Motor Vehicles Act – Section 163-A – Determination of Driver at Time of Accident – Contradictory Evidence – The claimant failed to clarify in the application who was driving the motorcycle at the time of the accident. The First Information Report (Exhibit A-1) and Merg Intimation (Exhibit A-2) suggested that the deceased, Vinod Kumar Dhruv, was the one riding the motorcycle. Testimony from Ravi Singh (AW-2), who was on the motorcycle at the time, was found to be contradictory and unreliable. Held: The evidence indicated that the deceased was driving the motorcycle, and the claimant could not prove otherwise. Consequently, the appellant (insurance company) is not liable for the compensation awarded [Paras 8-12, 17]​.

Insurance Law – Applicability of Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act – Exclusion of Owner-Driver – The deceased was riding the motorcycle, thereby stepping into the shoes of the owner. The claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is not maintainable against the insurance company, as the deceased does not qualify as a third party. The court relied on Ramkhiladi v. United India Insurance Company (2020) 2 SCC 550 and Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2009) 13 SCC 710, which established that an owner-driver is not covered under Section 163-A claims. The insurance policy did not extend coverage to the deceased, who lacked a valid driving license. Held: The insurance company is exonerated from liability, and the award of compensation is set aside [Paras 20-23]​.

Decision: Appeal allowed – The award dated 19.07.2016 by the 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, is set aside – The deceased was found to be the driver of the motorcycle at the time of the accident and did not possess a valid driving license, thereby violating the terms of the insurance policy – The insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation

Criminal Law – Conviction under Section 304B IPC and 201 IPC – Acquittal – The appellant (Accused No.1) was convicted for the dowry death of his wife under Section 304B of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment – Accused No.2 was convicted under Section 201 IPC for allegedly removing evidence of the suicide – Both accused appealed against the conviction – The High Court found that key witnesses (P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.7) did not support the prosecution’s case and were declared hostile  – No substantive evidence established that the deceased was harassed for dowry demands soon before her death  – Presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act was not applicable  – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 304B and 201 IPC set aside – Appellants acquitted.

Dowry Death – Presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act – The court examined whether the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demands soon before her death – The key witnesses, including the deceased's parents, did not support allegations of dowry harassment  – Without evidence proving harassment for dowry, the presumption under Section 113B could not be applied – Held: In the absence of evidence to show harassment or cruelty, presumption under Section 113B is inapplicable, making conviction under Section 304B IPC unsustainable.

Allegation of Evidence Tampering – Conviction under Section 201 IPC – Accused No.2 was alleged to have tampered with evidence by removing the chunny from the deceased's neck – The court found discrepancies in witness testimonies regarding the accused's actions and the cause of death – No concrete evidence indicated that Accused No.2 intended to screen the offender from legal punishment – Held: The main offense under Section 304B IPC was not established, resulting in the acquittal of Accused No.2 under Section 201 IPC.

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentences of Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 under Sections 304B and 201 IPC are set aside – Appellants acquitted – Fine amount, if any, to be refunded – Accused No.1 to appear before the prison for formalities.

Patent Law – Section 59(1) of the Patents Act – Amendments to Patent Claims – Scope of Original Claims – The Controller refused the appellant's patent application, holding that the proposed amendments went beyond the scope of the original claims in violation of Section 59(1) of the Patents Act – Held: The amended claims were within the scope of the original PCT claims and supported by the detailed description in the complete specification. The High Court found that the amendments related to the composition as a product were permissible and could be allowed. Consequently, the rejection by the Controller under Section 59(1) could not sustain and had to be reversed​.

Patent Law – Amendment of Claims – Principles Governing Amendments – The Court referenced a coordinate bench decision in The Regents of The University of California v Controller General of Patents Designs & Trademarks & Anr. (2024), which laid down that amendments can be made only by way of disclaimer, correction, or explanation. Further, any amendment should not introduce matter not originally disclosed and should fall within the scope of the original claims – Applying these parameters, the Court inferred that the appellant's amended claims were permissible under Section 59(1)​.

Decision:

Appeal allowed – The impugned order dated 27th April 2020 by the Controller rejecting Patent Application No. 2427/DELNP/2011 is set aside – The matter is remanded back to the Controller for de novo consideration, and the Patent Application is restored to its original number. The Controller is directed to issue a fresh hearing notice and decide the matter afresh within four months from the date of the hearing​.

Criminal Procedure – Approver – Bail Granted – The petitioner, an approver in a case involving offenses under Section 302 IPC, sought bail after testifying in both the trial of the co-accused and a Court Martial – The trial court rejected the bail application based on Section 306(4)(b) of Cr.P.C., which mandates the detention of an approver until the termination of the trial – Held: The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has the jurisdiction to grant bail to an approver even before the culmination of the trial in exceptional cases – The petitioner had complied with the conditions of pardon by making full and true disclosure, and exceptional circumstances existed, including the petitioner’s health condition and the nearing completion of the trial – [Paras 17-25].

Natural Justice – Right to Fair Treatment – Release of Approver – An approver who fulfills the conditions of pardon should not be kept in custody if it would result in a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution – The detention of the petitioner after making a complete disclosure was found to be unnecessary, especially given his health issues and the lack of any role beyond accompanying the main accused to the crime scene – Held: Detaining the petitioner further would be unjust, and therefore, he was granted bail – [Paras 21-25].

Decision: Petition allowed – The petitioner is admitted to bail on the condition of furnishing a bail bond with one surety in the amount of ₹1,00,000 – He must not leave the limits of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir without prior permission of the trial court and must not influence the prosecution witnesses – [Para 25].

Criminal Law – Rape – Acquittal Due to Inconsistent Testimony – The appellant was convicted by the trial court under Sections 341, 366, and 376 of the IPC based on the victim's testimony, which alleged abduction and rape by the appellant and others. However, discrepancies were noted between her statement under Section 164 CrPC and her deposition before the court. The victim's narrative changed regarding the involvement of other individuals and the circumstances of the abduction. The court held that the inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence at a busy marketplace where the alleged abduction took place raised doubts about the prosecution's case – Held: Conviction set aside due to lack of credible evidence and inconsistencies in the victim's testimony.

Witness Testimony – Credibility and Hostility – Several witnesses, including co-villagers PW1 Kartick Let, PW2 Santana Let, PW5 Kalpana Let, and PW6 Tuktuki Let, were declared hostile as they denied knowledge of any incident involving the accused and the victim – PW3, the complainant, and the victim’s brother alleged that the accused kidnapped and raped the victim but did not lodge a complaint immediately – PW10, the victim's sister, and PW12, the victim's brother-in-law, testified based on what they heard from the victim – PW13, the victim, provided inconsistent statements regarding her abduction and assault, raising doubts about her credibility.

Circumstantial Evidence – Lack of Corroboration – The victim claimed to be abducted and raped by the appellant and others but provided inconsistent details about the incident – No eyewitnesses from the market where the alleged abduction took place were examined by the prosecution – The victim’s medical report did not corroborate her allegations of rape – The delay in filing the complaint and lack of information to police during the victim’s absence weakened the prosecution's case.

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – The appellant acquitted of all charges. The appellant is discharged from bail bonds. Lower court records to be sent back immediately.

Criminal Law – Transit Anticipatory Bail – Sought for offences under Sections 498A, 323, and 504 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act – The petitioners filed for anticipatory bail in Karnataka while the case was registered in Uttar Pradesh – Held: Granted transit anticipatory bail for three weeks to enable petitioners to seek anticipatory bail from the jurisdictional court in Uttar Pradesh. Interim protection was necessary to allow the petitioners to apply for regular bail and to appear in the Habeas Corpus proceedings before the Allahabad High Court [Paras 5-8].

Decision: Petition allowed – Petitioners granted transit anticipatory bail for a period of three weeks – Directed to execute a personal bond for ₹100,000 each with one surety of the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer – Petitioners ordered not to tamper with the prosecution witnesses [Paras 9-11].

Educational Law – Reservation for Armed Forces Personnel (CW Category) – Issuance and Verification of ECC – The appellant’s name was initially included in the provisional list for admission to undergraduate medical courses under the CW category but was later removed based on the cancellation of the ECC issued by the Kendriya Sainik Board (KSB) – The ECC was re-verified by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), and the appellant was eligible as per the verification – Held: The removal of the appellant’s name from the list was legally unsustainable. The ECC issued by the Officer-in-Charge Record Office and verified by the MHA was genuine and authenticated – The appellant's removal from the provisional list due to administrative errors was improper ​.

Legal Principle – Complete Justice – Creation of Supernumerary Seat – The Court, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in S. Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (2020) 17 SCC 465, acknowledged that in exceptional circumstances, courts could direct the creation of additional seats to ensure justice – Held: In light of the appellant's merit and administrative lapses leading to her exclusion, the Court directed the creation of a supernumerary seat to be allotted to the appellant within ten days ​.

Decision:

Appeal allowed – The impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 29th August 2024 is modified – The respondent no.1/DU and respondent no.4/MCC are directed to either increase the number of seats by one in the CW category or create a supernumerary seat for the appellant – This exercise is to be carried out within ten days from the date of the order ​.

Consumer Law – Writ Petitions under Article 227 – Jurisdiction – Challenge to NCDRC Orders – Multiple writ petitions were filed in the High Court of Delhi challenging the orders of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) – Petitioners contended that the High Court of Delhi had jurisdiction as NCDRC is located in Delhi – Respondents argued that jurisdiction lies with the High Court where the cause of action arose, relying on Siddhartha S. Mookerjee case – Held: Jurisdiction for petitions under Article 227 lies with the High Court where the original cause of action arose, not merely based on the location of the NCDRC in Delhi – Court followed Supreme Court’s ruling in Siddhartha S. Mookerjee and other similar cases, emphasizing that jurisdiction should align with where the matter originated – Appeal dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction [Paras 1-76].

Writ Jurisdiction – Cause of Action – Petitioners claimed that the NCDRC’s location in Delhi vested jurisdiction in the Delhi High Court – Court disagreed, holding that the cause of action determines jurisdiction, not the location of the appellate or revisional tribunal – The cause of action for each petition had arisen outside Delhi, and the petitions should have been filed in the respective jurisdictional High Courts – Situs of the tribunal not a decisive factor for jurisdiction [Paras 13-65].

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – Regional Benches and Jurisdiction – NCDRC, as a national-level tribunal, exercises jurisdiction across multiple states – Petitions challenging its orders must be filed in the High Court within the territorial jurisdiction of the original cause of action – Establishment of regional benches by the central government could further guide jurisdictional filings – [Paras 49-56].

Decision: All writ petitions dismissed for lack of jurisdiction – Petitioners directed to pursue remedies in the appropriate jurisdictional High Courts – Delhi High Court cannot entertain petitions solely based on the situs of the NCDRC [Paras 73-76].

Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Estoppel under Section 116 of Indian Evidence Act – The applicant was inducted as a tenant by the original landlord, Shri Ramakant B. Desai, and paid rent for several years – Held, a tenant cannot deny the title of the landlord during the tenancy – Applicants' claim that the property belongs to the housing society is not maintainable under the principles of estoppel – [Paras 13-26].

Co-operative Housing Society – Ownership and Membership – Impact on Landlord-Tenant Relationship – The applicants argued that since the society owns the property, they have the right to occupy the premises – Court held that membership in the housing society does not negate the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship with the original landlord – The applicant's arguments based on ownership under co-operative society laws were rejected – [Paras 7-29].

Res Judicata – Prior Proceedings in Co-operative Society – Applicants contended that prior rulings in society-related matters should bar the respondents' claim – Held, issues resolved in co-operative society proceedings do not affect the landlord's right to recover possession under rent control laws – [Paras 10-21].

Decision: Revision application dismissed – The Appellate Court's judgment ordering the applicants to hand over possession of the disputed premises to the respondents is upheld – The applicants are estopped from denying the respondents' title under the landlord-tenant relationship – Applicants directed to vacate the premises and pay arrears of rent with interest – [Paras 27-29].