Criminal Law – Quashing - Matrimonial Disputes – Abuse of Process – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Petition Dismissed – Allegations of dowry harassment and physical assault made by wife were contradicted by her own statements and affidavit filed in related matrimonial proceedings – High Court rightly quashed the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC as an abuse of process – Supreme Court upheld the quashing order and dismissed the Special Leave Petition [Paras 1, 8-11].

Contradictory Statements – Inconsistencies in Complaint and Evidence – No Medical Proof – No Specific Allegation – Petition Dismissed – Complaint made under Section 156(3) CrPC was found to have vague and inconsistent allegations, lacking medical evidence despite claims of physical assault – Admissions in matrimonial affidavits contradicted claims of abuse – Court held inconsistencies undermined the credibility of the accusations [Paras 8-10].

Judicial Approach – Precaution in Matrimonial Offences – Need to Prevent Misuse – Cautious Scrutiny Mandated – Courts must exercise caution in matrimonial cases to prevent misuse of criminal law against extended family members – Supreme Court reiterated need to distinguish genuine cases from abuse of process to protect both victims and innocents [Paras 2-3].

Decision – Invocation of Section 482 CrPC Justified – Special Leave Petition Dismissed – Supreme Court found no error in the High Court’s invocation of its inherent powers to quash the criminal case – Proceedings held to be an abuse of process – Special Leave Petition dismissed [Para 11-12].

Land Acquisition Compensation – Differential Award Between Adjacent Villages – Parity Upheld - High Court awarded higher compensation for Fazalwas over Kukrola despite both villages having similar locational and developmental advantages – Held: The Supreme Court ruled that such differentiation lacked evidentiary support and violated principles of equity and fairness – Compensation for Kukrola inner-belt lands enhanced to bring parity with Fazalwas [Paras 10-20, 56-57].

Belting Method – Validity in Land Valuation – Method Justified - Division of acquired land into inner (within 5 acres of NH-8) and outer belts accepted by the Court – Based on proximity to infrastructure like NH-8 and KMP Expressway – Held: Belting method was correctly adopted considering locational variances and site-specific potential [Paras 21-24].

Comparable Sales – Sale Exemplars – Selection Criteria Affirmed - Sale deed Ex. P-3 showing rate of ₹1.03 crore per acre chosen as the most reliable exemplar for inner belt – Ex. P-1 relied upon for outer belt valuation – Post-notification and low-value small-plot transactions discarded – Held: Comparable sales method remains valid if temporal proximity, transaction size, and land similarity are established [Paras 25-31, 51-52].

Escalation and Development Cut – 10% Escalation and 30% Deduction Upheld for Outer Belt - The Court upheld the Reference Court’s escalation rate of 10% per annum and 30% development cut for outer belt lands – Held: Escalation reasonable given two-year gap from sale exemplar, and deduction appropriate due to undeveloped nature of large tracts [Paras 37-41].

Development Cut – Inner Belt – No Deduction Applied - Court declined HSIIDC’s request to apply a development cut on inner belt lands abutting NH-8 – Held: These lands were already development-ready due to locational advantages and infrastructure presence – No further deduction warranted [Paras 54].

Decision – Appeals Partly Allowed – Kukrola Inner Belt Compensation Enhanced - Appeals by Kukrola landowners partly allowed by raising inner belt compensation to ₹1.21 crores/acre in parity with Fazalwas – All other appeals including by HSIIDC and Fazalwas landowners dismissed [Paras 56-58].

Motor Accident Compensation – Functional Disability – Amputation and Deformity – Compensation Enhanced - The appellant, a watchman by profession, suffered a below-knee amputation and deformity in the right hand due to a vehicular accident – Tribunal assessed 55% disability; High Court affirmed – Supreme Court held that 80% functional disability was justified in view of evidence from the examining doctor and impossibility of using a prosthetic limb – Appellant’s residual mobility on crutches acknowledged, but his ability to return to prior employment was effectively lost [Paras 2–6].

Loss of Future Income – Revised Calculation – Future Prospects Considered - Monthly income of Rs. 9,918 was accepted and increased by 40% for future prospects – Applying a multiplier of 16 and 80% disability, the Court awarded Rs. 21,11,262.72 as loss of future income – Held: Income enhancement under Pranay Sethi principles valid, but only for prospective earnings; separate lump sum for actual income loss due to hospitalisation also granted [Paras 4–6].

Pain and Suffering – Attendant and Diet Charges – Compensation Increased - Pain and suffering compensation increased to Rs. 1,00,000 – Attendant charges and special diet during six-month recovery period fixed at Rs. 15,000/month, totaling Rs. 90,000 – Medical expenses of Rs. 5,17,850 accepted in full – Additional Rs. 60,000 awarded for loss of actual income during recovery [Para 6].

Apportionment of Liability – 20:80 Between Bike and Bus Insurers – Upheld - Based on contributory negligence findings by Tribunal, liability for compensation apportioned between bike and bus insurers at 20:80 ratio – Award to be paid within two months with 9% interest p.a., after adjusting prior payments [Para 7].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Compensation Enhanced to ₹28.79 Lakhs - Total compensation enhanced to Rs. 28,79,112.72 with apportionment between insurers and timeline for disbursement fixed – Supreme Court emphasized the need for just compensation tailored to permanent disability and loss of livelihood [Paras 6–8].
 

Arbitration – Interim Injunction Against Encashment of Bank Guarantee – Section 9 of Arbitration Act – Interim Order Upheld - Appellants challenged High Court’s interim direction restraining invocation of bank guarantee, passed in a writ under Article 227 against refusal of ex parte relief by Commercial Court – Supreme Court declined to interfere, noting that no prejudice is caused due to extension of the bank guarantee and pending final hearing of Section 9 petition – Order treated as interim measure preserving parties’ positions [Paras 12–15].

Bank Guarantees – Limited Judicial Interference – Fraud or Irretrievable Harm Required - Court reaffirmed settled law that invocation of unconditional bank guarantees can be restrained only on proof of egregious fraud or irretrievable injustice – However, held that prima facie case of “special equities” as found by the High Court justified maintaining status quo until full hearing before Commercial Court [Paras 11–13].

Arbitration Law – Appeal Under Section 37 – Interim Order Under Order XXXIX Rule 3 – Legal Issue Left Open - Supreme Court noted legal question of whether refusal of ex parte relief in Section 9 petition is appealable under Section 37(1)(b) was raised but not decided – Held: Since Section 9 petition was at advanced stage, legal issues were kept open without expressing opinion on maintainability of Article 227 writ in such context [Paras 7, 14].

Procedural Fairness – Arbitration Proceedings Underway – No Prejudice to Appellants - Respondents had already extended bank guarantee to protect appellants’ interest; Arbitral Tribunal constituted and Section 9 petition nearing conclusion – Supreme Court directed early disposal within eight weeks and continued interim protection until then [Paras 13–15].

Decision – Appeal Disposed Without Interference – Directions for Expedited Hearing - Appeal disposed with liberty to appellants to contest Section 9 petition on merits before Commercial Court – Interim protection continued during pendency – Legal questions left undecided [Paras 14–16].
 

Limitation under IBC – Strict Timeframe under Section 61(2) – Appeal Time-Barred – The Respondent No.1 filed an appeal along with a delay condonation application after 45 days from the NCLT’s approval of a resolution plan – NCLAT condoned the delay, holding that the limitation period expired on a Sunday and computing the 15-day condonable period thereafter – Held: The limitation began on the date of NCLT’s pronouncement i.e., 07.04.2022, and since 07.05.2022 (30th day) was a working Saturday for the registry, the additional 15 days expired on 22.05.2022 – Respondent No.1’s filing on 24.05.2022 exceeded the statutory maximum of 45 days and was thus barred by limitation [Paras 4.1, 9-10.4].

Condonation of Delay – No Power to Extend Beyond 15 Days – Section 61(2) IBC – Jurisdictional Bar – NCLAT lacked jurisdiction to condone delay beyond the statutorily prescribed 45 days – Held: The 15-day extension is the outer limit and cannot be exceeded on equitable or discretionary grounds – NCLAT’s order was ultra vires and set aside accordingly [Paras 11-11.2].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Delay Beyond Statutory Limit Fatal – Supreme Court held that even a single day's delay beyond the combined 45-day period under Section 61(2) IBC is fatal and not condonable – NCLAT’s order condoning the delay was set aside and the appeal allowed, with no order as to costs [Paras 12-14].
 

Motor Accident Claim – Functional Disability – Assessment Increased – Amputation of Right Leg – Compensation Enhanced - Appellant, a fruit seller, suffered right leg amputation following a vehicular accident – While the disability certificate assessed 50% physical disability, the Supreme Court, applying Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, held that the functional disability impacting the appellant’s income-generating ability should be fixed at 60% – Rejected claim of 100% disability based solely on change in vocation [Paras 2–5].

Loss of Future Income – Vocational Impact – Multiplier and Prospects Applied – Appellant’s income from fruit business, supported by Income Tax Return, was Rs.1,56,996 annually – Future prospects at 40% and a multiplier of 18 applied to calculate loss of earning capacity at Rs. 23,73,780 – Income loss during recovery also preserved at Rs. 19,624 [Paras 3, 6].

Medical and Incidental Expenses – Pain and Suffering Enhanced – Court enhanced pain and suffering compensation to Rs. 2,00,000 and fixed conveyance expenses at Rs. 50,000 for medical transfers – Special diet and attendant charges awarded at Rs. 90,000 for 6 months (Rs. 15,000/month) – Medical bills of Rs. 5,00,949 upheld [Para 6].

Decision – Compensation Enhanced – Total Award Revised to ₹32.34 Lakhs - Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part and revised the total compensation to Rs. 32,34,353 – Ordered payment within two months from the date of judgment with interest as directed by the Tribunal, after adjusting amounts already paid [Paras 6–9].
 

Criminal Law – PC Act – Appeal Against Conviction - Disproportionate Assets – Abetment by Spouse – Divergent Views – Acquittal by One Judge, Conviction Upheld by Another – Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah held that mere possession of properties by the wife of a public servant, without direct evidence of knowledge or conspiracy, was insufficient for conviction under Section 109 IPC – Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, dissenting, found active participation and intentional aid established, warranting conviction – Matter referred to Hon'ble Chief Justice for final decision [Paras 1, 27, 36–41].

Burden of Proof – Presumption under Section 13(1)(e) PC Act – Clarified – The burden initially lies on the prosecution to establish possession of disproportionate assets, after which the onus shifts to the accused – Both courts below found that the accused failed to credibly account for the assets, with vague and uncorroborated explanations regarding agricultural income and gifts [Paras 12–16, 35].

Role of Non-Public Servants – Applicability of Abetment under PC Act – Upheld – The judgment reaffirmed that non-public servants can be prosecuted under Section 109 IPC read with PC Act for aiding illicit accumulation of assets by public officials – Reference made to P. Nallammal v. State (1999), where such prosecution was explicitly permitted [Paras 22, 24, 29–30].

Evaluation of Evidence – Standard of Proof for Abetment – Differentiated – Justice Amanullah held that proximity to the public servant alone does not suffice to establish abetment unless active participation or mens rea is proved – Emphasised the presumption of innocence and constitutional protections under Articles 14 and 21 – Mere suspicion cannot substitute evidence [Paras 36–39].

Fresh Hearing of Appeal – Validity of Re-Listing – Upheld – Challenge to High Court’s administrative order for fresh hearing after alleged missing judgment of 2013 was rejected – Court held there was no record of the judgment, and the re-listing was justified – No fault found with Chief Justice’s administrative action [Paras 10, 40].

Attachment of Properties – Partial Modification – Affirmed – Attachment order against properties standing in name of accused confirmed, with recalculation reducing recoverable amount from Rs. 35.25 lakhs to Rs. 33.25 lakhs – Despite acquittal of Accused No.2 in one opinion, attachment not disturbed as it was based on unexplained assets [Paras 7, 11, 40].

Decision – Appeals Disposed – Conviction of P. Nallammal under challenge – Split verdict resulted in referral to the Chief Justice for appropriate orders – Appeals related to attachment and administrative listing were dismissed unanimously [Paras 1–3].
 

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 7 – Financial Creditor – CIRP – Misuse of Code as Recovery Mechanism – Appellant-Bank sanctioned loan of Rs.1.50 crores to Corporate Debtor (CD) for purchase of commercial property, disbursing the amount directly to the Builder under a quadripartite agreement – CD's account classified as NPA and Bank initiated proceedings before DRT – Bank later filed winding up petition under Companies Act, 1956, transferred to NCLT as Section 7 petition – NCLT admitted petition initiating CIRP – NCLAT set aside NCLT order holding that direct disbursement to Builder disentitled Bank from being a "Financial Creditor" and that Code was being used as a recovery tool – Held: Appeal dismissed, NCLAT order upheld [Paras 1, 4, 13, 14].

Insolvency Law – Nature of Dispute – Contractual vs. Financial Debt – Quadripartite Agreement – Disbursement to Builder – The loan amount was directly disbursed to the Builder and not to the CD – Terms of the quadripartite agreement indicate that the Builder bore significant obligations concerning construction, delivery, and transfer of the subject property – Bank's disbursement was intrinsically linked to the Builder's performance – Transaction cannot be viewed as a simple financial lending arrangement between Bank and CD – Obligations are intertwined with Builder's performance, making the dispute predominantly contractual in nature [Paras 9, 10, 11].

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 7 – Condition Precedent – Existence of Financial Debt and Default – Code operates as a collective insolvency resolution mechanism and not as a forum for adjudication of individual contractual claims – Where the object behind invocation of the Code is to compel payment rather than to address genuine financial distress, such invocation amounts to abuse of process – Code must not be used as a tool for coercion and debt recovery by individual creditors [Para 8].

Insolvency Law – Forum Shopping – DRT Proceedings – Appropriate Forum – Dispute involving transfer of property and contractual obligations is subject matter of proceedings before DRT, which is the appropriate forum for recovery – Deposit of Rs.1.50 crores by Builder pursuant to DRT order indicates that the matter is actively being adjudicated in appropriate proceedings – Permitting invocation of Code in such cases would convert insolvency proceedings into a coercive recovery mechanism, which is impermissible [Para 12].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – NCLAT order setting aside NCLT's admission of CIRP upheld – No order as to costs.

Vehicle Confiscation – Innocent Owner – Auction Quashed – Compensation Granted – A car belonging to the appellant was confiscated and auctioned due to seizure of a single bottle of liquor found in the possession of a third party – Appellant was not named in the FIR nor connected to the liquor – Held: Respondent-State violated court’s order of status quo and failed to observe principles of natural justice – Supreme Court directed payment of ₹6,40,000 (insured value) to appellant as compensation for wrongful auction [Paras 4–18].

Contempt – Disobedience of Status Quo Order – State Action Criticized – Despite status quo order by High Court, State auctioned the vehicle without giving notice or allowing statutory remedies – High Court recorded contempt but imposed only a nominal cost – Supreme Court found such conduct unjust, especially given loss of appellant’s vehicle and resulting enrichment of State through auction proceeds [Paras 15–17].

Equitable Relief – Small Quantity of Contraband – Disproportionate Confiscation – Appellant’s vehicle was confiscated for 750 ml of liquor recovered from another person – Court held that in such cases, confiscation should not be automatic, especially when no criminal charge was laid against the vehicle owner – Ordered monetary compensation rather than restoration of vehicle [Paras 16–18].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Compensation Ordered – While acknowledging pending constitutional challenge to the Act, Court confined relief to facts of this case – Directed State to pay ₹6,40,000 to appellant within six weeks – Appeal disposed accordingly [Paras 18–19].