Criminal Law – Bail – Mob Lynching – Serious Offences Punishable with Life Imprisonment/Death – Applicants sought bail in a triple-murder case arising out of a mob attack during COVID-19 lockdown – Allegations included brutal assault with sticks and stones, incitement of mob, conspiracy, attack on police personnel and destruction of evidence – Held: Nature and gravity of offence, coupled with specific overt acts, militates against grant of bail [Paras 6–10, 14–18].

Criminal Law – Bail on Ground of Parity – Distinction Based on Role – Applicants claimed parity with several co-accused already enlarged on bail – Court examined earlier bail orders and held that bail was granted only to those accused against whom no overt acts were attributed – Present Applicants specifically identified as active assailants through CCTV footage, forensic evidence and eyewitness statements – Parity principle held inapplicable [Paras 8–10, 15].

Criminal Law – Bail – Principle of Parity Not a Straightjacket Formula – Reliance placed on Sagar v. State of U.P. affirming that parity cannot be sole ground for bail – Role, degree of participation and gravity of acts decisive – Applicants stood on a different footing from co-accused released on bail [Paras 11–13].

Criminal Law – Long Incarceration – Not a Sole Ground in Heinous Crimes – Applicants in custody for over five and a half years – Court held that where offences are punishable with life imprisonment or death, such period does not amount to undue or disproportionate incarceration – Right to liberty must be balanced against societal interest and seriousness of crime [Paras 16–18].

Criminal Law – Evidentiary Material at Bail Stage – Prima Facie Satisfaction – Charge-sheet contained CCTV footage, forensic reports, recovery of weapons and clothes, test identification parade and statements of multiple eyewitnesses – Sufficient prima facie material demonstrating overt acts and conspiracy by Applicants – Bail declined [Paras 6–7, 10].

Criminal Law – Investigation Transferred to CBI – Direction for Expeditious Completion – Investigation transferred to CBI in August 2025 – While rejecting bail, Court directed CBI to conclude investigation expeditiously and left liberty to Applicants to renew bail prayer after completion of investigation [Paras 16, 20].

Decision: Bail Application dismissed – CBI directed to complete investigation expeditiously – Applicants granted liberty to apply for bail afresh after conclusion of investigation – Observations held to be prima facie and not binding on trial [Paras 19–21].

Tenancy Law - Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Ownership Requirement under Section 14(1)(e) – Proof of Better Title Sufficient – Landlady sought eviction on ground of bona fide requirement – ARC dismissed petition on ground that ownership and landlord-tenant relationship were not proved – Held: Landlady produced registered sale deed and rent receipts proving better title than tenant – ARC exceeded jurisdiction by venturing into detailed title examination contrary to settled law – Eviction petition cannot be defeated merely because landlady is not absolute owner – Revision allowed and eviction ordered [Paras 1–6, 10–11].

Eviction – Bona Fide Requirement – Discretion of Landlady – ARC failed to consider landlady’s residential need – Landlady sought more space for herself and her growing family – Held: It is landlady who is best judge of her requirement – Tenant failed to rebut claim with any credible evidence – Bald denials not sufficient – No evidence of alternative suitable accommodation – ARC erred in not considering material on record [Paras 12–13].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Limited Interference – When Justified – Though revisional court cannot substitute its view as appellate court, it can interfere where trial court acts beyond jurisdiction or misapplies settled law – Held: ARC’s finding based on ownership was contrary to binding precedents – Interference warranted to correct miscarriage of justice [Paras 14–15].

Decision: Petition allowed – Judgment of ARC dated 31.01.2019 set aside – Eviction order passed – Tenant granted six months to vacate premises in terms of Section 14(7) DRC Act [Para 16].

Motor Vehicles Act – Injury Compensation – Enhancement – Permanent Partial Disability – Reassessment of Income – Application of Multiplier Method – Claimant aged 23 years, final year engineering student, sustained fracture of left scapula with brachial plexus injury resulting in 25% permanent partial disability – Tribunal awarded compensation based on minimum wages – High Court held that mechanical adoption of minimum wages is impermissible where claimant is academically qualified with clear future earning potential – Monthly income reassessed at ₹20,000 – Future prospects @ 40% added – Multiplier of 18 rightly applied considering age – Loss of future earning recalculated on basis of functional disability – Award enhanced substantially [Paras 9–16, 27].

Disability – Functional Impact – Loss of Earning Capacity – Disability percentage certified by doctor cannot automatically be equated with loss of earning capacity – Court must assess functional disability having regard to nature of injuries, profession, age and prospects – Claimant’s upper limb movement compromised permanently – Tribunal erred in undervaluing impact of disability on future earning – Functional loss assessed at 15% for computation of future income loss [Paras 6, 18, 27].

Non-Pecuniary Damages – Pain and Suffering – Loss of Amenities – Human Dignity – Permanent disability not only causes physical impairment but also lifelong pain, mental agony and loss of dignity – Claimant hospitalized and suffered permanent weakness of limb not likely to improve – Tribunal awarded meagre amount – Following Supreme Court jurisprudence, pain and suffering enhanced to ₹3,00,000 – Separate compensation awarded for loss of amenities of life [Paras 16–20, 26–27].

Attendant Charges – Requirement of Assistance – Reasonable Lump Sum – Claimant suffered grievous injuries requiring assistance in daily activities – Tribunal failed to grant adequate attendant charges – Though disability not 100%, claimant entitled to reasonable attendant expenses – Attendant charges awarded as lump sum ₹30,000 keeping in view age, disability and nature of injuries [Paras 21–22].

Loss of Marriage Prospects – Young Claimant – Non-Pecuniary Loss – Claimant was 23 years old at time of accident – Tribunal failed to consider impact of permanent disability on matrimonial prospects – Loss of marriage prospects recognized as distinct head of compensation in injury cases – Award of ₹2,00,000 granted under this head as just and reasonable [Paras 23–25, 27].

Transportation, Special Diet and Future Medical Expenses – Inadequate Award by Tribunal – Tribunal awarded meagre or no amounts under these heads – High Court enhanced compensation towards transportation, special diet and future medical expenses considering prolonged treatment and continuing disability [Paras 26–27].

Interest – Rate – Exclusion of Delay Period – Enhanced compensation directed to carry interest @ 9% per annum from date of filing of claim petition till realization – Period of delay of 388 days in filing appeal excluded from interest computation as undertaken by appellant – Insurance Company directed to deposit amount within two months [Paras 28–29].

Recovery Rights – Insurer’s Liberty – Insurance Company granted right to recover enhanced compensation from owner and driver of offending vehicle in accordance with Tribunal award [Para 29].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Award dated 30.04.2024 modified – Total compensation enhanced to ₹16,67,200 – Enhanced amount payable ₹11,16,200 with interest @ 9% per annum (excluding delay period) – Directions issued for deposit, disbursement and recovery.

Motor Accident – Compensation Claim – Minor Child – Negligent Driving – Tribunal dismissed claim citing lack of evidence of rash driving by respondent – High Court finds findings perverse and based on misappreciation of evidence – Testimony of eye-witness mother (PW-2) consistent and unimpeached – Another eye-witness (PW-3) corroborated material facts – FIR was delayed due to police inaction and social constraints, but registered with Human Rights Commission's intervention – Held: Delay not fatal, claimants’ evidence established rash and negligent act of respondent No.1 – Dismissal by Tribunal erroneous [Paras 10–13, 20].

Motor Accident – Effect of Criminal Acquittal – Acquittal of driver in criminal case not binding on MACT – Standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities – Tribunal erred in relying on criminal acquittal and inferring collusion between claimants and driver – Held: Findings of collusion were speculative and not proved by insurer – Tribunal misapplied legal principles [Paras 14–17].

Motor Accident – Minor Victim – Determination of Income – Future Prospects – Compensation – Minor aged 11 years treated as skilled worker – Notional income taken as ₹4,375 per month as per minimum wages – Future prospects @ 40% applied – Deduction of 50% for personal expenses – Multiplier of 18 applied – Held: Just and fair compensation includes future potential and not limited to current earnings of child [Paras 26–29].

Compensation – Filial Consortium – Parents' Right – Compensation of ₹48,400 each awarded to both parents under head of parental consortium – Loss of estate and funeral expenses also awarded with 10% escalation as per Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance principles – Interest @ 9% p.a. awarded from date of claim petition till realization [Paras 24, 30–32].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Tribunal’s dismissal of claim set aside – Appellants awarded compensation of ₹7,94,492 with 9% interest per annum from date of claim petition till realization – Respondent No.4-Insurance Company directed to deposit amount within 2 months for disbursal by Tribunal [Paras 30–32].

Motor Vehicles Act – Fatal Accident – Multiple Claims from Same Accident – Common Judgment – Appeals arising out of a single accident dated 24.09.2021 involving collision between TATA Ace (mini truck) and Maruti Swift car – Deaths of Kuldeep Kaur, Surinder Singh and Chhinder Kaur – Separate claim petitions decided by MACT – All connected appeals disposed of by common judgment [Paras 1–7].

Assessment of Income – No Documentary Proof – Minimum Wages as Guiding Factor – Tribunal assessed income at Rs.15,000/- per month on assumption of daily wages – High Court held that in absence of documentary evidence, minimum wages notified under Minimum Wages Act constitute primary guiding factor – Minimum wages for unskilled workers in Punjab as on 01.09.2021 fixed at Rs.9,400/- per month – Income reassessed accordingly for all deceased persons [Paras 13–18, 28–30, 41–43].

Future Prospects – Self-Employed / Daily Wage Earners – Tribunal erred in denying future prospects – Following National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi – Addition of future prospects mandatory even for self-employed or fixed salary persons – 10% addition where age between 50–60 years and 25% where age between 40–50 years – Applied uniformly in all three cases [Paras 19–20, 32–33, 44–45].

Multiplier – Correct Application – Multiplier applied by Tribunal based on age of deceased upheld – No interference warranted on this aspect [Paras 21, 34, 46].

Conventional Heads – Consortium, Funeral Expenses, Loss of Estate – Standardisation – Compensation under conventional heads revised in line with Pranay Sethi, Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and N. Jayasree v. Cholamandalam MS – Consortium enhanced to Rs.48,000/- per claimant – Funeral expenses and loss of estate fixed at Rs.18,000/- each [Paras 21–22, 34–35, 46–47].

Kuldeep Kaur (Age 60) – Reassessment of Compensation – Income reassessed at Rs.9,400/- per month – Future prospects @10% added – Deduction of 50% – Multiplier of 9 applied – Total compensation recalculated at Rs.6,42,360/- with interest @7.5% per annum – Tribunal award reduced [Paras 8–22].

Surinder Singh (Age 40) – Reassessment of Compensation – Income reassessed at Rs.9,400/- per month – Future prospects @25% added – Deduction of 1/4th – Multiplier of 15 applied – Consortium granted to four dependents – Total compensation recalculated at Rs.18,14,250/- with interest @7.5% per annum – Tribunal award reduced [Paras 23–35].

Chhinder Kaur (Age 60) – Reassessment of Compensation – Income reassessed at Rs.9,400/- per month – Future prospects @10% added – Deduction of 1/3rd – Multiplier of 9 applied – Consortium granted to three children – Total compensation recalculated at Rs.9,24,480/- with interest @7.5% per annum – Tribunal award reduced [Paras 36–47].

Decision: Appeals filed by Insurance Company (FAO Nos.2791, 2794 & 2797 of 2025) partly allowed – Appeals filed by claimants (FAO Nos.593, 733 & 644 of 2025) dismissed – Impugned awards dated 29.10.2024 modified to the extent of recalculation of compensation – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 48–49].

Co-operative Law – Review Jurisdiction – Reference to Larger Bench – Review petition filed against judgment restoring money decree passed by Co-operative Court – Review based on subsequent coordinate Bench decision holding that Co-operative Courts lack jurisdiction for recovery above ₹10 lakh – Court held that issue raises substantial questions of law requiring authoritative determination – Matter referred to larger Bench instead of deciding review on merits [Paras 1, 75–79].

Banking Law – Co-operative Banks – Applicability of RDB Act – Core issue whether State co-operative banks fall within definition of “bank” under Sections 2(d) and 2(e) of RDB Act – Petitioner relying on Pandurang Ganpati Chaugule contended that co-operative banks are banking companies and must approach DRT exclusively – Respondents contended that said judgment was confined to SARFAESI Act and did not extend RDB Act to State co-operative banks – Court held issue remains unresolved [Paras 2, 33–48].

Jurisdiction – Conflict between Central and State Laws – Section 91 MCS Act vs. Sections 17 & 18 RDB Act – Whether recovery proceedings by State co-operative banks before Co-operative Courts stand barred by RDB Act – Court noted absence of express inclusion of State co-operative banks under RDB Act, contrasted with express inclusion of multi-State co-operative banks – Held that jurisdictional exclusion cannot be conclusively determined without larger Bench ruling [Paras 49–71].

Constitutional Law – Legislative Competence – Entries 45 List I and 32 List II – Banking and recovery of bank dues fall under Entry 45 (Union List), while co-operative societies fall under Entry 32 (State List) – Pandurang Ganpati Chaugule weakened constitutional foundation of Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank but did not expressly overrule its conclusions on RDB Act – Striking down of Part IX-B in Rajendra N. Shah further complicates analysis – Issue held fit for reference [Paras 72–75].

Precedent – Overruling by Implication – Limits – Court reiterated that judgments cannot be treated as overruled by implication unless irreconcilable conflict exists on same issue – Held that Pandurang Ganpati Chaugule does not expressly overrule Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank on applicability of RDB Act – Coordinate Bench decision in Washim Urban raises debatable legal position [Paras 22–48].

Procedure – Reference under Appellate Side Rules – Exercising powers under Chapter I Rule 8 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, Court referred substantial question of law to Hon’ble Chief Justice for constitution of a larger Bench – Review petition to remain pending till reference is answered [Paras 76–79].

Decision: Question of law referred to larger Bench – Review Petition kept pending – Registry directed to place papers before Hon’ble Chief Justice for appropriate orders – Matter to be decided in accordance with law laid down by larger Bench [Paras 76–79].

Service Law – Regularization – Daily Wage / Casual Employees – Long Continuous Service – Forest Department, Haryana – Petitioners engaged as casual labour / daily wagers since around year 2000 – Services illegally terminated – Labour Court awards directed reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages – Awards upheld by High Court and attained finality – Petitioners sought regularization under Haryana Regularization Policies dated 01.10.2003 and 10.02.2004 – Claims rejected by Department citing lack of sanctioned posts, non-compliance with recruitment rules, alleged breaks in service and withdrawal of policy – Held: Petitioners entitled to consideration and regularization [Paras 2–3, 16–42].

Labour Court Award – Continuity of Service – Legal Effect – Restitutio ad Integrum – Award of reinstatement with continuity of service is not symbolic but restores employee to uninterrupted service for all consequential benefits – Employer estopped from disputing length or nature of service after judicial affirmation – Continuity obliterates illegal termination and condones breaks not attributable to employee – State cannot indirectly nullify binding judicial determinations [Paras 17–22].

Regularization Policy dated 01.10.2003 & 10.02.2004 – Accrued and Crystallised Rights – Policy prescribed eligibility of daily wage Group-D employees completing three years’ service as on 30.09.2003 with 240 days’ work per year – Petitioners fulfilled all substantive conditions while policy was in force – Withdrawal of policy in 2007 cannot retrospectively extinguish accrued rights – Right to consideration stood crystallised once eligibility conditions were fulfilled [Paras 23–38].

Uma Devi Doctrine – Scope and Limitations – Misapplication by State – Ratio in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi aimed at preventing illegal backdoor appointments – Not intended to deny regularization to employees with long uninterrupted service under State’s knowledge – Distinction between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments emphasized – Mechanical reliance on Uma Devi to defeat parity-based and policy-based claims deprecated [Paras 39–56].

Parity and Non-Discrimination – Articles 14 & 16 – Hostile Discrimination – Petitioners demonstrated that similarly situated and even junior employees were regularized by the Department – State failed to show intelligible differentia – Selective denial of benefit held arbitrary and discriminatory – Equality clause mandates similar treatment to similarly placed employees [Paras 43–49].

Legitimate Expectation – Welfare State Obligation – Model Employer Doctrine – Long continuation of service under State creates legitimate expectation of regularization – State as model employer cannot exploit vulnerable workforce by keeping them perpetually temporary – Withdrawal of beneficial schemes cannot defeat legitimate expectation where State’s inaction caused delay [Paras 33–34, 62].

Delay and Laches – Non-Communication of Rejection Order – Impugned order dated 13.11.2020 never communicated to petitioners – Petitioners gained knowledge only during contempt proceedings – Delay attributable to State – Doctrine of laches inapplicable where impugned action not disclosed to affected party [Paras 64–65].

Creation of Posts – Judicial Restraint – Direction Limited to Policy Consideration – Court reiterated it cannot direct creation or sanction of posts – However, State bound to act fairly within existing policy framework – Direction issued to regularize petitioners under 2003–2004 Policy without compelling creation of posts [Para 65].

Decision: Writ petitions allowed – Orders rejecting regularization set aside – Respondents directed to regularize petitioners under Regularization Policy dated 01.10.2003 as amended on 10.02.2004 – Regularization to be granted within one month – Petitioners entitled to all consequential benefits including arrears with interest @ 6% per annum – Pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Law – Section 323 IPC – Voluntarily Causing Hurt – Conviction Unsustainable in Absence of Medical Evidence – Appellants convicted under Section 323 IPC – No medical evidence or doctor's testimony produced – No proof of bodily pain, disease, or infirmity as defined under Section 319 IPC – Held: Failure to prove nature and extent of injuries renders prosecution case incomplete – Benefit of doubt must be extended to accused [Paras 6–10]

Witness Testimony – Uncorroborated and Uncross-Examined Injured Witnesses – P.W.1 and P.W.4 claimed to be injured but not cross-examined – Absence of corroboration through medical report and lack of specific attribution of role to each accused – Held: Mere oral allegations without supporting evidence insufficient to sustain conviction under Section 323 IPC [Paras 7–10]

Non-Examination of Investigating Officer – Effect on Prosecution – Investigating Officer not examined – No contradictions elicited from witnesses – Held: While not fatal per se, non-examination of IO when combined with other lapses (absence of medical proof, general allegations) cumulatively weakens prosecution case [Paras 4, 6, 8–10]

Acquittal – Benefit of Doubt – Prosecution failed to prove individual culpability of each accused – No clear evidence linking specific acts of assault to particular accused – Held: Prosecution evidence vague and non-specific – Conviction set aside and appellants acquitted giving benefit of doubt [Paras 10–11]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 02.07.2007 passed by Special Judge, Keonjhar in Special Case No. 19 of 1999 set aside – Accused-appellants acquitted – Bail bonds discharged – Criminal appeal disposed of.

Arbitration – Jurisdiction – Statutory Arbitration – National Highways Act – Section 3-G(5), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 42 – Petitioner NHAI contended that Section 34 petition filed by landowners challenging award of arbitrator should lie before District Judge, Mandi, as arbitrator was Divisional Commissioner, Mandi – Held: Notification under Section 3-G(5) merely specifies territorial jurisdiction of arbitrator and does not designate “seat” of arbitration – Office location or venue of hearings at Mandi does not ipso facto constitute seat of arbitration – Neither parties nor arbitrator fixed seat – In absence of designated seat, court where first application under Part I was filed (Bilaspur) would have exclusive jurisdiction under Section 42 – District Judge Bilaspur rightly retained jurisdiction [Paras 11–16, 22–23].

Arbitration – Seat vs Venue – Interpretation of “Place” under Section 20 – Juridical Seat – Mandi not fixed as seat – Mere fact that arbitrator holds office or conducts hearings in Mandi does not confer status of “seat” – Reference made to Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium and BGS SGS SOMA JV v. NHPC – Held: Seat of arbitration is the legal anchor of arbitration, and once chosen, confers exclusive jurisdiction – In present case, no agreement or determination regarding seat made – Thus, “Mandi” was only the venue and not the seat of arbitration [Paras 12–16].

Arbitration – Section 42 – First Application Rule – Exclusive Jurisdiction – Where Section 34 petition filed first – Respondents (landowners) filed Section 34 petitions before District Judge, Bilaspur prior in time to petitions filed by NHAI before District Judge, Mandi – As per Section 42, once an application is made in a “court” under Part I of the Act, that court alone has jurisdiction for all subsequent applications – Held: Bilaspur court has exclusive jurisdiction – Petitions by NHAI seeking transfer to Mandi court are devoid of merit [Paras 17–23].

Arbitration – Court under Section 2(1)(e) – Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction – Applicability of Section 42 – District Judge, Bilaspur is a “court” under Section 2(1)(e) – Once Section 34 application was validly filed there, no subsequent application could be filed before Mandi court – Petitioner’s Section 34 application before Mandi filed after respondents’ application in Bilaspur – Held: District Judge Bilaspur had valid and exclusive jurisdiction [Paras 21–23].

National Highways Act – Section 3-G Arbitration – Applicability of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 3-G(6) expressly applies Arbitration Act, 1996 to arbitrations under National Highways Act – Section 2(4) of Arbitration Act also deems statutory arbitrations under any enactment, including National Highways Act, to be governed by Part I of the Arbitration Act – Hence, Section 34 and Section 42 apply in full to such statutory arbitrations [Paras 2–7].

Decision: All petitions dismissed – Impugned order dated 28.06.2025 passed by District Judge, Bilaspur upheld – District Judge, Bilaspur has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain and decide all applications arising out of the arbitral proceedings – Mandi court has no jurisdiction in view of first application rule under Section 42 – Miscellaneous applications also dismissed. [Para 24]