Workmen’s Compensation – Liability of Insurance Company – Compensation and Interest – Deceased driver died during employment-related accident – Commissioner held both employer and insurer jointly liable for ₹8,52,160/- with 9% simple interest till award and 7% compound interest thereafter – Held: Insurer liable to pay entire compensation along with 12% interest under Section 4A(3)(a) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act – Joint liability modified accordingly [Paras 1–4, 6–8].

Insurance Law – Scope of Liability – Penalty Exclusion – Reiterated that interest on delayed compensation forms part of insurer’s liability but penalty under Section 4A(3)(b) is not – Penalty arises from employer’s personal fault and cannot be foisted on insurer – Commissioner’s award modified to clarify insurer’s exclusive liability for compensation and interest only [Paras 7, 7.1, 8].

Precedents – Apex Court Binding – Court relied on Supreme Court judgments in Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi (1997) 8 SCC 1, Kamla Chaturvedi v. National Insurance Co. (2009) 1 SCC 487, and New India Assurance Co. v. Harshadbhai Amrutbhai Modhiya (2006) 5 SCC 192 – Held: Legal position settled that insurer covers compensation and statutory interest but not penalty – Binding precedents followed to allow appeal in part [Paras 4, 7–8].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order modified – Insurance company held liable to pay ₹8,47,160/- compensation with 12% interest – Remaining portion of Commissioner’s order unaltered.

Municipal Employment – Daily Wage Workers – Regularization – Employer-Employee Relationship – Perennial Duties – Labour Contract Society Plea Unsupported – 28 Years of Continuous Service – Application of SC Judgment in Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad – Award Granting SSR Wages and Regularization Upheld – Writ Appeal Dismissed [Paras 7–10].

Employment Law – Employer-Employee Relationship – Claim of engagement through Labour Contract Society rejected – Absence of any documentary proof of contractor engagement such as tenders, agreements, muster rolls or invoices – Wages paid directly by Municipality and work supervised by municipal officials – Held: Direct relationship established; appellant’s plea unsustainable [Paras 7(ii), 8–17, applied].

Labour Law – Perennial and Permanent Nature of Work – Workers engaged in water-supply operations continuously for 28 years – Work held to be essential, perennial and integral to municipal functioning – Daily-wage label cannot defeat legitimate claims of long-serving workers – Adverse inference permissible when employer withholds records [Paras 7(ii), 9, 8 (SC paras 11–15 referred)].

Regularization – Uma Devi Doctrine – Distinction between illegal and irregular appointments – Where engagement is long-term, work is perennial, and no valid contractor arrangement exists, regularization justified – Uma Devi cannot be used to perpetuate exploitation of daily wagers performing permanent duties – Followed: Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad [Paras 8 (SC paras 14–17), 9].

Equal Pay for Equal Work – Workers performing same duties as regular staff but paid less – Constitutes unfair labour practice – SSR wages rightly ordered by Industrial Tribunal – Tribunal’s award upheld by Single Judge and affirmed in appeal [Paras 8 (SC para 13), 9].

Industrial Disputes – Award of Industrial Tribunal – Tribunal’s finding that workmen entitled to SSR rates and regularization based on undisputed long service upheld – No perversity or legal infirmity found – High Court declines interference under writ appellate jurisdiction [Paras 7(i), 7(ii), 10].

Judicial Review – Scope of Interference – Well-reasoned order of Single Judge affirming Tribunal’s award – No error of law or fact warranting interference – Writ Appeal dismissed with no costs [Paras 10–12].

Preventive Detention – Verification of In-Camera Statements – Subjective Satisfaction – Petitioner challenged preventive detention under MPDA Act alleging non-compliance with procedural safeguards – Contended that Detaining Authority failed to personally verify in-camera statements of witnesses – Held: It is not a legal requirement that the Detaining Authority must personally verify in-camera statements – Verification by a senior police officer such as Assistant Commissioner of Police suffices and provides necessary procedural safeguard – Assistant Commissioner personally interacted with witnesses, visited incident spot, and verified genuineness of statements – Detaining Authority perused entire record, including verification report, and recorded subjective satisfaction [Paras 4–11].

Preventive Detention – Procedural Safeguards – Compliance with Legal Requirements – Grounds of detention, in-camera statements, and verification report were supplied to the detenu – Detaining Authority noted and considered all relevant material before passing the detention order – Detention order satisfies requirements of Section 8 MPDA Act and Article 22(5) of the Constitution – No breach of procedural safeguards found [Paras 6–10, 12].

Judicial Review – Subjective Satisfaction – Scope – Courts cannot substitute their own opinion for the subjective satisfaction of Detaining Authority – Reasonableness of satisfaction is not to be tested objectively – Judicial interference not warranted unless procedural illegality or arbitrariness is established – Held: No infirmity found in detention order – Petition lacks merit [Paras 5, 12–13].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Rule discharged – Interim application also disposed of as infructuous.

Criminal Law – Murder of Mother by Husband and Son – Conviction Based on Dying Declaration – Deceased, suffering 100% burn injuries, made two consistent dying declarations before doctor and investigating officer accusing her husband and son – Declarations found voluntary, cogent, and free from inducement – Court held: No motive for deceased to falsely implicate close family – Conviction upheld on strength of declarations and corroborating circumstances [Paras 5–7, 22, 34–39]

Evidence Law – Dying Declaration – Admissibility and Sufficiency – Declaration recorded by treating doctor and police officer in hospital – Court reiterated legal position that dying declaration can form sole basis for conviction if found reliable – Certification of fitness by doctor present – No need for Magistrate's recording in urgent medical context – No evidence of tutoring or pressure – Held: Statements inspire confidence and withstand scrutiny under settled jurisprudence [Paras 9–15, 29–31, 35–37]

Criminal Procedure – Recording of Dying Declaration – Executive Magistrate Not Present – No adverse inference drawn due to urgency and critical condition of victim – Victim survived only 15 hours post incident – Police’s failure to call Magistrate held not fatal – Court held that procedural flexibility permissible if substance of law upheld [Paras 16, 30, 37]

Circumstantial Evidence – Scene Tampering and Absence of Suicide Indicators – No kerosene container, matchbox, or burn marks found at scene – Site cleaned before police arrived – Husband did not accompany victim to hospital – No suicide note or motive – All factors point towards deliberate cover-up – Held: Circumstantial evidence consistent with prosecution case and supports dying declarations [Paras 32–34, 38]

Defence Plea – Suicide Theory Rejected – Appellants failed to show any motive for deceased to implicate them – Alleged language barrier and physical incapacity not proved – No expert or witness to support defence – Court found no reason to discard consistent dying declarations or disbelieve doctor’s testimony – Held: Suicide theory speculative and unsupported [Paras 18–21, 23–28]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction of Didar Singh and Maan Singh under Section 302/34 IPC upheld – Dying declarations held admissible and trustworthy – Circumstantial evidence supports homicidal nature of death – Defence plea of suicide rejected – Appellate Court finds no ground to interfere with trial court judgment.

Specific Performance – Time as Essence – Waiver – Immovable Property – Agreement to sell dated 25.08.1990 required payment of ₹25,000 by October 1990 – Defendants issued successive notices (23.02.1991 and 26.03.1991) granting further time – Held: Conduct amounts to waiver; time not essence under Section 55 of Contract Act – Defendants themselves kept contract alive; cannot later plead breach [Paras 8–15].

Readiness and Willingness – Plaintiff produced affidavit, bank statement and cheque of ₹25,000 sent on 09.04.1991 – Defendants refused due to escalated market price – Admission of DW-1 that sale deed would be executed only at current market rate – Held: Plaintiff continuously ready and willing; defendants in breach under Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act [Para 16].

Discretionary Relief – Specific Relief Act – Equity – Plaintiff acted diligently; defendants extended time and later refused due to rise in prices – Conduct shows attempt to resile from concluded bargain – First Appellate Court rightly granted decree of specific performance – No perversity or misapplication of law [Para 17].

Decision: Second appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of First Appellate Court affirming specific performance upheld – Agreement dated 25.08.1990 enforceable [Paras 18–19

Employees Compensation – Territorial Jurisdiction – Dismissal of Claim – Appellants challenged dismissal of compensation claim by Commissioner, Thane, for want of territorial jurisdiction – Deceased claimant initially resided in Thane when application was filed but later shifted to Uttar Pradesh – Employer based in Gujarat and accident occurred in Gujarat – Insurance company had branch office at Thane – Held: Though the employer’s registered office was not at Thane, the claimant’s ordinary residence at the time of filing and the insurer’s business presence in Thane established territorial jurisdiction – Commissioner’s rejection on jurisdictional ground was incorrect – Hyper-technical approach must be avoided in beneficial legislation like EC Act [Paras 6, 14, 38-43].

Substantial Question of Law – Appeal under Section 30 EC Act – Whether dismissal on ground of territorial jurisdiction raised substantial question of law – Held: Interpretation of ‘ordinary residence’ and relevance of insurer’s business presence involve substantial legal issues – Commissioner failed to consider this appropriately – Findings liable to be set aside [Paras 8, 11-13].

Insurance Law – Coverage under Vehicle Package Policy – Risk of employment injury covered under Employees’ Compensation Act – Insurer’s liability contractual and enforceable – Presence of insurer’s branch office, though not specified under EC Act, relevant in light of CPC principles – Insurer entitled to support Commissioner’s findings despite not raising territorial objection earlier [Paras 22-28, 40-41].

Remand – Improper Dismissal – Commissioner’s findings on employment and accident not interfered with – Matter remanded to determine compensation and apportionment of liability between employer and insurer – Appeal partly allowed [Paras 43-44].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Dismissal of claim on territorial jurisdiction grounds set aside – Matter remanded to Commissioner for hearing on compensation and liability – Final disposal directed within three months from 23rd November 2025.

PMLA – Bail – Section 19 Compliance – Twin Conditions under Section 45 – Arrest Valid – Suppression of Material Facts – Bail Rejected – Petitioner alleged mastermind of ₹6210.72 crore laundering scheme through shell companies and benami assets – Arrest preceded by written “reasons to believe” and grounds communicated – Sec. 19(2) compliance delayed but not fatal – Predicate offence not stayed in view of Division Bench order – Petitioner influencing witnesses and operating companies from custody – Held: No violation of statutory safeguards; prima facie material exists; twin conditions not satisfied; bail refused [Paras 14–28].

Predicate Offence – Effect of Stay – PMLA as Stand-alone – Stay by Single Bench stayed by Division Bench – Therefore proceedings under IPC continue – Petitioner’s contention that PMLA proceedings are eclipsed rejected – Suppression of Division Bench stay order held material and deliberate [Paras 15–17].

Arrest under PMLA – Section 19(1) & (2) – Grounds of Arrest & “Reasons to Believe” – Judicial Review Limited – Adequacy of Material Not Justiciable – Grounds supplied immediately; detailed material available; delay of 5 days in forwarding documents to Adjudicating Authority not fatal as Court could verify existence of material – Distinction drawn from Dilbag Singh – Arrest upheld [Paras 18–23].

Economic Offences – Gravity – Shell Companies – Benami Properties – Risk of Tampering – Investigation Ongoing – Large-scale fraud involving 62 shell companies, 34 dummy directors and siphoning of funds – Petitioner in touch with employees, accountants and co-accused from jail – Risk of interference with investigation and further laundering – 444 pending cases – Long custody alone not ground for bail in deep-rooted economic offences [Paras 24–26].

Decision: Bail application dismissed – Petitioner failed to satisfy Section 45 twin conditions – CRM (R) 84 of 2025 disposed of [Paras 27–29].

Criminal Law – Police Harassment – Herbal Hookah in Restaurant – Petitioner alleged police interference with lawful restaurant operation citing alleged sale of tobacco-laced hookah – Petitioner claimed use of only herbal substances without nicotine – Held: Police not to interfere with restaurant business unless illegal activity is found – Direction issued to petitioner to approach FSSAI for certification [Paras 1-3, 7-8]

Tobacco Control – COTPA Act – Section 4A – Hookah Bars – State amendment prohibits hookah bars – Whether petitioner’s hookah product contains tobacco or nicotine is a factual issue to be verified by competent authorities – Held: Court cannot act on mere oral claims – Matter to be decided by FSSAI and not by the Court [Paras 5-6]

Food Safety – Jurisdiction of FSSAI – Products inhaled via hookah without tobacco/nicotine fall within the definition of “food” under Section 2(za) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 – FSSAI to test samples and verify composition – If product is free of tobacco/nicotine, petitioner can continue operating hookah bar [Paras 6-9]

Police Powers – Surveillance vs Harassment – Though restaurant is located near educational institutions, police can only act if illegal activities are found – General interference in routine lawful business not permitted – Police liberty preserved to act if any illegality is detected [Paras 4, 10]

Decision: Petition disposed of – Petitioner directed to approach FSSAI with product ingredients – Police restrained from interference in lawful business unless illegality is found – Petitioner at liberty to continue business if products are certified tobacco/nicotine-free [Para 8]

Negotiable Instruments – Cheque Dishonour – Secondary Evidence – Original Cheque Lost – Complainant sought to mark photocopy of cheque under Section 65 of Evidence Act after discovering original was missing – Trial Court rejected plea citing lack of explanation and absence of return memo – Held: Respondent had not denied existence of cheque but only disputed ink and handwriting – Court directed that photostat copy be marked as primary evidence – All defences left open for trial [Paras 2, 4, 5]

Criminal Procedure – Revision – Interference with Trial Court’s Discretion – Rejection of secondary evidence without considering surrounding documentary evidence including promissory note, legal notice, reply – Held: Trial Court erred in mechanically rejecting the application – Revision allowed to avoid miscarriage of justice in a long pending matter [Paras 4, 5]

Evidence Act – Secondary Evidence – Photostat Copy – Permissibility – Where original cheque is lost and its existence is corroborated by other documents such as promissory note and notices – Held: Photocopy admissible under Section 65 of Evidence Act – Respondent free to challenge genuineness during trial [Paras 4, 5]

Trial Directions – Expeditious Disposal – Case pending since 2014 – Directed to be posted on day-to-day basis and completed within two months from receipt of order [Para 6]

Decision: Criminal Revision allowed – Order of trial court set aside – Photostat copy of cheque permitted to be marked as primary evidence – Trial Court directed to complete trial within two months – Connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition closed [Paras 5-7]