Motor Accident Claim – Compensation for Permanent Disability – Enhancement Allowed – The claimant, aged 48 years and engaged in dairy farming, suffered 60% permanent disability in a road accident and remained hospitalized for nearly a month – The Tribunal awarded a lump sum of Rs. 2,60,000 without assessing future loss of income, pain, or other non-pecuniary damages – Held: Applying the settled law from Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Pranay Sethi, the High Court reassessed monthly income at Rs. 2100, applied a multiplier of 13, and awarded compensation under various heads including pain, suffering, and loss of amenities – Enhanced compensation of Rs. 9,06,854 with 9% interest from date of petition awarded [Paras 6–12].

Compensation Calculation – Application of Minimum Wages and Multiplier – Just and Reasonable Compensation – Appellant's monthly income fixed at Rs. 2100 per minimum wages for skilled labour in Punjab – Future prospects @ 25% added – 60% disability applied on annual income, and multiplier of 13 used for assessing future income loss – Additionally, Rs. 3 lakhs for pain and suffering, Rs. 2 lakhs for attendant charges, Rs. 2 lakhs for loss of amenities, and other conventional heads quantified – Tribunal had failed to follow settled principles in assessing just compensation [Paras 6, 10].

Interest on Compensation – Applicable Rate and Period – Interest @ 9% per annum granted – Following ratio in Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara and R. Valli v. Tamil Nadu STC, Court ordered interest on enhanced amount from date of petition till realization – Insurance Company directed to deposit within 2 months [Para 11].

Final Relief – Compensation Enhanced – Original award of Rs. 2,60,000 enhanced to Rs. 11,66,854 – Enhanced amount of Rs. 9,06,854 directed to be paid by Insurance Company with 9% interest – Insurance Company to disburse advocate's fee and payment to claimant’s bank account as directed [Paras 12–13].

Criminal Law – Murder - Section 302, 34 IPC  - Accid Attack - Conviction Based on Sole Eyewitness – Acceptability of Single Witness Testimony – Upheld – The conviction was based substantially on the testimony of the deceased's brother, who was an eyewitness to the occurrence – Held: Statement of a single eyewitness is sufficient for conviction if it inspires confidence – Evidence of PW-10 Sanjay Rawat was detailed, corroborated by medical and forensic reports, and found to be credible [Paras 16–18].

Acid Attack – Chemical Burns Leading to Death – Sulphuric Acid Detected on Clothes and Vehicle – Cause of Death Established – Medical evidence confirmed death due to chemical burns – Forensic Science Laboratory found sulphuric acid traces on clothes of accused and seat cover of vehicle – Held: Recovery and expert reports corroborated ocular account and established guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 17, 20].

Motive – Employment Termination and Personal Grudge – Considered but Not Essential – Rajni’s removal from employment by victim's brother-in-law was cited as motive – Held: Even in absence of motive, clear and cogent direct evidence is sufficient to sustain conviction [Para 17].

Non-Conduct of Test Identification Parade – Not Fatal – Accused Known to Witness – No TIP conducted for Rajni – Held: TIP not required when accused is already known to witness and is named in FIR – Non-identification of other co-accused in FIR strengthens natural course of prosecution narrative [Paras 17, 19].

Delayed Appeal Hearing – No Prejudice Established – Appeal Dismissed on Merits – Appeal filed in 2004 remained pending for 23 years – Held: Delay in hearing did not result in miscarriage of justice – Conviction sustainable on strength of unshaken prosecution evidence [Para 2].

Decision: Appeal Dismissed – Conviction Under Section 302/34 IPC Upheld – Life Imprisonment Affirmed – The Division Bench found no merit in the appeal, upholding the trial court’s findings and sentence – Acid attack resulting in death proven through consistent eyewitness account and corroborative forensic evidence [Paras 21].

Electricity Law - Electricity Tariff – Excessive Delegation – Regulation 4.4 of WBERC Tariff Regulations Struck Down – Petition Allowed in Part – Petitioners challenged Regulation 4.4 that permitted licensees to impose “restricted drawal” limits and charge double rates for exceeding them – Held: Regulation confers uncanalised and arbitrary powers on licensees to unilaterally restrict contracted load without notice, guidelines or accountability – Violates Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) – Results in sub-delegation of tariff powers beyond scope of Sections 61 and 181 of the Electricity Act – Court struck down Regulation 4.4 prospectively and directed WBERC to issue new guidelines with safeguards, timelines, expert oversight and consumer rights [Paras 31–51, 53].

Natural Justice and Tariff Law – Arbitrary Penalty without Hearing – Procedural Safeguards Missing – Violation Found – Court noted that the regulation imposed financial penalty without giving consumers opportunity to respond or contest the imposition of drawal restrictions – Held: Levy of double charge without prior notice or hearing violates natural justice – No proportionality or scientific basis for penalty quantum – Directions issued for future regulatory framework to include hearings, expert damage assessment, and protection of contracted demand [Paras 36–45, 53].

Decision – Regulation 4.4 Quashed – Prospective Operation – DVC Billing Dispute Left to Redressal Authority – Calcutta High Court struck down Regulation 4.4 as unconstitutional and violative of the Electricity Act – Ruling applied prospectively – Disputes regarding past overdrawal charges to be resolved by appropriate grievance redressal forums – DVC and other licensees directed to cease enforcement of current drawal restrictions imposed under Regulation 4.4 [Paras 52–56].

Anticipatory Bail – Direct Approach to High Court – Permissibility in Special Circumstances – Application Allowed – Applicant directly approached the High Court bypassing Sessions Court citing rejection of interim protection to co-accused and risk of similar denial – Court held that special circumstances were made out, particularly due to applicant’s young age and academic commitments – Preliminary objection overruled [Paras 2–9].

Dowry Death Allegation – Discrepancy Between FIR and Medical Evidence – Bail Granted – FIR alleged strangulation by co-accused (mother), implicating the applicant and family – However, postmortem showed ligature mark with cause of death as hanging, and no injury elsewhere – No direct allegations against applicant – Bail granted considering lack of prima facie material and academic background of applicant [Paras 10–16].

Anticipatory Bail – Bail Not Barred by Prior Writ Dismissal – Distinct Remedies – Held – Withdrawal of earlier writ petition for FIR quashing did not preclude filing anticipatory bail – Anticipatory bail considered independently on its own merits [Para 15].

Decision – Anticipatory Bail Granted – Applicant to be released on personal bond and sureties in event of arrest or appearance, subject to conditions including cooperation, non-interference with investigation, and presence before trial court [Paras 16–17].
 

Civil Law -  Mutation - Inheritance – Succession of Issueless Hindu Male – Mother as Class-I Heir – Mutation in Favour of Class-II Heirs Invalid – Upon the death of Pritam Singh, who died issueless, his mother Smt. Santo was alive and the only Class-I heir under the Hindu Succession Act – Mutation of his share in land in favour of his siblings and sister Daro was illegal – Held: The entire remaining estate of 3 kanals 3 marlas devolved solely on his mother, and not on collateral heirs [Paras 3–5].

Transfer of Property – Applicability of Section 41 TPA – Bonafide Purchaser Protection Denied – No Ostensible Ownership – Sale deeds executed by Mehma Singh and Santo in excess of Santo's inherited share were wrongly protected by the First Appellate Court under Section 41 of the TPA – Supreme Court precedent in Hardev Singh v. Gurmail Singh, (2007) 2 SCC 404, laid down mandatory conditions for invoking Section 41, including ostensible ownership and due diligence – None satisfied – Held: Section 41 not attracted and transfers to that extent invalid [Paras 6–7].

Principle of Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet – Sale by Stranger to Title – Invalid Transfer – Reiterated that no individual can transfer better title than he lawfully owns – Sale by Mehma Singh of property not inherited by him from Pritam Singh was void and ineffectual against rightful successors [Para 7].

Revenue Mutation – Erroneous Entry Caused Litigation – Revenue Authorities Directed to Rectify Records – Mutation wrongly included land already sold by Pritam Singh and did not limit inheritance to the mother – Court directed Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab, to correct mutation, restrict Santo’s title to 3 kanals 3 marlas and disregard excess sales by others – Directed compliance report within two months [Paras 9–10].

Decision: Appeal Allowed in Part – Mutation to be Rectified – Directions to Revenue Authorities – Court allowed the appeal with direction to correct revenue entries – Only 3 kanals 3 marlas devolved upon Smt. Santo and sale by her upheld to that extent – Financial Commissioner to ensure implementation and submit compliance [Paras 9–11].

Bail – Regular Bail – Sections 148, 149, 307, 120-B, 201, 341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Disclosure Statement Based Nomination – Bail Granted – The petitioner was not named in the FIR and was nominated based solely on the disclosure of a co-accused – No specific role or injury attributed to him – Petitioner in custody for over 9 months, with trial unlikely to conclude soon – Held: Continued detention serves no purpose – Petitioner directed to be released on regular bail subject to conditions [Paras 1, 3–5].

Injury Nature – Simple Injuries on Non-Vital Parts – Weighed in Grant of Bail – The alleged injuries to the victim were found to be simple and on non-vital areas – Held: These factors, along with absence of prior naming, favor grant of bail as per settled criminal jurisprudence [Para 4].

Delay in Trial – Right to Speedy Trial under Article 21 – Prolonged Incarceration – Bail Justified – With challan filed and charges framed but no prosecution witness examined out of 33, Court noted likely delay in conclusion of trial – Held: Continued incarceration unjustified and violates Article 21 rights – Referred to Dataram v. State of U.P. and Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab [Paras 4–5].

Decision – Bail Granted – Petition Allowed – Trial Court Directed to Accept Bail Bonds – No Opinion on Merits – The petition was allowed, and the petitioner was granted regular bail – Trial Court directed to accept bail/surety bonds – Observations not to prejudice the trial [Para 5].

Civil Law – Tenancy Law - Summary Judgment – Admitted Tenancy and Arrears – Partial Decree Upheld – The appellant, a tenant under a registered lease, admitted the landlord-tenant relationship and rent arrears since 01.03.2018 – The Commercial Court granted partial decree for possession and rent recovery without trial, applying Order XIIIA CPC – Held: Summary judgment justified as there was no real prospect of the appellant defending the admitted claim [Paras 1-3, 6, 21-22].

Limitation – Refiling of Suit Under Commercial Courts Act – Section 14 Protection Granted – The respondent originally filed the suit in civil court in 2018, which was later returned due to jurisdictional transfer – The same plaint was refiled in 2023 under Commercial Courts Act – Held: Section 14 of Limitation Act applicable, suit not barred and claim from 01.03.2018 maintained [Paras 11-16].

Rent and Possession – Quantum and Apportionment – Rent Apportioned After Partial Possession Returned – The Court directed recovery at ₹84,000/month from 01.03.2018 till 19.10.2023 and ₹60,000/month thereafter for the remaining floors – Appellant's claims of reduced rent and oral arrangements with third parties found unsubstantiated and irrelevant to legal obligations under lease [Paras 17-22].

Security Deposit Adjustment – To Be Considered During Trial – Although the plea of ₹90,000/- security deposit adjustment was not accepted at summary stage, the Court clarified that this can be considered at the trial stage for damages and penalties [Para 23].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The High Court upheld the Commercial Court’s orders, finding no merit in the appeal and confirming the validity of the partial summary judgment and directions for trial on damages [Para 26].
 

PIL - Environmental Law - Forest De-notification – Illegal Corrigendum – FCA Non-Compliance – Notification Quashed – De-notification of protected forest land at Kanjurmarg challenged by petitioner NGO – Court held that use of Section 21 of General Clauses Act to bypass mandatory prior approval under Section 2(1) of the FCA was impermissible – Impugned notification termed a disguised forest de-reservation lacking due process [Paras 27–34, 49–53].

Protected Forest – Mandatory Central Approval – Circumvention Rejected – Court emphasized that prior approval from the Central Government is required before altering forest status – State’s attempt to amend earlier forest notification as “error correction” found violative of FCA – Notification declared ultra vires and quashed [Paras 35–41, 52–56].

Judicial Precedent – Misplaced Reliance on NAL Layout Case – Distinguished – State relied on SC decision in NAL Layout to justify its rectification – Court held that precedent does not apply as FCA explicitly mandates prior approval for any forest de-reservation – Section 21 of the General Clauses Act cannot override special environmental law [Paras 57–60].

Decision – Notification Set Aside – Land Status Restored – Bombay High Court quashed the 2009 corrigendum notification – Directed restoration of the subject land as protected forest under the original 2008 notification – Emphasized constitutional and statutory duty to safeguard environmental assets [Paras 61–65].
 

Civil Law - Proof of Will – Section 63 of Succession Act and Section 68 of Evidence Act – Failure to Comply – Will Disbelieved – Trial court found that attesting witness Ram Sagar Mishra failed to establish due execution – Signatures of testator shaky, testator was 84 years old and ill – Trial court’s reasoning upheld by High Court – Registered nature of Will not sufficient to prove genuineness [Paras 1–6, 31–35].

Suspicious Circumstances – Undue Influence – Active Role of Beneficiaries – Will Set Aside – All beneficiaries present during execution; testator’s independence doubtful – Court found execution to be under influence of beneficiaries – Witnesses were associates of beneficiaries – No independent proof that testator acted of free will [Paras 18, 28–31].

Burden of Proof – Onus on Propounder – Not Discharged – Appellate Court Erred – Appellate court overlooked trial court’s well-reasoned findings – High Court held that propounder failed to dispel suspicious circumstances – Law requires not just formal compliance but genuine proof of free and voluntary execution [Paras 26–27, 35].

Decision – Second Appeal Allowed – First Appellate Court’s judgment dated 05.10.2023 set aside – Trial Court’s decree dated 26.05.2009 reinstated – Suit for cancellation of Will decreed in favour of appellants [Para 35].