Service Law – Change of Date of Birth – Delay and Laches – Application for change of date of birth in service records must comply with relevant statutory provisions – Karnataka State Servants (Determination of Age) Act mandates application within three years from date of birth recording or within one year from Act commencement – Employee's application made 24 years post-joining and 16 years post-Act adoption, thus invalid – Supreme Court upheld rejection based on delay and laches, emphasizing no entitlement as matter of right despite cogent evidence – High Court’s grant of relief was erroneous and unsustainable [Paras 7-12].

Legal Precedents – Judicial Consistency – Referenced cases reinforce stringent scrutiny for date of birth alterations at service end – Emphasized need for procedural compliance and rejection of applications causing systemic disruptions and prejudicing other employees’ promotions – Referenced cases include Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Shyam Kishore Singh, Home Deptt. v. R. Kirubakaran, and Life Insurance Corporation of India v. R. Basavaraju [Paras 9.1-9.4].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Held – High Court judgment set aside – Application for date of birth alteration rejected due to delay and non-compliance with statutory provisions – Noted judgment's effectuation on respondent's retirement already settled, thus case specifics retained unaffected – Question of law resolved in favor of appellant [Paras 11-13].

Customs Act – Mis-declaration of Goods – Anti-dumping Duty – Show cause notices alleged mis-declaration of imported goods as 'Lutex – 701' and 'Lutex – 780' – Tests revealed goods were SBR of 1900 series – Tribunal set aside anti-dumping duty demand – Supreme Court found Tribunal's findings contrary to record – Goods liable for confiscation and anti-dumping duty – Respondent liable for interest and penalty [Paras 4-6, 15-16].

Tribunal's Findings – Flawed Evaluation – Tribunal's conclusion that show cause notice lacked basis to doubt classification contradicted by record – Show cause notices and test reports clearly indicated mis-declaration – Tribunal failed to consider merits of appeals, requiring remand for fresh determination [Paras 11-16].

Anti-dumping Duty – Legal Framework – Central Government's notification on anti-dumping duty for SBR of 1900 series from Korea – Notification based on findings of Designated Authority's sunset review – Anti-dumping duty imposed under Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 [Paras 9-10].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Held – Tribunal's judgment set aside – Appeals restored to Tribunal for fresh determination on merits – Tribunal directed to consider material evidence and submissions by both parties – No order as to costs [Paras 17-18].

Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act – Section 11 Interpretation – Successful allottee's discretion – Supreme Court held successful bidder has complete freedom to adopt or reject existing contracts related to coal mining operations – No obligation to continue with prior contracts unless elected – Statutory provision prevails over any conflicting contractual clause [Paras 20-22].

Judicial Review – Administrative Actions – Scope and Limitations – Reiterated principles from Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) on judicial review focusing on decision-making process rather than merits – Emphasized legality, rationality, and procedural propriety as grounds for intervention – Rejected High Court's rationale of legitimate expectation [Paras 30-33].

Legitimate Expectation – Not Applicable Against Statute – Supreme Court clarified legitimate expectation cannot override statutory provisions – Policy decisions favoring competitive bidding justified as rational and non-arbitrary [Paras 26-27, 33].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Held – High Court judgment set aside – Upheld PSPCL’s decision to reject EMTA’s claims based on competitive bidding policy – Directed adherence to statutory provisions of the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015 [Paras 35].

Penal Code – Section 304 Part-II/34 IPC – Sudden Quarrel – Appellant involved in a sudden fight over stolen pigeon – Co-accused inflicted fatal blow in heat of passion – High Court modified conviction from Section 302 to 304 Part-I – Supreme Court further modified to 304 Part-II due to lack of intention to cause death – Conviction under Section 201 IPC maintained [Paras 3-9].

Circumstances of Offence – Lack of Premeditation – Incident arose from sudden quarrel in heat of passion without premeditation – No intention to cause death or likely to cause death – Supreme Court emphasized circumstances showing spontaneous reaction, not planned attack [Paras 3, 9].

Modification of Sentence – Case law support – Referenced cases illustrating judicial precedent for modifying convictions under similar circumstances – Emphasized proportionality in sentencing considering spontaneous nature of incident [Paras 10-11].

Decision – Appeals Partly Allowed – Held – Conviction modified from Section 304 Part-I/34 IPC to Section 304 Part-II/34 IPC – Sentence reduced to seven years rigorous imprisonment – Fine of Rs. 10,000 maintained – Conviction under Section 201 IPC and sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment upheld [Paras 11].

Arbitration – Extension of Time – Arbitrator's Mandate – Sole Arbitrator continued arbitration proceedings and passed the award within the extended period – High Court set aside the award citing misconduct as Arbitrator continued post-retirement – Supreme Court held Arbitrator's mandate valid until proceedings conclude, absent contrary provision – Extension of time by Civil Judge upheld – High Court’s decision overturned [Paras 1-17].

Judicial Review – Arbitrator’s Continuance – Mandate and Misconduct – Clause 52 of agreement required Arbitrator to be a Superintending Engineer or higher at appointment – No provision terminating mandate upon retirement – Participation of respondents and extension of time by Civil Judge validate Arbitrator’s actions – Supreme Court emphasized procedural fairness and adherence to agreed terms [Paras 10-16].

State Amendments – Interpretation – Section 4 of Arbitration Act as amended for Uttar Pradesh not applicable – Arbitrator not incapacitated by retirement – State amendment did not terminate mandate post-retirement – Supreme Court clarified Arbitrator’s authority persists unless explicitly restricted [Paras 15].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – High Court judgment quashing award set aside – Original award and Civil Judge’s order restored – Arbitrator’s continuance post-retirement upheld as per agreement and judicial extensions – No order as to costs [Paras 17-18].

Urban Land Ceiling – Possession and Allotment – Landowner's excess land acquired under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 – Landowner's letter indicated voluntary surrender of possession in 1980 – High Court erroneously presumed landowner retained possession based on inspection reports without examining records or letter – Supreme Court upheld the State's claim of possession based on landowner’s own admission – High Court’s grant of Repeal Act benefits to respondents reversed [Paras 1-26].

Legal Ownership and Restoration – Champerty Concerns – Respondents executed power of attorney and sale agreements with realtors post filing of writ petition – Legal disputes and mortgage transactions indicated attempts to reclaim and commercialize vested land – Supreme Court noted these actions undermined respondents' standing and dismissed writ petition – Highlighted prevention of property grab by third parties through legal maneuvers [Paras 27-30].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court's orders set aside – Writ petition dismissed – Applications for impleadment and other pending applications dismissed [Paras 31-32].

Tenancy Law – Validity of Tenancy – Respondent claimed tenancy rights based on an agreement from 1975 allegedly executed by a power of attorney holder of the original owners – Dispute over the authority of the power of attorney holder to induct tenants – Lower courts found no objection raised by original owners from 1975 to 1994, implying consent to the tenancy – Supreme Court upheld findings, declaring respondent a tenant under Section 14 of the Act, which deems tenants in possession before 5th July 1976 as authorized tenants [Paras 2-13].

Regulation of Letting – Deemed Tenancy – Respondent’s continuous possession and rent payment confirmed tenancy rights – Application of Section 14 providing statutory recognition to tenants in occupation with landlord’s consent prior to the commencement of the 1976 Amendment – Supreme Court rejected appellant’s challenge, directing respondent to regularly deposit rent and enabling the appellant to initiate eviction proceedings if necessary [Paras 12-18].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Respondent declared a lawful tenant under Section 14 – Directed to deposit rent arrears and continue regular rent payments – Appellant given liberty to pursue eviction under appropriate sections of the Act [Para 18].

Service Law – Reinstatement with Back Wages – Respondent dismissed from service after being suspected of involvement in a fire incident at the Bank – Central Government Industrial Tribunal found misconduct unproven but ordered compensation in lieu of reinstatement due to loss of confidence – High Court quashed Tribunal's award and ordered reinstatement with full benefits – Supreme Court modified High Court’s order to grant lump sum compensation instead of reinstatement due to respondent’s short tenure and subsequent superannuation – Lump sum compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs awarded [Paras 1-9].

Employment Termination – Compensation in Lieu of Reinstatement – Respondent worked for approximately six years before dismissal in 1991 – Attained superannuation during litigation – Supreme Court emphasizes that reinstatement with full back wages is not automatic in every case of wrongful termination – Awards compensation considering length of service and time out of employment [Paras 7-8].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – High Court's order modified to replace reinstatement with lump sum compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs to be paid within eight weeks – Interest at 6% per annum applicable if payment delayed beyond specified period [Para 8-9].

Civil Procedure – Adjournments – Misuse by Defendant – Petitioner-defendant repeatedly sought adjournments, delaying cross-examination of plaintiff’s witness in eviction suit – Over ten adjournments granted from 2015 to 2019, with costs imposed twice – Despite High Court's final warning, petitioner failed to utilize last opportunity for cross-examination – Trial Court's order closing cross-examination right upheld by High Court and affirmed by Supreme Court – Court emphasizes the need to curb adjournment culture to maintain confidence in the justice system and uphold Rule of Law [Paras 1-6].

Judicial Responsibility – Timely Justice – Courts should avoid routine granting of adjournments, which delays justice and undermines trust in the judiciary – Importance of diligent case management highlighted to ensure effective and timely disposal of cases – Supreme Court stresses duty of judicial officers to resist undue adjournments and prioritize litigants' right to timely justice [Paras 5-5.6].

Decision – Special Leave Petitions dismissed – Supreme Court condemns the misuse of judicial grace and repeated adjournments by the petitioner – Affirms lower courts' decisions to close right of cross-examination due to persistent delays by the defendant [Para 6].