Motor Accident Claim – Assessment of Income – Evidence of Mining and Agricultural Activities – Compensation Enhanced – Tribunal treated deceased as unskilled labour earning ₹4,914 per month – High Court held that evidence of statutory mining consents, crane registration, EMI payments of ₹35,170 per month, and agricultural land indicated much higher income – Monthly income assessed at ₹45,000 – Compensation recalculated accordingly [Paras 9-13, 18].

Motor Accident Compensation – Loan Repayment as Proof of Earning Capacity – Reliance on Gurpreet Kaur v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1778 – Regular repayment of heavy EMI reflects higher earning capacity; minimum wage cannot be the sole yardstick where positive evidence exists – Applied to present case [Paras 12-13].

Agricultural Income – Agriculturist not to be Treated as Unskilled Labour – Judicial recognition that agriculture requires skill, knowledge, and scientific input – Hence, deceased’s agricultural income also considered in computing monthly earnings [Paras 14-17].

Consortium – Award under Conventional Head – As per Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance, consortium includes spousal, parental, and filial – High Court awarded ₹40,000 each to all dependents (widow, four children, and mother) [Paras 19-20].

Final Computation – Income assessed at ₹45,000 per month; after applying multiplier of 13 and deductions, loss of income ₹65,81,328 – Consortium ₹2,40,000 – Funeral ₹15,000 – Loss of estate ₹15,000 – Total compensation ₹68,51,328 – Enhanced by ₹60,62,636 over Tribunal’s award – Interest @6% p.a. from date of claim petition, rising to 7.5% if delayed beyond two months [Paras 21-22].

Decision:

Appeal partly allowed—Impugned award modified—Compensation enhanced from ₹7,88,692 to ₹68,51,328 with interest—Insurance Company directed to deposit enhanced amount within two months, failing which higher interest rate applies.

SARFAESI Act – Availability of Statutory Remedy – Maintainability of Writ Petition – Borrower filed writ petition seeking installment facility and return of possession of mortgaged property – Learned Single Judge permitted repayment in installments and ordered return of possession upon part payment – Held: Writ petition not maintainable as borrower had not challenged possession notice under Section 13(4) or moved the DRT under Section 17 – When possession had already been taken, High Court should not have entertained writ petition – Remedy lies before Debts Recovery Tribunal [Paras 1, 12, 15–17]

SARFAESI Act – Direction to Return Possession of Secured Asset – Legality – Learned Single Judge directed Bank to return possession of secured asset upon partial payment of ₹4,00,000/- despite overdue amount being ₹18,06,135/- – Held: Such direction was contrary to statutory scheme under SARFAESI Act – Bank had legally taken possession before writ petition was filed – Order was unsustainable and without jurisdiction [Paras 8–10, 15–17]

Writ Jurisdiction – Scope of Article 226 in Financial and Recovery Matters – Supreme Court in Naveen Mathew Philip (2023) reiterated settled position that High Courts should not entertain petitions under Article 226 in SARFAESI disputes when alternative remedy under Section 17 is available – Writ jurisdiction not to be used to bypass statutory mechanism or to grant equitable indulgence in financial recovery proceedings [Paras 13–14]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of learned Single Judge dated 31.07.2025 in W.P.(C) No. 21496 of 2025 set aside – Writ petition dismissed as not maintainable – Petitioner at liberty to seek appropriate remedy before Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

Criminal Law – Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Quashing of FIR – FIR registered by police under Section 13 of the D&C Act pursuant to Magistrate’s order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Held: Only authorities specified under Section 32 of D&C Act (Drug Inspector etc.) can initiate prosecution – Police has no jurisdiction to register FIR – FIR under D&C Act quashed as without authority [Paras 40-44, 88]

Criminal Law – IPC Offences – Sections 274 and 275 IPC – Held: Though FIR under IPC is maintainable, ingredients of offences not made out – Allegation of adulteration not supported by material – Joint inspection found product of standard quality at time of dispatch – Adulteration, if any, occurred after delivery to complainant – FIR under IPC also quashed [Paras 45-60, 66-85, 89]

Criminal Procedure – Limitation – FIR registered in 2019 for offences punishable with up to six months – No charge sheet filed within one year – No justification for delay – Bar under Section 468 Cr.P.C. applicable – Investigation continuation amounts to abuse of process – FIR quashed on this ground as well [Paras 86-87, 89]

Drugs Law – Loan Licencee – Manufacturing Responsibility – Petitioner only provided manufacturing facility under Loan Licence to Respondent No. 2 – Held: As per Rules 75A, 69A of D&C Rules and judicial precedents, Loan Licencee (Respondent No. 2) is deemed manufacturer and responsible for drug quality – Petitioners not liable under D&C Act [Paras 64-70]

Commercial Dispute – Civil Nature Given Criminal Colour – Allegations arose from failure of Respondent No. 2 to sell drugs in market – Parties had arbitration agreement – Nil award given holding likely tampering by Respondent – Held: Dispute purely civil/commercial – Criminal proceedings abuse of process [Paras 20-21, 82-84]

Decision:

FIR No. 053/2019 under Sections 274/275 IPC and Section 13 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, registered at PS Okhla Industrial Area, quashed – Observations confined to FIR proceedings only – Petition allowed [Paras 90-91]

Second Appeal – Declaration of Title – Burden of Proof – Appeal Dismissed – Plaintiff relied on 1987 sale deed for 404.4 sq. yards but failed to prove vendor’s title or establish identification of plots – Plaintiff admitted lack of knowledge of survey numbers, plots, or boundaries and did not issue legal notice to defendant – Defendant proved 1992 registered sale deed, possession since then, and school construction with compound wall – Held: In a suit for declaration and possession, plaintiff must succeed on strength of own title; weakness of defendant’s case immaterial – Courts below rightly dismissed suit and appeal [Paras 16–24].

CPC – Section 100 – Scope of Interference – Second appeal jurisdiction confined to substantial questions of law; no reappreciation of evidence permissible – Concurrent findings of trial and first appellate courts based on evidence upheld – High Court noted exceptions to interference (ignoring material evidence, wrong inferences, misplacement of burden) not attracted – No substantial question of law arose [Paras 14–15, 27–28].

Property Law – Identification of Property – Plaintiff unable to identify property before Commissioner; Commissioner’s report confirmed school and latrines built about 8–10 years earlier – Plaintiff filed no objections to Commissioner’s report – Failure to identify property and prove vendor’s title fatal to relief claimed [Paras 18, 23–24].

Evidence – Burden of Proof – Plaintiff failed to produce sale deed of his vendor or examine him; produced only own deed (Ex.A1); did not prove possession or payment of taxes; admission of ignorance on title boundaries – Burden lies wholly on plaintiff in title suits – Defendant’s possession under registered deed since 1992 corroborated by witnesses and Commissioner’s report [Paras 18–19, 22–24].

Decision – Second appeal dismissed – Judgments of Trial Court (O.S. No. 24/2003, 01.06.2015) and First Appellate Court (A.S. No. 13/2015, 22.08.2022) confirmed – No substantial question of law arose – Parties directed to bear own costs [Paras 28–29].

Civil Procedure – Section 96 CPC – Registered Relinquishment Deed – Unilateral Cancellation Invalid – Appellant relied on unregistered “Deed of Cancellation” of 2010 relinquishment – Held: Such cancellation has no legal effect under Registration Act, 1908; remedy lies in separate cancellation suit, which is now time-barred – Exclusive ownership of Shop No.1/12 with respondent upheld [Paras 18-21, 25].

Fraud and Misrepresentation – Pleading Requirement – General Allegations Insufficient – Plea of fraud in execution of relinquishment deed rejected – Court reiterated that fraud must be pleaded with full particulars under Order VI Rule 4 CPC; vague averments cannot invalidate a registered deed [Paras 20-22].

Benami Transactions – Section 2(9)(A)(b)(ii) and Section 4, Benami Act – Fiduciary Capacity Exception – Not Attracted – Claim that Shop No.1/13 was purchased benami by father in name of respondent – No evidence of fiduciary relationship or trust obligation – Exception under Section 2(9)(A)(b)(ii) inapplicable – Suit barred under Section 4 [Paras 26-31].

Partition – Preliminary Decree – Mangolpuri Property – Trial Court rightly declared 1/6th share each to six siblings in S-350, Mangolpuri – Local Commissioner appointed for metes-and-bounds partition – Status quo directed to continue pending final decree [Para 13, 32].

Joint Family Property – Proof of Common Funds – Sikandarabad Property – Appellant failed to produce documentary proof of purchase from joint family resources – Treated as self-acquired property of respondent [Para 32].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Judgment of Single Judge affirmed holding respondent as exclusive owner of Shop No.1/12, rejecting benami claim to Shop No.1/13, and confirming preliminary decree for partition of Mangolpuri property – No interference warranted [Para 34].

Domestic Violence Act – Section 12 Application – Maintainability of Petition under Section 482 CrPC – Petitioners sought to quash D.V. Case No. 1 of 2025 filed by daughter-in-law alleging dowry demand and domestic abuse – Held: Proceedings under Chapter IV of D.V. Act are civil in nature and do not constitute criminal proceedings until breach of protection order under Section 31 – Therefore, petition under Section 482 CrPC is not maintainable to challenge such proceedings [Paras 1, 4, 24–25].

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 CrPC – Scope – Full Bench of Madras High Court in Arul Daniel v. Suganya (2022 SCC OnLine Mad 5435) held that Section 482 CrPC cannot be invoked to quash Section 12 D.V. Act proceedings – Remedy lies in approaching Magistrate directly or by appeal under Section 29 of D.V. Act – Petitioners relied on Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1158), but Supreme Court was not informed of earlier binding precedent in Kamatchi v. Lakshmi Narayanan and Constitution Bench rulings [Paras 2, 5–11, 24].

Judicial Discipline – Binding Precedent – Earlier Constitution Bench decisions in S.A.L. Narayan Row v. Ishwarlal Bhagwandas and four-judge ruling in Dargah Committee v. State of Rajasthan not considered by Supreme Court in Shaurabh Kumar – These decisions held that the character of proceedings depends on the nature of relief, not the tribunal – Hence, D.V. proceedings remain civil until Section 31 is invoked [Paras 13, 16–17, 23].

Remedies – Appropriate Forum – Reliefs such as protection, residence, compensation under Chapter IV of the D.V. Act are civil remedies – Appropriate recourse is to Magistrate under the Act or to file appeal under Section 29 – Challenge under Section 482 CrPC impermissible unless criminality under Section 31 arises [Paras 8, 18–22, 24].

High Court Practice – Directions to Registry – Registry directed not to entertain or number any petition under Section 482 CrPC or Section 528 BNSS seeking to quash D.V. Act proceedings at a pre-cognizance stage – Orders of Full Bench in Arul Daniel to be followed strictly [Para 26].

Decision: Criminal Original Petition dismissed at SR stage – Held not maintainable under Section 482 CrPC as proceedings under Section 12 of the D.V. Act are civil in nature and have not reached the stage of criminality under Section 31 – Petitioners directed to avail alternate remedies under the D.V. Act [Paras 24–25].

Terrorism – Bail under UAPA – Section 43D(5) – Prima Facie True Test – Appeal Dismissed – Appellant charged with serious offences under IPC, Arms Act, Explosive Substances Act, and UAPA – NIA alleged active involvement in criminal conspiracy, recce, and recovery of arms – Held: Material collected by NIA indicates prima facie truth of allegations under UAPA – Bar under Section 43D(5) attracted – Bail rejected as a rule where accusations are prima facie true [Paras 23-27, 42-48].

Criminal Procedure – Bail – Repeated Applications – No Fresh Grounds – Appeal Not Maintainable – Earlier bail application rejected on merits by High Court and affirmed by Supreme Court – Present appeal based on prolonged custody, with no new factual or legal grounds – Held: Mere long incarceration not sufficient ground for bail in grave offences under UAPA – Appeal dismissed [Paras 32-33, 46-47].

UAPA – Delay in Trial – Not Sole Ground for Bail – Though appellant in custody since 07.02.2021, Court reiterated that delay cannot justify bail where serious allegations exist – Cited Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb – Trial ongoing, charges framed, witnesses examined – Liberty given by Supreme Court to reapply if trial stalls not attracted [Paras 43-45, 47].

Judicial Approach – Bail under Special Statutes – Departure from General Principles – Courts required to apply stricter standards under UAPA – Unlike general criminal law, ‘bail is the rule’ principle does not apply – Prima facie satisfaction of guilt is sufficient to deny bail – Rule reinforced by Supreme Court in Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali and Gurwinder Singh [Paras 24-25, 34-39].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No interference with trial court’s order dated 30.08.2024 rejecting bail – No costs – Pending interlocutory applications also disposed of.

Commercial Courts – Jurisdiction – Definition of “Commercial Dispute” under Section 2(1)(c) – Refund of cancelled airline tickets – Not commercial in nature – Plaintiffs sought recovery of ticket amount with interest and damages – Court held that mere passenger service contract lacks element of trade or business; does not qualify as commercial dispute – Commercial Court rightly returned plaint under O.VII R.10 CPC [Paras 10-14, 24-29].

Provision of Services – Section 2(1)(c)(xviii), Commercial Courts Act – Interpretation – Appellants argued contract of carriage amounts to provision of services, thus a commercial dispute – Court rejected, holding only transactions with commercial/business element fall within scope; mere consumer service not covered [Paras 11-17, 25-28].

Statutory Interpretation – Strict vs. Liberal Approach – Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. (2020) 15 SCC 585 applied – Commercial Courts Act requires strict construction to confine to high-value business/trade disputes; liberal interpretation would defeat purpose of fast-tracking genuine commercial cases [Paras 19-20, 30].

Consumer Contract vs. Commercial Transaction – Distinction emphasised – Purchase of tickets by individual passengers for personal travel is a consumer contract, not a mercantile/business transaction – Hence excluded from definition of commercial disputes [Paras 21-23, 27-28].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – No error in Commercial Court’s order returning plaint for filing before ordinary civil court – No costs awarded [Paras 31-33].

Commercial tenancy – Section 12A CCA – Urgent interim relief & prior exemption order – O.VII R.11 refusal and interim injunction upheld – Petition dismissed [Paras 2–6, 7–8].

Commercial Courts Act, s.12A – Urgency & exemption – Where plaintiff sought urgent interim relief and the trial court had already granted a specific exemption from pre-institution mediation (order dated 07.09.2024), non-invocation of PIM did not abrogate s.12A – Exemption order, never challenged, attained finality; may be relied upon while rejecting O.VII R.11 plea [Paras 2, 4, 6].

Pleadings – Rejection of plaint under O.VII R.11 – Assessment confined to averments in the plaint; defence pleas (e.g., alleged fit-out extension/payment till July 2024) irrelevant at R.11 stage – Trial court correct in refusing to traverse defence material while deciding R.11 [Para 7].

Interim Injunction – Restraining creation of third-party interests – In a possession/arrears suit, evidence of substantial arrears (~₹60 lakh across floors), non-payment despite O.XV-A/O.XXXIX R.10 orders, and ongoing execution (bailiff appointed for mezzanine; ground floor execution continuing) establish a real, not illusory, urgency and justify ad-interim restraint to prevent alienation/defeat of decree [Paras 4–5].

Section 12A CCA – “Real urgency” – Seeking interim injunction coupled with facts indicating imminent risk (arrears, execution steps, apprehended alienation) constitutes genuine urgency; s.12A exemption properly invoked and cannot be re-litigated via O.VII R.11 once exemption order stands unassailed [Paras 3–6].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – No infirmity – Concurrent findings on urgency, finality of exemption order, and proper R.11 approach disclose no perversity; Art. 227 petition dismissed with upholding of impugned interlocutory orders [Para 8].

Decision: Held – Trial court order upheld; application under O.VII R.11 rightly dismissed in view of prior, unchallenged s.12A exemption and the limited R.11 inquiry; interim injunction restraining creation of third-party interests justified on facts – Petition and pending applications dismissed [Paras 6–8].