Motor Vehicle Accident – Compensation – Enhancement – Appellant dissatisfied with the Tribunal’s award – Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,80,000 for future loss of income and additional amounts under various heads – Appellant sustained multiple fractures and 80% permanent disablement – High Court enhanced the compensation considering prospective income and increased award for pain, shock, and suffering [Paras 1-11].

Quantum of Compensation – Future Prospects – Tribunal’s determination of Rs. 1,000 monthly income deemed low – High Court revised monthly income to Rs. 1,500 with 40% addition for future prospects, calculating future economic loss as Rs. 3,52,800 [Para 9].

Pain and Suffering – Inadequate Compensation – Tribunal awarded Rs. 40,000 for pain and suffering and Rs. 20,000 for loss of amenities – High Court enhanced total amount to Rs. 1,00,000 considering 100% disablement [Para 10].

Interest Rate – Enhanced Compensation – High Court ordered enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,12,200 with 6% interest from the date of the claim petition – Directed Insurance Company to deposit the amount within two months [Para 11].

Decision: Appeal Allowed in Part – Total enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,12,200 awarded – Interest at 6% from the date of claim petition – Insurance Company to deposit the amount within two months – Tribunal to disburse the entire amount without further investment in FDRs [Para 11].
 

Motor Accident Claim - Appeal against judgment and award - Common judgment disposing of appeals challenging the judgment and award passed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Kheda - All appeals relate to the same incident - Issues involve negligence, compensation, and liability - Appeal filed by Insurance Company challenging negligence and compensation - Claimants seeking enhancement of compensation - Examination of evidence and arguments by respective parties - Constructive res judicata considered in relation to negligence - Tribunal's view aligned with earlier Tribunal's findings - Compensation awarded on various heads - Examination of evidence regarding medical expenses - Request to reduce compensation on certain heads. [Para 1-16]

Motor Accident Claim - Issue of negligence - Previous decision by Tribunal in an earlier claim petition - Applicability of the principle of res judicata - Examination of the evidence and findings of the earlier Tribunal - Conclusion reached in the previous case that negligence of the truck driver was 70% and that of ST (State Transport) driver was 30% - Applicability of res judicata even when the parties in the earlier and subsequent proceedings are different - Citing relevant case law to support the application of the principle of res judicata - Upholding the findings of the earlier Tribunal as binding in the subsequent proceedings related to the same accident. [Para 17-25]

Compensation - Personal Injury - Calculation of compensation for a victim with 100% functional disability - Examination of the victim's condition and testimony of medical experts - Consideration of the victim's age, occupation, and future prospects - Enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to reflect current market conditions and government norms for wages. [Para 26-32]

Attendant Charges - Determination of expenses for an attendant required for the injured victim - Reference to government wage norms - Calculation of attendant charges based on the wages of skilled laborers - Application of the multiplier for the victim's life expectancy - Enhancement of attendant charges awarded by the Tribunal. [Para 33-36]

Special Diet and Transportation Charges - Evaluation of expenses for special diet and transportation related to medical treatment - Consideration of the victim's need for regular hospital visits - Application of the multiplier for future expenses - Enhancement of special diet and transportation charges awarded by the Tribunal. [Para 37]

Loss of Marriage Prospect - Reassessment of compensation for loss of marriage prospect - Increase in the amount awarded by the Tribunal to reflect the victim's future prospects. [Para 37]

Total Compensation - Calculation of the total compensation amount, including enhancements to various heads - Clarification that no interest is applicable to the enhanced amount for attendant charges - Direction to deposit the revised compensation amount with the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. [Para 40-41]

Copyright Infringement – Unauthorized distribution of Plaintiff’s educational course materials on various digital platforms – Prima facie case established – Balance of convenience favors Plaintiff – Irreparable harm if infringing activity continues – Injunction granted against Defendants [Para 42-44]

Digital Platforms – Challenge of widespread copyright infringement on digital platforms – Defendants using various techniques to disseminate Plaintiff’s courses – Channels and groups on Telegram, WhatsApp, YouTube, Google Drive, and other platforms involved – Copyright infringement in digital and electronic form [Para 41]

Injunction Orders – Defendants restrained from downloading, uploading, storing, sharing, transmitting, selling, or utilizing Plaintiff’s course material – Specific actions required by digital platform providers (e.g., Telegram, Google LLC, GoDaddy.com, WhatsApp) to block infringing content and disclose details of infringers [Para 44-51]

Compliance – Plaintiff directed to ensure compliance with the court’s orders through various digital communication channels (e-mail, WhatsApp, Telegram) [Para 55]

Next Court Date – Case scheduled to be listed before the Court on 22^nd March 2024 [Para 56]

Criminal Law - Framing of Charges - Petition seeking to set aside the order on charge - Charges framed against the Revisionist under various sections of the IPC - Allegation of beating leading to the death of the deceased - Disputed facts and varying statements by witnesses - Defense argument based on the lack of intent to cause severe bodily injury - Citing precedent cases to support the contention that a single injury, where the intent to cause that injury is in doubt, may not amount to murder under Section 302 IPC. [Para 1-13]

Criminal Case – Framing of Charges – Examination of evidence at the stage of framing charges – Scope of the Revision Court's inquiry – Prima facie view of the matter to be seen – Sifting and weighing of evidence without conducting a mini-trial – Charges framed against the Revisionist upheld. [Para 23-30

Witness Statements – Discrepancies in witness statements – Sole witness' statements consistent on essential elements – Minor discrepancies do not undermine prosecution's case at the stage of framing charges – Charges can be framed based on the statements. [Para 25-28]

Medical Assistance – Rendering medical aid to the victim – Not relevant at the stage of framing charges – Detailed examination of medical aid to be considered during trial – Prima facie opinion of doctors and witness statements sufficient for framing charges. [Para 31]

Nature of Injury – Single blow causing death – Vitality of the injury site – Sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature – Medical opinion supports framing of charges under Section 302 IPC. [Para 32-34]

Medical Opinion – Discrepancy between post-mortem report and AIIMS Medical Board Expert Opinion – Opportunity for cross-examination during trial – No grounds to deny framing charges. [Para 34]

Definition of Murder – Ingredients of Section 300 IPC – Presence of bodily injury, intention or knowledge of injury likely to cause death, and sufficient injury in the ordinary course of nature – Fulfilment of criteria for framing charges. [Para 38-41]

Official Duty – Revisionist's duty ended upon presentation of Identity Card – No sanction required for prosecution – Beyond official duties in the present case. [Para 42]

Decision – Special Judge correctly appreciated facts and law – No interference with the order on framing charges – Revision Petition dismissed. [Para 44-46]

SARFAESI Act – Validity of orders under Sections 13(2) and 14 – Borrowers challenging the validity of orders under Sections 13(2) and 14 of the Sarfaesi Act – Debtor challenging the legality of orders passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal and Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal – Principles of natural justice violated during the proceedings – Matter requires further examination – Special leave granted for review. [Para 3-8]

Leasehold Rights – Existence of tenancy rights over mortgaged property – Tenant claiming tenancy rights – Tenancy to be determined in accordance with Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act – Rights of a rightful tenant must be respected – Bonafides of the alleged tenant to be fully established – Alleged tenant not entitled to protection against dispossession after one year of possession. [Para 22-28]

Abuse of Process – Writ petition found to be misconceived and an abuse of the process of court and law – Dismissed – Impugned orders affirmed. [Para 29]

Writ of Habeas Corpus – Alleged illegal detention of petitioner's husband – Violation of procedural requirements and guidelines – Arrest made without following due procedure laid down under law – Lack of compliance with requirements set by the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu case – Detention declared illegal – Superintendent, District Jail, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh, impleaded as respondent No. 7 – Husband of petitioner ordered to be released forthwith – Liberty granted to respondents to strictly follow procedure laid down under law in conducting investigation in NIA Case No. RC-01/2021/NIA/RPR, dated 18.03.2021. [Para 18-23]

Eviction Petition - Challenge to Trial Court's order allowing substitution of legal heirs of deceased landlady - Two objections raised by the petitioner regarding formal application for condonation of delay and non-disclosure of details of all Class-I legal heirs - Limitation issue addressed in light of Supreme Court judgment - Second objection dismissed as the Trial Court considered the original Will and allowed the application - No infirmity or error found in the Trial Court's order - Petition dismissed - Petitioner has no locus to raise objections to the application by the sons of the deceased landlady under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC - Petition lacks merit. [Para 1-7]

Bail Application – Offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, 120B of the IPC – Allegations of cheating and fraud against the applicant – Prima facie involvement of the applicant in the commission of the alleged offence established – Applicant's use of forged identity documents – Flight risk – 34 cases registered against the applicant across India – Bail application dismissed. [Para 13-16]

Forgery – Use of forged identity documents – Multiple documents with different dates of birth – Fortifies the prosecution's apprehension that the applicant is a flight risk – Adds to the reasons for denying bail. [Para 15]

Civil Procedure – Appeal against judgment and decree – Appellant filed appeal under Section 96 of the CPC challenging a judgment and decree passed in a suit filed by the respondent – Suit filed for recovery of a loan amount – Appellant had initially sought leave to defend, which was granted conditionally – Appellant failed to comply with the condition, leading to the passing of the impugned judgment. [Para 1-8]

Summary Procedure – Order XXXVII of the CPC provides for a summary procedure for expeditious disposal of suits – Timelines under this procedure must be strictly followed – Trial Court granted sufficient opportunity to the appellant, including conditional leave to defend. [Para 15-17]

Compliance with Conditions – Appellant's contentions regarding lack of awareness of the conditions imposed were rejected by the Trial Court – Appellant's subsequent application and appeal seen as afterthoughts to evade liability – Procedure under Order XXXVII Rule 3(6)(b) of the CPC followed, allowing judgment for the plaintiff. [Para 18-22]

Appeal Dismissed – The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent – Amount deposited by the appellant released to the respondent in partial satisfaction of the decree. [Para 23]