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].

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].

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].

Tenancy Law – Ownership Certificate – Protected tenant granted ownership certificate under Section 38E of the Tenancy Act – Appeals against occupancy rights withdrawn as inconsequential after ownership certificate issuance – Ownership vests unambiguously with protected tenants – Purchasers divested of ownership rights – Certificate undisputed by purchasers [Paras 1-21].

Interim Injunction – Grant of Interim Protection – Respondent’s application for interim injunction initially dismissed by trial court – High Court reversed trial court's decision based on prima facie possession and title of respondent supported by ownership certificate and mutation records – Supreme Court upheld High Court's decision granting interim injunction pending suit disposal [Paras 1-21].

Prior Suit and Injunction – Impact of Prior Suit – Previous suit by respondent’s vendor dismissed as withdrawn without recording possession findings – High Court correctly noted prior suit’s dismissal had no bearing on present suit’s maintainability – Previous dismissal of injunction application due to land being open and vacant [Paras 12-16].

Decision: Special Leave Petition dismissed – High Court’s order granting interim injunction affirmed [Para 19].

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].

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].

Condonation of Delay – Appeal against Order – Respondent's delay of 1011 days in preferring the Second Appeal condoned by the High Court – No sufficient or satisfactory explanation provided for the delay – Courts cannot entertain belated and stale claims on equity grounds – Delay defeats equity – The High Court failed to exercise discretion judiciously – Appeal allowed and delay condonation set aside [Paras 1-9].

Judicial Discretion – Sufficient Cause – Application for condonation of delay requires a sufficient cause – Mere absence of willful negligence is not enough – The High Court's reasoning was not germane to the case – Judicial discretion must be exercised based on established legal principles [Paras 6-8].

Precedents and Legal Principles – Referenced cases emphasize that limitation laws serve public policy and promote legal certainty – The expression “sufficient cause” should not be liberally interpreted where negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fides is apparent – Previous cases cited include Ramlal Motilal and Chhotelal vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., P.K. Ramachandran vs. State of Kerala, Pundlik Jalam Patil vs. Executive Engineer Jalgaon Medium Project, and Basawaraj vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer [Paras 7.1-7.5].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s order condoning the delay set aside – Second Appeal No. 331 of 2021 dismissed due to delay – No order as to costs [Para 9].

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].

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].