accommodate Respondent No. 2 in another vacancy due to her long service [Paras 9-10].

Decision: Appeal disposed of – Directions of the High Court appointing both respondents set aside – Respondent No. 2 to be accommodated in another vacancy – No entitlement to benefits prior to fresh appointment other than already paid salary and allowances [Para 11].