Competition Law – Anti-Competitive Agreement – Section 3(3)(b) – Federation boycott – Kerala Film Exhibitors Federation (KFEF) found to have engaged in anti-competitive conduct by threatening distributors and boycotting Crown Theatre for dealing independently – CCI held KFEF and its office bearers guilty – Appeal against COMPAT’s order that set aside penalties on two office-bearers on natural justice grounds – Held: CCI’s notice dated 10.06.2015 satisfied legal requirements, and principles of natural justice were complied with – Penalties restored [Paras 1-3, 37-43, 68].

Due Process – Show-Cause Notice – Section 27 and Regulation 48 – Whether second show-cause notice is mandatory before imposition of penalty – Held: No requirement for separate penalty notice under the Act or Regulations – Furnishing of DG Report and oral hearing suffice – Appellate Tribunal erred in reading additional procedural safeguards into the statute [Paras 15, 35, 52-57].

Section 48 – Liability of Office Bearers – Federation deemed a company under Section 48 – President and General Secretary (Respondent Nos. 2 and 3) held liable for KFEF’s anti-competitive conduct – They failed to prove lack of knowledge or due diligence – Monetary penalties and behavioural remedies imposed – Directions disassociating them from KFEF restored [Paras 41-43, 64-66].

Proportionality – Doctrine of Proportionality – Penalties of 10% of average income not disproportionate – Behavioural remedy barring participation in KFEF’s governance for 2 years justified in light of repeat offences and prior penalty in Case No. 45/2012 – Held: Penalty not shocking or excessive – Consistent with legislative intent to make CCI an effective regulator unlike defunct MRTP Commission [Paras 47-51, 64-66].

Natural Justice – No Violation – DG Report named Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as key decision-makers – Respondents were issued notice, given opportunity to reply, submit income documents, and were heard – COMPAT’s finding of procedural violation was incorrect – Violation of natural justice not established [Paras 39-41, 66-67].

Freedom of Association – Article 19(1)(c) – Challenge to personal liability of office-bearers under Article 19(1)(c) rejected – Reasonable restrictions under Article 19(4) justified to curb unethical and anti-competitive practices – CCI’s powers under Section 27 not unconstitutional [Para 67].

Decision: Appeal allowed – COMPAT’s order set aside insofar as it interfered with penalty and behavioural remedies – CCI’s full order dated 08.09.2015 restored – Disassociation of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 from KFEF to take effect from 01.12.2025 for 2 years – Compliance to be reported within 3 months [Para 68].

Motor Accident Compensation – Survival of Claim – Injured claimant rendered 100% disabled in accident, died during pendency of appeal (2024) – Insurer argued claim abated under Section 306 Succession Act – Court held amended Section 167(5) MV Act (w.e.f. 01.04.2022) expressly provides right survives to legal representatives irrespective of cause of death – Claim continues through LRs [Paras 3–7].

Income Assessment – Tribunal initially took ₹8,000 p.m., later reduced to ₹4,030 on remand without basis – Court, relying on Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram (2011) 13 SCC 236, fixed ₹9,000 p.m. for 2013 accident for skilled worker, with 25% future prospects, considering 100% disability [Paras 9–10].

Multiplier – Tribunal and High Court applied multiplier 14 (age 45) per Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 – Court modified to 11 years (actual survival period post-accident) since appeal concerned loss to estate after death – Compensation recalculated accordingly [Para 11].

Conventional Heads – Tribunal/High Court award of ₹5,52,095 for pain, suffering, medical, attendant, etc., sustained as part of victim’s estate – Added to recalculated loss of income [Para 12].

Recalculated Compensation – Loss of income: ₹14,85,000 (₹9,000 × 12 × 125% × 11) – Total award: ₹20,37,095 – Interest at 9% p.a. from date of claim petition till payment, not limited as High Court had wrongly restricted [Paras 13–14].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Total compensation enhanced to ₹20,37,095 with 9% interest from filing till realization – Payable within three months after adjusting sums already paid.

Criminal Procedure – Delay in Compliance of Supreme Court Order – Jurisdiction of Trial Court – Supreme Court had directed the Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court, Alipore to dispose of case AC-2053/2017 within six weeks from order dated 18.01.2024 – Judicial Magistrate, upon failing to conclude trial in time, passed order on 19.03.2024 declaring loss of jurisdiction due to lapse of time – Supreme Court expresses displeasure – Held: Judicial Officer cannot abdicate jurisdiction merely due to expiry of time fixed by Supreme Court – Proper course was to seek extension of time from higher court [Paras 4–6].

Judicial Conduct – Accountability – Supreme Court directs District Judge concerned to seek written explanation from the Judicial Magistrate – To report back to Supreme Court within one month explaining reasons and circumstances under which the Magistrate concluded he lacked jurisdiction – Directions issued to ensure proper procedural compliance and judicial discipline [Para 6].

Condonation of Delay – Delay in filing modification application condoned – Petitioners granted two weeks’ time to file detailed response explaining delay in conclusion of trial proceedings [Paras 1, 7].

Decision: Delay condoned – Registry directed to forward copy of order to relevant authorities – District Judge to obtain explanation from concerned Magistrate and submit report within one month – Petitioners allowed two weeks to file response.

Motor Accident Compensation – Determination of Income – Appellant, 23-year-old loader, lost right leg in lorry accident (01.12.2015) – Tribunal fixed income at ₹9,000 p.m., assessed 85% disability, applied multiplier 18, awarded ₹19,35,400 under various heads – High Court reduced income to ₹8,000 relying on Workmen’s Compensation Act ceiling, further considering only 60% thereof, thereby reducing award to ₹10,41,022 – Supreme Court: High Court erred in importing Workmen’s Compensation Act parameters into MV Act claim – Once claimant elected remedy under MV Act, insurer cannot seek application of Workmen’s Compensation Act provisions – Tribunal’s award restored [Paras 3–6].

Future Prospects – Appellant argued addition of 40% for future prospects (Pranay Sethi) – Court held not permissible since claimant had not appealed against Tribunal award, only insurer’s appeal considered by High Court – Hence no enhancement beyond Tribunal’s award [Para 6.1].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment dated 23.01.2020 set aside – Tribunal’s award of ₹19,35,400 restored – No further addition for future prospects permitted.

Criminal Law – Murder vs. Culpable Homicide – Accused (landowners) attacked complainant’s father and uncles during land measurement dispute using sticks, pike and spear – PW-1 (son/nephew of deceased) was sole eyewitness; PW-2 hostile – Medical evidence showed lacerated and contused wounds only; no incised injuries – Weapons used with blunt side – Just Knowledge – No Intention - Though Armed with Sharp Weapons, Only the Blunt Side Was Used - Court held deaths caused by accused established, but absence of intent to kill proved; only knowledge of likely death attributable – Conviction under Section 302 IPC not sustainable – Altered to Section 304 Part I IPC [Paras 7–15].

Eyewitness Testimony – Related Witness – Sole reliance on testimony of PW-1 (related witness) not unsafe where corroborated by medical evidence – PW-2 turned hostile, but prosecution case stood corroborated [Paras 7–10].

Medical Evidence – Nature of Injuries – Only blunt force injuries present; no use of sharp edge despite possession of sharp weapons – Consistent with PW-1’s deposition – Supports conclusion of culpable homicide not amounting to murder [Paras 8, 10–11].

Sentence – Appellants already undergone more than 12 years of imprisonment – Court held sentence already served sufficient to meet ends of justice – Ordered release forthwith if not required in any other case [Paras 15–16].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside – Conviction modified to Section 304 Part I IPC – Sentence confined to period already undergone – Appellants directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Criminal Law – Clubbing of FIRs – Investor Fraud – Petitioners sought consolidation of FIRs registered across Telangana, Karnataka, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Delhi, Andhra Pradesh, and Rajasthan alleging identical modus operandi of duping investors – Court held prayer to club all FIRs from different States and even future FIRs “overambitious and illegal” – Only intra-State transfers allowed: FIR at Madhapur (Telangana) transferred to EOW Cyberabad; FIR at Thane (Maharashtra) transferred to Nagpur – Clubbing of FIRs in other States rejected – Court distinguished precedent in Amish Devgan (media statement cases) and Radhey Shyam (Article 142 with State consent) – Held: Practical difficulties in trial (witnesses from various States) prevent pan-India clubbing [Paras 2–9, 12].

Future FIRs – Preventive Prayer – Rejected outright as impermissible in law – Courts cannot prevent registration of FIRs that may arise in future [Para 5].

Application of Precedents – T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (2001) 6 SCC 181 and Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash (2004) 13 SCC 292 considered – Rule against multiple FIRs confined to same incident; distinguishable where multiple victims across States duped in independent transactions – Section 242 BNSS (same kind offences in one year may be tried together up to 5 counts) noted but inapplicable to multi-State investor fraud [Paras 7–10].

Bail Relief – Some petitioners already in custody; directed to be released on bail with conditions to cooperate in investigation – Those with pending warrants given protection from arrest for six months to enable approaching jurisdictional courts for regular bail – Production warrants not to be executed for six months; failure to seek bail or cooperate allows cancellation [Paras 14–15].

Costs for Witnesses – Directed that when witnesses are required to travel from original FIR location to transferee jurisdiction, trial court shall award travel and residence costs payable by accused [Para 13].

Decision: Writ petitions disposed of – Limited transfer of FIRs allowed within States – Pan-India clubbing and prayer regarding future FIRs rejected – Bail protection granted for six months subject to conditions.

Motor Accident Claim – Hit and Run – Eyewitness Reliability – FIR Delay – The appellants challenged the High Court’s reversal of compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the death of the first appellant’s husband in an alleged hit-and-run accident – Tribunal had accepted the testimony of PW2 (eyewitness) and awarded Rs. 16.02 lakhs – High Court reversed the finding citing multiple discrepancies and improbabilities in the claim [Paras 1-2].

FIR Registration – Jurisdiction and Delay – The FIR was initially lodged at Hebbogodi Police Station which had no jurisdiction and was transferred to the competent Electronic City Traffic Police Station after a delay of 117 days – Supreme Court held that no explanation was given as to why FIR was filed in the wrong police station despite claimants knowing the scene of accident [Paras 4-5].

Credibility of Witness – Contradictory Testimony – PW2 claimed to have seen the accident and also noted the vehicle’s number after returning with victim’s daughter – Court found contradictions in her statement about the timing and actions taken – No documentary proof produced to establish she ran a fruit stall near accident spot – Victim’s daughter not examined – Held: PW2 was a chance witness with untrustworthy testimony [Paras 6-7].

Burden of Proof – Preponderance of Probabilities – While motor accident claims can be decided on a preponderance of probabilities, when FIR is found to be suspicious and key witnesses unreliable, the burden is not discharged – Criminal case against the driver ended in acquittal and PW2 failed to identify him – Claim held to be unsubstantiated [Paras 6-8].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Findings of the High Court upheld – No interference warranted with High Court’s order rejecting the claim [Para 9].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR - Prevention of Corruption – Bribery Allegations – Complaint alleged offer of ₹2 crores and later ₹5 crores to MLA to abstain or vote in MLC elections – FIR registered belatedly on 31.05.2015 based on audio-video recordings of sting operation – Allegations against A4 vague and unconnected to subsequent alleged transaction – A4 not present at scene of occurrence – Court held complaint against A4 casual, improbable, and lacking nexus – High Court rightly quashed FIR against A4 – No interference warranted [Paras 5–8].

Quashing of FIR – Scope – State argued High Court conducted “mini-trial” while exercising quashing jurisdiction – Supreme Court held High Court’s detailed reasoning, though lengthy, did not amount to mini-trial – Brevity not essential if reasons are justified – Quashing valid where allegations fail to disclose cognizable offence [Paras 2–4].

Procedural Law – Delay in Registration of FIR – Complaint dated 28.05.2015 by MLA; FIR registered only on 31.05.2015 – Delay and lack of contemporaneous registration under Section 154 CrPC noted – Weakens prosecution case against A4 [Para 6].

Decision: Special Leave Petitions dismissed – High Court order quashing FIR against A4 upheld – No material linking A4 to bribery allegations.

Motor Accident Compensation – Quantum – Future Medical Expenses – Income Assessment – Pillion rider (aged 20) rendered paraplegic (C4–5 fracture) after being run over by car driven rashly – Liability not in dispute; appeal limited to (i) acceptance of medical bills and (ii) income for loss of earning capacity – Insurance company’s objection to bills from Goa rejected; Court accepts verification and directs ₹20 lakhs towards medical expenses beyond HC award; no interest if paid within 4 months – Monthly income reasonably fixed at ₹5,000 (2001) for a B.Com final-year student enrolled with ICAI; 40% future prospects and multiplier 18 applied as per Pranay Sethi – Loss of income computed at ₹15,12,000; total compensation recalculated at ₹40,34,356 with 9% interest from filing till realisation – Additional ₹20 lakhs for medical expenses payable within 4 months, failing which 9% interest from judgment date – Appeal allowed with modification [Paras 2–6].

Insurance Bills – Verification & Place of Treatment – Objection that bills were from Goa/Bengaluru and not Delhi rejected; insurer with nationwide presence cannot plead inability to verify – Justified relocation to Goa due to pneumonia and adverse climate in Delhi – Directed tabulated bills; ₹21 lakhs verified as genuine; net ₹20 lakhs ordered (after HC’s additional ₹1 lakh) towards medical expenses incurred over two decades of 100% disability [Paras 2–3].

Income Determination – Prospective Career – Minimum wages for a “skilled worker” in 2001 (₹3,352/₹3,339) not appropriate proxy for a graduate on track for CA – Court fixes ₹5,000 p.m. (2001) as reasonable; adds 40% future prospects; applies multiplier 18 per Pranay Sethi; computes loss of income at ₹15,12,000 [Para 4–5].

Recalculation of Award – High Court components retained (₹14 lakhs under conventional heads; medical expenses ₹11,22,356) – Total compensation fixed at ₹40,34,356 with 9% interest from petition till realisation – Direction to pay within four months [Para 5].

Additional Direction – ₹20 lakhs towards future medical expenses payable within 4 months; no interest if paid in time; otherwise 9% from judgment date [Para 6].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Award enhanced and directions issued regarding payment timelines and interest.