Motor Accident Claims - Compensation - Enhancement of - Appeal against the award granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Claimants sought enhancement of compensation on the grounds of loss of estate, incorrect deduction for personal expenses, and low interest rate - Major sons of the deceased not entitled to compensation based on legal precedents - Only the widow and mother considered as dependents - Tribunal's deduction for personal expenses upheld - Compensation awarded by the tribunal found to be just and fair - Shortfall in amount awarded for loss of estate within permissible limits - No case made for interference with the award - Appeal dismissed. (Para No. 3,8,11,12)

Motor Accident Claims - Compensation - Enhancement of - Appeal against the award granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Claimants sought enhancement of compensation on the grounds of loss of estate, incorrect deduction for personal expenses, and low interest rate - Major sons of the deceased not entitled to compensation based on legal precedents - Only the widow and mother considered as dependents - Tribunal's deduction for personal expenses upheld - Compensation awarded by the tribunal found to be just and fair - Shortfall in amount awarded for loss of estate within permissible limits - No case made for interference with the award - Appeal dismissed. (Para No. 3,8,11,12)

Rent Control Law – Provisional Assessment of Arrears – Revision Petition against the dismissal of execution petition for arrears of rent – Tenant failed to pay arrears on the adjourned date due to a "no work day" observed by lawyers – Court held that nothing precluded the tenant from paying/depositing arrears despite the "no work day" – Petition dismissed. [Para 7-9]

Tenant’s Responsibility to Pay Rent – Analysis – Tenant argued that the non-payment was due to the lawyer's absence on the "no work day" – Court found this argument unconvincing, noting that modern communication means could have been used to inform the tenant – Tenant had ample opportunity to appear and pay or note the next hearing date. [Para 6-7]

Decision – Revision Petition Dismissed – The impugned orders by the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority were upheld as legally sound – Tenant’s failure to pay arrears justified the eviction order. [Para 9]

Arbitration Law – Calculation of Interest – Section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Revision petition filed to challenge the dismissal of an execution petition regarding the calculation of interest – Petitioner claimed interest on the interest pendente lite – Court held that the interest awarded under Section 31(7)(a) partakes the character of the principal sum for the purpose of calculating interest under Section 31(7)(b) – Revision petition allowed, impugned order set aside.

Calculation of Interest on Arbitral Award – Analysis – The interest awarded up to the date of passing of the award becomes part of the principal sum – This sum includes both the original principal and the interest awarded under Section 31(7)(a) – Supreme Court precedents establish that for the purpose of post-award interest calculation under Section 31(7)(b), the 'sum' includes the interest awarded under Section 31(7)(a).

Decision – Revision Petition Allowed – The impugned order dismissing the execution petition is set aside – The execution court is directed to proceed from the stage at which the impugned order was passed – Clarification provided that the awarded interest partakes the character of the principal sum.

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of FIR – Multiple FIRs on the same cause of action – Petitioners challenged FIR No. 226 of 2015, citing it was on the same cause of action as an earlier FIR No. 166 of 2009 in which they were not charge-sheeted – Petitioners claimed the subsequent FIR was motivated – High Court examined the responsibility under the development agreement and found the new FIR did not disclose a prima facie case against the petitioners – FIR quashed and subsequent proceedings nullified [Paras 1-20].

Section 401A of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act – Scope and Application – Court noted that not every breach of the Act or Rules in building construction would invoke criminal liability under Section 401A – The breach must endanger or likely endanger human life or property – Complaint must contain prima facie evidence of specific violations causing such endangerment – In the absence of adequate supporting materials, such complaints cannot proceed to trial [Paras 11-18].

Prima Facie Case – Insufficient Evidence – The engineers' report, forming the basis of the FIR, lacked detailed supporting material – The Court emphasized the need for complaints to be substantiated with objective evidence, failing which it would amount to an abuse of the process of Court [Paras 15-18].

Decision – Criminal revision allowed – FIR and subsequent proceedings quashed – High Court mandated adherence to proper procedures and evidentiary standards in lodging complaints under Section 401A [Para 19-21].

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Offence of Dishonour of Cheque - Compounding of Offences - Consent of Complainant - Dishonour of Cheque - Petitioners filed an application for compounding of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Lower courts dismissed the application for compounding - Petitioners contended that they were willing to pay the entire cheque amount - Whether the offence can be compounded without the consent of the complainant - Whether the court can permit compounding solely on a unilateral application of the accused - Held, without the consent of the complainant, compounding of the offence cannot be permitted - Judgments cited by the petitioners did not support their claim for compounding without the complainant's consent - Conduct of the petitioners, who owed a substantial amount and had issued multiple dishonoured cheques, was relevant - Petition dismissed.

Anticipatory Bail - Petitions filed by two different individuals - Same FIR, arising out of the same occurrence - Allegations of obscene videos and objectionable photographs circulated on complainant's Instagram ID - Petitioners denied involvement in publishing or transmitting the material - Pre-registration inquiry indicated complainant's involvement in creating the video - Investigating Officer implicated petitioners after the registration of the FIR - Petitioners argued they were not properly served with notices under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. - Maximum sentence for offense is five years - Custodial interrogation sought by prosecution - Court directed petitioners to join investigation, hand over mobile phones, and cooperate fully - Grant of anticipatory bail subject to certain conditions - Petitioners warned against violating bail conditions - Photocopy of judgment ordered to be placed on the file of connected matter.

Collusion in bidding process – Allegations of collusion between companies in bidding process – Need for evidence to establish collusion – Cross-holding of shares not sufficient to prove companies as group companies – Lack of evidence of wrongful gain or loss – Allegations found baseless – Appeals dismissed. (Para 2-5)

Blacklisting and forfeiture of Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) – Withholding of monies unjustified – Blacklisting without reason or basis – Lack of collusion and loss to the appellant – Blacklisting set aside – MNRE acceptance of setting aside of blacklisting – Release of EMD and accrued interest ordered. (Para 6-9)

Interpretation of RFS (Request for Selection) – Definition of “Affiliate” and “Group Company” under Article 2 of RFS – Concession by appellant that respondents are neither affiliates nor group companies – Impugned order based on presumption of group companies unsustainable – Shareholding patterns and economic interests irrelevant once non-affiliation established. (Para 7-8)

Forfeiture of EMD – Withdrawal of bid applications and non-submission of financial bids – Expiry of bid validity period – Rejection of bids after expiry – No cause for forfeiture of EMD – Release of deposited monies ordered. (Para 9)

Criminal Procedure - Quashing of charges - Framing of charges under Section 506 IPC only - Petition filed under Section 482 of CrPC to set aside order framing charges - Allegations of trespass, threats, and theft - Co-ownership of property established - No exclusive possession by the petitioner - Insufficient evidence for charges under Sections 379 and 380 IPC - Prima facie case made out for charges under Section 506 IPC - Courts below did not commit any illegality - Petition dismissed. [Para 1-12]

Criminal Intimidation - Framing of charges under Section 506 IPC - Allegations of threats made by the respondent against the petitioner - Prima facie evidence provided through the petitioner's statement - Charges validly framed - No illegality in the lower courts' decisions. [Para 10-11]

Trespass and Theft - Insufficient evidence - Co-ownership of property established - No exclusive possession shown by the petitioner - Charges under Sections 379 and 380 IPC not validly framed - Courts below justified in dismissing charges. [Para 10]

House-trespass - Non-exclusive possession of property - Co-ownership established - Charges under Section 452 IPC not validly framed - No illegality in the lower courts' decisions. No illegality found - Orders of lower courts sustained - Section 482 - Petition to set aside order framing charges - No merits found - Petition dismissed. [Para 10-12]