Motor Vehicles Act – Compensation – Appeal by Insurance Company and Cross Objection by Claimant – Claimant suffered amputation of left leg after being hit by offending lorry while walking along tram track – Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 11,57,000/- with 8% interest – Insurance company challenged income assessment while claimant sought enhancement citing higher income, 86% disability and future medical expenses – Held: Compensation required enhancement considering evidence regarding occupation, future prospects and cost of artificial limb [Paras 3-6].

Assessment of Income – Determination in absence of documentary proof – Tribunal assessed monthly income at Rs. 12,000/- – Evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 indicated claimant worked as taxi driver and earned approximately Rs. 15,000/- per month – Court held that such income was reasonable considering nature of occupation – Monthly income reassessed at Rs. 15,000/- and future prospects added at 30% [Paras 7-8].

Disability Assessment – Medical Board Certificate – Certificate indicated 86% disability but members of Medical Board were not examined before Tribunal – Tribunal considered disability at 50% – Held: Tribunal did not commit error in treating functional disability at 50% in absence of examination of medical board members [Para 6].

Computation of Compensation – Future Prospects – Multiplier Method – With reassessed income of Rs. 15,000/- and addition of 30% future prospects, monthly income taken as Rs. 19,500/- – Annual income calculated at Rs. 2,34,000/- – Considering 50% disability and multiplier of 15 for age of 38 years, loss of earning capacity assessed at Rs. 17,55,000/- – Additional Rs. 2,00,000/- awarded towards pain and suffering, medical expenses including artificial limb and future treatment – Total compensation enhanced to Rs. 20,00,000/- as just and reasonable [Paras 8-9].

Motor Accident Compensation – Modification of Award – Tribunal’s award modified – Claimant held entitled to compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization – Insurance company directed to deposit amount before Registrar General of High Court within eight weeks – Claimant permitted to withdraw upon completion of formalities [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal and Cross Objection disposed of – Judgment and Award dated 24.11.2015 modified – Compensation enhanced from Rs. 11,57,000/- to Rs. 20,00,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from date of filing of claim petition – Insurance Company directed to deposit amount within eight weeks – Claimant permitted to withdraw upon compliance of formalities.

Hindu Succession – Female Intestate – Reversion to Husband's Heirs – Section 15(2)(b) – Compromise Decree – Registration – Adoption – RSA 3913 of 2003 Allowed, RSA 1227 of 2010 Dismissed – Property inherited by a widow from her husband devolves upon heirs of the husband in absence of issue – Kamla Devi, admittedly unrelated and not legally adopted, held not entitled to property – Decree in her favour being a transfer to a stranger without pre-existing right was void for want of registration – Plaintiff, as surviving brother of the deceased husband Multan Singh, held entitled under Section 15(2)(b) – In contrast, decree in favour of Chand Singh, real nephew of Smt. Sona Devi having a possible succession claim, construed as a bona fide family settlement not requiring compulsory registration – RSA 3913 of 2003 allowed; RSA 1227 of 2010 dismissed [Paras 11–25].

Adoption – Hindu Law – Proof Required – No Legal Status Without Ceremony – Admission of Defendant Fatal – Adoption under Hindu law requires strict compliance with mandatory requirements including ceremony of giving and taking – Mere upbringing or treatment as daughter, or description as daughter in marriage invitation card, insufficient to confer legal status of adopted child – Defendant admitted no adoption ceremony took place – Held: Plea of adoption wholly untenable [Para 14].

Compromise Decree – Registration – Fresh Rights in Immovable Property – Stranger vs. Family Member – Distinction – Decree creating fresh rights in immovable property in favour of a person with no antecedent or pre-existing right requires compulsory registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 – Exception for family settlements under Kale v. Deputy Director of Consolidation applies only to persons having antecedent title or even a possible claim – Unregistered decree in favour of a stranger conveys no valid title – Decree in favour of a blood relative with possible succession claim falls within family settlement exception and is valid without registration [Paras 15–23].

Decision: RSA No. 3913 of 2003 – Allowed – Judgments and decrees of Courts below set aside – Suit of plaintiff decreed – Plaintiff held entitled to one-half share in total holding – RSA No. 1227 of 2010 – Dismissed – Decree in favour of Chand Singh upheld.

Civil Law - Mandatory Injunction - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 96 - Permissive possession against licensee - Appellant son challenged the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge ordering him to remove belongings from the suit property and pay mesne profits - Respondent father claimed ownership through GPA and Agreement to Sell dated 12.04.1994 from erstwhile owner Dharam Vir Singh - Appellant contended that property was ancestral or acquired through an oral family settlement and that he funded the construction - Trial Court found the appellant to be a licensee and the father to be the exclusive owner - High Court scrutinized testimonies of DW2 and DW3 who confirmed the father purchased the property from his own funds and income - Appellant failed to prove contribution to construction or existence of ancestral nucleus from the grandfather - High Court observed that the son derived possession from the father and cannot question his title based on unchoate documents like GPA - Held - A son residing in his father self-acquired property does so as a licensee and upon revocation of license the father is entitled to mandatory injunction for possession - Trial Court judgment affirmed - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-62].

Family Law - Ancestral Property - Hindu Succession Act 1956 - Section 8 - Nature of inheritance - Appellant claimed suit property was purchased from sale of ancestral Madangir property - Evidence established Madangir property was exclusively owned by the grandfather and given to the father during his lifetime - High Court held that property exclusively owned by the grandfather and given to a son in his lifetime cannot be termed ancestral property - Furthermore even if ancestral funds were used the property would devolve upon the father in his individual capacity under Section 8 of the Act - Held - Property was the exclusive property of the father and the son has no independent interest - [Paras 20-47].

Civil Law - Licensee - Possession - Revocation of license - Appellant argued no notice of termination was served prior to the suit - High Court noted the father requested the son to vacate in August 2019 which constituted withdrawal of permission - Reliance placed on M/s Nopany Investments P Ltd vs Santokh Singh HUF - Held - Filing of the suit itself acts as a notice to the defendant to vacate the premises and terminates the license - [Paras 56-58].

Civil Law - Mesne Profits - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 20 Rule 12 - Grant based on admission - Appellant contested the award of Rs 5000 per month mesne profits without a formal inquiry - High Court observed the appellant admitted in his own testimony that the premises could fetch between Rs 5000 to Rs 6000 as rent - Held - Admissions of the defendant regarding the prevailing market rent are sufficient for the court to grant occupation charges without a separate inquiry - [Paras 59-61].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Trial Court judgment and decree dated 25.10.2025 affirmed – Pending applications stand disposed of.

Regular Bail – Religious Conversion – Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act, 2003 – Prior Sanction – Procedural Irregularity – Applicants in custody since 05.10.2025 and 07.10.2025 respectively, sought regular bail after chargesheet in connection with offences under Sections 4(1) and 4(2) of the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act, 2003, for allegedly inducing the complainant to join a different religion – No actual conversion had taken place, allegation restricted to inducement – Chargesheet filed by Investigating Officer sent to Trial Court on 21.11.2025, whereas sanction of District Magistrate under Section 6 obtained only on 24.11.2025 – Prima facie, Section 6 mandates that no prosecution for an offence under the Act shall be instituted without previous sanction of the District Magistrate, and the language used ("no prosecution shall be instituted") is distinct from "no cognizance shall be taken" as appearing in other similar enactments – Vires of the Act itself pending consideration before the Supreme Court – Held: Considering the nature of allegation, absence of actual conversion, period of custody, filing of chargesheet, maximum punishment imposable, and prima facie procedural irregularity in obtaining sanction, case fit for exercise of discretion in favour of applicants – Bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 6–8].

Bail Conditions – Applicants directed to execute bond of Rs. 25,000/- each with one surety of like amount – Conditions include: not misusing liberty, not acting against prosecution's interest, surrendering passport, not leaving State of Gujarat without prior permission, furnishing present address to I.O. and Court, and marking presence once a month for six months before concerned police station [Para 8].

Observations – Prima Facie Nature – Trial court directed not to be influenced by observations made at the bail stage – Court at liberty to delete, modify, or relax conditions in accordance with law [Paras 9, 12].

Decision: Application allowed – Rule made absolute – Applicants ordered to be released on regular bail subject to conditions.

Arms Act – Section 25(1-B)(a) – Possession in Violation of Section 3 – Licence Holders – FIR registered against petitioners who were licensed holders of revolvers on the allegation that their driver clicked photographs with the weapons and posted them on social media — No allegation anywhere in the prosecution case that petitioners acquired, possessed or carried any firearm in contravention of Section 3 of the Arms Act — Held: Offence under Section 25(1-B)(a) not made out against petitioners who are themselves the licence holders [Paras 13, 14].

Arms Act – Section 29(B) – Delivery of Arms to Unauthorised Person – Essential Ingredients – Mens Rea – Section 29 requires actual delivery of arms to a person without ascertaining his entitlement — Prosecution case itself rested on disclosure statement of co-accused that weapons were lying on the bed in petitioner's bedroom and photographs were clicked without physical delivery — No actual delivery of weapon to co-accused established — Moreover, no allegation or instance that weapons were handed over with intent to commit any illegal act — Held: Ingredient of delivery as well as mens rea both absent — Offence under Section 29(B) not made out [Paras 15, 20, 21, 22].

Discriminatory Prosecution – Political Vendetta – Owner of 12-bore gun whose weapon was also photographed by co-accused not prosecuted — No justification shown on record for differential treatment — Petitioner No. 1 is a prominent political figure and member of the opposition party — FIR registered a few months prior to general elections — Held: Discriminatory attitude of Investigating Agency apparent — Prosecution tainted with political vendetta — Case squarely covered by guidelines in Bhajan Lal [Paras 18, 25].

Quashing of FIR – Section 482 CrPC – Bhajan Lal Guidelines – Where allegations in FIR, even if accepted at face value, do not prima facie constitute any offence against the accused, or where criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides and instituted with an ulterior motive, the High Court may exercise inherent power to quash the FIR — Held: Present case falls within the said parameters — FIR quashed qua petitioners [Paras 23, 24, 25, 26].

Decision: Petition allowed — FIR No. 126 dated 20.04.2019, Police Station Sector-5, District Panchkula, quashed qua the petitioners.

Criminal Law – Bigamy – Matrimonial Cruelty – Quashing – Petitioner prosecuted under Sections 494 and 498A IPC on the basis of a cohabitation alleged to be a marriage, entered into by signing a non-judicial stamp paper without performance of any customary rites – Complainant subsequently alleged a 'temple marriage' during investigation, contradicting her own FIR – High Court holds that a contractual union on stamp paper is a legal nullity under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and in the absence of a legally solemnized first marriage, prosecution for bigamy and cruelty cannot be sustained – Inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. invoked to quash proceedings – Held: FIR and criminal proceedings quashed; petitioner discharged [Paras 2–22].

"Contractual Marriage on Stamp Paper – Legal Nullity Under Hindu Law"

Hindu Marriage – Solemnization – Sections 5 and 7, HMA – A union purportedly entered into by the execution of signatures on a non-judicial stamp paper, without performance of customary rites and ceremonies including the Saptapadi, is not a legally valid marriage under Hindu Law – Such a 'contractual marriage' is a legal nullity and lacks the essential form required to create the status of spouse – Held: A stamp paper cannot be accorded the sanctity of the Saptapadi [Paras 12–13].

"Bigamy – Strict Proof of First Marriage Mandatory"

Bigamy – Section 494 IPC – Requirement of Solemnization – The word 'marries' in Section 494 IPC implies a marriage celebrated with proper ceremonies in the legal sense – Prosecution for bigamy cannot be sustained unless the foundational first marriage was duly solemnized – Where the complainant herself described the first union as a 'contractual' one based on stamp paper, the essential ingredient of solemnization is absent, rendering the charge of bigamy a legal impossibility – Relied on: Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC 1564 [Para 14].

"Matrimonial Cruelty – Status of Husband Cannot Attach to a Void Union"

Matrimonial Cruelty – Section 498A IPC – 'Husband' – A legally non-existent union ab initio cannot clothe a party with the status of 'husband' for the purpose of penal liability under Section 498A IPC – Distinction drawn between a marriage that is technically void (where ceremonies were performed but a legal disability existed) and a union that lacks any legal existence from the outset – The broad interpretation of 'husband' in Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam, (2004) 3 SCC 199 applies to the former category and cannot be extended to a relationship where the complainant's own version discloses no form of legal recognition – Held: Section 498A IPC not attracted [Paras 15–17].

"Shifting Case – Temple Marriage Version Introduced During Investigation"

Criminal Proceedings – Integrity of FIR – Afterthought – The introduction of a 'temple marriage' version in witness statements recorded during investigation, in direct contradiction to the 'stamp paper' marriage described in the foundational FIR, constitutes a transparent attempt to cure a fatal legal infirmity – Such an afterthought fails to inspire confidence and cannot be permitted to transform a contractual convenience into a sacramental solemnity – The FIR carries the seed of its own destruction [Paras 6, 18–19].

"Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Inherent Power to Quash Proceedings Destined to Fail"

Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – The inherent power of the High Court is designed to nip in the bud a prosecution that is destined to fail due to a fundamental legal infirmity – Where the very inception of the alleged marital relationship is legally non-existent, compelling the accused to undergo a criminal trial would be a manifest failure of justice – Criminal machinery cannot be utilized to validate a relationship which personal law expressly refuses to recognize – Liberty reserved to complainant to seek remedies under PWDVA or civil law [Paras 1, 19–22].

Decision: Criminal Revision allowed – Proceeding in G.R. Case No. 5501 of 2014 arising out of Baruipur P.S. Case No. 1427 dated 27.09.2014 quashed and set aside – Petitioner Deep Dey discharged and bail bonds cancelled – De-facto complainant granted liberty to seek remedies under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 or other civil/quasi-criminal provisions available to persons in a 'relationship in the nature of marriage' – No order as to costs [Paras 22–25].

Succession Law – Letters of Administration De-Bonis-Non – Sections 258 & 259 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Dispensation Upheld – When an application is made under Sections 258 and 259, a Probate already exists in respect of the Will, and all objections from next of kin would have been considered at the stage of the original grant – In such circumstances, fresh citation to next of kin can be dispensed with – Court held that Order dated 21.08.2009 dispensing with service of citation was correct and valid – Appellant Nandu had previously withdrawn his Caveat and signed a letter to the Prothonotary confirming the Will and consenting to Probate – Held: Service of citation in a Section 258-259 petition is not mandatory where next of kin had already consented or withdrawn their caveats at the original grant stage [Paras 36-39]

Rule 397, Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules – Applicability – Distinguished – Rule 397 mandates notice to all heirs and next of kin except those who have filed consent affidavits – However, this Rule in the context of Section 259 applies to the original grant and not to a subsequent petition for Letters of Administration De-Bonis-Non where Probate has already been granted after due consideration of objections – Reliance by Appellant on Pooja Deepak Patil vs. Savita Vasantrao Patil, (2018) SCC OnLine Bom 3879 held to be distinguishable as that case related to an original Probate grant, not a Section 258-259 application [Paras 33-34, 41-42]

Revocation of Probate – Delay – Miscellaneous Petition Dismissed – Appellant claimed knowledge of T&IJ Petition No.445 of 2008 and the Letters of Administration De-Bonis-Non grant only a few months before filing the Misc. Petition in 2017-18 – Court rejected this claim noting that public notices were issued in three newspapers in June 2010, five registered Deeds of Transfer were executed in June 2010, sons of Vijay had responded to the public notice in July 2010, and Pratap had adopted proceedings in Suit No.438 of 1951 setting out the grant – Alleged harassment by Pratap and sons being young held to be unsupported by evidence and not valid grounds for delay – Held: Miscellaneous Petition was correctly dismissed on the ground of delay [Paras 43-47]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order dated 19.08.2019 (as corrected by Order dated 05.09.2019) dismissing Miscellaneous Petition No.18 of 2018 upheld – Order dated 21.08.2009 dispensing with service of citation in T&IJ Petition No.445 of 2008 upheld – No order as to costs

Civil Law – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Scope Limited to Plaint Averments – Mixed Questions of Law and Fact – Revision Dismissed – Defendants sought rejection of plaint challenging authority of trust to sue, non-impleadment of all trustees, non-compliance with Section 92 and Order XXXI CPC, absence of cause of action and bar of Order II Rule 2 CPC – Trial Court and High Court held that under Order VII Rule 11 CPC only plaint averments and annexed documents can be examined – Plaint challenging Will on grounds of incapacity, fraud and undue influence discloses a clear cause of action – Questions of authority to represent trust and applicability of procedural bars involve mixed questions of law and fact requiring evidence – Cannot be decided at the threshold stage [Paras 7–10].

Review Jurisdiction – Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC – Limited Scope – Cannot Substitute Appeal – Review is maintainable only upon discovery of new matter or on error apparent on face of record – Review cannot be used to re-examine merits or to raise matters requiring a process of reasoning – Petitioners failed to demonstrate any patent error – Review application rightly dismissed [Para 11].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Section 115 CPC – Limited Interference – No Jurisdictional Error – Revision lies only when subordinate Court exercised jurisdiction not vested in it, failed to exercise jurisdiction, or acted with material irregularity – No such error found – Impugned orders well-reasoned – Revision dismissed [Paras 12–13].

Decision: Revision petition dismissed – Orders of trial Court dismissing application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and review application upheld – Observations not to be construed as expression of opinion on merits of pending suit.

Bail – Economic Offences – AP Liquor Scam – Rs.3,500 Crore – Sections 409, 420, 120-B IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Accused Nos.8, 35 and 36 sought regular bail in connection with alleged large-scale irregularities in Andhra Pradesh excise policy and APSBCL functioning – Accused No.8 alleged to be an Operations Commander managing kickback collections, coercing distilleries, and facilitating laundering of funds abroad – Accused Nos.35 and 36 alleged to have organised and supervised logistics of cash transportation to influence the AP General Elections 2024 – Held: Gravity of offence alone cannot be the sole ground to deny bail where investigation is substantially complete and accused have been in prolonged custody – All three Petitioners entitled to bail subject to stringent conditions [Paras 3, 4, 5, 22, 26].

Bail – Principles Governing Grant – Economic Offences – Factors to be Considered – Court reiterated that considerations for grant of bail include: nature and severity of accusation; reasonable apprehension of witness tampering; likelihood of abscondence; character and standing of accused; and larger public interest – Economic offences constitute a class apart warranting cautious approach, particularly for alleged kingpins, given their impact on national financial health and societal fabric – However, even in grave economic offences, bail is not to be denied as an absolute rule; each case must be decided on its own facts [Paras 15, 16, 17].

Successive Bail Applications – Change in Circumstances – Prolonged Pre-Trial Custody – Article 21 – Charge sheet having been filed and investigation being substantially complete as against the Petitioners, continued pre-trial incarceration without commencement of trial was found to infringe the right to personal liberty under Article 21 – Filing of charge sheet, prolonged custody, and absence of material indicating risk of abscondence or interference with trial constitute sufficient changed circumstances to justify grant of bail in successive applications [Paras 19, 21, 24, 26].

Parity – Co-Accused – Bail Not an Absolute Claim – Principle of Parity – Accused No.38, alleged to be closely connected with Petitioners/Accused Nos.35 and 36, had already been granted bail – Other co-accused similarly placed in terms of allegations were also enlarged on bail – Held: Parity is not an absolute right and applies only where roles are similar; however, in the absence of material distinction justifying differential treatment, continued detention of the Petitioners was not warranted – Parity is focused on the role of the accused in the commission of the crime, not merely on the thread of the same offence [Paras 20, 25].

Bail Conditions – Stringent Safeguards – Upon grant of bail, the Petitioners directed to: execute personal bonds of Rs.1,00,000/- each with two sureties; surrender passports; not leave India without Court's permission; report to Investigating Officer every Saturday; not contact prosecution witnesses or co-accused; disclose all movable and immovable properties within two weeks; not alienate properties identified by prosecution; not publish or disseminate information about the crime till conclusion of trial; and furnish active mobile numbers to the Investigating Agency [Para 27].

Decision: Criminal Petition Nos. 13503 & 13504 of 2025 and 27 of 2026 allowed – Petitioners/Accused Nos. 8, 35 and 36 directed to be released on bail subject to stringent conditions – Observations in the order not to be construed as opinion on the merits of the crime.