Consumer Law - Insurance - Insurance Act 1938 - Section 64UM - Consumer Protection Act 1986 - Section 2(1)(g) - Fire insurance claim repudiated by appellant due to manipulated books of accounts and lack of evidence for accidental fire - NCDRC allowed the complaint directing payment ignoring surveyor reports citing abnormalities - Supreme Court observed that respondent failed to justify contradictory stands on loss and provided false declarations - surveyor reports indicated fire was not accidental and respondent attempted to inflate claims through book entries - held that NCDRC erred in brushing aside valid surveyor reports and ignoring breach of policy conditions - appeal allowed - [Paras 1-35].

Civil Law - Insurance - Insurance Act 1938 - Section 64UM - Role of Surveyor - Insurer appointed surveyors to assess fire loss - surveyor reports highlighted irregularities in accounting and lack of genuine fire minimization efforts - Apex Court held that while surveyor reports are not the final word they serve as vital evidence and cannot be ignored by NCDRC without cogent reasons - non-consideration of material findings by NCDRC results in miscarriage of justice - [Paras 20-26].

Civil Law - Insurance - Policy Conditions - Breach of terms - Policy Condition 6 and 8 - Insurance contract requires full disclosure and penalizes false declarations - respondent made false statements regarding stock existence and fire cause - held that insurer is lawfully entitled to reject claim on grounds of false averments and breach of policy conditions - [Paras 31-32].

Decision: Appeal allowed - NCDRC order dated 19.11.2024 set aside - Civil Appeal No. 11416 of 2025 dismissed - Registry to return deposited amount with interest - Parties to bear their own costs.

Civil Law - Land Acquisition - Land Acquisition Act 1894 - Section 28A - Limitation - Application for redetermination of compensation - Respondent-landowners filed application under Section 28A three months after a High Court appellate order which merely relied on an earlier appellate judgment - Reference Court had rejected the original reference decades prior - Supreme Court held that Section 28A limitation commences from the date of the Reference Court award and not from appellate orders - Further held that there is no fresh cause of action arising from successive appellate orders and such applications are time-barred - High Court order set aside - [Paras 1-36].

Civil Law - Land Acquisition - Land Acquisition Act 1894 - Section 28A - Maintainability - Doctrine of merger and successive awards - Application for redetermination of compensation must be based on an award of the Reference Court and not an order passed in first appeal by the High Court - Subsequent appellate orders do not confer fresh entitlement or fresh limitation period for filing Section 28A applications - [Paras 21-34].

Civil Law - Land Acquisition - Land Acquisition Act 1894 - Section 28A - Procedural conduct - Where an appeal is pending before the High Court against a Reference Court award, the proper procedure is for the Collector to keep the Section 28A application in abeyance - Application cannot be filed afresh after a long delay following appellate decisions - [Paras 28-29].

Decision: Appeal allowed - Impugned High Court order set aside - Application under Section 28A of the Act of 1894 rejected - [Paras 35-36].

Civil Law - Tender - Government Contract - Eligibility Criteria - Mandatory versus Directory requirements - Appellant challenged High Court order quashing its technical bid for failure to meet experience criteria in tender for collection of user charges in Mandi premises - Tender required two years of specific experience in collecting user charges or parking fees for government bodies - Appellant relied on experience in cattle fair contracts - Court held that collection of user charges as a contractual duty for a public authority is a specialized operation fundamentally distinct from incidental revenue collection in cattle fair leases - Appellant lacked requisite experience - Held - High Court rightly exercised judicial review as the interpretation of the authority was patently arbitrary and dehors the tender conditions - [Paras 1-36].

Civil Law - Tender - Judicial Review - Scope of interference - Court held that while the author of a tender is the best judge of its requirements and courts should exercise restraint, such deference is not absolute - Interference is warranted when the interpretation is not in consonance with the language of the tender or is patently arbitrary - Held - The authority cannot treat an essential mandatory requirement as directory solely to favour a specific bidder - [Paras 14-24].

Civil Law - Tender - Approbate and Reprobate - Doctrine of - Appellant had participated in similar tenders for other Marketing Committees with identical clauses and was disqualified for lack of experience without challenging those orders - Court held that a party cannot adopt inconsistent positions on the meaning of identical contractual language to suit its convenience - Held - Conduct of the party reinforces the interpretation that the experience criterion is mandatory and not satisfied by the appellant - [Paras 31-33].

Civil Law - Tender - Financial Bid - Public Interest - Revenue considerations - Appellant argued that its bid was higher by Rs 1.5 crore and its rejection causes loss to public exchequer - Court held that revenue considerations cannot cure ineligibility and valid comparison is only possible among eligible bidders - Held - Public interest is served by upholding mandatory tender conditions rather than sacrificing them for a higher figure - [Paras 34-36].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Order of the High Court confirmed – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law - Default Bail - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 167(2) - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 - Section 43D - Respondents arrested for offences under IPC and UAPA - Special Judge granted extension of time for investigation - Respondents applied for default bail alleging investigation was complete and sanction was not a valid ground for extension - High Court allowed bail holding extension order illegal as investigation was complete and sanction is for cognizance not filing charge sheet - Supreme Court reversed holding that investigation is the exclusive domain of police and court cannot curtail statutory powers - Court held that extension for filing charge sheet on grounds like awaiting FSL reports and analysis of voluminous data is valid and not dependent on completion of investigation in all respects - Held - impugned judgment set aside and default bail application dismissed - [Paras 1-35].

Criminal Law - Cognizance - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 - Section 45 - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 196 - Filing of charge sheet vs Taking cognizance - Distinction between investigation and prosecution - Sanction for prosecution is required for taking cognizance by the court and not for the filing of the charge sheet by the investigating agency - Filing a final report within the statutory period precludes the accrual of right to default bail - [Paras 26-29].

Criminal Law - Investigation - Power of Police - Discretion to investigate - Court interference - Investigation is the exclusive domain of the police and the court cannot dictate when the investigation should conclude - Court cannot curtail statutory powers of the police except in exceptional cases or where there is a statutory bar - [Paras 30-31].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of High Court set aside – Order of Special Judge upheld – Default bail application dismissed – Respondent No. 1 directed to surrender within 30 days and may pray for regular bail if so advised.

Criminal Law - Constitutional Safeguards - Constitution of India - Articles 21 and 22(1) - Non-furnishing of grounds of arrest - Appellant arrested for alleged offences under BNS and POCSO Act but denied written grounds of arrest - Magistrate declared arrest illegal and ordered release - High Court held that investigating agency was not precluded from re-arresting the accused for serious offences - Supreme Court held that breach of Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest and remand - Investigating agency must follow strict procedural mandate if re-arrest is sought - Requires filing fresh application before Magistrate with written grounds and explanation for prior failure - Endorsement of superior officer required to prevent abuse - Held - High Court order set aside - [Paras 1-25, 37-38].

Criminal Law - Detention - Constitution of India - Article 22(2) - Twenty-four hour production rule - Appellant not produced before Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest - High Court observed appellant could sue police for illegal detention but refused to restrain future arrest - Supreme Court held that continued detention beyond 24 hours without judicial authority is unconstitutional - Release for such breach does not entitle the agency to bypass constitutional safeguards - Any re-arrest must follow judicial process and comply with constitutional mandates - Held - High Court erred in leaving remedy to civil action alone without addressing the right to protection against arbitrary re-arrest - [Paras 26-36].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order of the High Court and observations of the Magistrate set aside – Investigating agency directed to follow the mandate of Mihir Rajesh Shah and the procedure prescribed in paragraphs 24 to 25.1 and 36 if custodial interrogation is required.

Civil Law - Income Tax - Income Tax Act 1961 - Sections 80HHC and 263 - Revisional Jurisdiction - Assessee claimed deduction under Section 80HHC including export quota premium as business profit relying on CBDT O.M. - Commissioner initiated revision under Section 263 holding order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue for failing to exclude 90 percent of quota premium under Explanation (baa) - ITAT allowed assessee appeal but High Court reversed finding exercise of revisional power valid - Supreme Court held that administrative circulars cannot override statutory provisions and Commissioner correctly invoked jurisdiction due to lack of inquiry by Assessing Officer - Held - order of High Court affirmed - appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-16].

Civil Law - Income Tax - Income Tax Act 1961 - Section 28 - Export Quota Premium - Classification - Premium on sale of export quota is not income derived from export and does not fall under Sections 28(iiia) to (iiic) - Premium constitutes general business benefit falling under residuary Section 28(iv) - Held - not entitled to proportionate adjustment under Section 80HHC proviso - [Paras 5-6].

Decision: Appeals dismissed.

Criminal Law - Murder - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 148, 506 and 302 read with 149 - Alleged eyewitnesses were related to the deceased and provided inconsistent testimonies regarding their presence at the scene - Incident occurred on a pitch-dark night making identification from a distance of 60 cubits improbable - High Court correctly rejected eyewitness testimony but erroneously relied on circumstantial evidence to uphold convictions - Supreme Court found that the chain of circumstances was incomplete and failed to exclude the hypothesis of innocence - Held - Impugned judgment set aside and appellants acquitted based on benefit of doubt - [Paras 1-35].

Evidence Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 3 - Standard of proof - The "panchsutra" of circumstantial evidence requires that all facts must be fully established and consistent only with the guilt of the accused - In the present case, motive was not proven for all appellants and the prosecution failed to recover weapons or link the accused to the crime through a complete chain - Held - In criminal jurisprudence where two views are possible the one favourable to the accused must prevail - [Paras 23-33].

Evidence Law - Identity - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 9 - Identification of assailants - Identification made on a pitch-dark night merely based on sound or the light of torches held by the assailants which would cause blindness is unreliable - Held - Identifying assailants with absolute certainty in such conditions is not possible and evidence cannot be relied upon - [Paras 18-21].

Decision: The appeals are allowed – The judgment and order of the High Court and the Trial Court are quashed and set aside – Appellants are acquitted.

Civil Law - Arbitration - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Section 34 and 36 and 37 - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XXI Rule 1 - Award debtor deposited partial sums in court registry as a condition for stay of execution - Award debtor resisted the withdrawal of said amounts by the award holder during the pendency of Section 34 petition and Section 37 appeal - High Court directed payment of interest at 12 percent per annum from the date of award until the date the amount was released to the respondent unconditionally - Supreme Court held that deposit made by the debtor must be unconditional and available for withdrawal by the decree holder to constitute payment in satisfaction of the decree - As the appellant resisted release and deposit was conditional or partial - interest continues to run on the outstanding amounts - Held - Appeal dismissed and impugned order affirmed - [Paras 1-47].

Civil Law - Execution of Decree - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XXI Rule 1 - Interest liability - Ratio Decidendi - Deposit of money in court must be unconditional to operate as satisfaction of the decree and stop the running of interest - If the decree holder is prevented from freely withdrawing the funds or if withdrawal is subject to furnishing security - the deposit does not amount to satisfaction of the decree - consequently interest liability remains - [Paras 21-28].

Civil Law - Enforcement - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Section 36 - Legal Fiction - An arbitral award is not a decree but is treated as one for the purpose of enforcement under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - The court should not extend the legal fiction beyond the purpose for which it was created - Principles of Order XXI regarding payment of money apply - [Paras 18-19].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Impugned order of the High Court affirmed – Registry directed to transmit a copy of the judgment to the Law Commission of India and relevant Government Ministries for further policy consideration on the standardization of court deposits – [Paras 45-47].

Civil Law - Public Charities - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 92 - Maintainability of interim orders prior to leave - Whether Civil Court seized of a plaint under Section 92 can pass protective or preservatory interim orders pending disposal of the leave application - High Court held that the suit is stillborn without leave and the court lacks jurisdiction to pass interim orders - Supreme Court affirmed that Section 92 constitutes a special provision requiring leave as a mandatory condition precedent to the institution of a suit and no interim or supplemental proceedings can be entertained in the absence of a pending suit - Court acts as a gatekeeper under Section 92 - Held - Civil Court is not empowered to pass protective or preservatory interim orders pending disposal of the leave application - [Paras 1-61].

Civil Law - Supplemental Proceedings - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 94 and Order XL Rule 1 - Appointment of receiver - Whether appointment of a receiver can be made in an application seeking leave to sue - Court held that supplemental proceedings under Section 94 presuppose the existence of an underlying proceeding - An application under Order XL Rule 1 cannot be maintained as a supplemental proceeding because the original action does not mature into a proceeding until leave is granted - The expression before or after decree in Order XL Rule 1 presupposes the existence of a validly instituted suit - Held - Order XL has no applicability prior to the institution of a suit against public charities - [Paras 39-47].

Civil Law - Inherent Powers - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 151 - Resort to inherent powers - Whether Section 151 can be invoked to grant interim relief where Section 92 requires leave - Court held that the generality of inherent powers cannot override the special provision contained in Section 92 - Principle of generalia specialibus non derogants applies - Inherent powers can only be invoked where jurisdiction already exists - Held - Court cannot invoke Section 151 to circumvent the statutory safeguard of leave - [Paras 48-52].

Civil Law - Procedural Exigency - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 92 - Ex parte grant of leave - Whether notice is mandatory before grant of leave - Court held that while notice to proposed defendants ought ordinarily to precede the grant of leave it is not indispensable where facts disclose compelling urgency - Courts must exercise utmost care and record reasons in writing for dispensing with notice - Held - Suit instituted pursuant to leave granted without notice is not rendered bad in law or non-maintainable - [Paras 57-59].

Decision: Appeals dismissed - Held that a Civil Court is not empowered to pass protective or preservatory interim orders pending disposal of the leave application under Section 92 CPC - However, for compelling reasons recorded in writing, notice prior to the grant of leave may be dispensed with.