Motor Accident Compensation – Injury Case – Double Amputation – Enhancement of Compensation – Appellant, a Diploma Mechanical Engineer employed as Foreman, suffered amputation of both legs due to rash and negligent driving of insured tipper truck – Tribunal awarded compensation by treating loss of earning capacity at only 20% – High Court found approach erroneous and contrary to settled law – Held: Double amputation attracts permanent total disablement under Schedule I of Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 [Paras 24–26].

Permanent Disability vs Functional Disability – Assessment – Though medical disability assessed at 100%, functional disability assessed at 60% considering appellant’s educational qualifications, artificial limbs and residual capacity – Tribunal erred in mechanically reducing disability to 20% – Functional disability must be assessed with reference to nature of employment and loss of earning capacity [Paras 19, 25–26].

Loss of Future Earning – Application of Multiplier – Annual income assessed at ₹4,23,612/- without impermissible deduction of professional tax – Addition of 40% towards future prospects applicable even in injury cases – Multiplier of 15 applied as per Sarla Verma – Held: Loss of future earning correctly computed after applying functional disability [Paras 21–28, 34].

Future Prospects – Injury Cases – Applicability – Compensation for future prospects not confined to death cases – Claimant suffering permanent disability also entitled to future prospects – Reliance placed on Pranay Sethi and Pappu Deo Yadav – Tribunal erred in denying such benefit [Paras 27–28].

Employees’ Compensation Act – Relevance in Motor Accident Claims – By virtue of Second Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act, Schedule I of Employees’ Compensation Act applicable to determine percentage of loss of earning capacity – Double amputation treated as 100% loss of earning capacity statutorily [Paras 23–24].

Loss of Income During Treatment – Appellant hospitalised for 73 days – Loss of income during treatment period awarded separately – Tribunal’s computation upheld on this aspect [Paras 21–22].

Attendant Charges – Mode of Computation – Attendant charges need not always be calculated by multiplier method – Where claimant not in vegetative state and has artificial limbs, lump sum compensation justified – Kajal v. Jagdish Chand applied contextually [Paras 29–31].

Cost of Artificial Limbs – Maintenance and Future Expenses – Artificial limbs require periodic replacement and maintenance – Claimant cannot be compelled to initiate future litigation – One-time compensation awarded towards maintenance and future expenses [Paras 32].

Pain and Suffering – Loss of Amenities – Severe permanent disability at young age causes lifelong deprivation of normal enjoyment of life – Compensation must reflect physical, mental and emotional trauma – Substantial amount awarded under pain and suffering, loss of amenities and expectation of life [Paras 33–34].

Just Compensation – Section 168 MV Act – Compensation must be realistic, humane and not illusory – Courts must attempt to restore claimant as far as money can – Tribunal’s award held grossly inadequate and enhanced substantially [Paras 17–18, 35].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Tribunal award modified – Total compensation enhanced to ₹75,23,346/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from date of claim petition – Enhanced amount payable within three months – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Dishonour of Cheque – Directors’ Liability – Quashing of Complaint – Petitioners sought quashing of criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 138/141 of the NI Act on ground that no specific role was attributed to them in the complaint – Held: Mere reproduction of statutory language not sufficient – Complaint must aver how each director was in charge of or responsible for the conduct of business at the relevant time – Failure to do so is fatal – Petitioners Nos. 1 and 4 had resigned prior to the alleged offence and such resignation was accepted as per Form-32 – Continuation of proceedings against them is an abuse of process [Paras 9, 10, 11, 15, 17, 18]

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Reason for Dishonour – ‘Other Reasons’ – Held: Dishonour for “other reasons” does not constitute an offence under Section 138 NI Act, which requires dishonour for insufficiency of funds or exceeding arrangement – Complaint unsustainable on this ground alone [Para 10]

Company Law – Winding Up Order – Effect – Company under liquidation – Order for winding up passed prior to the institution of the complaint – Held: No proceedings can be continued against company once Official Liquidator is appointed – Complaint against company and its directors not maintainable in such scenario [Para 16]

Vicarious Liability – Directors – Specific Averments Mandatory – Multiple Supreme Court precedents reiterated that vicarious liability of directors under Section 141 NI Act cannot arise without clear and specific averments about their role – A director is not deemed liable solely because of designation – Liability must be based on factual assertions [Paras 11–14]

Decision: CRR allowed – Complaint Case No. C-824 of 2011 pending before the Learned 4th Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta is quashed – Proceedings against petitioners under Sections 138/141 NI Act set aside [Paras 20–21]

Public Contracts – Delay in Submission of Security – Blacklisting – Proportionality – Contractor failed to submit APS and ISD by 22.07.2024 due to illness and deposited on 24.07.2024 – Explained delay with medical certificate – Tender cancelled, portal registration blocked, and contractor blacklisted for three years – Held: Delay of two days was due to bona fide and uncontrollable cause – No show-cause issued prior to blacklisting – Action disproportionate and contrary to Clause 23 of OPWD Code – Orders of blocking portal and blacklisting quashed – Authorities directed to restore portal access and bidding rights [Paras 10–12].

Natural Justice – Requirement of Show Cause and Reasons – Decision to blacklist contractor taken without clear show-cause notice or reasoning – Mere participation in tender implies acceptance of conditions, but penal consequences must follow due process – Action held arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice [Paras 10.6, 12.2–12.4].

Judicial Review – Scope under Article 226 – Court reaffirms limits of administrative discretion in blacklisting – Interference warranted when procedure violated and proportionality not maintained – Actions affecting livelihood attract higher scrutiny [Paras 11–12].

Decision:

Writ petition allowed – Orders of blocking portal registration and blacklisting for three years quashed – Authorities directed to restore petitioner’s eligibility to participate in future tenders.

Criminal Law – Food Adulteration – Misbranding – Reversal of Conviction – Accused prosecuted for selling misbranded soy sauce bottles lacking batch number and vegetarian symbol – Convicted by Trial Court under Section 16(1)(a)(i) PFA Act and sentenced to six months' simple imprisonment – First Appellate Court acquitted the accused – Held: Appellate Court rightly found that prosecution failed to prove misbranding at the time of sampling – No mention of missing label elements in Panchnama – Food Inspector failed to recall label details during trial – Independent witness did not corroborate prosecution case – Prosecution's reliance solely on Public Analyst report without establishing foundational facts created serious doubt about offence – Acquittal upheld – Appeal dismissed [Paras 13–16]

Appellate Review – Presumption of Innocence – Double Presumption – Appellate Court reiterated that once a trial court acquits an accused, presumption of innocence is reinforced – Appellate court must be slow in interfering unless acquittal is found perverse or unreasonable – No such perversity shown in the present case [Paras 9–11]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal by First Appellate Court upheld – Accused acquitted – Bail bonds discharged.

Criminal Law – Compromise after Conviction – Non-Compoundable Offences – Sections 324, 148, 149 IPC – Accused convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment up to two years – During pendency of appeal parties entered into voluntary compromise – Trial Court verified compromise and reported it to be genuine and without coercion – Held: High Court can quash proceedings and set aside conviction in exercise of inherent powers to secure ends of justice even in non-compoundable offences [Paras 4–8, 14–17].

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 CrPC – Scope – Distinction between Compounding and Quashing – Though offences are not compoundable under Section 320 CrPC, inherent jurisdiction of High Court not barred – Power under Section 482 can be exercised to prevent abuse of process and to promote peace and harmony where dispute is predominantly private in nature [Paras 8–12].

Offences against Society – Test of Public Interest – FIR involved offences under Sections 307 and 326 IPC but appellants already acquitted of those charges – Remaining offences under Sections 324/148/149 IPC arose from village dispute – Held: Incident did not affect public peace, moral turpitude or public policy – Continuation of proceedings would serve no fruitful purpose [Paras 7–8, 16].

Settlement – Post-Conviction Stage – Pendency of Appeals – Compromise permissible even after conviction where offence is non-heinous and private in nature – Object of criminal jurisprudence is reformatory and to restore peace – Rejection of compromise may perpetuate hostility [Paras 7, 14–16].

Effect of Death of Accused – Abatement – One appellant (Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi) expired during pendency of appeals – Appeal abated qua deceased accused – Remaining appellants entitled to benefit of compromise [Para 5, 18].

Decision: Appeals by accused allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant-convicts acquitted – Appeal filed by State dismissed in view of compromise – Proceedings abated qua deceased accused – Bail bonds discharged – All pending applications closed [Paras 17–18].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Scope and Limits – Appellants sought quashing of FIR and summoning order at pre-trial stage – Court reiterated that inherent jurisdiction can be exercised only where allegations, taken at face value, do not disclose commission of any offence – High Court cannot conduct a mini trial or assess veracity of evidence at cognizance stage [Paras 18–21].

Cognizance – Order of Summoning – Judicial Restraint – Cognizance is taken of offence and not offender – At stage of taking cognizance, Magistrate only to see existence of prima facie material – Detailed reasoning or evaluation of evidence not required – Interference warranted only if order is perverse or based on no material [Paras 21–23].

Criminal Law – Contradictions and Improvements – Stage of Consideration – Alleged inconsistencies between FIR, additional complaint, Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement and supplementary statement – Court held that appreciation of contradictions, improvements and credibility of witnesses is matter for trial or stage of charge – Not a ground for quashing proceedings [Paras 19, 25].

SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – Prima Facie Case – Public View and Knowledge of Caste – Allegations of casteist abuse made in additional complaint, Section 164 statement and supplementary statement – Presence of labourers and neighbours alleged – Prima facie ingredients disclosed – Issues regarding public view, intention to humiliate and applicability of specific clauses to be examined at trial [Paras 24–25].

Criminal Law – Section 308 IPC – Nature of Injury – Simple injury and intention to cause death – Court held that determination whether offence under Section 308 IPC is made out depends on evidence and surrounding circumstances – Such assessment impermissible at stage of quashing [Paras 6–7, 25].

Official Duty – Requirement of Sanction – Section 197 Cr.P.C. – Plea that acts were in discharge of official duty – Held: Whether acts complained of have reasonable nexus with official duty is a mixed question of fact and law – To be considered at appropriate stage and not at threshold [Paras 7, 25].

Cross FIR – Effect – Existence of counter FIR regarding same incident – Held: Cross cases reinforce need for full-fledged trial – Cannot be ground to quash proceedings at inception [Para 24].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Order dated 25.01.2024 taking cognizance upheld – FIR not quashed – Liberty granted to appellants to raise all pleas at stage of framing of charge – Trial Court to decide uninfluenced by observations made in judgment.

Service Law – Regularization – Clause 4(C) of Model Standing Orders – Industrial Court allowed complaints directing NMC to grant permanency to Safai Karmacharis who had completed 240 days' service annually – High Court held that Clause 4(C) does not confer automatic right to regularization in absence of sanctioned posts – Orders granting such relief without sanctioned posts are unsustainable [Paras 37–41].

Labour Law – Applicability of Model Standing Orders (MSO) – NMC argued that it had Certified Standing Orders and MSO was not applicable – Court rejected this objection, relying on NMC v. Ramchandra Sathe – However, held that even if MSO applies, right to permanency under Clause 4(C) cannot override statutory requirements under Municipal Acts regarding sanctioned posts [Paras 19, 35] –

Unfair Labour Practice – Item 6 & 9 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act – Industrial Court declared NMC guilty of unfair labour practice for continuing workers as daily wagers despite long service – High Court held that such a declaration cannot be sustained where appointments were not against sanctioned posts and regularization was not permissible under law – Declaration quashed [Paras 38, 40] –

Public Employment – Regularization and Creation of Posts – Citing Umadevi, Hari Nandan Prasad, Ilmo Devi, and others – Court reaffirmed that no right to regularization accrues without sanctioned post – Courts cannot create posts or mandate their creation – Merely working for years does not entitle regular status unless service was against sanctioned post [Paras 28–29, 32–35] –

Judicial Precedent – Conflicting View in Recent Judgments – Court noted judgments favoring regularization based on nature of work (e.g., Jaggoo, Shripal) did not reconcile with earlier binding precedents like MSRTC v. Casteribe and Tulsidas Bindhade – Held: Earlier Division Bench decisions are binding; newer views deviating from settled law are not to be followed [Paras 24–27, 36] –

Administrative Action – Regularization via Policy – NMC had already regularized complainants against 4407 supernumerary posts created by State Government – Their past service was not counted as per policy – Held: This does not violate MSO or amount to unfair labour practice – Policy decision upheld [Paras 39, 41] –

Decision: Writ Petitions allowed – Impugned Industrial Court judgments directing regularization/quasi-permanency on basis of Clause 4(C) MSO set aside – Complaints dismissed – Industrial Court erred in holding NMC guilty of unfair labour practice where no sanctioned post existed [Paras 42–43].

Civil Law - Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Rejection of plaint – Daughter claiming share in ancestral/urbanised land – Mutation entries and Section 50 DLR Act relied upon to non-suit plaintiff – Held: plaint disclosed triable cause of action – issues of coparcenary, succession, limitation and applicability of special law require evidence – rejection set aside – suit restored [Paras 11–32].

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) CPC – Scope – Court to examine plaint averments alone and not conduct mini trial – Existence of cause of action to be tested on pleadings, not ultimate success – Where plaint discloses triable issues, rejection impermissible [Paras 12–15, 29–30].

Succession – Ancestral Property – Daughter’s rights – Section 6 Hindu Succession Act (as amended in 2005) – Plaintiff pleaded property as ancestral and unpartitioned – Detailed proof of creation of HUF or coparcenary not required at pleading stage – Whether property is ancestral or self-acquired is mixed question of law and fact to be decided at trial [Paras 19–20, 28–29].

Mutation – Revenue Records – Effect – Mutation entries neither create nor extinguish title – Only for fiscal purposes – Mutation in favour of sons after father’s death does not defeat substantive inheritance rights of other legal heirs – Reliance on mutation to deny cause of action held erroneous [Paras 15, 18].

Delhi Land Reforms Act – Section 50 – Applicability – Succession to bhumidhari rights – Plaintiff pleaded that land stood urbanised in 2006 – Applicability of DLR Act post-urbanisation doubtful and requires evidence – Special law cannot be conclusively applied at threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Paras 17–18, 27].

Hindu Succession Act – Section 4(2) (since omitted) – Effect – After omission of Section 4(2), succession governed by HSA even in respect of agricultural land – Plaintiff’s claim raised post-2005 – Whether DLR Act continues to govern succession requires adjudication on facts and law [Paras 17, 24–27].

Limitation – Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC – Mixed question of law and fact – Where plaint pleads continuing cause of action, fraud and later knowledge of alienations, limitation cannot be decided at threshold [Paras 22].

Order II Rule 2 CPC – Bar – Requires comparison of pleadings of previous suits – Such inquiry impermissible at stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Para 21].

Precedents – Applicability – Judgments rejecting vague HUF claims distinguished – Where plaint contains categorical averments of ancestral property and subsisting joint status, rejection at threshold not justified [Paras 23, 28].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order dated 01.12.2022 set aside – Suit restored to original number – Parties directed to appear before learned Single Judge – All pending applications disposed of [Paras 31–34].

Criminal Law – Acid Attack – Conviction under Sections 326/34 and 304/34 IPC – Appeals against conviction – FIR held ante-timed – Effect of ante-timing – FIR shown to be registered at 6:30 a.m. but evidence established that informant returned from Delhi only around 7:45 a.m. and FIR was lodged after consultation around 9:00 a.m. – Held: FIR clearly ante-timed and belonging to category affecting prosecution case – Ante-timed FIR requires cautious scrutiny of prosecution evidence [Paras 32–38, 68–72].

Evidence Appreciation – Ocular Testimony – Injured Witness – PW-2 (injured son) gave detailed account but admitted at end of testimony that all were asleep and he did not know anything – Material self-contradiction going to root of prosecution case – Injured witness though generally accorded higher weight, testimony liable to be discarded if wholly unreliable – Held: Evidence of PW-2 not trustworthy [Paras 49–50, 59–60, 73].

Evidence Appreciation – Eye-witness Testimony – PW-3 (daughter of deceased) – Claimed to have witnessed acid attack while awake – Version found inherently improbable and self-contradictory – Contradictions regarding sequence of events, manner of assault, role of accused, and position of witnesses – Material inconsistencies with testimony of injured witness – Held: PW-3 not a reliable eye-witness [Paras 55–57, 65–67].

Contradictions in Prosecution Evidence – Material Discrepancies – Inconsistent accounts as to who poured acid on deceased – One witness attributing fatal act to Bablu, another to Anil – Discrepancies regarding resistance by victims, running to hydrant, physical scuffle – Not minor variations but contradictions on core incident – Held: Prosecution failed to present a coherent and consistent version [Paras 62–67, 74].

Motive – Double-edged Weapon – Prior conviction of two appellants for rape of informant’s daughter – Possible motive for accused to commit offence as well as for informant and family to falsely implicate – In blind crime with unreliable eyewitnesses, motive to falsely implicate assumes relevance – Held: Possibility of false implication could not be ruled out [Paras 17–22, 77–90].

Related and Interested Witnesses – Principles of Scrutiny – Evidence of close relatives requires careful and discerning scrutiny, especially where animosity exists – Court relied on Vadivelu Thevar, Raju @ Balachandran, Dalip Singh and other precedents – Held: Testimony of related witnesses failed to meet standard of credibility required for conviction [Paras 58–60, 83–86].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Burden of Proof – Benefit of Doubt – Prosecution required to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Ante-timed FIR coupled with unreliable, contradictory ocular evidence created grave doubt – Held: Prosecution failed to discharge burden – Accused entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 92–94].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Acquittal of all appellants – Release directed forthwith unless required in any other case – Bonds under Section 481 BNSS / Section 437-A CrPC directed [Paras 95–96].