Insurance Appeal – Recovery Right – Challenge against the High Court’s reversal of Tribunal Award granting recovery right to the petitioner-insurance company from vehicle owners, following a motor accident due to a driver with a fake license – Special Leave Petition filed by aggrieved insurance company. [Para 1]

Motor Vehicle Accident – Fatal Accident Compensation – Dependents of deceased seeking compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 from Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Tribunal’s Award in favor of dependents but denial of liability by petitioner-insurance company due to driver’s fake license – Appeal by vehicle owners leading to High Court’s order in favor of vehicle owners. [Para 2-3]

Insurance Policy Breach – Driving License Verification – High Court’s finding against insurance company’s claim of policy breach by vehicle owners – Absence of stipulation for verification of driver’s license in policy or statute – Rejection of insurance company’s recovery claim from vehicle owners. [Para 3-8]

Judicial Precedents – Previous Supreme Court decisions regarding insurance company’s liability in case of driver’s fake license – Emphasis on proving willful breach by insured to absolve insurer of liability – Requirement for insurance company to prove breach, with burden of proof on insurer. [Para 9-13]

Insurance Company’s Liability – Due Diligence by Vehicle Owner – Absence of evidence proving vehicle owner’s negligence in verifying driver’s license – Dismissal of insurance company’s recovery claim and Special Leave Petition – Criticism towards insurance companies for raising unmerited pleas and pursuing appeals, wasting judicial resources. Appeal Dismissed. [Para 14-16]

Appeals against Acquittal – Grave Offences – Appeals by the complainant and the State against the acquittal of accused by the Rajasthan High Court for grave offences under Sections 302 and 307 IPC, while convicting only for lesser offences – The High Court based its decision on perceived discrepancies in witness testimonies and assumption of a sudden altercation – Appeals admitted for consideration by the Supreme Court. [Para 1-2]

Eyewitness Testimony – Credibility Assessment – Critical evaluation of key eyewitnesses, particularly the testimony of Rami (PW-2), an injured witness and wife of the deceased – High Court discredited her testimony due to minor discrepancies between her statements under Section 161 Cr.PC and in her examination-in-chief – Supreme Court emphasizes the credibility and significance of an injured eyewitness testimony in unraveling the truth. [Para 7, 19-21, 27]

Medical Evidence – Corroboration of Eyewitness Testimony – Medical evidence confirming the brutal assault on the deceased and PW-2, substantiating the claims of the eyewitnesses about the violent attack – The High Court’s oversight in not giving due consideration to the medical evidence highlighted. [Para 12-13, 10]

Defence Witnesses – Evaluation of Credibility – Scrutiny of defence witnesses, particularly DW-4, whose credibility was under question due to past misconduct – The High Court’s error in giving undue weightage to dubious defence evidence, thereby skewing the assessment of the incident. [Para 24]

Legal Interpretation – Sections 302 & 307 IPC – High Court’s erroneous interpretation of the incident as a sudden clash devoid of premeditation, leading to wrongful acquittal under Sections 302 & 307 IPC – Supreme Court’s corrective interpretation, recognizing the gravity of the assault but granting a limited benefit of doubt to the accused due to minor discrepancies in PW-2's testimony. [Para 28-30]

Conviction Modification – Sections 304 part I & 308 IPC – Supreme Court’s modification of the convictions to culpable homicide not amounting to murder and attempt to commit culpable homicide, respecting the gravity of the incident while considering minor discrepancies in witness testimony – Sentencing the accused to rigorous imprisonment, thereby delivering a balanced judgment. [Para 31]

Order for Surrender and Sentence Execution – Directive for the remaining accused to surrender for the execution of the sentence, with adjustments for the period already served – Abatement of the case against the deceased accused, Jethnath, and discharge of bail bonds if any. [Para 32]

Criminal Appeal – Quashing of FIR – High Court's rejection of petition under Section 482 of CrPC without considering the merits – Strange approach by the High Court – Order set aside, and the case remanded to the High Court for consideration on merits.

Interim Relief – Extension of interim relief granted by the Supreme Court – Appellant allowed to apply for continuation of interim relief if the remanded case is not decided by a specified date – High Court directed to decide the case on merits without being influenced by the interim relief.

Criminal Appeal – Bail Application – Appellant seeks bail in prosecutions related to RC No. 0032022A00553 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Enforcement Case Information Report No. HIU-II/14/2022 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Various legal issues raised – Scope of constitutional protection, interpretation of PML Act, prosecution under PML Act, and more – Lengthy trial expected – Allegations of kickback and money laundering – Co-accused granted bail – Hearsay statements and evidence challenged – Destruction of evidence alleged – Complex web of transactions through hawala route – Appellant's possession of proceeds of crime – Destruction of mobile phones – Appellant's power and influence – Statements of witnesses and documents at risk. [Para 2-7]

Statutory Interpretation – Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act - court's role in bail applications is not to determine guilt but to assess broad probabilities. It underlined the importance of a tentative finding based on the available evidence while considering bail applications, and that such findings won't prejudice the merits of the case during the trial. [Para 8]

Bribery Allegation Examination – scrutinized the allegation regarding a bribe payment of Rs. 2,20,00,000 to the appellant, Manish Sisodia, which was not included in the CBI's chargesheet, making it difficult to regard as 'proceeds of crime' under the PML Act. [Para 10]

Proceeds of Crime Utilization – Analyzed the claim of proceeds of crime being used for election funding in Goa by AAP, a juristic person, and the alleged transfer of Rs. 45,00,00,000 through Hawala for the same purpose - lack of specific allegations on the involvement of the appellant, Manish Sisodia, in this transfer. [Para 11-12]

Money Laundering - Offence Scope – examining the terms 'generation', 'possession', and their implications in light of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan. It also referred to the judgment in Y. Balaji v. Karthik Desari and Another for understanding the three 'P's principle - person, process or activity, and the product, in the context of money laundering offence under Section 3 of the PML Act. [Para 13-17]

Conspiracy and Abetment Exclusion – offence of conspiracy and abetment under Sections 120/120B and Sections 107/108 of the IPC are not applicable to offences under the PML Act, elaborating on the wide scope of Section 3 of the PML Act concerning involvement in money laundering activities. [Para 18]

Mobile Phone Destruction Allegation – its correctness would be determined post evidence recording, but it's not a weighty factor for bail decision given the detention period undergone by the appellant. [Para 20]

Proceeds of Crime Calculation – The Court deliberated on the calculation of proceeds of crime based on the new excise policy's operation, analyzing the difference in profit margins and the one-time license fee collected from wholesale distributors. The Court highlighted the alleged unlawful gains to private individuals at the expense of the government exchequer and the public, as per the complaint filed under the PML Act and the charge-sheet under the Prevention of Corruption (PoC) Act. [Para 21-22]

PoC Act Section 7 - Applicability: Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 7 -  where a public servant engages in corrupt practices, either directly or indirectly, by abusing their position for undue advantage, regardless of the performance of their public duty. The definitions and examples provided elucidate the scope and intent of these clauses, emphasizing the criminality of obtaining, accepting, or attempting to obtain undue advantage through corrupt or illegal means. [Para 23]

Excise Policy Alteration and Conspiracy - alteration in excise policy, led by appellant Manish Sisodia, aimed at enhancing commission rates to facilitate kickbacks and bribes from wholesale distributors, highlighting a well-orchestrated conspiracy. [Para 24]

Bail Denial - Economic Offence - Despite the grave economic offence allegations against appellant Manish Sisodia, the Court expressed concerns over the prolonged incarceration. The references to previous judgments reiterate the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, and the necessity for case-by-case consideration for bail, even in grave economic offences, emphasizing the importance of securing the accused's presence for trial. [Para 25-28]

Court provides liberty to appellant Manish Sisodia to seek bail afresh in case of changed circumstances or protracted trial. The provision for interim bail in case of medical emergencies and the overarching emphasis on the right to a speedy trial reflect the Court's inclination towards upholding constitutional mandates while ensuring law enforcement. [Para 29]

Bail Dismissal - appeals are dismissed with a clarifying note that observations made herein are for disposal purposes of the present appeals, not to influence the trial court's proceedings on the merits of the case, ensuring the adherence to legal protocols and a fair evaluation of evidence in the subsequent trial. [Para 30]

Civil Appeal - Challenge to the High Court's order in a Writ Appeal - Appellant's representation for appointment as Assistant Engineer and seniority dispute - Appellant's appointment as Assistant Engineer - Seniority dispute between appellant and private-respondents - Chief Engineer's provisional and final seniority lists - Promotion and correction of promotion dates - Writ petition filed by private-respondents - High Court's direction to consider private-respondents' representation - Appeal against the High Court's order. [Para 1-13]

Seniority Dispute - Challenge to the seniority list - Delay in challenging the seniority list - Examination of applicability of precedent - Different quotas for promotion based on different categories - Appellant and private-respondents falling in different categories with separate quotas - Dismissal of the appeal as meritless. [Para 18-21]

Criminal Appeal - Bail - Appellant aggrieved by the High Court's order rejecting bail application in connection with FIR for various offenses including under the Indian Penal Code and the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organized Crime Act - Appellant in judicial custody for over 2 years and 9 months - No other criminal antecedents - Conditions for invoking the GCTOC Act not fulfilled - Only one chargesheet against the appellant - No "continuing unlawful activity" found - Appellant granted bail with specific conditions. [Para 1-10]

Judicial Delay – Article 142 of the Constitution of India - Demonstrates the impact of judicial delays, compelling the Supreme Court to invoke its Extraordinary Jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to arrive at a resolution. [Para 3]

Labor Law – Unfair Labour Practices – Reinstatement and Back Wages - Outlines the order of dismissal against the first respondent dated 25th June, 2001, and subsequent filing of a complaint before the Labour Court. Discusses the Labour Court's direction for reinstatement with back wages and the subsequent procedural history including orders from the Industrial Court and High Court. [Para 4]

Superannuation – Impact on Ongoing Litigation - first respondent reached the age of superannuation on 31st December, 2006, making the outcome of continuing litigation even more uncertain. [Para 5]

Penalty – Disproportionate Punishment - Highlights the contention of the first respondent that the penalty of dismissal imposed upon him was disproportionate. [Para 6]

Article 142 – powers under Article 142 to resolve the matter by directing the appellant to pay a lump sum amount to the first respondent. [Para 7-8]

Order – Final Disposition of the Appeal - appeal is disposed of, directing the appellant to pay Rs.10,00,000/- to the first respondent within two months. Also provides for disposal of Writ Petitions and other pending proceedings between the parties. [Para 8-9]

Employment Eligibility – Suppression of material fact regarding involvement in a criminal case – Respondent’s selection as Grade-II Constable – Inquiry revealed his involvement in a criminal case, followed by acquittal – Respondent failed to disclose this information during verification. [Para 5-7]

Verification Roll – Column 15 inquiry about any past or present involvement in a criminal case – Respondent answered ‘NO’ despite prior involvement and subsequent acquittal – Misleading information amounting to suppression of facts. [Para 11-12]

Employment Eligibility vs. Suppression of Information – Legal position summarized – Candidate must provide truthful information about convictions, acquittals, arrests, or pending criminal cases – Employer retains the right to consider antecedents even with truthful declaration – In this case, non-disclosure of involvement and subsequent acquittal raises doubts about character and antecedents, justifying disqualification. [Para 14-16]

Decision – Division Bench’s decision in writ appeal set aside – Writ court’s judgment restored – Respondent’s writ petition dismissed – No costs awarded. [Para 17-18]

Maintenance Claim – Daughter-in-law seeking recovery of arrears and monthly maintenance from father-in-law and mother-in-law – Marriage deteriorated, leading to legal proceedings – Husband’s anticipatory bail denied – Daughter-in-law granted interim maintenance – Maintenance order enhanced – Daughter-in-law claims inheritance rights to ancestral property – Husband obtained a divorce decree in Australia – Property attachment and auction attempts failed – Daughter-in-law seeks transfer of ownership of specific shops – Past history displays defiance by husband and father-in-law – Court’s power under Article 142 invoked for complete justice – Directions issued for sale of specific shops and payment to daughter-in-law. [Para 1-19]