Insurance – Theft Claim – Burden of Proof – Complainant claimed loss of ₹25,49,120 due to theft of watches and stock – Surveyor assessed loss at ₹34,723 based on available records – Complainant failed to maintain stock register or produce authenticated list of stolen items – Calculation sheet merely reflected book entries without independent verification – Held, claim not substantiated by cogent evidence – Repudiation justified [Paras 14-17].

Surveyor’s Report – Evidentiary Value – Independent licensed surveyor appointed by insurer examined claim – Report recorded absence of stock register, absence of detailed list of stolen items and inability to verify stock statements – In absence of contrary reliable evidence, surveyor’s findings accepted – No arbitrariness shown [Paras 14-16].

Deficiency in Service – Meaning under Section 2(1)(g) – Deficiency requires fault, imperfection or inadequacy in performance of contractual obligation – Insurer repudiated claim based on surveyor’s report and non-submission of requisite documents – No illegality or mala fide established – No deficiency made out [Paras 11-12, 18].

Exaggerated / Unsupported Claim – Mere reminders and correspondence with insurer insufficient to prove quantum of loss – Claim amount not supported by authenticated inventory or contemporaneous stock records – Consumer complaint dismissed [Paras 16-18].

Decision: Complaint dismissed – No deficiency in service on part of Opposite Party No. 1 – No order as to costs – Pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Law – Quashing - Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Rule 45 – Mandatory Time Limit – Quashing of Prosecution – Criminal prosecution launched against manufacturer and its directors alleging manufacture of drug not of standard quality – Samples drawn on 12.07.2022 and sent to Government Analyst on 14.07.2022 – Analyst sought extension only on 01.11.2022, i.e., after expiry of statutory period of 60 days – Report furnished on 18.01.2023 without proof of valid extension being granted – Held: Rule 45 mandates analysis and report within 60 days, extension to be sought within stipulated period with reasons – Non-compliance vitiates prosecution – Proceedings liable to be quashed [Paras 3–5, 8–9].

Right of Accused – Retesting of Sample – Prejudice Caused by Delay – Delayed analysis defeats valuable right of accused to seek re-testing of sample – Time is of essence in drug analysis as quality may deteriorate with passage of time – Failure of Drug Inspector to monitor compliance or issue reminders to Analyst compounds illegality – Prosecution held unsustainable [Paras 9–10].

Precedent – Binding Nature – Reliance placed on decision in Swapnil s/o Liladhar Mane v. State of Maharashtra, 2024(4) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 673 – Held: Ratio squarely applicable – Delayed analysis beyond statutory period without justification renders complaint invalid [Para 8].

Drugs Regulation – Lapses by Authorities – Need for Systemic Reforms – Court expressed concern over repeated procedural lapses by Drug Administration benefiting manufacturers of sub-standard drugs and frustrating objectives of the Act – Emphasised that public health is paramount and strict adherence to statutory timelines is mandatory [Paras 10–12].

Directions – Regulatory Oversight – Compliance with Rule 45 – Detailed directions issued to Commissioner, Food and Drugs Administration, Maharashtra – To ensure timely testing within 60 days – To take disciplinary action against erring officers – To augment laboratory infrastructure – To create efficient online, web-hosted, real-time monitoring system for drug sample testing and reporting – Compliance directed within three months with report to Court [Paras 14–15].

Decision: Criminal writ petition allowed – Prosecution in S.C.C. No. 637/2023 quashed – Directions issued to Drug Administration authorities – Matter listed for compliance [Paras 13–17].

Civil Law – Recall of Witness – Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC – Discretionary Power – Witness once discharged cannot be routinely recalled for cross-examination – Trial Court failed to ascertain if valid reasons existed for Defendant No.1’s failure to cross-examine at relevant stage – Held: Order recalling P.W.2 unsustainable – Power under Order XVIII Rule 17 must be exercised sparingly and not to fill evidentiary gaps – Impugned orders set aside [Paras 4–9, 12]

Judicial Discipline – Error in Trial Court Order – Inconsistencies in identifying parties and witnesses – Trial Court incorrectly described plaintiff as petitioner in recall application and misidentified P.W.2 as P.W.1 – Held: Orders reflect non-application of mind and lack of diligence – Duty of court to ensure accuracy and clarity in orders [Paras 10–11]

Procedural Law – Scope of Section 151 CPC – Inherent Powers – Can be invoked only when no express provision applies – Recall of witness not permissible merely on ground of potential prejudice or interest of justice unless supported by bona fide cause – Inherent power cannot override settled procedural safeguards [Paras 7–9]

Judicial Discretion – Exercise of Power under Article 227 – High Court interferes to prevent abuse of process – Trial Court failed to assess necessity, did not apply legal standard under Order XVIII Rule 17 – Held: Misuse of discretion – High Court justified in setting aside such order under Article 227 [Paras 6, 9, 12]

Decision: CMP allowed – Impugned orders dated 06.12.2023 and 24.01.2024 set aside – Trial Court’s order permitting Defendant No.1 to recall and cross-examine P.W.2 quashed – Court emphasises that recalling of witnesses is an exception, not the rule – Expresses appreciation for Amicus Curiae assistance [Paras 12–13]

Accident Claim - Motor Accident Compensation – Income of Deceased – Salary plus Pension – Inclusion for Loss of Dependency – Deceased was a retired armed forces veteran drawing pension and also employed as Principal of a Government school – Tribunal excluded pension income while computing loss of dependency – Held: Pension being a recurring and assured source of income forms part of pecuniary benefit and must be included while assessing loss of income – Family pension received by widow is her independent right and cannot be deducted from income of deceased [Paras 8–10].

Motor Vehicles Act – Deduction towards Personal Expenses – Number of Dependents – Legal Representatives – Insurance company contended that major sons could not be treated as dependents – Court held that while computing compensation, all legal representatives are to be considered irrespective of marital status or actual dependency – With four claimants, deduction of 1/4th towards personal expenses held appropriate instead of 1/3rd [Paras 12].

Future Prospects – Addition of 15% – Deceased Aged 56 Years – Tribunal granted 15% towards future prospects – Held: In consonance with Pranay Sethi, addition of 15% justified for deceased aged between 50–60 years and in permanent employment [Para 11].

Conventional Heads – Consortium – Reassessment – Tribunal awarded limited amounts under conventional heads – Held: In light of Sarla Verma, Pranay Sethi and Satinder Kaur, claimants entitled to enhanced amounts – Loss of consortium payable to all four claimants at ₹48,000 each – Funeral expenses and loss of estate enhanced to ₹18,000 each – No separate compensation for loss of love and affection permissible [Paras 13–14].

Interest on Compensation – Rate of Interest – Award of interest at 9% per annum from date of filing of claim petition upheld – Direction issued that in case of default beyond three months, enhanced amount shall carry interest at 12% per annum thereafter [Para 15].

Cross Objections by Insurer – Reduction of Compensation – Rejected – Insurer challenged grant of future prospects, multiplier and rate of interest – Court found no merit in objections – Compensation reassessed leading to enhancement rather than reduction – Cross objections disposed of accordingly [Paras 6, 16].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Compensation enhanced from ₹67,04,800/- to ₹78,24,382.50/- – Enhanced amount of ₹11,19,582.50/- payable with interest – Cross objections dismissed – Award modified to aforesaid extent.

Minority Educational Institutions – Unrecognized Madarsa – Power of Closure by State Authorities – Article 30(1) of the Constitution – District Minority Welfare Officer directed closure of the petitioner Madarsa on the ground that it was being run without recognition – Regulation 13 of the 2016 Regulations only provides consequence of non-recognition as denial of government grant – No provision empowering authorities to stop functioning of an unrecognized Madarsa – Held: Mere lack of recognition cannot justify closure of the institution [Paras 2–4, 7].

Constitution of India – Article 30(1) – Classification of Minority Educational Institutions – Reliance placed on Anjum Kadari v. Union of India, (2025) 5 SCC 53 and In re: Kerala Education Bill, 1957 – Minority institutions categorized into (i) those seeking neither aid nor recognition, (ii) those seeking aid, and (iii) those seeking recognition alone – Institutions falling in first category fully protected under Article 30(1) – Petitioner Madarsa neither seeking aid nor recognition – Held: Its functioning is constitutionally protected [Paras 5–6].

Administrative Law – Absence of Statutory Authority – Invalid Executive Action – State argued that unrecognized Madarsa may create complications for students – However, no statutory provision enabling closure on this ground – Executive order without authority of law held unsustainable [Paras 7, 9–10].

Relief – Quashing of Closure Order with Clarifications – Impugned order dated 01.05.2025 directing closure quashed – Clarified that unrecognized Madarsa not entitled to government grants – Madarsa Board not obliged to allow students to appear in examinations – Qualifications acquired not to confer any benefit vis-à-vis State Government – Directions issued to remove seal within 24 hours [Paras 9–11].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Order dated 01.05.2025 quashed – Seal on Madarsa directed to be opened within 24 hours subject to conditions stated.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – Power to be used sparingly – Prima Facie Case Absent – No Role Attributed – Names Not in FIR – Petitioners (except those named in FIR) not identified by witnesses and not linked to offences by any direct or circumstantial evidence – Held: Continuation of proceedings against such petitioners amounts to abuse of process – Cognizance order and criminal proceedings quashed qua unnamed petitioners – Trial to continue only against Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 9, 11, and 16 [Paras 1, 4–6, 12–13, 22–26]

Criminal Law – Protest Turning Violent – FIR Alleging Vandalism, Assault, and Outraging Modesty – Allegations Found Largely Omnibus – Prosecution Unable to Link Vandalism to Specific Accused – Recovery of Broken Furniture and ABVP Flags not Sufficient to Sustain Charges – Simple Injuries Alleged without Medical Proof – Acquittal of Juvenile Co-Accused on Same Evidence Considered Relevant – Petitioners entitled to relief under Bhajan Lal Guidelines [Paras 22–24]

Public Employment – Adverse Impact of Prosecution – Consideration of Career Stakes – Petitioner in CRLMC No. 1017/2024 selected for multiple public posts – Criminal case preventing joining – No prior criminal antecedents – Held: In absence of concrete evidence, continuation of proceedings would unfairly jeopardize future – Court considers such facts while applying discretion under Section 482 CrPC [Para 24]

Inherent Powers – Guiding Principles – Reiterated Principles from R.P. Kapur, Madhu Limaye, Bhajan Lal and Neeharika Infrastructure – Inherent power under Section 482 CrPC not to be exercised arbitrarily – Meant to prevent miscarriage of justice – Must not result in a mini-trial – High Court must avoid appreciation of evidence unless case falls into recognised exceptions [Paras 14–21]

Decision: CRLMC applications allowed in part – Criminal proceedings and cognizance order dated 14.11.2018 quashed only in respect of petitioners not named in FIR – Proceedings to continue against Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 9, 11 and 16 in CRLMC No. 2832/2024 – Trial court directed to expedite and conclude trial within six months [Paras 26–28]

Writ Jurisdiction – Maintainability – Bar Association – Bar Association registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 – Body of private lawyers formed for welfare of its members – Does not discharge public functions – Not ‘State’ or instrumentality under Article 12 of Constitution – Held: Writ petition under Article 226 seeking mandamus against Bar Association not maintainable [Paras 15–17].

Mandamus – Preconditions – For issuance of mandamus, existence of statutory duty and failure to discharge such duty essential – Bar Association under no statutory obligation to initiate criminal or disciplinary proceedings against its members – No mandamus can be issued to compel a private body to act in a particular manner [Paras 17–18].

Advocate Chamber – Permissive Possession – No Enforceable Right – Appellant advocate not allottee of chamber – Occupation based on permissive possession granted by allottee – No independent legal or enforceable right over chamber – Held: Absence of legal right disentitles petitioner from invoking writ jurisdiction [Paras 10–11].

Alleged Criminal Trespass – Alternative Remedies – Allegations of trespass, threats and dispossession amount to criminal offences – Remedy lies under Code of Criminal Procedure – High Court will not issue directions for registration of criminal case when statutory remedies available – Reliance placed on Sakiri Vasu and Priyanka Srivastava [Paras 11, 18].

Bar Council of Delhi – Disciplinary Jurisdiction – Bar Council is statutory body empowered to take disciplinary action against advocates – Appellant neither approached Bar Council nor impleaded it as a party – Held: Mandamus cannot be sought without first invoking jurisdiction of competent statutory authority [Paras 19–21].

Prayer Partly Not Pressed – Effect – Even though prayer for restoration of possession was not pressed subsequently, remaining prayer seeking action against advocates still not maintainable – Lack of public law element fatal to writ petition [Paras 13–15].

Decision – Intra-court appeal dismissed – Order of Single Judge dismissing writ petition as not maintainable affirmed – Liberty reserved to appellant to pursue appropriate civil, criminal or disciplinary remedies in accordance with law – No order as to costs [Paras 22–24].

Medical Reimbursement – Emergency Treatment – Non-Empanelled Hospital – Petitioner’s wife admitted in critical condition and underwent life-saving surgeries in a private hospital – No time to seek prior permission or approach empanelled hospital – Emergency certificate subsequently issued and bills duly verified – Only a nominal amount reimbursed without reasons – Held: Denial of full reimbursement is arbitrary and illegal [Paras 2–4, 9–10].

Right to Health – Article 21 – Medical reimbursement is an integral facet of right to life – State under constitutional obligation to bear expenses incurred for bona fide emergency treatment – Preservation of human life of paramount importance – Technical objections cannot override constitutional mandate [Paras 11–13].

Medical Reimbursement Policy – Beneficial Interpretation – Policy cannot be interpreted in a restrictive or defeatist manner – Once genuineness of treatment and bills is not disputed, reimbursement cannot be denied merely because hospital was not empanelled or prior approval was not taken – Reimbursement at PGIMER/AIIMS rates alone held insufficient in emergency circumstances [Paras 13–16].

Administrative Delay – Arbitrary Inaction – Petitioner pursued reimbursement since 2014 – Authorities delayed processing despite compliance with all objections – Prolonged delay caused financial hardship and mental agony – Such conduct held violative of Article 21 and indicative of callous administrative approach [Paras 17].

Interest on Delayed Payment – State Liability – Petitioner entitled to interest on delayed reimbursement – Direction issued to pay balance amount with interest to compensate for prolonged deprivation of legitimate dues [Para 18].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 18.05.2020 set aside to extent of denial – Respondents directed to reimburse balance medical claim of Rs. 4,20,766/- with 6% interest from due date till realization within four weeks – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 18–20].

Cooperative Societies – Recovery of Maintenance Dues – Non-Member Flat Occupants – Petitioners received possession of flats from developer under unregistered agreement and were never admitted as society members – Society initiated recovery proceedings under Section 154B-29 of MCS Act for unpaid maintenance since 2005 – Held: Petitioners, though not members, were in occupation, using common services, and liable under Section 154B-29 [Paras 2, 3, 4, 26, 27].

Limitation – Applicability to Recovery Proceedings under MCS Act – Petitioners argued that demand raised in 2023 for arrears since 2005 was barred under Article 137, Limitation Act – Held: Section 154B-29 is a special mechanism with overriding clause and no prescribed limitation period – Limitation Act not attracted – Dues are recurring in nature and cannot be barred merely by passage of time [Paras 7, 19, 21].

Continuing Wrong – Monthly Maintenance Dues – Maintenance and service charges are recurring and arise from continuous occupation – Each month’s default constitutes fresh cause of action – Held: Non-payment is a continuing breach and cannot be defeated on the ground of delay – Concepts of stale claim and reasonable time inapplicable [Paras 22, 23, 24, 25].

Promoter's Duty under MOFA – Flat Ownership and Liability for Dues – Petitioners, having received flats in consideration and treated them as owned units, fell within meaning of “promoters” under MOFA – Held: Duty to form society and be part of it exists regardless of registration of agreement – Conduct establishes ownership and liability [Paras 26, 27].

Interest on Arrears – Validity of 21% Interest Charge – Society levied 21% interest on unpaid dues as per its bye-laws – Petitioners failed to demonstrate any statutory violation or ceiling breached – Held: Interest charge valid and enforceable [Para 28].

Registrar’s Power and Finality of Recovery – Registrar’s power under Section 154B-29 is independent and overrides other provisions – Recovery certificates once issued are final and enforceable as arrears of land revenue – Held: Statute ensures efficient, litigation-free recovery of dues essential for cooperative housing society’s functioning [Paras 18, 20, 21].

Decision: Writ Petitions dismissed – Recovery certificates upheld – No interference warranted – Request for stay of judgment also rejected [Paras 29–31].