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 - Compassionate Appointment - U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order 2016 - Clause 2(p) - Fair Price Shop Dealer - Petitioner daughter of deceased dealer applied for dealership on compassionate grounds claiming she resided with her father and fulfilled eligibility conditions - Sub-Divisional Magistrate rejected application on 21.01.2026 solely on the ground that a married daughter does not fall within the definition of family under the 2016 Control Order and Government Order No. 6 of 2019 - Petitioner challenged the order as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 - High Court noted that the term adult children in Clause 2(p) encompasses both sons and daughters regardless of marital status - Court followed Supreme Court precedent in Kulsum Nisha v. State of U.P. which held that married daughters cannot be excluded from compassionate appointment - Held - The exclusion of a married daughter who establishes dependency and satisfies other eligibility conditions is unconstitutional - Impugned order set aside - Matter remitted for fresh decision within two months - [Paras 1-16].

Constitutional Law - Right to Equality - Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 15 - Gender-based Discrimination - State excluded married daughters from the definition of family while including unmarried or widowed daughters - High Court held that equality is antithetic to arbitrariness - Reasonable classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia having a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved - Purposive interpretation is required for welfare measures rather than a literal interpretation that leads to anomalous results - Held - Exclusion of a married daughter based on a gender-based stereotype is constitutionally impermissible and frustrates the purpose of providing financial relief to dependent family members - [Paras 11-14].

Writ Law - Definition of Family - U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order 2016 - Clause 2(p) - The expression daughter in the Control Order must be read to include a married daughter provided she establishes dependency on the deceased dealer and satisfies requirements of local residence and educational qualifications - A blanket exclusion based on the presumption that a married daughter cannot be a dependent is unjustified and factually untenable - Held - Married daughter is entitled to apply for appointment after the death of her parent subject to fulfillment of prescribed eligibility criteria - [Paras 14-16].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Impugned order dated 21.01.2026 set aside – Matter remitted to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Raniganj, Pratapgarh to pass a fresh order in light of the Court's observations within two months.

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.

Criminal Law - Maintenance - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 - Section 12 - Interim maintenance entitlement - Petitioner-husband challenged Appellate Court order granting interim maintenance of Rs 5000 to wife and Rs 8000 to son - Husband contended that wife was a practicing lawyer since 2020 and Managing Director of a marriage bureau and therefore capable of maintaining herself - Trial Court had initially declined maintenance to the wife but granted Rs 8000 to the minor son - Appellate Court modified the order to award Rs 5000 to the wife and maintained Rs 8000 for the son from the date of application - High Court noted Petitioner-husband is a senior member of the Bar with over twenty years of standing while wife is a junior practitioner - Court observed that the objective of maintenance is to ensure the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution - Held - Discretion exercised by the Appellate Court was just and appropriate - No illegality or irregularity found to warrant revisional interference - Revisions disposed of - [Paras 1-11].

Criminal Law - Maintenance - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 - Section 12 - Principles of quantification - Determination of quantum based on status and needs - Court relied on the ratio in Rajnesh v Neha 2021 2 SCC 324 which mandates that there is no straightjacket formula for fixing maintenance - Relevant factors include status of parties reasonable needs of wife and children education of applicant and independent source of income - High Court found that the sum of Rs 5000 for the wife and Rs 8000 for the son met the ends of justice - Held - Grant of maintenance from the date of application as per Bhuwan Mohan Singh v Meena 2015 6 SCC 353 is justified - [Paras 7-9].

Decision: Revisions disposed of – Appellate Court order awarding interim maintenance of Rs 5000 to the wife and Rs 8000 to the son affirmed – Arrears to be paid from the date of application – Question of maintainability under Section 29 of the DV Act left open.

Writ Law - Service Matter - Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Reversion from promoted post - Petitioner initially promoted to Section Officer based on DPC recommendation dated 31.07.2023 - Promotion order subsequently cancelled and petitioner reverted to Senior Revenue Assistant via order dated 21.01.2026 - Cancellation followed discovery that Vigilance Proceeding in Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No. 63 of 2012 was pending against the petitioner which was not disclosed to the original DPC - Petitioner contended that pendency since 2012 without trial progress should not bar promotion and cited similar cases where others were promoted - State argued promotion was obtained on wrong assumption of clean record and Review DPC held on 16.01.2026 recommended reversion - High Court found no illegality in the reversion process as regular promotion cannot be granted while vigilance proceedings are pending - Held - Promotion granted on a wrong assumption is liable to be cancelled and petitioner may reiterate claim only upon acquittal - [Paras 1-9].

Service Law - Suppression of Facts - Odisha Government Servants’ Conduct Rules 1959 - Rule 3 - Integrity and disclosure - Petitioner failed to disclose pendency of criminal vigilance case during promotion proceedings - Authority issued show cause notice on 29.11.2025 and conducted Review DPC - Held - Ineligibility for regular promotion at the relevant time justifies the order of reversion - [Paras 8.2-8.5].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Petitioner allowed to reiterate claim for promotion if ultimately acquitted in the Vigilance Proceeding.

Writ Law - Service Dispute - Dismissal - Cuttack Gramin Bank Officers and Employees Service Regulation 2000 - Regulation 38 - Petitioner a Field Supervisor was dismissed following charges of unauthorized absence during annual closing and negligence in inspection leading to NPA creation - Enquiry was initiated while petitioner was on medical leave for Jaundice - Documents and witness lists were provided only on the first date of appearance - Enquiry was concluded within four days without providing adequate time to file a written statement or engage a defence representative - Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority passed mechanical orders confirming dismissal - High Court found the enquiry violated principles of natural justice and was conducted with undue haste - Held - Enquiry procedure was arbitrary as it denied the delinquent a reasonable opportunity to respond to the charges - Order of dismissal set aside - [Paras 1-25].

Evidence Law - Domestic Enquiry - Proof of documents - Cuttack Gramin Bank Officers and Employees Service Regulation 2000 - Regulation 38 - Management marked eight documents as exhibits through the Presenting Officer but did not examine any official witness to prove the contents of said documents - Petitioner was absent during the receipt of evidence - Court observed that in a domestic enquiry where charges are denied it is mandatory to examine witnesses to prove the allegations - Documents cannot be accepted as absolute proof unless corroborated through oral testimony - Held - Relying solely on unproven documentary evidence is legally insufficient and renders the enquiry findings perverse - [Paras 18-23].

Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Reasonable Opportunity - Cuttack Gramin Bank Officers and Employees Service Regulation 2000 - Regulation 38 - Petitioner was provided relevant documents only on 08-05-2026 and the enquiry was closed on 12-05-2026 - Request for fifteen days to respond was ignored - Letter seeking a written brief was received by the petitioner after the stipulated deadline - Held - Failure of the Disciplinary Authority to supply vital documents before initiating the enquiry and failure to provide reasonable time to respond constitutes a violation of natural justice - [Paras 11-15].

Writ Law - Proportionality of Punishment - Judicial Review - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Petitioner had served the bank for approximately 25 years - Allegations involved negligence in duties and unauthorized absence but no misappropriation or direct financial loss to the bank - Disciplinary Authority awarded the maximum penalty of dismissal - Held - Punishment of dismissal for negligence without any serious financial irregularity is hugely disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct - Writ petition allowed with direction for reinstatement with notional continuity - [Paras 20-23].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Impugned orders of the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority set aside – Petitioner directed to be reinstated with notional continuity of service until superannuation – Opposite parties directed to release full pensionary and terminal benefits within four months.

Civil Law - Real Estate Regulation - Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016 - Section 18 - Delayed Possession - Interest on Investment - Allottees booked apartment in Wintergreen project with possession due by February 2016 - Promoter failed to deliver possession by agreed date - Allottees filed complaint under Section 31 of RERA Act seeking interest for delay - MahaRERA initially allowed promoter to complete project first while granting liberty to allottees to claim interest later - Appellate Tribunal set aside this order and directed promoter to pay interest at SBI MCLR plus two percent from the original due date - Promoter contended that allottees accepted delayed performance and were disentitled from claiming compensation due to lack of notice under Section 55 of Indian Contract Act - Held - Section 18 of RERA Act is a beneficial provision conferring an unqualified absolute statutory right upon allottees to claim interest for every month of delay - continuation with the project constitutes acceptance of delayed performance but does not impact the unfettered right to claim interest - date specified in the agreement is sacrosanct - right to interest is not affected by non-issuance of notice of intention to claim compensation - [Paras 1-46].

Civil Law - Statutory Interpretation - Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016 - Sections 18 and 89 - Indian Contract Act 1872 - Section 55 - Overriding Effect - Inconsistency between Special and General Law - Promoter argued that there is no conflict between RERA and Contract Act as RERA does not contemplate situations of accepted delayed performance - Held - RERA Act is a special enactment with retroactive operation intended to protect consumers - Section 89 of RERA Act provides it overriding effect over anything inconsistent in other laws - Section 55 of Contract Act lays fetters by making the right to compensation subject to notice - whereas Section 18 of RERA confers an absolute right unimpeded by conditions - inconsistency exists on the aspect of right to claim compensation - RERA being a special act prevails over the general provisions of Contract Act - [Paras 47-50].

Civil Law - Force Majeure - Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016 - Section 18 - Covid-19 Moratorium - Pandemic impact on performance - Promoter sought exclusion of six month period as moratorium for calculating interest based on RERA circular - Held - agreed date of possession was February 2016 which significantly preceded the Covid-19 pandemic - subsequent lockdown cannot come to the aid of a promoter to escape liability for interest where the default occurred prior to the pandemic - issue is settled by co-ordinate bench rulings and does not constitute a substantial question of law - [Paras 51-53].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Order of the Appellate Tribunal granting interest for delayed possession affirmed – Execution proceedings stayed for four weeks.

Writ Law - Police Transfer - Karnataka Police Act - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - Tenure and Discipline - Petitioner was posted as Sub-Inspector Law and Order at Yelawala Police Station on 30-06-2025 after Respondent No. 3 was suspended for dereliction of duty - High Court subsequently quashed the suspension of Respondent No. 3 in W.P.No.33384/2025 and directed reinstatement - Official respondents posted Respondent No. 3 back to Yelawala Police Station displacing the Petitioner - Petitioner challenged the transfer as premature before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) - KSAT upheld the transfer but directed Petitioner be accommodated in a vacant post at the same station - Petitioner challenged KSAT order and subsequent posting order dated 04-05-2026 - High Court noted that Respondent No. 3 suppressed material facts in previous proceedings regarding the Petitioner's seniority and posting - Court observed that members of a disciplined force are expected to work in a disciplined manner and not quarrel over specific postings - Held - Such conduct affects the larger public interest and the ability to maintain law and order - Both officers directed to be transferred out of Yelawala Police Station and Mysuru District - [Paras 1-15].

Writ Law - Suppression of Facts - Conduct of Litigant - Respondent No. 3 failed to bring to the notice of the Court the posting of the Petitioner in his place while seeking reinstatement after suspension - Proper course was to implead the Petitioner - Held - A person who approaches the Court by suppressing material facts and failing to bring relevant facts to notice is not entitled to relief - [Paras 11-13].

Service Law - Transfer - Right to Posting - Karnataka Police Act - Tenure Protections - Petitioner and Respondent No. 3 both claimed right to continue at Yelawala Police Station based on tenure provisions - Held - No Government servant or official has a right to seek posting to a particular post or place - It is open for the Government to utilize services wherever needed subject to statutory provisions - If two Sub-Inspectors fight for a post they would not be in a position to maintain law and order - [Paras 11-13].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of – Order of the Tribunal and the transfer order modified – Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 directed to post both the Petitioner and Respondent No. 3 out of Yelawala Police Station and out of Mysuru District within two weeks.

Civil Law - Real Estate - RERA Act 2016 - Section 18 - Delayed Possession - Appellant promoter challenged the Appellate Tribunal order directing payment of interest for delay in handing over possession of apartments in the Wintergreen project - Possession was contractually due by 30th June 2017 under a MOFA agreement - MahaRERA initially directed possession by December 2019 allowing allottees liberty to demand interest at an appropriate stage following their request for parity with a previous order - Allottees appealed and the Tribunal awarded interest from 1st July 2017 until actual possession - Promoter argued that allottees accepted delayed performance by making payments under revised schedules and failed to give notice of intention to claim compensation as required under Section 55 of the Contract Act - Held - Section 18 of RERA Act confers an unqualified absolute statutory right to interest for delayed possession - This right is sacrosanct and linked to the date specified in the agreement - It is not affected by contingencies outside the terms of the agreement or acceptance of delayed performance - The requirement of notice under Section 55 of the Contract Act cannot be read into the summary proceedings of Section 18 RERA - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-62].

Civil Law - Statutory Interpretation - RERA Act 2016 - Section 89 - Indian Contract Act 1872 - Section 55 - Overriding Effect - Interplay between special and general law - Appellant contended that Section 55 of the Contract Act disentitles the promisee from compensation if delayed performance is accepted without notice - Court examined the inconsistency between the unqualified right in Section 18 RERA and the conditional right in Section 55 Contract Act - Held - RERA Act is a special enactment and Section 89 provides that it shall have overriding effect over anything inconsistent in other laws - Section 18 RERA gives an absolute right unimpeded by conditions whereas Section 55 Contract Act lays fetters on that right - The special law prevails over the general law - Promoter is obligated to pay interest from the date specified in the agreement even in the absence of notice by the allottee - [Paras 27-51].

Civil Law - Force Majeure - RERA Act 2016 - Section 18 - Covid-19 Pandemic - Moratorium benefit - Appellant sought to exclude the pandemic period from interest calculation - Possession was due in June 2017 and project completion date under RERA registration was 2019 - Held - As the date of performance was prior to the pandemic the subsequent Covid-19 lockdown cannot aid the promoter to escape liability for interest - Moratorium circulars do not apply where delay was pre-existing - [Paras 52-53].

Civil Law - Maintainability of Appeal - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 96(3) - Estoppel - Concession on law - Appellant argued that allottees invited the original MahaRERA order by requesting parity and thus were precluded from appealing - Held - A plea of parity or a request for an identical order does not constitute an express waiver or abandonment of the right to interest - There is no estoppel against law - Advocate's submission on a question of law does not prevent an allottee from filing an appeal - For estoppel to operate there must be an express relinquishment of a benefit which was not present in this case - [Paras 54-61].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Appellate Tribunal order confirmed – Execution proceedings deferred for four weeks from 24th June 2026.