Motor Accident Claim – Hit and Run – Eyewitness Reliability – FIR Delay – The appellants challenged the High Court’s reversal of compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the death of the first appellant’s husband in an alleged hit-and-run accident – Tribunal had accepted the testimony of PW2 (eyewitness) and awarded Rs. 16.02 lakhs – High Court reversed the finding citing multiple discrepancies and improbabilities in the claim [Paras 1-2].

FIR Registration – Jurisdiction and Delay – The FIR was initially lodged at Hebbogodi Police Station which had no jurisdiction and was transferred to the competent Electronic City Traffic Police Station after a delay of 117 days – Supreme Court held that no explanation was given as to why FIR was filed in the wrong police station despite claimants knowing the scene of accident [Paras 4-5].

Credibility of Witness – Contradictory Testimony – PW2 claimed to have seen the accident and also noted the vehicle’s number after returning with victim’s daughter – Court found contradictions in her statement about the timing and actions taken – No documentary proof produced to establish she ran a fruit stall near accident spot – Victim’s daughter not examined – Held: PW2 was a chance witness with untrustworthy testimony [Paras 6-7].

Burden of Proof – Preponderance of Probabilities – While motor accident claims can be decided on a preponderance of probabilities, when FIR is found to be suspicious and key witnesses unreliable, the burden is not discharged – Criminal case against the driver ended in acquittal and PW2 failed to identify him – Claim held to be unsubstantiated [Paras 6-8].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Findings of the High Court upheld – No interference warranted with High Court’s order rejecting the claim [Para 9].

Motor Accident Compensation – Insurance Policy Validity – Fraud Allegation – Deceased, 21-year-old security guard earning ₹4,000/month, died in road accident on 21.06.2006 – Tribunal awarded ₹3,87,000 with 7% interest against insurer based on insurance policy produced by vehicle owner showing coverage from 17.06.2006 – Insurer later discovered policy validity was fraudulently altered, actual period being 28.06.2006–27.06.2007 – Review before Tribunal dismissed; order not challenged in appeal – High Court upheld Tribunal’s award – Supreme Court: Allegation of fraud not proved during main proceedings, insurer bound to satisfy award – However, in equity, insurer allowed to recover 50% of compensation from owner and driver [Paras 3–6].

Procedural Law – Review Petition – Tribunal rightly dismissed insurer’s review application for lack of review power under Motor Vehicles Act – Insurer’s failure to challenge review dismissal before High Court fatal to its contention [Paras 3.2, 5.2].

Equitable Relief – Recovery Rights – Although insurer liable to pay claimants, permitted to recover 50% of compensation from vehicle owner and driver to balance equities, given fraudulent alteration of policy dates by owner [Para 6].

Decision: Appeal dismissed with modification – Insurer directed to pay award, but entitled to recover 50% from vehicle owner and driver – Any unpaid compensation to be deposited within six weeks.

Banking Law – Leasehold Plot – Validity of mortgage and e-auction sale of leasehold property allotted by DDA – Mortgage without prior permission of Lieutenant Governor held void – DDA’s rights of pre-emption and unearned increase ignored – Recovery Officer and Bank failed to disclose material encumbrances in auction proclamation – E-auction notice dated 27.09.2012 and sale held on 09.11.2012 declared illegal for violation of Rule 53 Second Schedule, Income-tax Act and Rule 16 of 1962 Rules – High Court erred in applying res judicata – Fresh cause of action arose when auction violated lease terms – Auction purchaser found bona fide and entitled to restitution – Bank directed to refund full deposit with 9% interest – Appeal allowed; auction and sale certificate quashed [Paras 18-27, 28-32].

Mortgage – Leasehold property allotted by statutory authority – Mortgage created without written consent of Lieutenant Governor – Held: Mortgage void ab initio; Bank cannot claim lawful security interest [Paras 5, 18-19].

Debt Recovery – Auction under RDDBFI Act – Recovery Officer bound to disclose encumbrances and statutory dues in proclamation – Failure to mention DDA’s unearned increase claim vitiates sale [Paras 23-27].

Res Judicata – Earlier writ petition withdrawn on Bank’s undertaking that auction would be subject to lease conditions – Not decided on merits – Fresh cause of action arose upon breach of undertaking – High Court erred in dismissing subsequent writ as barred [Paras 28-29].

Restitution – Innocent auction purchaser caught in illegal sale – Restitution a moral imperative – Bank, having auctioned what it never lawfully possessed, must refund money with interest [Paras 30-32].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court order dated 11.08.2014, e-auction notice dated 27.09.2012, auction dated 09.11.2012, and confirmation/sale certificate dated 08.07.2013 and 12.07.2013 quashed – Bank directed to refund entire deposit with 9% interest to auction purchaser within one month [Para 32-33].

Electricity – Power Purchase Agreement – Diversion of allocated share – EPL diverted GUVNL’s contracted 58% share of 515 MW capacity to sister concern ESL – Held: Such diversion violated proportionate principle – GUVNL entitled not only to “compensation” at HTP-1 tariff (less variable costs) but also to reimbursement of fixed charges proportionately – APTEL and GERC erred in denying reimbursement – Restitution prevents EPL from appropriating fixed charges twice (from both GUVNL and ESL) – SC clarifies distinction between “compensation” and “reimbursement” [Paras 30-38].

Contract Interpretation – Earlier SC decision (2016) restoring GERC’s order binding – Proportionate principle governs both supply and fixed charges – EPL obligated to declare weekly capacity for full 515 MW plant – Diversion to ESL beyond allocated 215 MW not permissible [Paras 20-24].

Computation Methodology – Though PPA defined “availability period” as hourly, EPL itself sought CEA’s advice (2003) leading to adoption of half-hourly metering from 21.02.2005 – Parties acted upon it – EPL estopped from opposing half-hourly basis for diversion computation – GERC rightly applied half-hourly basis; APTEL erred in reversing [Paras 39-41].

Delayed Payment Charges – GERC rightly applied simple interest as per PPA – However, parity mandated: if EPL secures compound interest in its other proceedings, same benefit extends to GUVNL [Para 28].

Remand – Issues of exact quantum of Deemed Generation Incentive refund (₹34.42 Cr vs. ₹36.62 Cr) and deductions from invoices remanded to GERC – SC upholds remand on factual quantification but modifies findings on fixed charges and computation basis [Paras 42-43].

Decision – Appeals partly allowed – GERC’s order dated 27.12.2019 and APTEL’s judgment dated 21.03.2025 modified – GUVNL entitled to reimbursement of fixed charges (in addition to compensation) – Diversion to be computed on half-hourly basis – Other remanded issues stand – Parties to bear own costs [Para 43].

Criminal Procedure – Bail – Fraudulent Conduct and Suppression of Material Facts – Bail Set Aside – Accused obtained interim protection during anticipatory bail proceedings by giving undertakings to repay cheated amount (₹6.25 crores) but later reneged on promise – High Court rejected anticipatory bail observing that accused misled courts and complainant – Despite this, Magistrate granted regular bail merely on ground that charge sheet was filed – Supreme Court held that such grant of bail ignored material facts and amounted to legal perversity – Orders granting and upholding bail set aside [Paras 5–10, 16–21, 37].

Judicial Discipline – Precedent and Higher Court Orders – Failure to Consider – Magistrate and Sessions Judge failed to properly appreciate the High Court’s detailed rejection of anticipatory bail due to misconduct and prior undertakings – Grant of regular bail without considering past conduct of accused held legally untenable – Trial courts must give due weight to findings of superior courts on conduct and case facts [Paras 19–20, 25–28].

Procedure – Custody and Bail – Irregular Grant of Liberty Without Bail Order – After accused appeared before ACMM, they were allowed to remain at liberty without any formal order of interim bail or bond under Section 88 CrPC – Supreme Court termed this procedural lapse unacceptable – Emphasised that appearance without custody or bail violates settled procedure [Paras 30–31].

Judicial Training and Accountability – In light of the judicial and procedural lapses in grant and affirmation of bail, Supreme Court directed that the ACMM and Sessions Judge undergo special judicial training for 7 days at Delhi Judicial Academy – Focus to be on application of precedent and judicial reasoning in bail cases involving economic offences and misconduct [Para 38].

Police Conduct – Direction for Enquiry – Commissioner of Police, Delhi, directed to conduct an enquiry into conduct of Investigating Officers in the case – Supreme Court observed that their approach aided improper grant of bail and warranted accountability [Para 39].

Court Administration – Roster and Case Assignment – Misinterpretation of Judicial Discretion – High Court wrongly declined to place matter before same Judge who had earlier dismissed anticipatory bail, citing roster change – Supreme Court clarified that bench composition is sole prerogative of Chief Justice and cannot be subject to ad hoc judicial reasoning by coordinate benches [Paras 34–36].

Decision: ACMM’s Order dated 10.11.2023, Sessions Judge’s Order dated 16.08.2024, and Delhi High Court’s Impugned Order dated 18.11.2024 quashed and set aside – Private respondents (accused) directed to surrender within two weeks – Matter not remanded – Directions issued for judicial training and departmental enquiry.

Insolvency Law – Transfer of Partnership Share – Appellant inducted as partner after father’s death; creditors initiated insolvency (1975); official receiver executed transfer deed (1983) in favour of respondent based on alleged offer/acceptance (Ex.P4, Ex.P6) – District Court (2004) found documents fabricated, cancelled transfer, restored appellant’s share – High Court (2011) reversed relying on S.37, holding acts of receiver saved – Held: High Court erred; once order dated 04.01.1983 allowing transfer was set aside and matter remanded, transfer deed had no legal foundation – Section 37 protects only duly concluded acts, not those based on fabricated documents – Appellate court must give reasons when reversing fact findings; here, High Court failed in its duty under Santosh Hazari principles – District Court’s detailed factual findings restored – Appeals by appellants allowed; connected appeals by respondents dismissed [Paras 19-27].

Insolvency – Section 37, Provincial Insolvency Act – Annulment wipes out insolvency retrospectively but saves only valid and duly concluded sales/acts of receiver – Transfer based on fabricated documents not “duly made” – Sale deed dated 11.03.1983 cannot be protected [Paras 17-23].

Evidence – Fabricated documents – District Court meticulously analysed contradictions, failure to produce originals, improbabilities, and concluded Ex.P4 offer and Ex.P6 acceptance were concocted – Findings binding absent proper reappreciation by appellate court [Paras 20-22].

Appellate Jurisdiction – High Court reversed District Court findings without analysis of evidence – Error of law; appellate court must engage with trial court reasoning and give independent reasons when reversing findings [Paras 24-25].

Decision – Appeals (CA Nos. 12048-12049/2018) allowed – High Court judgment set aside – District Court’s order dated 16.02.2004 restored – Connected appeals (CA Nos. 12050-12053/2018) dismissed [Paras 27-29].

Negotiable Instruments – S.138 – Presumptions under Ss.118 & 139 – Cash loans over ₹20,000 not void for S.269SS breach; presumption still arises – Revisional court cannot upset concurrent findings absent perversity – Non-reply to demand notice permits adverse inference – “Blank cheque given to help secure bank loan” defence held unbelievable – Comprehensive directions issued to cut S.138 pendency (service incl. dasti/e-service; QR/UPI payment links; mandatory complaint-synopsis; no pre-cognizance summons under S.223 BNSS; structured S.251 CrPC/S.274 BNSS questioning; interim compensation; physical listing; realistic evening-court thresholds; dashboards & HC committees) – Damodar S. Prabhu graded costs modified downward – Appeal allowed; HC order set aside; trial & appellate convictions restored; instalment payment ordered [Paras 11-18, 19-21, 27-32, 29-31, 32, 33-36, 37-39, 40].

Presumptions – Sections 118 & 139 NI Act – Once execution/signature admitted, presumptions of consideration and legally enforceable debt arise – APS Forex does not negate presumption for cash loans; it only recognises rebuttable nature shifting onus back upon rebuttal [Paras 15-18].

Income-tax Act – S.269SS/S.271D – Violation invites penalty but does not render cash loan illegal/void or unenforceable for S.138 purposes – Kerala HC view in P.C. Hari (2025 SCC OnLine Ker 5535) set aside [Paras 19-21].

Criminal Procedure – Revisional jurisdiction – High Court cannot reappreciate evidence to upset concurrent findings in absence of perversity/jurisdictional error [Paras 27-28].

Evidence – Financial capacity – Accused led no independent evidence; reading PW-1 as a whole showed capacity (partly from father/own borrowings); trial and sessions courts’ concurrent findings sustained [Paras 22-26].

Notice – Failure to reply to S.138 demand notice – Permits inference supporting complainant’s version; burden to raise capacity defence at reply stage emphasised [Paras 29-31].

Defence – “Signed blank cheque to help obtain bank loan” – Defence rejected as absurd/unbelievable on facts [Para 32].

Practice & Procedure – Pendency of S.138 Cases – SC issues detailed guidelines:

(A) Dasti + e-service of summons per BNSS 2023; complainant to furnish verified contact details

(B) Affidavit of service; false affidavit actionable

(C) QR/UPI payment facilities with option for early compounding

(D) Mandatory synopsis format for complaints

(E) No summons at pre-cognizance stage under S.223 BNSS

(F-G) Structured questioning under S.251 CrPC / S.274 BNSS at cognizance stage

(H) Use of interim deposit under S.143A NI Act

(I) Physical listing post-service; limited exemptions

(J) Realistic pecuniary limits for evening courts

(K) District dashboards for pendency and disposals

(L) HC committees for monitoring, ADR promotion [Paras 33-36].

Compounding – Damodar S. Prabhu guidelines revisited – New graded costs: Nil if payment made before defence evidence; 5% before judgment; 7.5% at revisional/appellate stage; 10% before Supreme Court – Courts may suggest compounding; if broader settlement demanded, court may accept guilty plea and consider Probation of Offenders Act benefits [Paras 37-39].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s 16/04/2009 order set aside – Trial and Sessions Court convictions restored – Respondent No.1 to pay ₹7,50,000 in 15 equal monthly instalments of ₹50,000 – Guidelines to be implemented by High Courts and District Courts not later than 01/11/2025 [Para 40].

Civil Procedure – Summary Suit – Leave to Defend – High Court allowed defendant to file reply to summons for judgment without prior leave to defend under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) CPC – Held: Permitting reply without prior leave undermines the summary nature of Order XXXVII proceedings – Order suffers from serious procedural defect and is unsustainable – Impugned order set aside [Paras 6, 7, 9].

Civil Procedure – Order XXXVII CPC – Procedure Mandate – Summary suits under Order XXXVII require strict compliance with sequence of steps – Entry of appearance, filing of summons for judgment, and leave to defend must precede filing of written statement or reply – Deviation from mandated procedure strikes at the root of Order XXXVII scheme [Paras 6, 7].

Delay – Condonation of Delay in Filing Leave to Defend – Application for condonation of delay in seeking leave to defend pending before High Court – Supreme Court held that mere pendency or wrong provision invoked cannot justify bypassing procedural compliance – No opinion expressed on merits of delay or entitlement to decree [Paras 8, 9].

Procedural Law – Distinction Between Regular and Summary Suit – Allowing reply in summary suit without leave equates it with ordinary suit, thereby nullifying the purpose of Order XXXVII – Procedural safeguard is integral to summary disposal – Order set aside while preserving rights of both parties to pursue appropriate remedies [Paras 9, 10].

Service Law – Lecturer Appointment – Rule Applicability – Appellant selected as Lecturer in History in 2006 under Assam Government Aided Junior College Management Rules, 2001 – Age condonation granted by Government for 2 years 7 months – Appointment approved and 18 years of continuous service rendered – High Court Division Bench wrongly applied Rule 19(iv) of Assam Secondary Education (Provincialisation) Service Rules, 2003 to aided post, quashing appointment – Held: 2003 Rules not applicable to aided colleges at the time of advertisement – Appointment validly made under 2001 Rules – Orders of Division Bench and Review dismissed as illegal – Appellant entitled to reinstatement with continuity but no back wages [Paras 2, 3, 5, 6, 7].

Education Law – Distinction Between Aided and Provincialised Institutions – 2001 Rules governed appointments in aided junior colleges pre-provincialisation – 2003 Rules under 1977 Act apply only post-provincialisation and cannot retrospectively invalidate appointments in aided institutions – High Court erred in conflating rules applicable to distinct statutory regimes [Paras 2, 3, 6].

Reinstatement – Break in Service – Appellant removed after review dismissal – Supreme Court directs reinstatement within 4 weeks without treating intervening period as break in service – Continuity of service for all purposes except back wages allowed [Para 7].