Accident Claim - Compensation under MV Act – Deductibility of Benefits under Compassionate Assistance Rules – Full Deduction Mandated – High Court erred in deducting only 50% of the compensation received under the Haryana Rules of 2006 from the award under the Motor Vehicles Act – Held: As per binding precedents, the amount equivalent to pay and allowances received as ex-gratia financial assistance under Rule 5(1) must be fully excluded from compensation – Remaining benefits such as pension, PF, and insurance remain unaffected [Paras 3-5].

Binding Precedent – High Court Ignoring Supreme Court Ruling – Article 141 Violated – Despite being bound by the decision in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shashi Sharma, the High Court wrongly followed its own earlier ruling in Kamla Devi v. Sahib Singh – Held: This deviation is impermissible and in violation of Article 141 of the Constitution [Paras 3, 8].

Future Escalation and Non-Overlapping Benefits – Claimants Entitled to Additional Heads – While ex-gratia financial assistance equivalent to pay and allowances is to be deducted, compensation for future income escalation, and benefits like pension or insurance, remain payable under MV Act – Held: Tribunal must take harmonious approach, allowing claims not covered by the 2006 Rules [Para 5].

Application of Birender Case – Deduction Subject to Actual Disbursal – If financial assistance under the 2006 Rules is later granted, it shall be deducted from the compensation along with applicable interest – Declaration to this effect must be made before the executing court [Para 6].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Judgment of High Court set aside to the extent of partial deduction – However, no recovery to be made from respondents if payment already received – Held: Amounts already disbursed need not be returned [Paras 7, 9].

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].
 

Land Law - Tribal Land Transfer – Competency of Authority – Section 165(6) M.P. Land Revenue Code – Permission Upheld – The State contended that the Additional Collector lacked authority to grant permission for transfer of tribal land – Held: The Additional Collector was duly authorized by the Collector as per the work allocation order dated 19.05.2017, hence competent to act under Section 165(6)(ii) [Paras 3, 4, 6, 7, 16].

Tribal Land – Applicability of Prohibition – Area Not Notified – Transfer Permissible – The prohibition in Section 165(6)(i) applies only to lands in areas notified as predominantly inhabited by indigenous tribes – Since the subject land was not in a notified area, transfer by tribal landowners was permissible with prior permission under Section 165(6)(ii) [Paras 8-9].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Delay in Exercise – Revisional Order Quashed – The Revisional Authority acted beyond the permissible time frame of 180 days from the date of knowledge as laid down by Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Ranveer Singh – Exercise of power under Section 50 held erroneous [Paras 5, 14-15].

Substantive Compliance – Market Value, Purpose, and Benami Considerations – Permission Sustained – The Additional Collector's order considered all necessary factors including fair consideration, land use, and genuineness of transaction – Hence, permission order was neither without jurisdiction nor flawed [Paras 10-13].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s order, found the revisional interference improper and without jurisdiction – Appeal by the State dismissed [Para 16].
 

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].

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]. 
 

Motor Accident Claim – Enhancement of Compensation – Delay in Filing Appeal – Appeal Allowed - The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment which had enhanced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal – Held: The MAC appeal filed by the minors (after attaining majority) was grossly delayed by nearly 8 years and not maintainable under law – Exemption under Section 6 of the Limitation Act applies only to suits and applications for execution of decrees, not appeals [Paras 4, 8-9, 13-14].

Limitation Act – Section 6 – Legal Disability and Appeals – No Relief for Minors Filing Late Appeal - The Court clarified that provisions granting extension of limitation on account of minority (Section 6) do not apply to appeals – Held: There can be no inferred or extended disability when the guardian actively chose not to appeal; delay not condonable under Section 5 either [Paras 9-12].

Doctrine of Procedural Autonomy – Guardian’s Strategic Decision Binding – Finality of Award Upheld - The father, who was natural guardian and party in earlier proceedings, chose not to appeal against the Tribunal’s award – The Supreme Court held that this conscious decision bound the minors – No ground to reopen the case after years of delay [Paras 13-14].

Decision – High Court Judgment Set Aside – Appeal by Insurance Company Allowed - The Supreme Court allowed the insurer’s appeal and held the MAC appeal filed by the children was not maintainable – High Court’s enhanced compensation award was set aside [Paras 13-14].

Anticipatory Bail – Theft of Judicial File – Disclosure Statement by Co-Accused – Bail Granted - FIR was filed alleging theft of a judicial file involving multiple co-accused – Appellant was not named in FIR but implicated through co-accused's disclosure – High Court denied anticipatory bail – Supreme Court noted appellant had joined investigation and that the probe remained incomplete for over two years – Held: Custodial interrogation not required – Interim protection from arrest made absolute and anticipatory bail granted [Paras 2, 5–11].

Closure Report – Magistrate's Rejection – No Interference – Investigative Continuity Maintained - Closure report filed by police was rejected by Magistrate with directions for continued investigation – Supreme Court refused to interfere, allowing investigation to proceed – Appellant's prayer to quash Magistrate's order declined [Paras 8–9, 20].

Proclaimed Offender Declaration – Order Quashed – Due to Bail Grant - Magistrate’s order declaring appellant a proclaimed person under Section 174A IPC set aside as Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail – Held: Appellant no longer required to be declared absconding – Related appeal allowed [Para 20].

Bar Council Proceedings – Misuse Warning – Conditional Liberty - Court noted potential misuse of position by appellant (a lawyer) – Directed that in case of future interference with justice, Bar Council may suspend his license after due procedure [Para 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].