Hindu Law – Karta’s Power to Alienate – A Karta may alienate joint family property for value either for legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate to bind the interests of all the undivided members of the family whether they are adults, minors, or widows – No specific grounds to prove legal necessity; it depends on the facts of each case – Karta’s discretion in fulfilling legal necessity, although not beyond challenge on the grounds of lack of existence of legal necessity or absence of benefit to the estate [Paras 1-30].

Limitation for Challenging Alienation – Suit for declaration and cancellation of the relinquishment deed filed nearly 24 years after execution – Governed by Article 109 of the Limitation Act, providing 12 years from the date the alienee takes possession – Suit barred by limitation as filed well beyond the prescribed period [Paras 31-34].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – High Court's judgment upheld – Suit barred by limitation [Paras 34].

Appeal in Case of Acquittal – Section 378 CrPC – State’s right to appeal against acquittal – Appellate Court's duty to consider whether the trial court’s decision is plausible and possible – Double presumption of innocence for acquitted persons – Importance of the trial court's advantage of observing witnesses in person – High Court must undertake deeper scrutiny and ensure the trial court's findings are not perverse before overturning acquittal [Paras 20-23].

Dying Declaration – Evidence – High Court erroneously relied on dying declaration not supported by credible witness testimony – Trial court correctly rejected the dying declaration based on inconsistencies and lack of corroboration – High Court’s approach critiqued for not addressing detailed trial court reasoning [Paras 24-32].

Merits of Evidence – High Court overlooked discrepancies in key witness testimonies and failed to consider trial court's detailed analysis – Importance of trial court’s advantage in evaluating witness credibility – Reversal of acquittal found unjustified [Paras 24-33].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court’s conviction set aside – Trial court's acquittal upheld – Orders of conviction by High Court overturned [Para 33].

NDPS Act – Bail – Recovery of psychotropic substances – Seizure of 137,665 tablets collectively weighing approximately 90 kg from four locations – Confessional statements recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act held inadmissible in trial as per Tofan Singh v. State of Madras [2021] 4 SCC 1 – Absence of clarity on quantitative analysis of samples – Prosecution’s inability to establish possession of commercial quantity – Bail granted to A-4 and A-1 [Paras 1-12].

Evidentiary Standards – Reliance on Statements under Section 67 NDPS – Confessional statements alone insufficient for prosecution in absence of supporting evidence – Reliance on electronic communications (WhatsApp messages) and financial transactions insufficient without scientific analysis of devices – Bail granted due to lack of direct evidence linking appellants to the contraband [Paras 6-11].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Impugned order of the High Court quashed – Bail order of the Special Judge restored for Bharat Chaudhary (A-4) – Raja Chandrasekharan (A-1) granted bail as charge sheet filed and prolonged custody considered [Para 12].

Election Petition – Non-submission of Form 25 – Appellant contested 2019 elections from 16 Hassan (General) Parliamentary Constituency, alleging respondent no.1 filed a false affidavit and secured election by suppressing material facts – Respondent no.1 sought dismissal for non-compliance with Section 83(1) proviso of the RP Act, requiring Form 25 affidavit – High Court dismissed the petition – Supreme Court held non-submission of Form 25 is a curable defect – Election petition should not be dismissed at threshold – Appeal allowed, petitioner granted opportunity to file Form 25 affidavit [Paras 1-27].

Verification of Petition – Technical vs. Hyper-technical Compliance – Substantial compliance with Section 81(3) by verifying the petition and copies – Non-signing of index and synopsis not fatal – Allegations against respondent fall within broader ambit, requiring trial [Paras 20-25].

Opportunity to Cure Defects – Previous decisions support allowing petitioner to cure affidavit defect – High Court should permit filing of proper affidavit instead of dismissing petition summarily [Paras 22-24].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's order set aside – Application under Order VII Rule 11 dismissed – Appellant granted 15 days to file Form 25 affidavit – Urgent trial of the election petition directed [Para 27].

Compassionate Appointment – Assessment of Family Pension – Appellant rejected respondent's application for compassionate appointment based on merit points, considering family pension of Rs 8265 per month – Tribunal and High Court directed reconsideration, stating pension would reduce to Rs 4959 after ten years – Supreme Court held pension on date of consideration is relevant – Policy mandates considering financial position at time of application – Compassionate appointment is to tide over immediate crisis, not a vested right – Appeal allowed, High Court's judgment set aside [Paras 1-14].

Evaluation Criteria – Pension is not an extraneous circumstance – Authorities must evaluate financial position per policy – Reassessment after ten years not a basis to discard current pension – Uniform criteria applied to all applicants – Granting appointment contrary to scheme's objective [Paras 10-13].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court’s judgment and order set aside – OA filed by respondent dismissed [Para 14].

Consumer Law – Limitation for Filing Complaint – Respondent's registration for house allotment under General Registration Scheme, 1985, was cancelled in 2000 for non-payment of seed money – Respondent filed consumer complaint in 2011 after Housing Board's 2009 policy decision on restoration of cancelled registrations – Supreme Court held complaint time-barred under Section 24A of Consumer Protection Act – Cause of action arose on cancellation date, not policy decision – Consumer forums must adhere to limitation period – Appeals allowed, NCDRC's order set aside [Paras 1-14].

Evaluation of Default and Restoration Policy – No formal allotment made – Respondent failed to pay seed money despite multiple notices – Registration cancellation in 2000 undisputed – 2009 policy not applicable as cancellation due to respondent's default – Complaint filed beyond two-year limitation period – Consumer forum's order erroneous [Paras 8-11].

Decision – Appeals allowed – NCDRC’s judgment set aside – Appellant to refund registration money if respondent unwilling to accept allotment at current rates [Para 14].

Compassionate Appointment – Revision of Post – Respondent appointed as Record Clerk on compassionate grounds despite qualifications for Junior Assistant – High Court directed revision to Junior Assistant retrospectively – Supreme Court held respondent’s acceptance of Record Clerk post with undertaking precluded later challenge – Appointment revision contrary to service jurisprudence and affects similarly situated candidates – Appeals allowed, High Court’s order set aside [Paras 1-14].

Estoppel and Service Jurisprudence – Respondent estopped from challenging Record Clerk appointment after accepting post with undertaking – Service revision based on GO Ms No 1499 misinterpreted – Collector’s role in vacancy allocation procedural, not obligatory for appointment – Directions for retrospective appointment and promotion unsustainable [Paras 11-12].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – Writ petition dismissed – Promotion consideration unaffected by impugned direction [Para 13].

Medical Negligence – Professional Indemnity Insurance – Hospital conducted eye camp, resulting in multiple cases of eye infections and loss of vision – Hospital claimed indemnity under insurance policies obtained by doctors – NCDRC ruled insurance policies did not cover hospital’s liability – Supreme Court upheld NCDRC’s decision – Hospital not beneficiary of insurance policies held by individual doctors – Appeals dismissed [Paras 1-18].

Privity of Contract – Insurance Coverage – Insurance policies were professional indemnity policies for doctors, not hospital – Negligence findings against hospital and staff, not individual doctors – Hospital cannot claim indemnity under policies not covering it or its staff – District Forum and State Commission erred in holding insurer liable [Paras 14-16].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – NCDRC’s judgment upheld – Hospital may pursue other legal remedies against potentially negligent parties – Disbursed compensation confirmed [Paras 16-18].

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act – Recovery of Contraband – Accused found guilty of possessing 900 grams of smack – No incriminating substance recovered during personal search – Defence of false implication rejected – Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld [Paras 1-18].

Procedure under NDPS Act – Compliance with Section 50 – Argument of non-compliance not accepted as recovery was from a vehicle, not a personal search – Court held Section 50 not applicable in this context – Conviction based on vehicle search upheld [Paras 11, 15-16].

Constitutional Law – Article 136 – Scope of Supreme Court interference – Interference under Article 136 warranted only in cases of gross error or perverse findings – Supreme Court found no error warranting interference – Appeal dismissed [Paras 17-18].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence affirmed – Accused had already served the sentence; no further directions issued [Para 19].