Writ Law - Drug Licensing Regulation - Validity of Circular - Right to Conduct Business - Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 - Drugs Rules 1945 - Drugs Price Control Order 2013 - Circular dated 04.09.2024 - Drugs Controller issued a direction stipulating that applicants for drug licenses must incorporate an undertaking in their affidavits stating they will not exhibit discount boards - Petitioners in two writ petitions challenged the circular as being without authority and infringing upon their right to do business and advertise price reductions - Petitioner in a connected writ petition sought implementation of the circular alleging that massive discount boards are often misleading and prejudicial to customers - Respondents contended that while no bar exists on selling drugs below the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) the department aims to eliminate unhealthy practices and misleading advertisements claiming discounts up to 80 percent - Court observed that the licensing authority possesses incidental powers to ensure licensees do not mislead the public during the course of business - The undertaking was rephrased during proceedings to clarify that only misleading or vague claims regarding prices are prohibited - Held - The power of the licensing authority to stipulate conditions in applications to prevent misleading claims for public benefit is not arbitrary - The circular as rephrased does not restrict the right to conduct business - WP(C) Nos. 39706/2024 and 41978/2024 dismissed - WP(C) No. 1447/2025 allowed - [Paras 1-18].

Civil Law - Maximum Retail Price - Consumer Protection - Drugs Price Control Order 2013 - Clauses 2(d) and 2(r) - Definitions of ceiling price and maximum retail price - Statutes prohibit the sale of drugs in excess of the MRP but do not restrict reducing the selling price - Respondents did not insist that retailers refuse discounts to customers but aimed only at preventing misleading display boards - Vague discount percentages can lead to exploitation of the common man - Held - Retailers are under an obligation not to display discount boards containing misleading or vague claims regarding the price of drugs - [Paras 11-13].

Writ Law - Regulatory Authority Power - Judicial Review - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Regulatory authorities have a play in the joints to regulate and prevent illegalities by issuing directions in public interest - Unless rights of licensees are severely infringed or the directives have no apparent benefit to the public the Court will not interfere under Article 226 - The nature of the drug licensing business necessitates significant regulatory oversight by the Drugs Controller - Held - The wisdom of the Drugs Controller in requiring an undertaking for public benefit cannot be a ground for interference by the Court - [Paras 14-17].

Decision: WP(C) Nos. 39706 of 2024 and 41978 of 2024 are dismissed – WP(C) No. 1447 of 2025 is allowed – Respondents are at liberty to initiate appropriate action if the rephrased undertaking regarding misleading discount boards is not complied with.

Arbitration Law - Setting aside of Award - Limitation - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Sections 31(5) and 34(3) - Appellant NHAI challenged District Court order rejecting an application for condonation of delay in filing a Section 34 petition - Appellant argued that the signed copy of the award was never delivered as required under Section 31(5) - Knowledge of the award was only gained on 10.08.2023 - Certified copy was obtained on 20.08.2023 and application was filed on 31.10.2023 - Trial Court dismissed the application on grounds of non-specificity of date of knowledge and mandatory limitation periods - High Court found that the delivery of a signed award is a matter of substance and not a formality - Held - Limitation period under Section 34(3) commences only from the date a signed copy of the award is received by the party - Since signed copy was admittedly not delivered the rejection of the application by the lower court was a grave error of law - Appeal allowed - Matter remanded for decision on merits - [Paras 1-14].

Arbitration Law - Delivery of Arbitral Award - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Section 31(5) - Mandatory Requirement - The delivery of an arbitral award under Section 31(5) is essential to set in motion the period of limitation for filing an application under Section 34(3) - Reliance placed on Union of India Vs. Tecco Trichy Engineers & Contractors - Held - Delivery must be effective and "received" by the party - Non-delivery of a signed copy to the party itself constitutes non-compliance with the Act - Limitation cannot be reckoned until such delivery is completed - [Paras 7-11].

Arbitration Law - Role of Courts in Limitation - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Section 34(3) - Burden of Proof - Trial Court shifted the entire burden of proving the date of knowledge on the appellant despite the Arbitrator's failure to comply with Section 31(5) - High Court observed that when statutory authorities fail to comply with mandatory provisions, benefit of doubt should be extended to the affected party - Held - Shifting the burden of proof to the party who was not served with the award is unreasonable and unjustifiable - [Paras 9-11].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order dated 01.04.2024 passed by the District Judge Sagar is set aside – Application under Section 34(3) is allowed – Matter remanded to the District Court for fresh decision on merits – Parties directed to appear before the District Judge on 20.07.2026.

Civil Law - Motor Accident Claims - Motor Vehicles Act 1988 - Section 163-A - Compensation - Deceased Konkala Peda Konda Reddy died in a collision involving an APSRTC bus while travelling as a pillion on a motorcycle - Claimants filed for compensation under Section 163-A as a no-fault liability claim - MACT Ongole awarded Rs 480800 with 9 percent interest - Appellants challenged the award citing negligence of the motorcyclist and triple riding violation - High Court held that Section 163-A is social welfare legislation where negligence need not be proved and only involvement of the vehicle is required - Evidence of eye-witness P.W.2 and the charge sheet against the bus driver established primary liability - Held - The findings of the MACT on negligence are sustainable - Compensation enhanced to Rs 806000 while reducing interest to 6 percent per annum - [Paras 1-30].

Evidence Law - Contributory Negligence - Motor Vehicles Act 1988 - Triple Riding - Appellants contended that three persons on the motorcycle established contributory negligence - Bus driver R.W.1 admitted being charge-sheeted under Section 304-A IPC - Court observed that the deceased was a pillion rider and not the driver of the motorcycle - Held - Mere triple riding by itself is not sufficient to attribute contributory negligence in the absence of cogent evidence proving that such act contributed to the accident - [Paras 6, 15-18].

Civil Law - Appellate Power - Motor Vehicles Act 1988 - Section 173 - Enhancement of Award - Absence of Cross-Appeal - Whether the High Court can enhance compensation in an appeal filed by the owner or insurer when claimants did not file a cross-appeal - Court referred to precedents including Nagappa and Surekha cases - Held - There is no bar for awarding more compensation than what is claimed if the parties are entitled to it - The Appellate Court must ensure just compensation and should not take a hyper-technical approach - Enhancement granted despite lack of cross-appeal - [Paras 27-28].

Civil Law - Quantum Assessment - Motor Vehicles Act 1988 - Schedule II - Conventional Heads - MACT took notional income at Rs 120 per day - High Court enhanced income to Rs 150 per day considering the unorganized sector and applied a 20 percent addition for future prospects - Multiplier of 16 applied for age 35 - Loss of dependency recalculated at Rs 576000 - Conventional heads for loss of consortium increased to Rs 40000 per claimant - Loss of estate and funeral expenses enhanced to Rs 15000 each as per Pranay Sethi guidelines - Held - Total compensation modified and enhanced from Rs 480800 to Rs 806000 - [Paras 19-25].

Decision: Appeal dismissed - MACT award modified and enhanced to Rs 8,06,000/- with interest at 6% per annum - Apportionment directed among widow, children, and father of the deceased - Claimants directed to pay court fee for the enhanced portion.

Writ Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Delay in Conclusion - Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 21 - State challenged Single Judge order quashing enquiry against respondent-retired Inspector of Police - Charges of corruption and harassment framed in 2012 - Enquiry delayed due to administrative transfers respondent non-cooperation and interceding criminal trials leading to dismissals and subsequent reinstatements after acquittal - Single Judge quashed proceedings relying on P.V. Mahadevan case and G.O.Ms.No.679 citing failure to conclude enquiry within six months - Division Bench observed that P.V. Mahadevan dealt with delay in initiation of proceedings whereas present case involved delay in conclusion - Held - Reliance on P.V. Mahadevan was misplaced - Delay not solely attributable to appellants and respondent conduct contributed to time lapse - Single Judge order set aside - [Paras 1-15].

Writ Law - Administrative Law - Mandatory vs Directory Provisions - G.O.Ms.No.679 dated 01.11.2008 - Disciplinary Enquiry Timeline - Court interpreted the six-month timeline for concluding disciplinary proceedings under G.O.Ms.No.679 - Held - Such timelines are directory and not mandatory - Interdicting proceedings solely on delay would permit dilatory tactics and frustrate the object of departmental action - Judicial review should not generally quash enquiries on delay grounds without balancing the gravity of charges and interest of clean administration - [Paras 18-19].

Writ Law - Police Service - Integrity and Discipline - Ratio Decidendi - Disciplinary enquiries aim to maintain service discipline and efficiency - Police department commands high standards of honesty - Grave allegations of corruption cannot be ignored due to procedural delays - Held - Court directed completion of the enquiry within three months with a mandate for respondent cooperation - Failure to complete within stipulated time would lead to automatic termination - [Paras 17-21].

Decision: Writ Appeal allowed – Order of the Single Judge set aside – Department directed to complete the disciplinary proceedings within three months – Failure to do so will result in automatic termination.

Criminal Law - Extension of Remand - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Section 36A(4) - Independent Application of Mind by Public Prosecutor - Petitioner challenged order dated 05.05.2026 passed by X Additional District and Sessions Judge Anakapalli extending remand beyond 180 days - High Court found Public Prosecutor failed to file a valid report indicating independent satisfaction with investigation progress - Prosecution merely filed an application without disclosing consideration of investigation material or satisfaction with progress - Trial Court failed to assign special reasons for continued detention beyond 180 days and failed to inform the accused of the extension application - Held - Statutory requirement of a Public Prosecutor report is a vital safeguard for liberty and not a mere formality - Absence of such report or failure to put accused on notice renders the extension order vulnerable - Impugned order set aside and petitioner enlarged on bail with conditions - [Paras 1-10].

Criminal Law - Role of Public Prosecutor - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Section 36A(4) - Statutory Duties - Public Prosecutor is an independent statutory authority and not a part of the investigating agency - Prosecutor is not a post office or forwarding agency for the investigating officer - Report for extension must disclose on its face the application of mind to investigation progress and specific reasons for further detention - Application of mind must be demonstrated through a formal report rather than mere reproduction of the investigating officer request - Held - Failure to provide an appropriate report results in an indefeasible right for the accused to be released on default bail - [Paras 3-6].

Decision: Revision Case allowed – Order dated 05.05.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.56 of 2026 set aside – Petitioner/Accused No.1 enlarged on bail subject to executing a bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties and specific conditions including weekly appearance before the SHO and surrender of passport.

Civil Law - Matrimonial Property - Family Courts Act 1984 - Sections 7 and 10 - Recovery of gold ornaments and money - Wife filed petition for recovery of 45 sovereigns of gold ornaments and cash misappropriated by husband - Family Court directed return of 40 sovereigns and Rs. 1,90,000/- - Husband appealed contending that the wife failed to specifically plead entrustment and omitted these claims in prior complaints before the Police and Legal Services Authority - High Court noted that the oral evidence of PW1 and PW2 corroborated by jewellery bills from Bhima Jewellery and photographs made the claim highly probable - Held - The distinction between given and entrusted assumes little significance when the matrimonial relationship was subsisting and the petition was filed within two years - Omission of specific details in prior restoration of conjugal rights complaints is not fatal to the claim for recovery of property - Findings of trial court upheld - [Paras 1-13].

Evidence Law - Presumption of Entrustment - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 114 - Custody of bridal ornaments - High Court observed that it is a matter of common knowledge that a bride upon reaching the matrimonial home is often not in a position to retain all her gold ornaments in personal custody - Such ornaments are ordinarily entrusted to the husband or his close relatives for safe custody - Held - The trial court correctly placed reliance on the wife's evidence as the case of entrustment is probable under typical matrimonial circumstances - [Para 11].

Civil Law - Recovery of Money - Admissions in Pleadings - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 3 - Proof of repayment - Respondent admitted in his counter-statement receiving Rs. 40,000/- for the purchase of an almirah - Respondent further contended that the amount was subsequently returned but failed to produce any convincing evidence - Held - In the absence of evidence to substantiate the contention of repayment the admission of receipt of money is sufficient to sustain the decree for recovery - [Para 14].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 30.04.2022 in OP No. 2461 of 2017 passed by the Family Court, Ernakulam is affirmed.

Civil Law - Property Dispute - Encroachment - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 100 - Mandatory Injunction - Plaintiff M.A. Rajaiah filed O.S. No. 92/1995 and O.S. No. 15/1996 for declaration of title and mandatory injunction against defendant Vishnupadachar alleging encroachment of a narrow lane (oni) measuring 2 feet by 40 feet and construction of windows and sunshades (chajja) protruding into plaintiff's property - Trial Court dismissed both suits after considering Commissioner report marked as Exhibit C-1 which found no encroachment - First Appellate Court in R.A. No. 32/2007 and R.A. No. 26/2002 reversed the findings - It declared plaintiff's title but refused mandatory injunction for wall demolition in one suit while granting mandatory injunction for removal of windows in the other - High Court meticulously perused the evidence and the Commissioner report - Found that plaintiff suppressed the existence of a gutter and a petty shop within his own measurements which accounted for the discrepancy in his sale deed - Categorical finding recorded that defendant had not encroached upon the lane - Evidence suggested windows existed in the previous structure before reconstruction - Held - First Appellate Court was justified in refusing mandatory injunction where encroachment was not proved but erred in ordering the closure of windows and removal of sunshades as those were within defendant's property boundaries - RSA No. 198/2010 and RSA No. 339/2010 dismissed - RSA No. 337/2010 allowed - [Paras 1-180].

Evidence Law - Court Commissioner Report - Reliability - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XXVI Rule 9 - Plaintiff challenged the validity of Commissioner report alleging it was tainted by proximity between Commissioner and defendant's counsel - High Court noted that Commissioner was cross-examined in detail - Commissioner followed Court instructions and spot inspection was conducted in presence of parties - Plaintiff failed to produce relevant title deeds to the Commissioner despite being duty-bound to establish encroachment - Held - Commissioner report finding no encroachment was credible and correctly relied upon by the Trial Court - [Paras 146-155].

Civil Law - Mandatory Injunction - Relief where encroachment is not proved - Principles of Equity - Plaintiff sought mandatory injunction for removal of structures - Courts found no physical encroachment into the plaintiff's land or the disputed lane - Discrepancy in measurements arose from internal features of plaintiff's own property - Held - Rejection of mandatory injunction is just and proper when the core allegation of encroachment remains unproven - First Appellate Court's direction to remove sunshades and close windows set aside as it lacked logical basis given the finding of no encroachment - [Paras 167-178].

Decision: RSA No. 198/2010 and RSA No. 339/2010 are dismissed – RSA No. 337/2010 is allowed – Judgment of the First Appellate Court in R.A. No. 26/2002 regarding mandatory injunction is set aside – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 482 - Advocate implicated in serious criminal offences including attempt to murder and conspiracy - Allegations in FIR divided into three parts including a threat issued at District Court premises at 10:00 AM - Applicant raised plea of alibi and requested collection of CCTV footage - High Court observed that CCTV footage collected by Investigating Agency falsified the claim of the complainant regarding the applicant's presence at the Court premises - Prosecution argued that CDR showed contact with co-accused and tower location was in the area of incident - Court held that being an advocate the applicant's contact with a client cannot be brushed aside as conspiracy - Held - When material of sterling and impeccable quality negates allegations the High Court is justified in exercising inherent powers to prevent abuse of process - FIR quashed - [Paras 1-9].

Evidence Law - Confession of Co-accused - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Sections 25 and 30 - Admissibility of statements made to police - Prosecution relied on statements of co-accused to establish criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC - Court referred to Supreme Court precedents holding police statements in the form of confession as per se inadmissible - Provisions of Section 30 are of no use where statements are rendered inadmissible by Section 25 - Held - Confessional statement of co-accused to police cannot be used to implicate another co-accused and lacks corroborative value - [Paras 6.1-6.4].

Decision: Application allowed – FIR being C.R.No.I – 281 of 2019 registered with Rander Police Station, Surat quashed and set aside qua the applicant along with all consequential proceedings.

Civil Law - Recall of Order - seeking recall of orders dated 25.04.2025 which had set aside lower court decisions restoring suits - Opposite Party No. 1 (Deity) claimed non-participation as counsel’s name was missing from the cause list on the date of disposal - Court noted deity is a perpetual minor and justice requires its participation in proceedings - Previous orders passed without hearing the Opposite Party were found liable for recall to facilitate a decision on merit - Held - IAs allowed and orders dated 25.04.2025 recalled - [Paras 1-5].

Civil Law - Setting aside Ex-parte Decree - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 9 Rule 13 - Limitation Act 1963 - Section 5 - Condonation of Delay - Suits for declaration of title based on adverse possession against deity were decreed ex-parte - Restoration sought after delay of nearly 17 years - Trial court allowed restoration which was upheld in revision - Petitioners contended delay was not sufficiently explained - High Court observed that while limitation laws apply to deities as juristic persons a liberal and pragmatic approach to sufficient cause is required - Courts must ensure substantial justice prevails over technicalities especially when deity property is at stake - Held - Previous disposal of CMPs recalled and Revisions restored for fresh hearing before the District Judge - [Paras 6-13].

Civil Law - Status of Deity - Perpetual Minor - Adverse Possession - Maintainability of Suit - High Court examined whether adverse possession can be claimed against property owned by a deity - Observed that a deity is a perpetual minor dependent on Marfatdars or Sebayats and its property must be preserved from unlawful disposals - Although procedural laws of limitation are not bypassed by the perpetual minor doctrine a deity’s right to property is not easily extinguished - Finding of sufficient cause for non-appearance depends on facts such as lack of notice or knowledge of the decree - Held - Lower court must reconsider if Opposite Party No. 1 was diligent and if lack of notice in 1997 justified the delay in filing restoration applications in 2016 - [Paras 10-15].

Decision: IAs allowed – Orders dated 25.04.2025 in CMPs recalled – Civil Revision Nos. 08 and 02 of 2023 restored for rehearing and fresh decision by District Judge Kalahandi within four months.