Motor Accident Claim – Compensation – Income Assessment – Appeal Allowed – Deceased with diploma in pharmacy engaged in distributorship and cooperative bank activities – Tribunal fixed monthly income at Rs.6,000/-, High Court reduced to Rs.5,500/- without reasons – Held: Unjustified – Considering overall circumstances, monthly income reasonably fixed at Rs.12,000/- – Compensation recalculated at Rs.20,80,000/- – [Paras 2–5, 6–7].

Assessment of Income – Incremental Approach – Following Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. (2011) 13 SCC 236, daily wagers earned Rs.4,500/- in 2004; by 2010 could earn Rs.7,500/- – Deceased with higher qualifications/business reasonably taken at Rs.12,000/- p.m. – [Paras 5–6].

Consortium – Wider Entitlement – As per Somwati, not just spouse but children and parents also entitled to consortium – Rs.40,000/- each awarded – [Para 6].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Compensation enhanced to Rs.20,80,000/- with 6% interest – Deduction of amounts already paid – To be disbursed as per Tribunal’s apportionment within 3 months – [Paras 7–8].

Railway Service Law - Railways Recruitment & Training – SSE – Master Circular No.29 – Training-end Written Test Mandatory – Appeal Allowed in Part – RRB Employment Notice required training; Master Circular/Manual mandated qualifying written test at the end of initial training and warned retention depends on passing the test – Respondent completed 46 of 52 weeks but twice failed the G&SR course examination; CAT upheld termination; High Court set aside termination holding no “departmental examination” – Held: “Departmental examination” (promotion) is distinct from “training examination” (recruitment stage); Master Circular governs, and passing the written test post-training is a prerequisite for absorption – Termination upheld; however, recovery of stipend erroneously paid for second attempt not justified – Appeal allowed; HC judgment set aside; writ dismissed; stipend recovery quashed [Paras 3, 4, 5, 6–8, 12, 18.1–18.7, 19–21, 23–24].

Recruitment vs. Appointment – Distinction Clarified – Legal Effect – The Court reiterates that “recruitment” signifies selection/approval and not actual posting; “appointment” is the act of posting to office – Provisional appointment as Trainee SSE did not confer permanent status absent successful completion of training and test – Applied precedents: Prafulla Kumar Swain and Ashok Ram Parhad [Para 21].

Alleged Discrimination – Similarly Placed Trainees – No Unequal Treatment – Claim that peers were appointed after only 46 weeks and without G&SR training rejected – Record (including RTI responses) showed the named trainees completed the 52-week training; many others took and passed the G&SR test when respondent failed – No arbitrariness; Articles 14/16 not violated [Paras 8.1–8.3, 18.6, 22].

Governing Instrument – Master Circular vs. Revised Training Module – Hierarchy & Scope – Revised Training Module (RBE 11/2010) fixes duration/content but does not supersede the Master Circular requirement of a qualifying written test – Absent a test, adequacy of training cannot be ascertained – High Court erred in concluding no examination prescribed for conferring permanent status [Paras 18.1, 19–20].

Recovery of Stipend – Administrative Inadvertence – No Misrepresentation – Recovery of stipend paid for the second training attempt impermissible where payment occurred due to department’s inadvertence and not the trainee’s fraud/misrepresentation – Demand set aside [Para 24].

Decision: Appeal allowed; judgment of the High Court dated 06.02.2023 set aside; Writ Petition dismissed; termination order dated 04.01.2019 upheld; recovery notice dated 26.02.2019 for stipend quashed; parties to bear their own costs [Paras 23–25].

Criminal Law - Abetment of Suicide – Section 306 IPC – Neighbourhood Quarrels – Conviction Set Aside – Deceased, a 25-year-old woman, committed suicide by setting herself on fire following constant quarrels with neighbour (appellant) – Trial Court convicted under Section 306 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act; High Court confirmed conviction under Section 306 but acquitted under SC/ST Act – Held: Mere quarrels, abuses and physical scuffles between neighbours, without evidence of intention to incite suicide, do not amount to “instigation” under Section 107 IPC – Casual or heated words, even physical altercations, cannot be equated with deliberate abetment – Conviction under Section 306 unsustainable [Paras 13–18, 23].

Mens Rea and Instigation – Requirement under Section 306 IPC – The prosecution must prove a clear mens rea and active act intended to drive deceased to suicide – Utterances in anger like “go and die” not sufficient unless circumstances show intent to push deceased into position of no alternative – Reiterated principles from Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P., (1995 Supp (3) SCC 438); Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 8 SCC 628; Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618; M. Mohan v. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 – Applied here to acquit appellant [Paras 18–21].

Evidence – Dying Declaration – Statement of deceased (Ex. P-8) recounted harassment and insults by appellant – Corroborated partly by relatives and neighbours – However, testimony was omnibus and lacked specific acts of instigation; most neighbours did not support allegation of caste abuses – High Court rightly acquitted under SC/ST Act; remaining evidence insufficient to sustain conviction under Section 306 IPC [Paras 6–12, 16–17].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Conviction under Section 306 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Bail bonds discharged [Paras 23–24].

Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (IBC) – Homebuyers’ Claims – Resolution Plan – Appeal Allowed – Appellants booked flat in 2010, paid nearly entire consideration; Corporate Debtor (IREO) went into CIRP; claim submitted and admitted by Resolution Professional – NCLT and NCLAT held claim was belated, granted only 50% refund – Held: Once claim is verified and reflected in creditors’ list, cannot be relegated to residual category – Appellants entitled to possession – [Paras 28–37, 39–42].

Homebuyers – Verified Claims – Binding Effect – Once a claim is verified, admitted, and published in creditors’ list, it acquires full legal recognition – To disregard such claims undermines CIRP fairness – Clause 18.4(ii) read with (vi)(a) governs; Clause 18.4(xi) applies only to unverified or uninformed claims – [Paras 32–36].

Resolution Plan – Distinction Between Verified and Belated Claims – Clause 18.4 draws clear lines – Verified claims must be honoured; only unverified/belated ones fall to refund – Misapplication by NCLT/NCLAT corrected – [Paras 34–37].

Equitable Consideration – Protection of Homebuyers – Court emphasised hardships of individual buyers investing life savings – Relegating them to refund despite admitted claims runs contrary to IBC framework – [Para 38].

Decision – Judgment of NCLAT (10.01.2025) and NCLT (26.07.2023) set aside – Respondents directed to execute conveyance deed and hand over possession of Apartment No. GBD-00-001, Block D, IREO Rise (Gardenia), Mohali, within two months – Appeal allowed – No order as to costs – [Paras 39–42].

Bail in UAPA Case – Continued Incarceration – Bail Granted – Accused facing charges under UAPA and IPC for alleged association with banned organization and money transactions – Appellant incarcerated for over 2 years and 7 months – Only 3 witnesses examined so far – Trial likely to be prolonged – Some co-accused already granted bail – Court finds overt act attributable to appellant not so grave to deny bail – Held: Bail granted with conditions imposed by Trial Court [Paras 3–8].

Trial Expeditiousness – Direction to Trial Court – Supreme Court directs Trial Court to conclude trial within one year considering prolonged incarceration and slow pace of trial [Para 10].

Consequences of Non-Cooperation – Conditions for Cancellation of Bail – Court grants liberty to prosecution to seek cancellation of bail if the appellant is involved in future illegal activity or does not cooperate in trial – Preventive safeguards added to balance liberty and security [Para 9].

Decision – Impugned order denying bail set aside – Appeal allowed – Bail granted to appellant subject to trial court’s terms and conditions [Paras 8, 11].

Section 125 of the Electricity Act - Change in Law – Pro rata allocation of coal – Sections 62 & 63, Electricity Act – Appeals dismissed – Challenge to APTEL order upholding CERC’s direction that coal supplied under firm and tapering linkage is for the station as a whole and costs of alternate coal (import/open market) due to shortfall be apportioned pro rata based on energy supplied – Held: Allocation under SLC-LT approvals/LOAs and FSA terms is plant-wide and not PPA-specific – Haryana Utilities and GRIDCO cannot claim exclusivity or priority – CERC’s methodology sustained – Appeals dismissed [Paras 31–34, 40, 45–46].

Section 125 Electricity Act – Scope confined to substantial question of law via Section 100 CPC – Judicial restraint over concurrent expert findings – Two expert bodies (CERC and APTEL) rendered concurrent, reasoned findings based on documents and policy – No perversity, arbitrariness, or statutory breach shown – Interference unwarranted [Paras 18–25].

Fuel Supply Agreements and SLC-LT decisions – Interpretation – FSA Clause 4.1.1 ties ACQ to percentage of generation under long-term PPAs – Clause 4.2 earmarks coal “for use at Power Plant (3x350 MW)” – SLC-LT minutes (14.02.2012) and LOAs (25.07.2008 and 08.07.2009) demonstrate station-level allocation including tapering linkage for all three beneficiaries – MCL clarifications confirm coal release against total PPA capacity, not segregated PPA-wise [Paras 31–33, 35].

Appropriation claim rejected – Haryana’s contention that its 300 MW must be met entirely from firm linkage and that tapering/imported coal costs fall on GRIDCO/Bihar rejected – Such reading is contrary to plant-wide allocation, would disadvantage Odisha/Bihar consumers, and violates parity among equals – Pro rata allocation avoids cross-subsidy and aligns with Energy Watchdog [Paras 32–34].

Necessary and proper party – GRIDCO not necessary party in Section 63 Change in Law proceedings – Its PPA is under Section 62 (cost-plus) with tariff determined separately – Proceedings under Sections 62 and 63 are distinct – Non-impleadment did not vitiate CERC orders – GRIDCO’s priority claim based on earlier PPA execution/COD untenable in face of plant-wide allocation [Paras 41–45].

Judicial deference to sectoral expertise – Court reiterates restraint where expert bodies have applied regulations/policy following stakeholder processes – Unwarranted appeals impose carrying costs ultimately borne by consumers – Need to curb such litigation emphasized [Paras 19–23].

Decision – Civil Appeal No. 1929 of 2020 (Haryana Utilities) and Civil Appeal No. 3429 of 2020 (GRIDCO) dismissed – APTEL judgment dated 20.12.2019 upholding CERC order dated 20.03.2018 affirmed – Payment of supplementary bills with late payment surcharge as per PPA sustained [Paras 40, 45–46].

Review Jurisdiction – Scope under Section 114 and Order 47 CPC – Review Order Quashed – The Appellant sought amendment of a preliminary decree to claim her rightful share as a coparcener after the 2005 Amendment to the Hindu Succession Act – The Trial Court dismissed the plea; High Court initially allowed the revision, recognising her 1/3rd coparcenary right – In a subsequent review, the High Court reversed its prior order and remanded the matter for fresh trial – Held: The review order went beyond the permissible scope under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC by reassessing facts and reaching fresh conclusions – Review jurisdiction is limited to correcting apparent errors, not reappreciating evidence or substituting views – The High Court's review amounted to an appeal in disguise and was unsustainable [Paras 13–20].

Coparcenary Rights of Daughters – Retrospective Application of HSA 2005 – Right Recognised – Appellant, being a daughter of a coparcener alive at the time of commencement of HSA 2005, is entitled to equal share – The original preliminary decree was passed ex parte and without impleading her – She has a legitimate claim to 1/3rd share and additional share through a will – Her right is not barred by estoppel or limitation – Held: Daughter’s coparcenary right is birthright and enforceable even after preliminary decree, as final decree was yet to be passed [Paras 3–7, 10].

Jurisdictional Overreach – Review vs. Appeal – Error of Law – The impugned review order failed to identify any “error apparent on the face of the record” and instead conducted a re-evaluation of the entire case – Held: Such exercise falls outside the scope of review jurisdiction – Review order set aside; order in CRP dated 23.09.2022 restored [Paras 15–19].

Final Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s review order dated 19.10.2024 set aside – Order dated 23.09.2022 in CRP No. 1439 of 2019 restored – Trial Court directed to dispose of pending applications within three months [Para 20].

PIL - Anand Karaj marriages—Section 6, Anand Marriage Act—States/UTs directed to notify rules within 4 months—Till then, registration to be facilitated under existing marriage registration frameworks without discrimination—Union of India to coordinate and file compliance report—Petition disposed with time-bound directions [Paras 11–16].

Constitutional Duty – Registration of Marriages – Section 6 of the Anand Marriage Act imposes a positive duty on States to establish registration machinery for Anand Karaj marriages – Duty not optional or contingent on population size – Non-notification frustrates legislative intent of 2012 amendment [Paras 7–8].

Civil Consequences of Registration – Marriage certificates enable proof of status for residence, maintenance, inheritance, succession, and enforcement of monogamy – Particularly safeguard rights of women and children – Unequal access across jurisdictions violates equal treatment [Para 9].

Harmonisation with Existing Frameworks – Until rules are notified, general marriage registration frameworks must accept Anand Karaj marriages on the same footing as other marriages – Certificate to record that marriage was solemnised by Anand Karaj where parties so request [Para 10].

General Directions – (i) All States/UTs without rules to notify within 4 months; (ii) immediate registration under existing laws without discrimination; (iii) States with rules to issue clarifications within 3 months; (iv) Nodal officer to be designated within 2 months; (v) Union of India to coordinate and circulate model rules, and file consolidated status report in 6 months [Para 12].

Special Directions – Goa: Interim registration under civil registration offices; Union to extend Anand Marriage Act within 4 months; Goa to frame rules within 4 months thereafter [Para 13]. – Sikkim: Interim registration under 1963 Rules; Union to consider extension under Article 371F(n); Sikkim to notify rules within 4 months after extension [Para 14].

Decision – Writ petition disposed of with directions—Time-bound rule-making mandated—Interim facilitation under existing frameworks ordered—Compliance affidavits to be filed by States/UTs; Union to file consolidated status report in 6 months [Paras 15–16].

Motor Accident Claim – Causal Connection Between Accident and Death – Claim Rejected - The deceased, an Excise Guard, died of pulmonary embolism five months after sustaining leg and finger fractures in a road accident – Supreme Court upheld High Court’s finding that there was no proximate or direct causal link between the accident and death – Held: Death not attributable to accident injuries; post-surgical complications with pre-existing diabetes and hypertension more likely cause [Paras 1-11].

Expert Evidence – Doctor’s Testimony Inconclusive – Medical Opinion Favoured Natural Cause - PW-1, the plastic surgeon, opined the death was due to myocardial infarction, and though stated long bed rest could trigger embolism, he admitted to no post-mortem and acknowledged cardiac risk factors – Held: Absence of conclusive medical evidence and lack of post-mortem weakens claimants’ case; expert's deposition supported natural medical cause [Paras 6-7].

Preponderance of Probability – Not Established – No Clear Nexus Between Injury and Death - Supreme Court reiterated that even in civil cases requiring lesser standard of proof, the causal connection must meet preponderance of probability – Held: Injuries were not serious; death occurred after successful skin grafting – No evidence of extended immobility or bed rest [Paras 8-11].

Final Disposition – High Court Judgment Affirmed – Claim for Death Compensation Denied - Tribunal’s finding of causality reversed by High Court based on medical evidence – Supreme Court declined to interfere, holding the reasoning sound and based on expert medical testimony – Held: No compensation payable for death; claimants still entitled to compensation for injuries [Paras 11-12].