Motor Accident Claims - Contributory Negligence - Motor Vehicles Act 1988 - Section 173 - Crossing of National Highway - Tribunal attributed 50% contributory negligence to the deceased pedestrian for crossing a National Highway without due caution - High Court held that the mere act of crossing a National Highway does not warrant an inference of contributory negligence in the absence of cogent evidence - No evidence was adduced by the respondent-insurer to prove the deceased failed to exercise reasonable care - The testimony of an eyewitness indicated the deceased had nearly completed crossing the road when struck by the offending vehicle driven at high speed - Failure of respondents to examine the driver of the offending vehicle was noted - Held - Findings of contributory negligence set aside and liability fastened solely upon the driver of the offending vehicle - [Paras 11-20].

Motor Accident Claims - Quantum of Compensation - Motor Vehicles Act 1988 - Section 168 - Principles of Assessment - Future prospects and consortium - Tribunal erred in assessing income on the lower side and failing to apply the correct multiplier and future prospects - High Court reassessed income at Rs 2500 per month - Added 40% towards future prospects as per Pranay Sethi - Included parental and spousal consortium in line with Magma General Insurance - Total compensation enhanced from Rs 108000 to Rs 744500 - Held - Appellate court has power to award compensation higher than the amount claimed in the petition if evidence justifies it - [Paras 21-28].

Evidence Law - Burden of Proof - Motor Vehicles Act 1988 - Section 166 - Contributory Negligence - The burden of proving contributory negligence lies on the party asserting it - Mere production of FIR or charge sheet not being rebutted by the insurer confirms the negligence of the driver - High Court applied the principle that without specific evidence of an act or omission by the deceased that contributed to the accident the plea of contributory negligence cannot be sustained - [Paras 16-19].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Compensation enhanced to Rs 7,44,500 with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition – Respondents jointly and severally liable to deposit the amount within two months.

Civil Law - Labour Law - Industrial Disputes Act 1947 - Sections 10 and 11A - Illegal termination - Employer dismissed employees without inquiry and in violation of natural justice - Labour Court declared terminations illegal and awarded compensation - Employer challenged award of compensation in High Court and deposited funds as condition for stay - Employees subsequently abandoned claims for reinstatement and back wages to accept deposited compensation - Held - Findings of illegal termination upheld - [Paras 11-13].

Civil Law - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 - Sections 14 and 31 - Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process - Clean Slate Principle - Applicability to crystallized debts - Where awards attained finality prior to initiation of CIRP and funds were deposited in Court pursuant to judicial order - Held - Such deposits represent crystallized entitlements of workmen and do not constitute assets of the corporate debtor subject to extinguishment under a resolution plan - Distinction drawn between pending claims and pre-existing judicial awards - [Paras 17-23].

Civil Law - Civil Procedure Code 1908 - Section 151 - Withdrawal of deposits - Court directed that amounts deposited in court during pendency of litigation to secure employee interests are not corporate assets reachable by a resolution applicant - Employees permitted to withdraw deposited amounts with accrued interest in full and final settlement of claims - [Paras 24-25].

Decision: Petitions disposed of – Awards of the Labour Court affirmed – Employees permitted to withdraw deposited amounts with accrued interest – Application for stay of operative order rejected.

Civil Law - Urban Planning - Unified Development Control and Promotion Regulations 2020 - Regulations 10.10.2(3)(vi) and 2.4 - Petitioner challenged relaxation granted by NMMC permitting Recreational Open Spaces (ROS) on podium level instead of ground level for redevelopment of cooperative housing societies - Contended that Regulation 10.10.2 containing non obstante clause overrides all other regulations - Court held that non obstante clause in Chapter 10 must be read harmoniously with the rest of the UDCPR including the discretionary powers under Regulation 2.4 - Provided that podium ROS is permissible if it is clearly open-to-sky and complements podium gardens - Petition dismissed for lack of merit and failure to prove arbitrariness or lack of factual foundation for alleged public harm - [Paras 30-54].

Civil Law - Harmonious Construction - Unified Development Control and Promotion Regulations 2020 - Regulation 10 - Interpretation of non obstante clause - Held - A non obstante clause cannot be read in isolation to exclude application of general regulations unless a direct conflict exists - Regulations governing city-specific redevelopment must yield to the holistic scheme of the UDCPR which permits relaxation under Regulation 2.4 based on demonstrated hardship and planning constraints - [Paras 40-43].

Civil Law - Discretionary Powers - Unified Development Control and Promotion Regulations 2020 - Regulation 2.4 - Planning Authority discretion - Relaxation of norms in redevelopment projects - Held - Planning Authority entitled to grant relaxation on case-to-case basis considering constraints such as height restrictions, road setbacks, and mandatory rehabilitation requirements provided safety and public interest are not compromised - [Paras 10-11, 34-38].

Civil Law - Public Interest Litigation - Locus Standi and Bona Fides - Petitioner challenged specific redevelopment projects while ignoring others - Court observed absence of technical expertise and unexplained delay in filing petition after commencement of construction - Held - Petition lacks merit and appears to be motivated by extraneous considerations - [Paras 50-51].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Interim Application disposed of – Court directed authorities to ensure transparency and civic engagement through digital platforms and community oversight committees.

Civil Law - Registration of Documents - Registration Act 1908 - Rule 26(i)(k)(i) - Unilateral cancellation of registered gift deed - Petitioner-donee challenged registration of revocation deed executed unilaterally by donor-mother after seven years - Respondent-authorities relied on departmental memos claiming Rule 26(k) applies only to sale deeds - High Court held that once gift is registered and accepted title vests absolutely in donee - Unilateral revocation is non-est and void ab-initio - Registering officer lacks power to entertain such deeds - Held - Unilateral cancellation set aside and departmental memos authorizing such registration declared unsustainable - [Paras 1-34].

Property Law - Transfer of Property - Transfer of Property Act 1882 - Sections 123 and 126 - Gift deed - Once a gift is accepted and registered title passes to donee - Donor divested of all rights and cannot unilaterally revoke gift at mere will - Remedy for cancellation on grounds of fraud or coercion lies only before Civil Court via suit - Held - Impugned revocation deed is void - [Paras 8-10].

Administrative Law - Executive Instructions - Subordination to Statute - Registration Rules - Departmental Memos No. G4/4597/2016 and RC.No.G1/10547/2008 permitting unilateral cancellation of gift deeds - Executive instructions cannot override or supplant statutory rules or substantive law - Held - Memos are in direct contravention of Rule 26(i)(k)(i) and are liable to be set aside - [Paras 24-30].

Writ Law - Powers of High Court - Article 226 - Technicalities in pleadings - Petitioner did not specifically challenge the administrative memos in the prayer - Held - High Court in exercise of its wide powers under Article 226 can grant consequential relief to secure justice and override technical pleas to address the illegality of the memos - [Paras 31-32].

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed - Registration of revocation deed dated 17/09/2022 set aside - Departmental Memos dated 06/06/2016 and 18/07/2008 set aside.

Civil Law - Matrimonial - Hindu Marriage Act 1955 - Section 13(1)(ia) - Cruelty - Appellant-husband challenged divorce decree granted to wife on grounds of mental and physical cruelty - Evidence indicated recurring pattern of assault-humiliation in public-distrust and forced separation - Trial Court found these acts constituted cruelty - High Court affirmed finding that matrimonial discord reached a stage requiring intervention of family members and essential element of mutual confidence was eroded - Held - Cumulative conduct establishes mental cruelty - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-22].

Civil Law - Matrimonial - Hindu Marriage Act 1955 - Section 13(1)(ia) - Irretrievable breakdown as a factor in cruelty - While irretrievable breakdown is not a standalone statutory ground for divorce - High Court held that where a marriage is beyond repair due to bitterness created by acts of parties - such breakdown constitutes a weighty circumstance to assess whether continuation of the marriage would inflict further cruelty - Held - Marital tie cannot be sustained when foundation of trust is lost - [Paras 23-27].

Evidence Law - Matrimonial Evidence - Assessment of cruelty - Evidence Act 1872 - Section 3 - Court held that mental cruelty must be assessed on the touchstone of probabilities in the entire matrimonial setting rather than seeking proof beyond reasonable doubt - Held - Evidence of respondent-wife corroborated by surrounding circumstances of the final confrontation at the matrimonial home - [Paras 9-15].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of the Family Court, Rayagada dated 27.01.2024 upheld.

Civil Law - Government Premises - Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act 1955 - Section 4 - Unauthorized subletting - Petitioner challenged eviction proceedings alleging the eviction order exceeded the grounds stated in the show-cause notice and violated principles of natural justice - High Court observed that the charge of illegal subletting was common to both the notice and the final order - Held - An eviction order founded on multiple grounds is not vitiated if one of the grounds is valid and independently sufficient to sustain the order - Petitioner failed to show cause against the notice and failed to bring the alleged reply on record before the Trial Court - Petition dismissed - [Paras 18-22].

Writ Law - Supervisory Jurisdiction - Constitution of India - Article 227 - Scope of interference - High Court's role under Article 227 is limited to correcting grave derelictions of duty or flagrant abuse of law - Court cannot act as a Court of first appeal to re-appreciate evidence or re-weigh facts - Held - Impugned order of the Trial Court was well-reasoned and based on correct appreciation of evidence - No grounds for interference - [Paras 17-20].

Evidence Law - Principles of Natural Justice - Opportunity to show cause - Petitioner claimed denial of hearing while failing to respond to substantive allegations in the notice - Held - Failure to avail of the opportunity to reply to a show-cause notice precludes a party from claiming violation of natural justice - [Paras 18-21].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Impugned judgment and order of the Trial Court upheld – Rule discharged.

Criminal Law - Bail - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Sections 480 and 483 - Accused seeking regular bail after filing of charge sheet in a murder case - Petitioners A1 to A4 and A7 sought enlargement on bail contending investigation was complete and charge sheet was filed - Court observed that since investigation had concluded and the charge sheet was filed as Spl. SC. No. 133 of 2026 the risk of witnesses being influenced was negated - Held - A1 to A4 and A7 entitled to grant of bail subject to strict conditions including periodic attendance and prohibition on influencing witnesses - [Paras 1-11, 18-19.1].

Criminal Law - Special Statute - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 - Section 14A - Maintainability of bail application - Petitioners A5 and A8 seeking bail despite the existence of a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 14A of the SC/ST (POA) Act against the rejection of bail by the Special Court - Court held that since the ingredients of Sections 3(1)(f) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act were prima facie made out and the Special Court had already rejected bail on merits - The proper remedy is to file an Appeal under Section 14A rather than a fresh petition for regular bail - Held - Bail petition in respect of A5 and A8 is not maintainable - [Paras 12-17, 19.2].

Decision: Petitions for A1 to A4 and A7 allowed subject to conditions – Petition against A5 and A8 dismissed as not maintainable.

Civil Law - Limitation - Limitation Act 1963 - Section 5 - Condonation of delay - Writ petitioner challenged order of appellate authority condoning delay of over 50 years in filing appeal against mutation order - State claimed discovery of illegality during proactive record verification in 2024 - High Court held that while liberal approach is mandated for substantial justice, it cannot be invoked to revive stale or dead matters without sufficient cause - Mere vague assertions of discovering irregularities after decades of multiple mutations and previous litigation do not constitute sufficient cause - Appellate authority failed to exercise judicial discretion by ignoring established negligence and inaction of State authorities - Held - Impugned order quashed as unsustainable in law - [Paras 8-13].

Civil Law - Limitation - Government Litigants - Limitation Act 1963 - Section 5 - Duty of diligence - State is not exempted from the rigour of the law of limitation merely by virtue of its status - Institutional red-tape cannot be an excuse for gross delay where negligence or lack of bona fides is evident - Public interest cannot be used as a shroud to bypass statutory limitation periods for challenging settled property rights - Held - Revenue department failed to show adequate cause for the unexplained delay - [Paras 9-12].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Impugned order dated 05/12/2025 passed by the Sub-Collector, Boudh, is quashed.

IBC - Insolvency and Bankruptcy - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 - Section 31 - Extinguishment of claims - Petitioner underwent Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process and resolution plan was approved on 11 August 2023 - GST authorities issued demand notices in 2025 and 2026 for tax liabilities pertaining to Financial Year 2021-22 - No claim was lodged by authorities during insolvency process - Court held that statutory dues not forming part of approved resolution plan stand extinguished and authorities lack jurisdiction to initiate or continue any proceedings - Held - Impugned notices and orders quashed - [Paras 1-32].

Writ Law - Jurisdiction - Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 - Section 73 - Doctrine of fresh slate - Authorities contended that adjudication is distinct from recovery and permissible under CGST Act - Court held that once resolution plan is approved the successful applicant takes over business on a fresh slate - Any attempt to initiate adjudication proceedings for pre-approval claims acts as a roadblock to the implementation of the plan and is barred by Section 31 of the IBC - Held - Respondents lacked authority to initiate proceedings - [Paras 10-21].

Writ Law - Maintainability - Alternative remedy - Availability of appellate remedy under Section 107 of CGST Act - Court held that when an authority acts wholly without jurisdiction or in defiance of binding law and when facts are admitted the presence of an appellate remedy is not an absolute bar to exercising writ jurisdiction - Relied on Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks - Held - Writ petition maintainable - [Para 24].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Impugned Show Cause-cum-Demand Notice dated 26 September 2025, Order-in-Original dated 29 December 2025, and notice dated 13 January 2026 quashed and set aside.