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].

Motor Accident – Negligence and Liability – High Court overturned Tribunal's finding of contributory negligence – Evidence from witnesses (PW-1 and PW-3) indicated Eicher van took sudden right turn without signal – High Court's reliance on witness evidence over First Information Report justified – Accident due to negligence of Eicher van driver affirmed [Paras 1-9].

Quantum of Compensation – Assessment and Enhancement – High Court assessed deceased's income based on Form-16 for FY 2012-2013 – Annual income determined as Rs. 12,29,949/- – Future prospects and multiplier applied correctly – Compensation awarded in line with precedents (Sarla Verma, Pranay Sethi) – No reduction warranted [Para 9].

Weightage of Evidence – FIR vs. Witness Testimony – Tribunal's reliance on FIR over witness testimony incorrect – High Court rightly prioritized witness testimony under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act – Case-specific evidence evaluation necessary [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – High Court's order upheld – Compensation awarded affirmed – Appellant to pay balance compensation within two months – No order as to costs [Paras 9-10].

Loss of Dependency – Enhancement of Compensation – Deceased was a driver with a heavy vehicle driving license – Tribunal adopted minimum wage for skilled labor to compute income – High Court's dismissal of appeal without considering evidence and grounds raised by appellants – Income assessment based on minimum wage not justified – Oral evidence of deceased's income considered – Income assessed at Rs. 8,000 per month – Compensation recalculated including future prospects and deductions for personal expenses [Paras 1-12].

Consortium and Dependency – Parental Consortium – Appellants entitled to compensation for loss of consortium – Tribunal's finding that parents were not dependents contrary to legal precedents – Compensation enhanced to include consortium [Para 10].

Assessment of Income – Evidence and Reality – Income assessment should not be detached from reality – Guesswork allowed in absence of documentary evidence – Oral testimony of deceased’s income at Rs. 15,000 per month accepted – Income considered at Rs. 8,000 per month for calculating dependency loss [Para 10].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Compensation enhanced – Additional amount awarded for loss of dependency and parental consortium – Total compensation of Rs. 4,13,964/- with interest at 6% p.a. from date of claim petition [Paras 10-12].

Family Settlement – Admissibility of Unregistered Document – High Court held family settlement document inadmissible – Supreme Court found document recorded past transactions, did not create or extinguish rights in property – Held Khararunama as admissible for explaining arrangement made and conduct of parties – Document did not attract Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act [Paras 1-37].

Evidence of Past Transactions – Use of Khararunama – Document containing record of past transactions can be admitted to show nature of possession and arrangement – Not to be used to prove transaction itself if it affects property rights – Unregistered family arrangement document can corroborate conduct and oral agreements [Paras 26-37].

Registration and Stamp Duty – Applicability – Document recording family settlement does not require registration if it does not create or extinguish rights – No need for stamp duty if it is merely a memorandum of past events [Para 35].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Document admitted for limited purpose of explaining family arrangement and conduct – No order as to costs [Paras 36-37].

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].

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].

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].

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].