Motor Vehicles Act – Compensation – Enhancement – Scope of Appeal under Section 173 – Appellants challenged award of Tribunal only on quantum – Negligence and liability not disputed – Appeal confined to reassessment of just compensation – High Court entitled to interfere where Tribunal ignored material evidence on record [Paras 1, 6].

Motor Accident Claim – Medical Expenses – Proof – Tribunal considered hospital expenditure up to discharge but ignored subsequent medical bills produced at Exh.71 – Bills dated after discharge from hospital found genuine and supported by record – Held, claimants entitled to reimbursement of Rs.2,52,899/- towards post-discharge medical treatment [Paras 7, 9].

Motor Accident Claim – Attendant and Transportation Charges – Proof and Assessment – Bills at Exh.72 found partly overlapping and unreliable – However, considering prolonged treatment and hospitalization of 64 days, lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/- awarded under attendant and transportation charges – Approach of reasonable estimation upheld [Para 7].

Motor Accident Claim – Loss of Consortium – Multiple Dependants – Application of Pranay Sethi Principles – Deceased left behind four dependants – Tribunal awarded only Rs.44,000/- – Held, each dependant entitled to consortium – Compensation enhanced to Rs.1,93,600/- (Rs.48,400 × 4) in terms of settled law [Para 7].

Motor Accident Claim – Medical Expenses Paid by Charitable Trust – Reimbursement – Amount of Rs.10,86,415/- paid by charitable trust towards treatment – Held, compensation under MV Act is not a bonanza – Claimants not entitled to recover amount not actually borne by them – Trust not a claimant before Tribunal – No reimbursement permitted [Para 8].

Motor Vehicles Act – Just Compensation – Reassessment – On cumulative reassessment under various heads, total compensation enhanced from Rs.41,05,240/- to Rs.45,57,739/- with interest – Tribunal award modified to that extent only [Paras 9–10].

Decision: First Appeal partly allowed – Judgment and award dated 06.05.2021 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Ahmedabad in MACP No.524 of 2011 modified – Total compensation enhanced to Rs.45,57,739/- with interest at 7.5% per annum – Respondents directed to deposit enhanced amount within four weeks – Remaining part of Tribunal’s award left undisturbed.

Civil Law – Framing of Issues – Will Propounded by Defendant – Mandatory Duty of Court – Plaintiff filed suit claiming ownership by natural inheritance – Defendants pleaded Will dated 16.08.1978 to defeat plaintiff’s claim – Trial Court framed general issue on entitlement to declaration but failed to frame specific issue on validity and effect of Will – Application by plaintiff for framing additional issue dismissed on ground that only defendants could seek such issue – Held: Plea of Will constitutes a distinct and material proposition of fact and law and Court is statutorily bound to frame a specific issue thereon [Paras 2, 5].

Order XIV Rules 1 and 5 CPC – Scope and Application – Issues are to be framed by Court on basis of pleadings and not at discretion of parties – Any party affected by a plea raised is entitled to seek framing of an issue – Court empowered to frame or amend issues at any stage before passing of decree if necessary for determining real controversy – Stage of rebuttal evidence no bar to framing additional issue [Paras 7].

Will – Proof – Burden of Proof – Procedural Safeguards – Proof of Will governed by special statutory requirements under Indian Succession Act and Evidence Act – Burden lies on propounder of Will – Absence of specific issue on Will renders trial procedurally deficient and final adjudication vulnerable to challenge – General issue cannot substitute a specific issue on Will [Paras 6].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Failure to Exercise Jurisdiction – Trial Court declined to frame necessary issue on erroneous understanding of law – Such refusal amounts to material error of jurisdiction – Interference by High Court warranted to ensure proper adjudication of lis [Paras 8].

Decision: Civil Revision allowed – Impugned order dated 26.11.2025 set aside – Trial Court directed to frame additional issue regarding validity, execution and binding effect of Will dated 16.08.1978 and proceed with suit in accordance with law [Paras 9–10].

Criminal Law – Murder and Attempt to Murder – Appeal against Conviction – Abatement of Appeal on Death of Co-Accused – Appeal surviving only for one accused – Sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC – Common Intention – Proof – Appeal partly abated due to death of accused-appellant Nos. 1 and 2 – Appeal considered only qua surviving appellant – Conviction challenged on ground of absence of common intention and overt act – Prosecution case based on prompt FIR, consistent eyewitness testimony and corroborative medical and forensic evidence – Accused arrived together armed with country-made pistols and bombs and jointly attacked victims – Pre-planned and premeditated assault established – Held: Ingredients of Section 34 IPC fully proved and conviction justified [Paras 1, 10, 21, 29, 33].

Common Intention – Section 34 IPC – Scope and Application – Contention that surviving appellant did not fire at deceased and therefore could not be convicted with aid of Section 34 IPC – Rejected – Common intention can be inferred from conduct, circumstances and participation in joint criminal act – Active presence, being armed, and participation in attack sufficient – Supreme Court precedents relied upon – Held: Section 34 IPC rightly invoked [Paras 11–13, 26–29].

Evidence Appreciation – Eyewitness Testimony – Credibility – Informant (PW-1) natural and reliable witness – Presence at place of occurrence established – Testimony consistent with FIR and corroborated by PW-2 – No material contradictions or embellishments – Evidence inspires confidence – Held: Conviction can safely be based on such testimony [Paras 16–20].

Medical and Forensic Evidence – Corroboration of Ocular Version – Multiple firearm and blast injuries found on deceased and injured witnesses – Medical opinion consistent with use of firearms and bombs – Recovery of empty cartridges, pellets, tiklis and bomb remnants from scene – Oral evidence fully supported by medical and scientific evidence – Held: Prosecution version proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 21–25].

Sentence – Life Imprisonment – No Interference Warranted – Trial Court’s judgment based on proper appreciation of evidence – No perversity or illegality found – Appeal dismissed – Surviving appellant directed to surrender to undergo remaining sentence – Bail cancelled [Paras 30–36].

Decision: Criminal Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC affirmed – Direction issued for surrender of surviving appellant and compliance by Chief Judicial Magistrate.

Criminal Law – Sexual Offences Against Child – Conviction Based on Sole Testimony of Victim – Sufficiency of Evidence – Appellant convicted for wrongful restraint, outraging modesty and rape of a minor girl – Victim gave a clear, cogent and consistent account of sexual assault involving digital penetration and sexual acts – Cross-examination failed to discredit her testimony – Held: Conviction can be safely based on sole testimony of prosecutrix when it inspires confidence [Paras 14–17, 22].

Evidence – Minor Contradictions and Omissions – Effect – Defence highlighted omissions in statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC and discrepancies regarding disclosure of incident – Held: Minor omissions which do not affect the core of prosecution case are inconsequential and do not undermine credibility of victim’s testimony [Paras 16, 23–24].

Medical Evidence – Absence of Injuries – Not Fatal – Medical examination conducted after lapse of time showed no genital injuries – Doctor opined that injuries could heal within 7–10 days – Held: Absence of medical corroboration does not discredit otherwise trustworthy testimony of victim – Medical evidence not sine qua non for conviction in sexual offence cases [Paras 20–22].

Delay in Lodging FIR – Sexual Offences – Explained – FIR lodged after victim disclosed incident to friend and family – Delay satisfactorily explained due to fear, trauma and social stigma – Held: Delay in sexual offence cases cannot be equated with other crimes and does not vitiate prosecution case [Paras 22].

Non-Examination of Certain Witnesses – Adverse Inference – When Not Warranted – Defence argued non-examination of daughter of appellant and other relatives – Held: When evidence on record is overwhelming and unimpeachable, non-examination of some witnesses is not fatal and does not warrant adverse inference [Paras 36].

Rape – Section 375(b) IPC – Digital Penetration – Act of inserting finger into private part of minor squarely falls within Section 375(b) IPC – Consent irrelevant as victim was a minor – Offence of rape clearly made out [Paras 41–42].

Goa Children’s Act – Grave Sexual Assault – Acts proved constituted “grave sexual assault” under Sections 2(y)(i) & (ii) punishable under Section 8(2) – Conviction under special statute justified [Paras 43–44].

Sentence – Age of Accused – No Mitigation in Child Sexual Offence – Appellant aged above 80 years sought leniency – Held: Advanced age of accused not a mitigating factor in offences involving sexual assault on a child – Protection of child and societal conscience paramount [Paras 50–52].

Decision: Criminal Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentences imposed by Children’s Court affirmed – Appellant directed to surrender forthwith – Prayer for stay rejected.

Matrimonial Law - Maintenance – Wife Living Separately – Sufficient Cause – Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. – Family Court denied maintenance to wife on ground that she refused to return to matrimonial home during proceedings under Section 9 HMA – Held, refusal to resume cohabitation despite restitution proceedings does not by itself disentitle wife from maintenance – Disqualification under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. wrongly applied – Impugned finding unsustainable [Paras 8–9].

Maintenance – Cruelty and Dowry Demand – Proof – Family Court held absence of dowry or cruelty complaints fatal to wife’s claim – Held, non-filing of criminal complaint cannot be sole basis to deny maintenance – Conduct of husband in denying paternity of minor child indicative of matrimonial discord – Approach of Family Court held erroneous and hyper-technical [Paras 8–10].

Maintenance – Earning Capacity of Wife – Educational Qualification – Gainful Employment – Family Court rejected wife’s claim on ground of concealment of education and alleged earning capacity – Held, mere qualification or potential to earn not sufficient to deny maintenance – No cogent evidence of actual gainful employment produced by husband – Capacity to earn distinct from actual earning – Statutory right to maintenance cannot be defeated on speculative grounds [Paras 10, 11, 15–16].

Maintenance – Minor Child – Quantum – Adequacy – Maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month awarded to adolescent son held grossly inadequate – Father’s admitted gross salary of Rs. 48,350/- per month ignored – Excessive deductions towards loans wrongly permitted – Principles laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha requiring fair and realistic assessment overlooked [Paras 11, 17].

Maintenance – Social Justice – Object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Courts must adopt humane and practical approach – Maintenance provision intended to prevent destitution and ensure dignified life for wife and child – Mere ability to work or earn meagre income insufficient to deny relief – Wife entitled to live with dignity consistent with husband’s status [Paras 11–14].

Criminal Revision – Interference with Family Court Order – Family Court misconstrued evidence and misapplied settled legal principles – Order found legally unsustainable – Matter remanded for fresh determination of maintenance in accordance with law and Supreme Court guidelines [Paras 15–18].

Decision: Criminal Revision allowed – Order dated 03.10.2024 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bulandshahr set aside – Matter remanded to Family Court for fresh determination of maintenance payable to wife and minor son – Family Court directed to pass a reasoned order within one month – All rights and contentions of parties kept open.

NDPS Act – Possession of Poppy Husk – Conviction under Section 15(c) – Acquittal on Appeal – Failure to Prove Case Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Appellants convicted for possession of three gunny bags each containing about 40 kg poppy husk – Conviction challenged on grounds of contradictions in prosecution evidence and non-compliance of statutory provisions – Held: Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction set aside and appellants acquitted [Paras 21, 29].

Evidence – Official Witnesses – Material Contradictions – Effect – Prosecution case rested solely on police witnesses – DSP shown to be present simultaneously at two different places in two separate FIRs on same date and time – Contradictions regarding place of bags in jeep, weighing method, seals, custody and return of seals – No independent public witness joined despite availability – Held: Contradictions go to root of prosecution case and render recovery doubtful [Paras 22].

Search and Seizure – FIR Number Mentioned on Documents Prepared Prior to Registration of FIR – Serious Infirmity – Recovery memo, site plan and other documents prepared allegedly at spot contained FIR number though FIR registered later – No explanation offered by prosecution – Reliance placed on precedents – Held: Indicates documents were prepared subsequently and investigation is doubtful [Paras 23].

NDPS Act – Section 52A – Non-Compliance – Fatal to Prosecution – Case property and samples not produced before Magistrate – No inventory certified by Magistrate – Samples sent to FSL were those drawn at spot – Mandatory safeguard under Section 52A violated – Held: Non-compliance vitiates prosecution and benefit must go to accused [Paras 24–25].

Delay in Sending Samples to FSL – Violation of Standing Order No. 1 of 1988 – Sample sent after unexplained delay of nine days – Standing Order mandates dispatch within 72 hours – Seal custody doubtful – Possibility of tampering not ruled out – Adverse inference drawn against prosecution [Paras 26–27].

Sample Seal – Preparation and Custody – Serious Lapse – Prosecution witnesses silent on preparation of sample seal at spot – Contradictory versions regarding handing over and return of seal – Sample seal not produced before Magistrate – Held: Sanctity of samples compromised and prosecution case weakened [Paras 27–28].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgment of conviction dated 20.09.2004 set aside – Appellants acquitted of charge under Section 15(c) NDPS Act – Bail bonds discharged – Case property ordered to be confiscated and destroyed – Jeep to be returned to registered owner as per rules.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act – Section 11(6) – Institutional Arbitration – Exhaustion of Agreed Procedure Mandatory – Employment agreements contained arbitration clause providing for appointment of sole arbitrator in accordance with MCIA Rules – Respondent accepted invocation of arbitration and did not default in agreed procedure – Held: Where parties have consciously agreed to an institutional mechanism for appointment of arbitrator, Court cannot appoint arbitrator under Section 11 without first requiring parties to exhaust agreed procedure – Section 11 jurisdiction arises only upon failure of agreed mechanism [Paras 13–16].

Arbitration Clause – MCIA Rules – Seat and Venue at Indore – No Inconsistency – Contention that MCIA Rules can operate only if seat is Mumbai rejected – Rule 30 of MCIA Rules permits parties to agree on seat of arbitration – Fixing Indore as seat and venue does not render MCIA Rules inapplicable – Arbitration clause held coherent and workable [Paras 11–12].

Section 11 Jurisdiction – Prematurity of Petition – Applicants invoked arbitration and respondent consented to invocation – Applicants failed to take further steps under MCIA Rules for appointment of arbitrator – Direct approach to High Court held premature and impermissible – Court cannot bypass institutional framework agreed by parties [Paras 13–16].

Party Autonomy – Binding Nature of Arbitration Agreement – Parties bound by dispute resolution clause consciously agreed in employment contracts – Applicants cannot resile from agreed procedure merely because arbitration is institutional – Party autonomy is cornerstone of arbitration law and must be respected [Paras 14–16].

Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent – Parmar Construction Case – Reiterated that default procedure under Section 11 can be invoked only when agreed appointment mechanism fails or becomes inoperative – High Court must first give effect to contractual mechanism before appointing independent arbitrator [Paras 14–15].

Multiple Applications – Common Arbitration Clause – Common Outcome – All three employment agreements contained identical arbitration clause – Common order passed dismissing all three applications – Liberty granted to applicants to invoke MCIA mechanism in accordance with rules [Paras 1, 17].

Decision – Arbitration Case Nos. 105, 106 and 107 of 2025 dismissed – Liberty granted to applicants to approach Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration for appointment of sole arbitrator as per MCIA Rules and employment agreements – No appointment made by Court under Section 11 [Para 17].

Criminal Law – Section 482 – Inherent Powers – Quashing of FIR and Charge-sheet – Scope – FIR registered under Section 188 IPC read with Section 14(i) of Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 2003 – Held: High Court can quash FIR even after filing of charge-sheet if continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of process of Court [Paras 12–18, 26].

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 188 – Cognizance – Bar under Section 195 CrPC – Mandatory Compliance – FIR lodged by public servant before police instead of written complaint to Magistrate – Police registered case and filed charge-sheet – Held: Prosecution for offence under Section 188 IPC can be initiated only on complaint in writing of public servant before Magistrate – FIR and charge-sheet to that extent void ab initio – Proceedings liable to be quashed [Paras 29–32].

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 195 – Nature and Effect – Object – Protection against frivolous prosecution – Held: Any violation of mandatory procedure under Section 195 CrPC vitiates entire proceedings relating to offence under Sections 172 to 188 IPC – Cognizance taken contrary to statute unsustainable in law [Paras 30–31].

Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 2003 – Section 14(i) – Penal Consequences – Cognizable Offence – Section 15 – Applicability of CrPC – FIR Maintainable – Held: Act provides both civil and penal consequences – Section 14 creates offence of unauthorized occupation – Section 15 expressly applies CrPC treating offence as cognizable – No statutory bar against lodging FIR for offence under Section 14 – Criminal proceedings to that extent valid [Paras 33–37].

Public Premises – Unauthorized Occupation – Eviction Proceedings and Criminal Liability – Distinction – Held: Civil remedies such as eviction, demolition and appeal under the Act are independent of penal prosecution under Section 14 – Availability of civil remedies does not bar criminal action where statute so permits [Paras 33–35].

Section 482 CrPC – Exercise of Power – Partial Quashing – Severability – Held: Where FIR discloses multiple offences and statutory bar applies only to one, proceedings can be quashed partially – FIR and charge-sheet quashed only to extent of offence under Section 188 IPC while allowed to continue for offence under Section 14 of 2003 Act [Paras 38–39].

Decision: Criminal petition partly allowed – FIR dated 14.08.2019 and Charge-sheet No. 02/2020 quashed to extent of offence under Section 188 IPC – Criminal proceedings under Section 14(i) of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 2003 upheld – Trial to proceed in accordance with law – Petition disposed of [Paras 38–40].

Arbitration Award – Execution – Jurisdiction of Seat Court – Objection raised that executing court lacks territorial jurisdiction as judgment debtor’s assets situated outside Mumbai – Held: Seat Court under Section 2(1)(e) of Arbitration Act retains jurisdiction to entertain execution and grant interim reliefs in aid of execution – Award creditor has option to execute either before seat court or court where assets are located – Sundaram Finance and Gemini Bay confer additional choice and do not divest seat court of jurisdiction [Paras 62–69].

Execution Proceedings – Sections 38 & 39 CPC – No Ouster of Seat Court – Argument that award becomes decree under CPC and execution governed solely by Sections 38 and 39 CPC rejected – Held: CPC provisions operate in addition to and not in derogation of jurisdiction of seat court – Transfer of decree is optional, not mandatory [Paras 63–67].

Post-Award Reliefs – Disclosure and Injunction as Matter of Course – In post-award scenario, interim reliefs such as disclosure of assets and restraint against alienation are necessary to prevent frustration of decree – Execution court empowered to secure decretal amount to ensure award creditor is not left with paper decree [Paras 68–69, 92].

Hindu Undivided Family – Karta’s Liability – Personal and Unlimited – Decree passed against HUF sought to be executed against Karta’s personal assets – Held: Karta has personal and unlimited liability for unsatisfied debts of HUF – Liability flows from special status of Karta under Hindu law and does not require separate personal decree – Distinction between Karta and ordinary coparceners reiterated [Paras 71–76, 83–85].

Trading HUF – Execution against Karta – Respondent HUF admittedly carrying on construction business – Held: Even otherwise, where HUF carries on business, Karta’s personal liability is well recognised – Attempt to distinguish “HUF firm” rejected as misconceived [Paras 71, 77–79].

Res Judicata – Inapplicability at Execution Stage – Contention that arbitral tribunal did not pass money award against Karta and hence execution barred by res judicata rejected – Held: Issue of Karta’s personal liability arises only at execution stage by operation of Hindu law and could not have been adjudicated in arbitration [Paras 74, 86].

Executing Court – Cannot Go Behind Decree – But Can Determine Mode of Satisfaction – While executing court cannot vary decree, it can decide questions relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction under Section 47 CPC – Determination of Karta’s liability is permissible as it concerns satisfaction of decree [Paras 87–88].

Court Receiver – Custodia Legis – Sale of Secured Properties – Title deeds deposited pursuant to Section 17 order constitute security lying custodia legis – Held: Court empowered under Section 51(d) CPC to appoint Court Receiver – Receiver appointed with powers to take possession and sell properties to satisfy award [Paras 90–91].

Disclosure of Assets – Injunction against Alienation – Respondents directed to file comprehensive affidavits disclosing movable and immovable assets, income tax returns and bank statements – Injunction granted restraining respondents from dealing with or alienating assets pending execution [Paras 92–95].

Decision – Interim Application allowed – Jurisdictional objections rejected – Court Receiver appointed – Disclosure and injunction granted – Prayer for further coercive steps kept open – Stay refused [Paras 89–98].