Matrimonial Law - Transfer of Divorce Proceedings – Settlement During Mediation – Article 142 of the Constitution of India – Transfer Petition Disposed - The petitioner-husband sought transfer of the divorce petition filed by the respondent-wife from Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai, to Family Court, Karkardooma, Delhi – During pendency of the petition, mediation led to a mutual settlement – Both parties filed applications under Article 142 of the Constitution seeking divorce by mutual consent – Held: Marriage dissolved by mutual consent, and transfer petition disposed of accordingly [Paras 1-2, 8-10].

Property Settlement – Jointly Owned Flat – Transfer Without Alimony – Absolute Ownership Granted to Respondent-Wife - The dispute revolved around a jointly owned flat, with claims and counterclaims on the source of funds – Husband agreed to relinquish his rights over the flat in favor of the wife, who in turn waived any claim to alimony – Held: The respondent-wife shall have absolute ownership over the flat without any encumbrances, and the husband shall have no further rights over it [Paras 3-5].

Exemption from Stamp Duty – Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908 – Court Order Valid for Property Transfer Without Registration Fees - The Court examined whether the wife was required to pay stamp duty for registration of the flat in her name – Referred to Mukesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine 3832 – Held: Since the flat was the subject matter of the compromise and the proceedings before the Court, it falls within the exemption under Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908 – The transfer of ownership does not require payment of stamp duty [Paras 6-7].

Bail – NDPS - Criminal Procedure – Jurisdiction of High Court under Section 439 CrPC – Scope Limited to Bail – The High Court, while deciding a bail application, awarded compensation to the respondent for wrongful confinement – The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 439 CrPC, which is limited to granting or refusing bail – Compensation for wrongful confinement is a matter of civil remedy or constitutional writ jurisdiction, not bail proceedings [Paras 6-7].

Wrongful Confinement – Compensation for Violation of Rights – Article 32 Jurisdiction Distinguished – The respondent was detained for four months despite forensic reports showing that the seized substance was not a narcotic drug – While wrongful detention may warrant compensation, such relief must be sought under Article 32 or Article 226, not in bail proceedings under Section 439 CrPC – The Supreme Court noted that past precedents like Rudal Sah v. State of Bihar and Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa were decided under writ jurisdiction, not criminal appellate jurisdiction [Paras 9-10].

Investigation Errors – Re-Testing of Sample Without Justification – Procedural Lapse Acknowledged – The Supreme Court noted that re-testing the second sample after an initial negative test was impermissible under the guidelines laid down in Thana Singh v. Central Bureau of Narcotics (2013) 2 SCC 590 – However, it held that any remedy for this procedural lapse must be sought separately and not in bail proceedings [Para 3].

Good Faith Protection under Section 69 NDPS Act – No Malafide Proven – The Supreme Court observed that officers of the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) acted on credible intelligence and did not act with malice – Protection under Section 69 of the NDPS Act shields officers from liability unless malafide intent is proven – The Court declined to make any findings on this issue, as it was not directly before it [Para 8].

Decision – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s order awarding compensation – It held that compensation cannot be awarded in bail proceedings under Section 439 CrPC – The decision does not preclude the respondent from seeking compensation through appropriate legal remedies [Para 10].
 

Consumer Law – Definition of Consumer – Whether the borrower of a project loan qualifies as a "consumer" - Business-to-Business Transactions Not Covered – Respondent No.1 (a company) had availed a project loan from the appellant-bank for the purpose of film post-production – The Supreme Court held that a loan taken for business expansion constitutes a commercial purpose under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act – Since the transaction was purely business-to-business, the borrower could not be classified as a consumer under the Act [Paras 12-14].

Wrongful CIBIL Reporting – NCDRC’s Jurisdiction – Complaint Not Maintainable – The NCDRC held the bank liable for deficiency in service and awarded Rs. 75,00,000/- as compensation for wrongful reporting of loan status to CIBIL – The Supreme Court ruled that the complaint was not maintainable before the NCDRC as the transaction was commercial – The correct remedy lay under civil or banking law, not consumer protection law [Paras 18-22].

Dominant Purpose Test – Commercial Nature of Loan Transactions – Exclusion from Consumer Protection – The Court emphasized that even if part of the loan was used for branding, the dominant purpose remained profit generation – It relied on Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust v. Unique Shanti Developers (2020) 2 SCC 265 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harsolia Motors (2023) 8 SCC 362 to conclude that a business entity availing a loan for revenue generation cannot be a consumer under the Act [Paras 15-17].

Decision – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the NCDRC’s order, holding that the complaint was not maintainable before the consumer forum – It clarified that the borrower could pursue remedies under other laws but not under the Consumer Protection Act [Paras 22-23].

Compensation Quantum Appeal Dismissed – No Interference Warranted – A cross-appeal by the borrower for enhancement of compensation was dismissed, as the Supreme Court found no scope for interference with the NCDRC’s findings on quantum [Paras 25-26].

Consumer Law - Consumer dispute regarding delayed possession and non-compliance with an alternate accommodation agreement – Limitation Period – NCDRC's Dismissal Set Aside – Complaint Restored – The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed the complaint as time-barred, holding that the cause of action arose in July 2015 – The Supreme Court held that the claim was based on a continuing cause of action, as negotiations and communications between the parties continued until December 2018 – The dismissal of the complaint on limitation grounds was erroneous, and the matter was restored for adjudication on merits [Paras 9-12].

Continuing Cause of Action – Escrow Arrangements – Delay in Property Possession Justifies Extension of Limitation – The appellants’ claim was based on an Indemnity-cum-Undertaking agreement dated 10/01/2015, under which possession was due within six months – Since possession was delayed, and discussions regarding compliance with contractual terms continued until December 2018, the Supreme Court held that limitation should not be strictly computed from July 2015 – The Court emphasized that limitation laws should not defeat substantive rights, particularly in cases involving contractual performance [Paras 7-11].

Consumer Rights – Fair Adjudication on Merits – Litigation Delay Cannot Be Used Against Claimants – The Court criticized the approach of the NCDRC, noting that respondents repeatedly sought adjournments and delayed responses, while simultaneously arguing that the claim was time-barred – The Supreme Court held that consumer forums must take a holistic approach and not allow procedural technicalities to defeat just claims [Paras 10-11].

Decision – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the NCDRC’s order – It held that the complaint was within the limitation period due to the continuing cause of action – The matter was restored to the NCDRC for a fresh hearing on merits – The Supreme Court directed that the NCDRC decide the case within six months and clarified that its observations were only on limitation, leaving other issues open for determination [Paras 12-13].
 

Motor accident claim—Involvement of a minor in the accident – No Substantive Evidence – Liability Set Aside – The Tribunal and the High Court held that Appellant No. 2 (a minor) was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident – The Supreme Court, after re-evaluating the evidence, found no cogent proof to establish that the minor was the driver – Eyewitness testimonies confirmed that the father of Appellant No. 2 was driving the vehicle – Held: The minor was merely a passenger and could not be held liable [Paras 12-15].

Compensation Award – No Interference – Quantum Upheld – The Supreme Court upheld the compensation awarded by the High Court amounting to Rs. 21,82,800/- with interest at 6% per annum – The enhancement of compensation from Rs. 7,74,088/- awarded by the Tribunal was justified in light of the financial dependency of the claimants – No grounds found for interference with the compensation amount [Para 16].

Insurance Company’s Right to Recovery – Set Aside – The High Court directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation and recover the amount from the owner under the Pay and Recover principle – The Supreme Court held that since Appellant No. 2 was wrongly implicated, the recovery direction was unjustified – The Insurance Company shall pay the compensation but shall not be entitled to recover it from the owner [Para 16.1].

Evidentiary Evaluation – Contradictions in Witness Statements – Misreading of Evidence by Lower Courts – The Supreme Court found that key prosecution witnesses contradicted themselves – The deceased’s friend (PW3), who initially claimed the minor was driving, later admitted in cross-examination that the father of the minor was actually driving – The lower courts failed to consider this crucial admission, leading to erroneous findings [Paras 12.4, 15.1].

Decision – The appeals were partly allowed – The Supreme Court absolved Appellant No. 2 (minor) of liability – The compensation awarded to the claimants was upheld – The Insurance Company shall pay the compensation but cannot recover it from the owner – The findings of the Tribunal and High Court holding the minor liable were set aside [Paras 16-17].
 

Motor Accident – Contributory Negligence – Tribunal's Finding Restored – High Court’s Finding Set Aside – The High Court had attributed 25% contributory negligence to the deceased based on assumptions without corroborative evidence – The Supreme Court held that there was no sufficient evidence to establish negligence on the part of the deceased – Tribunal's finding that the accident was solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the BMTC bus was restored [Paras 10-11].

Determination of Monthly Income – High Court's Assessment Erroneous – Tribunal’s Finding Affirmed – The High Court reduced the monthly income of the deceased to Rs.50,000/- despite clear documentary evidence (Ex. P.16) showing a last drawn salary of Rs.62,725/- per month – The Supreme Court reinstated the Tribunal’s finding and assessed the deceased’s income at Rs.62,725/- per month, citing the principle of preponderance of probability in motor accident cases [Paras 12-14].

Enhancement of Compensation – Recalculated on Correct Income and Multipliers – Substantial Increase Ordered – Applying the multiplier of 15 as per Pranay Sethi and considering future prospects (40% addition), the Supreme Court recalculated the compensation to Rs.1,20,84,925/- as against Rs.77,50,000/- awarded by the High Court – Tribunal’s award of 9% interest per annum was retained [Paras 15-16].

Standard of Proof in Motor Accident Claims – Preponderance of Probability Applied – The Court reiterated that strict rules of evidence as applicable in criminal trials do not apply to motor accident claims – Standard of proof is based on the preponderance of probability, as per Sunita v. Rajasthan SRTC (2020) 13 SCC 468 and Rajwati v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1699) [Para 13].

Decision – High Court’s Order Modified – Enhanced Compensation Granted – The Supreme Court modified the High Court’s order and restored the findings of the Tribunal—Held: The deceased was not contributorily negligent—Monthly income assessed at Rs.62,725/-—Compensation enhanced to Rs.1,20,84,925/- with 9% interest per annum—Appeal allowed in favor of claimants [Para 16].
 

Criminal Law - Sections 302/148/149 IPC – Appeal against conviction - Eyewitness Testimony – Reliability of Sole Witness – Interested Witness – Acquittal Granted – The conviction of the appellants was based primarily on the testimony of PW-1, who was a close associate of the deceased and had criminal antecedents – His conduct was found to be unnatural, and he was identified as a "stock witness" for the police in other cases – The lack of independent corroboration made it unsafe to rely solely on his testimony for conviction [Paras 7, 18].

Delay in Forwarding FIR – Material Doubt on Prosecution Case – Though the FIR was promptly registered, it was forwarded to the Magistrate only after two days – Such delay, coupled with inconsistencies in the investigation, created a serious doubt regarding the authenticity of the prosecution’s case [Paras 7.2, 20].

Deficiencies in Investigation – Failure to Seize Crucial Evidence – Acquittal Justified – The investigating officers failed to seize the motorcycle on which the deceased was allegedly attacked, did not collect blood samples from the scene, and did not send the recovered weapons for forensic examination – Witnesses to the recovery of weapons turned hostile, rendering the alleged recoveries unreliable – Such lapses in investigation significantly weakened the prosecution’s case [Paras 16, 17, 20, 21].

Contradictions in Witness Testimonies – Presence of Independent Witnesses Not Established – While PW-1, PW-3, and PW-4 claimed that around 100-150 people were present at the crime scene, the investigating officers (PW-17, PW-20) testified that no one was found when they arrived shortly after the incident – The alleged crowd’s silence and inaction were deemed unnatural, further casting doubt on the prosecution’s version of events [Paras 18, 22].

Medical Evidence – Inconsistencies in Injury Description – Lack of Corroboration with Eyewitness Account – The medical report did not fully align with the injuries described by the prosecution’s eyewitness – The doctor conducting the post-mortem examination stated that the injuries could have been inflicted by a single weapon, contradicting the claim that multiple accused inflicted separate wounds – The prosecution failed to connect the seized weapons with the injuries on the deceased [Paras 15, 21].

Benefit of Doubt – Failure to Establish Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Acquittal Ordered – Given the inconsistencies in witness testimonies, lack of proper investigation, and absence of credible forensic evidence linking the accused to the murder, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt – The appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt, and their conviction and sentence were set aside [Paras 24, 25].
 

Criminal Law – Revisional Jurisdiction – Discharge order in a murder case - High Court’s Power to Stay Discharge Order – The High Court exercised its revisional jurisdiction to stay the order of discharge granted by the Sessions Court and directed the appellant to surrender – The Supreme Court held that an order staying the discharge is an extraordinary measure that should be exercised only in rare and exceptional cases where the discharge order is ex-facie perverse – Such an order must not be passed ex parte and requires the accused to be heard before granting a stay [Paras 14, 22].

Effect of Discharge Order – Accused Ceases to Be an Accused – Higher Protection Than Bail – The Supreme Court clarified that an accused who has been discharged stands on a higher legal pedestal than an accused out on bail – Once discharged, the accused ceases to be an accused in the eyes of law – A stay of discharge deprives the accused of liberty and virtually amounts to allowing the revision application without deciding it on merits [Paras 12, 16].

Section 390 CrPC – Application in Revision Against Discharge – Bail Instead of Custody – The Court held that when a revision is admitted against an order of discharge, the power under Section 390 CrPC can be invoked only to direct the discharged accused to appear before the trial court and furnish bail, not to take him into custody – The normal rule is bail, not jail unless exceptional circumstances justify detention [Paras 18-19].

Due Process – Ex Parte Stay of Discharge Order Held Illegal – The High Court’s stay order was passed ex parte without giving the appellant an opportunity to be heard – The Supreme Court held that this violated due process and Article 21 of the Constitution – Stay orders affecting personal liberty should not be granted without hearing the affected party [Para 22].

Decision – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s orders staying the discharge and directing surrender – The appellant was directed to appear before the Sessions Court and furnish bail within four weeks, failing which he would be taken into custody – The High Court was directed to decide the revision application expeditiously, without being influenced by the Supreme Court’s observations on merits [Paras 25-26].
 

Criminal Law – Quashing - Prevention of Corruption – Demand and Acceptance of Bribe – Proof Required – Appeal Allowed - The appellant, a former Gujarat minister, was accused of corruption for allegedly granting fishing contracts without a tender process – The High Court upheld the criminal proceedings, but the Supreme Court held that no prima facie material indicated demand or acceptance of bribe – Held: Under Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023) 4 SCC 731, proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act – Since no evidence established such demand or receipt of a bribe by the appellant, the case could not be sustained [Paras 11-12].

Misuse of Authority – Mere Violation of Policy Does Not Constitute Corruption – No Presumption Under Section 20 - The prosecution argued that deviation from the official tendering process indicated corruption – The Court held that mere violation of government policy does not automatically constitute corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act – Held: A presumption of corruption under Section 20 requires proof of illegal gratification, which was absent in this case – The High Court erred in sustaining the charges in the absence of requisite proof [Paras 16-17, 22].

Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Lack of Evidence Against Appellant – Discharge Ordered - The investigation report did not contain allegations of bribery against the appellant, and the complainant’s statements primarily referred to the first accused, not the appellant – The Special Court and High Court failed to analyze the absence of material implicating the appellant – Held: When no prima facie case exists, continuing criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process – Appeal allowed, and proceedings against the appellant quashed [Paras 23-25].