Bail – BNSS Ss. 480 & 483 – Grant of Bail with Stringent Conditions – Petition Allowed – Accused allegedly conspired with co-accused to steal phones, debit card, confine complainant, attempt strangulation, and extort money; already faced multiple arrests in connected crimes in 2024–25 – Held: Considering detention of 67 days, completion of major investigation, examination of 14 witnesses, and fixed residence, bail granted with strict conditions to prevent absconding or witness intimidation [Paras 8–11].

Criminal Procedure – Bail Principles – Court noted that bail cannot be denied as punishment at pre-trial stage; while gravity of offences considered, the period of custody and progress of investigation weighed in favour of bail – Previous dismissal of pre-arrest bail not a bar once investigation substantially complete [Paras 8–10].

IPC & IT Act Offences – Allegations involved conspiracy to administer sedatives, extortion using stolen digital devices and bank cards, and attempt to murder complainant by strangulation; however, custody beyond 67 days not justified when prosecution already examined key witnesses – Custodial interrogation no longer necessary [Paras 2, 8–9].

Bail Conditions – Accused directed to execute bond of ₹25,000 with two sureties; weekly appearance at PS; not to leave Andhra Pradesh without permission; surrender passport; refrain from threats or inducements to witnesses; cooperate with investigation; not to indulge in any future offence – Conditions aimed to balance liberty of accused with integrity of investigation [Para 10].

Decision – Criminal Petition allowed – Petitioner/Accused No.2 enlarged on bail with conditions as specified; non-compliance to entail cancellation of bail [Para 11].

Motor Accident Claim – Fake Driving Licence – Liability of Insurer – Tribunal found driver of Tata 407 truck had no valid licence, licence not genuine as per licensing authority’s report – Despite this, Tribunal saddled insurer with absolute liability without recovery rights – Held: Not sustainable [Paras 6-7].

Pay and Recover Principle – Judicial Precedents – SC in Kamla Devi, Swaran Singh and Shamanna settled law: insurer must first pay compensation to third-party victims and thereafter recover same from vehicle owner/driver if breach of policy condition proved – Object is to protect innocent victims while preserving insurer’s contractual rights [Para 7].

Application to Present Case – High Court held once breach of licence condition proved, insurer entitled to recovery rights – Tribunal erred in omitting this relief – Award upheld for compensation quantum but modified to allow recovery by insurer after satisfying claimants [Paras 6-8].

Decision – Appeal allowed in part – Compensation of ₹2,88,000 with 9% interest to claimants upheld – Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. directed to pay amount to claimants and recover same from owner (R-6) and driver (R-5) of offending vehicle [Para 8-9].

Commercial Courts – Jurisdiction – Definition of “Commercial Dispute” under Section 2(1)(c) – Refund of cancelled airline tickets – Not commercial in nature – Plaintiffs sought recovery of ticket amount with interest and damages – Court held that mere passenger service contract lacks element of trade or business; does not qualify as commercial dispute – Commercial Court rightly returned plaint under O.VII R.10 CPC [Paras 10-14, 24-29].

Provision of Services – Section 2(1)(c)(xviii), Commercial Courts Act – Interpretation – Appellants argued contract of carriage amounts to provision of services, thus a commercial dispute – Court rejected, holding only transactions with commercial/business element fall within scope; mere consumer service not covered [Paras 11-17, 25-28].

Statutory Interpretation – Strict vs. Liberal Approach – Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. (2020) 15 SCC 585 applied – Commercial Courts Act requires strict construction to confine to high-value business/trade disputes; liberal interpretation would defeat purpose of fast-tracking genuine commercial cases [Paras 19-20, 30].

Consumer Contract vs. Commercial Transaction – Distinction emphasised – Purchase of tickets by individual passengers for personal travel is a consumer contract, not a mercantile/business transaction – Hence excluded from definition of commercial disputes [Paras 21-23, 27-28].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – No error in Commercial Court’s order returning plaint for filing before ordinary civil court – No costs awarded [Paras 31-33].

Arbitration Law  – Section 37 – Scope of Interference – Tribunal awarded Rs. 126 crores with 11% interest to Adani Enterprises Ltd. in relation to cancelled coal block mining contract – UCM Coal Company Ltd. assailed award alleging misinterpretation of contract, impermissible recognition of subcontractors as consultants, and lack of evidence – Commercial Court dismissed Section 34 petition – High Court held Tribunal’s findings based on evidence and permissible contractual interpretation – No perversity or patent illegality established – Appeal dismissed, award upheld [Paras 63-68, 80-82, 101].

Arbitration – Section 37 Appeal – Scope of Interference – Court reiterated that appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 is narrower than Section 34 – Court cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute interpretation unless arbitral award is perverse or suffers from patent illegality – Tribunal’s interpretation of contract clauses and appreciation of evidence was within its domain [Paras 63-68].

Mining Contract – Consultants vs. Subcontractors – Clauses 12.2, 27.5, 27.6 prohibited sub-contracting without prior written consent – Tribunal, on basis of evidence including correspondence, progress reports and witness admissions, held PMC, GVI, Hydro, Vimta Labs, and SPRAC were consultants engaged for specialized clearances, not subcontractors – Appellant aware of their work and relied upon reports – Finding upheld [Paras 70-79].

Arbitral Award – Sufficiency of Evidence – Tribunal relied on work orders, PMC arbitral award, CA certificates, progress reports, and witness testimony to support reimbursement claims – Appellant failed to establish absence of evidence – Arbitral award placed on record in related proceedings constituted credible evidence – CA certificates validly relied upon – Findings not arbitrary or perverse [Paras 83-100].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Arbitral award dated 20.11.2018 and Commercial Court order dated 31.03.2023 upheld – No order as to costs [Para 101].

Criminal Law – Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Quashing of FIR – FIR registered by police under Section 13 of the D&C Act pursuant to Magistrate’s order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Held: Only authorities specified under Section 32 of D&C Act (Drug Inspector etc.) can initiate prosecution – Police has no jurisdiction to register FIR – FIR under D&C Act quashed as without authority [Paras 40-44, 88]

Criminal Law – IPC Offences – Sections 274 and 275 IPC – Held: Though FIR under IPC is maintainable, ingredients of offences not made out – Allegation of adulteration not supported by material – Joint inspection found product of standard quality at time of dispatch – Adulteration, if any, occurred after delivery to complainant – FIR under IPC also quashed [Paras 45-60, 66-85, 89]

Criminal Procedure – Limitation – FIR registered in 2019 for offences punishable with up to six months – No charge sheet filed within one year – No justification for delay – Bar under Section 468 Cr.P.C. applicable – Investigation continuation amounts to abuse of process – FIR quashed on this ground as well [Paras 86-87, 89]

Drugs Law – Loan Licencee – Manufacturing Responsibility – Petitioner only provided manufacturing facility under Loan Licence to Respondent No. 2 – Held: As per Rules 75A, 69A of D&C Rules and judicial precedents, Loan Licencee (Respondent No. 2) is deemed manufacturer and responsible for drug quality – Petitioners not liable under D&C Act [Paras 64-70]

Commercial Dispute – Civil Nature Given Criminal Colour – Allegations arose from failure of Respondent No. 2 to sell drugs in market – Parties had arbitration agreement – Nil award given holding likely tampering by Respondent – Held: Dispute purely civil/commercial – Criminal proceedings abuse of process [Paras 20-21, 82-84]

Decision:

FIR No. 053/2019 under Sections 274/275 IPC and Section 13 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, registered at PS Okhla Industrial Area, quashed – Observations confined to FIR proceedings only – Petition allowed [Paras 90-91]

Motor Accident Claim – Assessment of Income – Evidence of Mining and Agricultural Activities – Compensation Enhanced – Tribunal treated deceased as unskilled labour earning ₹4,914 per month – High Court held that evidence of statutory mining consents, crane registration, EMI payments of ₹35,170 per month, and agricultural land indicated much higher income – Monthly income assessed at ₹45,000 – Compensation recalculated accordingly [Paras 9-13, 18].

Motor Accident Compensation – Loan Repayment as Proof of Earning Capacity – Reliance on Gurpreet Kaur v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1778 – Regular repayment of heavy EMI reflects higher earning capacity; minimum wage cannot be the sole yardstick where positive evidence exists – Applied to present case [Paras 12-13].

Agricultural Income – Agriculturist not to be Treated as Unskilled Labour – Judicial recognition that agriculture requires skill, knowledge, and scientific input – Hence, deceased’s agricultural income also considered in computing monthly earnings [Paras 14-17].

Consortium – Award under Conventional Head – As per Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance, consortium includes spousal, parental, and filial – High Court awarded ₹40,000 each to all dependents (widow, four children, and mother) [Paras 19-20].

Final Computation – Income assessed at ₹45,000 per month; after applying multiplier of 13 and deductions, loss of income ₹65,81,328 – Consortium ₹2,40,000 – Funeral ₹15,000 – Loss of estate ₹15,000 – Total compensation ₹68,51,328 – Enhanced by ₹60,62,636 over Tribunal’s award – Interest @6% p.a. from date of claim petition, rising to 7.5% if delayed beyond two months [Paras 21-22].

Decision:

Appeal partly allowed—Impugned award modified—Compensation enhanced from ₹7,88,692 to ₹68,51,328 with interest—Insurance Company directed to deposit enhanced amount within two months, failing which higher interest rate applies.

Land Acquisition – Redetermination of Compensation – Section 28-A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Beneficial Construction – Limitation – Award of Enhanced Compensation – Maintainability – Applicability of Banwari v. HSIIDC, 2025 AIR (SC) 165 – Section 28-A is a beneficent provision intended to remove inequality among landowners whose lands were acquired under the same notification – Limitation of three months under Section 28-A begins from the date of the award relied upon and not from any earlier award subsequently set aside – Applications filed within three months from Reference Court’s award dated 30.01.2016 held within limitation – Order of SLAO dated 17.02.2022 granting redetermination at Rs.108/- per sq. mtr. with statutory benefits upheld – KUMS’ plea of limitation and non-maintainability rejected – Reliance placed on Banwari (supra), Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari, and Hansoli Devi – Beneficial interpretation applied [Paras 7.1–7.22, 8(a)–(e)].

Interpretation of Beneficial Legislation – Section 28-A – Purpose and Object – Equality in Compensation – Landowners under same notification entitled to equal treatment – Provision to be construed liberally to extend benefit to inarticulate and poor landowners – Earlier contrary ruling in Ramsingbhai v. State of Gujarat held per incuriam – Pradeep Kumari followed as binding precedent [Paras 7.11–7.13, 7.19–7.22].

Limitation – Commencement – Date of Award Relied Upon – Not from Earlier Set Aside Award – KUMS’ contention that time ran from 1990 award untenable as that award was quashed in appeal – Cause of action arose only upon Reference Court’s 2016 award upheld finally by Supreme Court – Applications filed on 26.04.2016 within limitation [Paras 7.4–7.6].

Interest and Statutory Benefits – Re-determined Compensation – Collector empowered to grant solatium, additional amount, and interest as per Act – No illegality in award of such benefits – Financial burden on public body no ground to deny statutory compensation [Paras 7.9–7.10, 7.18].

Equitable Compensation – Equal Treatment to Similarly Situated Landowners – Constitutional and Statutory Duty of State – Section 28-A to be read in light of Article 31 and principle of distributive justice – Denial of benefit on technical grounds amounts to discrimination [Paras 7.17–7.22].

Decision – Leading Writ Petition Allowed – Connected Petitions by Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Dismissed – SLAO’s Order dated 17.02.2022 Upheld – KUMS directed to deposit enhanced compensation at Rs.108/- per sq. mtr. with solatium, additional compensation, and interest within six weeks – In default, interest at 12% per annum from date of default till payment [Paras 9(i)–(v), 11].

Domestic Violence Act – Section 12 Application – Maintainability of Petition under Section 482 CrPC – Petitioners sought to quash D.V. Case No. 1 of 2025 filed by daughter-in-law alleging dowry demand and domestic abuse – Held: Proceedings under Chapter IV of D.V. Act are civil in nature and do not constitute criminal proceedings until breach of protection order under Section 31 – Therefore, petition under Section 482 CrPC is not maintainable to challenge such proceedings [Paras 1, 4, 24–25].

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 CrPC – Scope – Full Bench of Madras High Court in Arul Daniel v. Suganya (2022 SCC OnLine Mad 5435) held that Section 482 CrPC cannot be invoked to quash Section 12 D.V. Act proceedings – Remedy lies in approaching Magistrate directly or by appeal under Section 29 of D.V. Act – Petitioners relied on Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1158), but Supreme Court was not informed of earlier binding precedent in Kamatchi v. Lakshmi Narayanan and Constitution Bench rulings [Paras 2, 5–11, 24].

Judicial Discipline – Binding Precedent – Earlier Constitution Bench decisions in S.A.L. Narayan Row v. Ishwarlal Bhagwandas and four-judge ruling in Dargah Committee v. State of Rajasthan not considered by Supreme Court in Shaurabh Kumar – These decisions held that the character of proceedings depends on the nature of relief, not the tribunal – Hence, D.V. proceedings remain civil until Section 31 is invoked [Paras 13, 16–17, 23].

Remedies – Appropriate Forum – Reliefs such as protection, residence, compensation under Chapter IV of the D.V. Act are civil remedies – Appropriate recourse is to Magistrate under the Act or to file appeal under Section 29 – Challenge under Section 482 CrPC impermissible unless criminality under Section 31 arises [Paras 8, 18–22, 24].

High Court Practice – Directions to Registry – Registry directed not to entertain or number any petition under Section 482 CrPC or Section 528 BNSS seeking to quash D.V. Act proceedings at a pre-cognizance stage – Orders of Full Bench in Arul Daniel to be followed strictly [Para 26].

Decision: Criminal Original Petition dismissed at SR stage – Held not maintainable under Section 482 CrPC as proceedings under Section 12 of the D.V. Act are civil in nature and have not reached the stage of criminality under Section 31 – Petitioners directed to avail alternate remedies under the D.V. Act [Paras 24–25].

Excise Law – Suspension of Licence – Disproportionate Penalty – Petitioner’s licences under various excise categories suspended w.e.f. 16.3.2024 based on alleged seizure of truck-load of liquor without proper documentation – High Court finds contradictions between Inspection Report and FIR regarding whether liquor was bottled at petitioner’s plant – Court observes that penalties were highly disproportionate and offences were compoundable – Suspension cannot be indefinite or tantamount to cancellation – Held: Orders of suspension and rejection of representation quashed; authorities directed to determine compounding fee and decide renewal application [Paras 4–6, 15–16, 23–29, 30, 37–39]

Contradictory Findings – Inspection Report vs FIR – Inspection Report claimed seized liquor appeared bottled at petitioner’s plant – FIR alleged liquor was not bottled at the plant – Court held this contradiction undermines credibility of State’s action – Additionally, allegations regarding missing truck and its recovery with reduced stock absent from Inspection Report but added in FIR, indicating afterthought – Held: FIR appears to have been registered post-facto to cover deficiencies in original inspection [Paras 22–25, 33]

Admission of Guilt – No Admission on Critical Issues – State argued petitioner admitted to offences – Court clarified that responsibility was only taken for minor stock discrepancies, not for alleged illegal liquor – No admission regarding truck-load seizure or Krishan Kumar’s role – Mischaracterization of replies by Financial Commissioner – Held: Impugned orders incorrectly based on supposed admissions not supported by record [Paras 17, 32–33]

Employment Status – Custody of Seized Liquor Given to Unauthorised Person – Seized truck allegedly handed over to Krishan Kumar, who was not named in official employee list and was claimed to be a construction contractor – Court held that even if Krishan Kumar was a supervisor, handing over seized liquor back to same person from whom it was recovered defies logic and legal procedure – Held: Serious procedural lapse undermines validity of entire action [Paras 21–24, 26–27]

Licensing – Renewal of Licence – State contended licence deemed cancelled for non-renewal – Court held that renewal had been delayed in earlier years without adverse consequences – Further, suspension of licence prevented petitioner from applying for renewal – Held: Petitioner could not be faulted for not renewing licence while suspension order was in effect [Paras 34–36, 38]

Excise Regulation – Permissible Wastage – Punjab Distillery Rules permit set-off of excess and deficient wastage across months within defined limits – Court held minor variation in physical stock of spirit and liquor was within acceptable norms and could not justify harsh penalty of suspension [Paras 28–30]

Right to Trade in Intoxicants – Fundamental Right – Court clarified that while no fundamental right exists to trade in intoxicants per se, once licence is granted, licensee acquires a protected right to carry on business subject to law – State cannot act arbitrarily or deny recourse to legal remedies [Para 31]

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Orders dated 15.6.2024 and 9.12.2024 suspending licences quashed – Commissioner (State Taxes and Excise) directed to determine appropriate compounding fee within 15 days and decide application for licence renewal accordingly.