Accident Claim - Directing The Insurer To Pay - Recover The Same From The Owner Of An Oil Tanker - Driving Licence Endorsement – Rule 9 CMVR – Requirement is Mandatory – Breach Proven – Driver of offending oil tanker lacked endorsement required under Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules for carrying hazardous goods – Held: Endorsement is essential and the syllabus includes specialized training beyond general driving skills – Absence of endorsement is not a venial breach [Paras 5-12].

Pay and Recover – Insurer’s Liability Limited Due to Breach – High Court’s Direction Upheld – Although insurance company was directed to compensate the victims, it retains right to recover from the vehicle owner due to established breach of policy – Held: Tribunal and High Court rightly applied principle of 'pay and recover' in light of Swaran Singh precedent [Paras 3, 17-20].

Admission of Evidence – Production at Appellate Stage Disallowed – Certificate Not Accepted – Certificate purporting to show driver had completed required training was produced only in appeal, without explanation – Held: Such belated evidence inadmissible under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC; no justification offered for non-production before Tribunal [Paras 18-19].

Causal Connection – Breach Contributed to Accident – Not a Technical Violation – Rash and negligent driving by unqualified driver of vehicle carrying hazardous goods held to be the cause of accident – Held: Driver’s lack of endorsement under Rule 9 contributed to accident and insurer’s liability is not absolute [Paras 15-17].

Final Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Supreme Court affirmed High Court’s findings and upheld insurer’s right to recover the compensation paid – Held: No interference warranted with concurrent findings; appeals by vehicle owner dismissed [Paras 19-20].
 

Employment Law - Reservation in Public Employment – Requirement of Valid Certificate by 
Cut-Off Date – Rejection Upheld – Appellants were excluded from interview round for Civil Judge Cadre due to OBC-NCL/MBC-NCL/EWS certificates not being valid as on application cut-off date (31.08.2021) – Held: Advertisement required valid certificate as per rules— Relevant circulars and judicial precedents mandate certificate to be issued within one year or supported by affidavit for older documents—None of the appellants fulfilled these conditions [Paras 3–6, 33–36, 40]. 
 
Eligibility Cut-Off – Last Date of Application is Decisive – No Arbitrary Action – Court affirmed principle from Bhupinderpal Singh and Rekha Chaturvedi that eligibility for reservation must be determined by last date of application if rules are silent—Subsequent Notice of 04.08.2022 clarified cutoff and was not arbitrary but in line with state policy and prior case law [Paras 27–30, 36]. 
 
Validity of Certificates – OBC-NCL Valid for One Year – Extendable to Three Years with Affidavit – Circulars Enforced – Government circulars required OBC/MBC-NCL certificates to be renewed annually or supported by affidavit up to 3 years—Appellants failed to produce either within stipulated time—Held: Failure to comply with known policy rules disentitles candidates to reservation benefit [Paras 20–22, 33–35, 37]. 
 
Precedents Distinguished – Ram Kumar Gijroya Not Applicable – No Delay by Authorities – Court clarified that Ram Kumar Gijroya involved delay in issuance by competent authority despite timely application—In this case, appellants had neither applied in time nor held valid certificates—Hence, no parity [Para 38]. 
 
Decision – Appeals Dismissed – High Court Judgment Affirmed – No Discretionary Relaxation Permitted in Absence of Rule-Based Authority – No Costs – Pending Applications Also Disposed [Paras 39–42]. 
 

Service Law - Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses – Validity in Employment Contracts – Enforceable – The Court held that jurisdiction clauses conferring exclusive jurisdiction to courts in Mumbai in private employment contracts are valid and enforceable – A party who has agreed to such a clause cannot later file a suit in a different jurisdiction merely for convenience – Held: The clause was valid as per Section 28 of the Contract Act and applicable legal precedents [Paras 7-24, 27-31].

Contractual Autonomy – Private Employment – Binding Terms – Employee Bound by Terms – Employees who willingly accept and act upon appointment letters containing exclusive jurisdiction clauses cannot subsequently challenge such clauses – Difference between public and private sector employment highlighted – Held: Contractual terms govern private employment unless contrary to statute [Paras 21-24].

Jurisdiction of Court – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Error by High Court – Pleadings Should Have Been Returned, Not Rejected – Although the Patna High Court correctly held lack of jurisdiction, it erred by rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 instead of returning it under Order VII Rule 10 CPC – Held: Plaint must be returned for presentation before competent court in Mumbai [Paras 33-34].

Cause of Action and Forum Selection – Courts in Mumbai Have Jurisdiction – The place of appointment, issuance of termination letter, and other critical actions were all in Mumbai – Held: Mumbai courts had jurisdiction under Explanation to Section 20 of CPC [Para 30].

Employment Contracts and Unequal Bargaining – No Special Treatment for Employees – Court declined to create exceptions to general principles of contract enforcement based on perceived inequality of bargaining power – Held: Law treats all contracts equally regardless of parties’ relative strengths [Paras 24-26].

Final Decision – Patna HC Judgment Upheld in Part, Delhi HC Judgment Set Aside – Rakesh’s appeal dismissed with direction to file suit in Mumbai; Deepti’s appeal allowed, plaint to be filed in competent court in Mumbai – Liberty granted for amendment and limitation pleadings if fresh suits are filed [Paras 32-38].

Tenancy Law - Deemed Tenancy – Section 15A Bombay Rent Act – Conducting Agreement Does Not Confer Tenancy Rights – Plaintiff claimed tenancy rights under Section 15A on the basis of a 1967 agreement titled as an agreement for conducting a hotel business – Held: The agreement clearly indicated an arrangement to conduct the owner's hotel business and did not confer possession or leasehold rights over the premises – No deemed tenancy created [Paras 1-7, 16-24].

Construction of Written Agreements – Literal Interpretation Preferred – Sections 91 & 92 Evidence Act Apply – Oral Evidence Barred – The agreement's language clearly established it was a business conducting arrangement – Held: The bar under Sections 91 and 92 applies; oral evidence to contradict or vary written terms not admissible, no applicable exception made out [Paras 8, 18-19].

Nomenclature Not Determinative – Substance over Form – Despite being styled as a ‘conducting agreement’, its contents and context established business conductorship and not a license to occupy – Held: Mere nomenclature cannot confer rights absent in the substantive clauses of the agreement [Paras 16-17, 21-22].

Exclusive Possession – Not Transferred – Plaintiff Entrusted Only with Business, Not Premises – The agreement lacked any clause evidencing transfer of possession; plaintiff’s responsibilities were limited to running the hotel with owner’s supervision rights – Held: This omission is fatal to claim of tenancy or license [Paras 22-23].

Sales Tax Registration and Royalty Payments – Irrelevant to Tenancy – Business registration and monthly royalty do not establish lease/licence of premises – Held: Plaintiff's sales tax registration and business-related payments were consistent with a conducting agreement, not with tenancy [Paras 6.8, 23].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Trial court’s finding in favour of plaintiff reversed by appellate court and affirmed by High Court and Supreme Court – Held: Plaintiff had no possessory or tenancy rights; agreement was for conduct of business alone – Appeal dismissed with costs of ₹1,00,000 payable to Defendant No. 1 [Para 24].

Criminal Law – Appeal against Quashing of FIR Preliminary Enquiry – Not Mandatory Before Registering FIR – Source Report Sufficient – The High Court quashed the FIR for lack of preliminary enquiry – Held: Under Section 17 of the PC Act, preliminary enquiry is not mandatory where detailed source information is already available and considered by a Superintendent of Police – Source report in this case disclosed prima facie material warranting registration of FIR [Paras 7-12, 15].

Section 17 PC Act – Compliance with Second Proviso – Order of SP Valid – Respondent challenged FIR on the ground of non-compliance with Section 17 proviso – Held: SP's order dated 04.12.2023 was based on detailed source report and satisfied the legal requirement of application of mind under the second proviso to Section 17 [Paras 6-7, 10, 15].

Right to Be Heard – No Right to Explanation Before FIR – Procedural Challenge Rejected – Respondent argued he was not given opportunity to explain disproportionate assets before FIR – Held: As per settled law in CBI v. T.H. Vijayalakshmi, no right of hearing accrues to a public servant prior to registration of FIR – Process followed was legally valid [Paras 13-14].

Interpretation of Lalita Kumari and T.N. Sudhakar Reddy – Preliminary Enquiry Discretionary – Court reaffirmed that preliminary enquiry in corruption cases is desirable but not compulsory – SP may order FIR without enquiry if material is sufficient – Held: High Court misapplied Lalita Kumari by treating preliminary enquiry as mandatory [Paras 8, 11-12].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – FIR Restored – Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order dated 25.04.2024 and restored the FIR registered under PC Act against respondent – Held: Investigation to proceed in accordance with law [Paras 16-17].

Writ Jurisdiction – Possession without Requisition – Flats Occupied by Police Since 1940 – Writ Allowed – The appellants sought possession of two flats in South Mumbai given to the police for temporary use in 1940 without any written lease or requisition order – The High Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction and relegated the petitioners to alternative remedy – Held: In the absence of any formal requisition, continued possession for over 80 years without payment of rent since 2008 was unjust – Supreme Court allowed the appeal, ordered possession to be handed back within four months, and directed arrears of rent to be paid – Discretion to invoke writ jurisdiction valid in such extraordinary circumstances where justice demands immediate redressal [Paras 5-13].

Alternative Remedy – Not an Absolute Bar to Writ – Rule of Discretion – High Court's Jurisdiction Not Barred – The Apex Court reiterated that the existence of an alternative remedy is not a bar to invoking Article 226 – The rule is one of prudence and discretion, not compulsion – Where there is prolonged injustice, non-payment of dues, and abuse of state power, the writ court must intervene – Held: High Court should have exercised writ jurisdiction considering historical occupation, suppression of facts, and absence of lawful basis for possession [Paras 10-12].

Requisition and Lease – Absence of Documentation – Implications – Department’s Conduct – The respondents failed to show any written lease or requisition order – The property was used for housing police families, not for departmental purpose – Rent paid was nominal and discontinued for 18 years – Held: The police department had no right to continue occupation without legal basis – Conduct of the State was deprecated for suppressing facts and failing to consider reasonable settlement proposals [Paras 3-6, 8-9].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Writ Petition Restored – Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment, restored writ petition, directed the State to vacate and hand over possession within four months, and to pay arrears of rent from 2008 till date of possession – Undertaking to be filed by police official in one week affirming compliance [Paras 6-7, 13].

Criminal Law - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – Improper Exercise of Inherent Powers – High Court Erred – High Court quashed proceedings against the respondent solely on the basis that he played a minimal role and received a small alleged bribe – Held: High Court erred by evaluating sufficiency of evidence and engaging in a ‘mini-trial’ at the stage of cognizance – Such interference contrary to settled principles under Bhajan Lal and Neeharika Infrastructure rulings [Paras 7-10, 13].

Corroborative Statements – Statement of Co-Accused Not Sole Basis – Respondent’s Own Admission Validates Charges – Both respondent and co-accused admitted receipt of identical sums (₹1.8 crore) on identical dates – Held: Sufficient prima facie material existed to proceed with trial; reliance on co-accused statement was corroborated by respondent's own declaration [Paras 11-12].

Corporate Fraud – CFO's Role – Prima Facie Entrustment and Financial Control – Respondent, though claiming administrative role, had supervisory control over company’s finances and recommended co-accused to key posts – Held: As CFO, respondent had dominion over property and involvement in financial operations, attracting Section 409 IPC [Para 12].

Standard for Quashing – High Threshold Not Met – Circumstances in Bhajan Lal Not Satisfied – No manifest absurdity or legal bar shown – Recovery of cash from respondent’s residence, financial transactions, and suspicious communications provided sufficient basis for charges – Held: Trial is the appropriate forum to assess credibility of evidence [Paras 10-13].

Final Decision – Quashing Order Set Aside – Trial Restored – Supreme Court set aside High Court judgment and restored proceedings in C.C. No. 8373 of 2023 before the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru – Parties directed to appear before trial court on 16 April 2025 [Paras 13-14].
 

Civil Law – Refusal of Registration of Documents – Power to Refuse on Title Grounds – Rule 55A(i) Declared Ultra Vires – Sub-Registrar refused to register sale deed under Rule 55A(i) for want of vendor’s title proof – Supreme Court held that under the Registration Act, 1908, Sub-Registrar has no authority to verify title – Rule 55A(i) inconsistent with the parent Act – Held: Rule 55A(i) is ultra vires and invalid [Paras 1–2, 14–16].

Registration Act – Role of Sub-Registrar – Title Verification Not Required – Registrar’s role is administrative, not adjudicatory – Registration cannot be refused solely for lack of vendor’s title proof if procedural compliance is satisfied – Executant’s title is not relevant to registration under the Act [Paras 15–16].

Rule-Making Power – Section 69 of the Registration Act – Scope and Limits – Section 69 does not empower rule-making authority to introduce title-verification requirements – Held: Rule 55A(i) exceeds the statutory scope and conflicts with scheme of the Act – Hence struck down [Paras 10–13, 16].

State Amendment – Sections 22-A and 22-B – Limited Grounds for Refusal – These sections cover specific categories like government lands, encroached properties, and forgery – Held: These do not extend to requiring production of title deeds by vendors in all cases [Paras 8–9].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Rule 55A(i) declared ultra vires – High Court orders relying on the Rule set aside – Appellant allowed to resubmit sale deed for registration within one month, subject to procedural compliance [Paras 17–19].

Civil Law - SEBI Disgorgement Powers – Fraudulent Advertisement - Principle of Res Judicata – Later Order Invalid - SEBI issued a second order in 2018 imposing disgorgement and restraints on VCL and others based on same facts and notices addressed in final 2014 order – Held: Subsequent exercise was barred by res judicata, being on the same cause and parties – Fresh directions unsustainable after first order attained finality [Paras 19–27, 31].

Investor Compensation – SEBI Not Liable for Damages – Appeal Allowed - SEBI was wrongly directed by SAT to compensate investors who suffered losses from fraudulent ads – Tribunal’s 2013 order had already rejected SEBI's liability – Held: Re-litigation by complainants barred; SEBI not liable to compensate for investment loss absent statutory mandate [Paras 7, 12, 25, 31–33].

Tribunal’s Discretion – Costs Imposed on SEBI Set Aside – Excessive - Tribunal erred in awarding ₹2 lakhs costs per appellant despite their involvement in fraudulent schemes – Held: Costs award against SEBI was unjustified in the circumstances and stood quashed [Paras 32–33].

Constructive Res Judicata – Successive Proceedings Not Permissible – SEBI’s Powers Not Exempt - SEBI argued Section 15U(1) insulated it from CPC rules – Held: Even quasi-judicial authorities like SEBI are bound by public policy and res judicata – Doctrine applies despite nature of regulatory proceedings [Paras 27–28].

Decision – Civil Appeal by SEBI Allowed – SAT’s 2019 judgment directing SEBI to compensate investor set aside – Respondents' appeal seeking additional interest dismissed – SEBI's challenge to 2021 disgorgement quash order dismissed, but costs order reversed – All parties to bear own costs [Paras 31–33].