Accident Claim - Motor Accident Compensation – Dependency and Future Prospects – Deduction Adjusted, Future Prospects Granted – Tribunal held husband not dependent and deducted 1/3rd for personal expenses – Supreme Court held husband at least partially dependent and recalculated with 1/4th deduction – Tribunal’s 50% future prospects replaced with 40% in line with Pranay Sethi – Resultant loss of dependency calculated at ₹16,12,800 [Paras 5, 7-9].

Consortium – Entitlement Extended to Children – Compensation Revised – Following Somwati, Court awarded ₹40,000 each to two children and husband for loss of consortium – Total ₹1,20,000 awarded under this head – Rejected separate compensation for love and affection as not permissible alongside consortium [Paras 8-10].

Medical and Conventional Heads – Tribunal’s Findings Retained – Medical bills of ₹21,966 accepted – ₹15,000 each awarded under loss of estate and funeral expenses – Total compensation reworked as ₹17,84,766 – Court reiterated principle of 'just compensation' allowing recalculation despite no appeal by claimants [Paras 9-10].

Decision – Appeal Disposed of with Modification – Total compensation revised to ₹17,84,766 without disturbing insurer’s liability – Adjustments made only to ensure fairness in award [Para 10].

Service Law - Pension – Contractual Service Prior to Regularisation – Rule 17 CCS (Pension) Rules – Pension Allowed – Appellants were initially appointed as Data Entry Operators on contract under a government scheme and later regularised prospectively in 2015 – High Court denied pension benefits for contractual period – Supreme Court held that under Rule 17, regularised contractual employees are entitled to opt for counting past service towards pension – Directions issued to implement benefit in terms of Sheela Devi precedent [Paras 2-9].

Interpretation of Rule 17 – Option Mechanism for Counting Service – Compliance Mandated – Court reiterated that once employees are regularised without service interruption, Rule 17 enables them to opt between retaining contributory benefits or counting prior service for pension – Directed Union of India to notify procedure and required amounts within eight weeks, following Sheela Devi framework [Paras 7-9].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – High Court judgment set aside to extent it denied pensionary benefits for pre-regularisation service – Directions issued to Union to process pension options as per Rule 17 CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 – No order as to costs [Paras 10-11].

Facts – Land measuring 4 acres was granted in 1946–47 to Shri Ranga under a Saguvalli Chit confirmed in 1954 – The land was sold in 1969 to the appellants’ predecessor through a registered sale deed – In 1992, a distant relative of the original grantee filed an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act seeking restoration – The Assistant and Deputy Commissioners allowed the claim, and the High Court upheld the decision – The appellants challenged the validity of those proceedings before the Supreme Court.

PTCL Act – Delay in Seeking Restoration – Barred by Laches – Appeal Allowed – Land originally granted in 1946–47 with non-alienation clause of 10 years – Transferred in 1969 – Application under Section 5 of PTCL Act filed only in 1992 – Supreme Court held that such application was barred by delay and laches and could not be entertained after 23 years – Relied on Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi and Vivek M. Hinduja to affirm that PTCL applications must be filed within reasonable time even though no limitation is prescribed.

Locus Standi – Non-descendant Cannot Maintain Application – Application Incompetent – Respondent who filed the application under Section 5 was not a legal heir of the original grantee – Held: Only descendants or legal representatives of grantee can seek restoration – Application dismissed on this ground as well.

Interpretation of Grant – Non-alienation Clause of 10 Years – Sale Valid – Saguvalli Chit confirmed in 1954 with a non-alienation clause of 10 years – Sale made after expiry of the clause in 1969 – Therefore, transaction held valid – Declaration of sale as void by authorities and High Court incorrect in law.

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Orders of Assistant Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, and High Court set aside – Appellants declared rightful owners under valid sale – No costs awarded.

Criminal Law – Quashing - Facts – Appellant-wife lodged complaint alleging physical and verbal abuse, dowry harassment, and assault involving chilli powder, stones, and slippers by husband and in-laws—Charge sheet filed with support from medical report and independent witness—Earlier, a co-ordinate bench refused to quash proceedings against in-laws, but a later bench quashed charges against husband—Appellant challenged the contradictory order before the Supreme Court.

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Proceedings – Mini Trial Impermissible – Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by assessing credibility of medical evidence and allegations to quash proceedings—Comparing wound certificate with FIR allegations amounted to conducting a 'mini trial'—Held: Whether ocular version is compatible with medical evidence is a matter of trial and not a ground for premature termination of prosecution [Paras 9–13].

Constructive Liability – Allegations Against Multiple Accused – Precise Role Not Mandatory – Court clarified that where assault is by multiple accused acting in concert, exact attribution of individual acts is not essential at the stage of framing of charge—Quashing on ground of vague role assignment improper in such cases involving Section 149 IPC [Paras 14–15].

Judicial Discipline – Coordinate Bench Ruling Overlooked – Inconsistent Order Set Aside – Supreme Court criticised the High Court for failing to consider earlier order refusing to quash proceedings against in-laws – Stressed importance of judicial consistency to avoid forum shopping and arbitrary outcomes—Impugned order set aside for violating judicial propriety [Paras 17–18].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court’s order dated 16.02.2024 quashing criminal proceedings against husband set aside – Charges against respondent-husband revived – Proceedings to continue in accordance with law [Para 18].

Labour Law - Employees’ Compensation – Functional vs. Physical Disability – Liberal Interpretation – Compensation Enhanced – Appellant suffered multiple finger amputations in dominant hand while operating a forging machine – High Court restricted disability to 34% based on Schedule I – Supreme Court held that when multiple fingers are injured, functional impairment may exceed physical loss – Liberal interpretation required in beneficial legislation like Employees’ Compensation Act – Functional loss determined at 50% [Paras 6-10].

Schedule I Interpretation – Aggregated Disability – Judicial Discretion Permitted – Loss across multiple fingers warrants broader assessment – Supreme Court held that aggregation of injuries under Schedule I does not prevent judicial assessment of actual functional impairment – Statutory percentage of loss (37%) revised upward to reflect practical inability to perform skilled job – Absence of medical certificate not fatal in clear injury cases [Paras 8-10].

Compensation Calculation – Interest and Penalty – Revised Disability Accepted – Supreme Court recalculated compensation at ₹3,20,355 with 50% assessed disability – Directed payment of 12% interest from date of accident and 50% penalty (₹80,088.75) – Any excess amount due to High Court’s lower calculation to be paid with interest and penalty [Para 11].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court’s reduction in disability percentage set aside – Compensation restored as per enhanced disability at 50% – Interest and penalty awarded – Directions issued for balance payment, if any, by employer [Paras 11-12].
 

Electricity Act - Facts – Appellants (distribution licensees) challenged APTEL’s decision which had set aside State Commission’s order dated 1st December 2016 determining Cross-Subsidy Surcharge (CSS) for open access industrial consumers in Rajasthan – Respondents were industrial units sourcing electricity through open access – State Commission determined CSS based on 2015-2016 tariff, applying it prospectively from December 2016 – APTEL found fault with the timing and basis of CSS determination – Supreme Court examined statutory and regulatory framework governing CSS.

Electricity Act – Cross-Subsidy Surcharge – Timing of Determination – Simultaneity Not Mandatory – Appeal Allowed – Supreme Court held CSS may be determined separately from tariff orders – Regulation 90 of 2014 Tariff Regulations provides independent formula for CSS calculation based on prevailing tariff – No requirement that CSS be fixed simultaneously with tariff – State Commission correctly computed CSS based on valid and prevailing 2015-2016 tariff order [Paras 16–20].

Statutory Interpretation – Compensation Principle – Surcharge as Offset for Loss of Cross-Subsidy – CSS is compensatory in nature to offset the loss caused to distribution licensee when high-end consumers shift to open access – Determination must align with applicable retail tariff during the relevant period – Held: State Commission acted within legal framework and regulatory policy in determining CSS with prospective effect from 1st December 2016 [Paras 13–15, 20].

Regulatory Consistency – Tribunal Interference Unwarranted – APTEL Erred in Requiring Coincidence of CSS and Tariff Orders – Court clarified CSS is not inherently part of tariff but a derivative charge – Tribunal’s view disregarded statutory scheme and existing precedent including Sesa Sterlite Ltd. v. Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission, (2014) 8 SCC 444 – Decision in Tata Power Company Ltd. and Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. distinguished [Paras 19–21].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – APTEL’s judgment set aside – Order of Rajasthan State Commission dated 1st December 2016 restored – CSS to remain applicable until next tariff order of 2nd November 2017 – No costs [Para 21–22].
 

IBC – The appellant, an operational creditor, supplied LAM Coke to the respondent under a contractual agreement and issued delivery of 1700 MT on credit based on assurances from the respondent – Payment was not made despite acknowledgment of default via email and multiple assurances – A demand notice in Form 3 under Section 8 IBC was sent to the respondent’s KMPs at the registered office – NCLT and NCLAT dismissed the Section 9 petition citing non-service of notice to the corporate debtor – The appellant challenged this rejection before the Supreme Court.

IBC Compliance – Service of Demand Notice on KMP at Registered Office – Held Valid – Supreme Court held that service of demand notice under Section 8 IBC on KMPs of the corporate debtor at its registered office constitutes valid service – Form 3 clearly referenced the corporate debtor and satisfied statutory requirements – Rulings of NCLT and NCLAT were based on hyper-technical interpretation of service requirements and contrary to settled law [Paras 6–14].

Procedure vs. Substantive Rights – Technical Irregularities Should Not Defeat CIRP Initiation – Court reiterated that procedural laws are handmaids of justice and cannot defeat substantive rights without real prejudice – Respondent failed to show prejudice or denial of notice – Prior settlement attempts further indicated awareness of claims – Notice held sufficient for CIRP initiation [Paras 14, 14.1].

Date of Default – Mixed Question of Fact and Law – Reserved for Tribunal – Appellant alleged default occurred in November 2019 based on original contract – Respondent claimed novation through later emails – Supreme Court held this issue was a mixed question requiring trial and directed NCLT to decide on merits upon remand [Paras 15–15.2].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Orders of NCLT and NCLAT set aside – Matter remanded to NCLT to decide Section 9 IBC petition afresh on merits without influence from earlier findings – No costs awarded [Paras 16–17].
 

Civil Law - Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Rejection of Plaint – Limitation – Mixed Question of Law and Fact – Rejection Set Aside – The plaint challenged alienation of property by appellant’s father acting beyond authority of power of attorney – High Court rejected plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC holding the suit was barred by limitation – Supreme Court held that since the appellant pleaded specific date of knowledge of alleged fraudulent transactions, limitation became a mixed question of law and fact necessitating trial – Rejection of plaint at preliminary stage was legally unsustainable [Paras 11-13].

Power of Attorney – Scope of Authority – Unauthorized Alienation – Triable Issue – The plaint averred that appellant’s father was granted limited authority to manage construction and not to alienate property – Sale executed by father in favour of granddaughter was beyond scope of power – These assertions raised serious issues of misuse and fraud – Not appropriate to reject suit at threshold without evidence [Paras 12, 14].

Specific Relief Act – Declaratory Suit with Consequential Relief – Maintainability – Court reiterated that suit seeking declaration with consequential injunction is not simpliciter – Suit cannot be dismissed solely because one relief appears barred or defective – Full pleadings and evidence required to determine maintainability [Paras 8.1, 13].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court’s judgment rejecting plaint set aside – Trial Court’s refusal to reject plaint affirmed – Suit restored for trial – Trial Court directed to proceed uninfluenced by High Court's prior observations [Para 15-16].
 

Consumer Law - Consumer Jurisdiction – Pecuniary Limits Based on Consideration – Constitutional Validity Upheld – Challenge to Sections 34, 47, and 58 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 dismissed – Court held that classification based on consideration paid (not compensation claimed) for determining jurisdiction of Consumer Commissions is constitutionally valid and not violative of Article 14 – It has rational nexus with object of timely and efficient consumer dispute resolution [Paras 1-11].

Article 14 – Reasonable Classification – Judicial Hierarchy and Access to Forums – Justified Shift – Court held that consideration paid is core to contractual relationship and valid for jurisdictional classification – Provisions not arbitrary as they streamline filing, reduce inflated claims, and distribute cases effectively across District, State, and National Commissions – No loss of judicial remedy proven [Paras 10.1–11.1].

Judicial Review – Performance Audit of Statutes – Executive’s Duty – Role of Regulatory Bodies – Supreme Court highlighted necessity of statutory performance audits to assess impact of legislative policy – Directed Central Consumer Protection Council and Central Consumer Protection Authority to evaluate functioning of provisions and advise reform if needed – Recognised judicial role in ensuring institutional efficacy of regulatory frameworks [Paras 12–12.17].

Decision – Writ Petition and Civil Appeal Dismissed – Sections 34, 47, and 58 held constitutional – Statutory authorities directed to audit, review, and advise government on implementation of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for enhanced consumer access and redressal efficiency [Para 13].