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.

Criminal Law – Murder – Conspiracy – Acquittal – Accused convicted by Trial Court for murder based on motive, last seen theory, and recovery of incriminating material – High Court reversed conviction citing lack of reliable evidence, failure to prove motive, and inadmissibility of call detail records – Supreme Court upheld acquittal – Held: No reliable, cogent or admissible evidence was led to prove conspiracy or direct involvement of accused in the murder of deceased – Acquittal justified [Paras 3, 32-34, 38-41].

Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen Theory – Reliability – Witnesses claimed to have seen deceased parking scooter outside accused’s house but informed police after more than a month – Conduct found unnatural – High Court rightly discarded their testimony – Supreme Court agreed with finding that prosecution failed to prove “last seen” circumstance beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 23-25].

Evidence – Recovery under Section 27 Evidence Act – Validity – Recovery of blood-stained chunni from accused’s house held inconsequential – No blood grouping done – House remained accessible till police visit – Recovery found unreliable and ineffective in linking accused to crime [Paras 26-27, 32].

Evidence – Electronic Evidence – Admissibility – Call Detail Records – Not supported by certificate under Section 65-B of Evidence Act – Based on handwritten note; scribe not examined – Held: Call detail records inadmissible and cannot be relied upon to prove conspiracy or contact between accused – High Court’s conclusion upheld [Paras 30-31].

Criminal Law – Motive – Land Dispute – Contradictory and improved statements – Alleged motive based on land dispute and threats found to be exaggerated and uncorroborated – Witness contradicted herself on material points – Held: Theory of motive unproved and not supported by substantive evidence [Paras 18-22, 34-35].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Interference with Acquittal – Scope – Reiterated: Acquittal can be reversed only if findings suffer from patent perversity, are based on misreading of evidence, or no other view is possible – Held: High Court’s view was reasonable and supported by record – No grounds for interference by Supreme Court [Paras 39-41].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Acquittal confirmed – No infirmity found in High Court’s judgment warranting interference.

Judicial Services – Eligibility Criteria – Telangana State Judicial Service Rules, 2023 – Rule 5(5.1)(a) restricting eligibility to advocates practicing in Telangana High Court or its subordinate courts for not less than 7 years – Petitioners challenged rejection of their applications on ground of discrimination and violation of Articles 14 and 233 – High Court dismissed writ petitions holding Rule valid – Supreme Court refrained from adjudicating constitutionality of Rules but permitted qualified petitioners to be appointed as District Judges as a special case without treating it as precedent [Paras 4, 6-9, 11-12].

Recruitment – Judicial Service Examinations – Petitioners permitted by interim orders to participate in written and viva-voce examinations – They secured qualifying marks – Supreme Court directed High Court to declare results and proceed with verification of antecedents – Qualified candidates to be appointed within two months but without arrears of benefits – Seniority to be reckoned from date of actual appointment; existing appointees to rank senior [Paras 8-10].

Civil Judge (Junior Division) – Connected Petitions – Writ petitioners challenging Bar Association enrolment requirement also permitted to appear in exams pursuant to interim order – Supreme Court extended similar relief, directing declaration of results and appointment if qualified [Para 10].

Constitutional Law – Scope of Relief – Supreme Court clarified that directions were confined to peculiar facts and circumstances and would not operate as precedent – All questions of law kept open for determination in future [Para 11].

Decision: Appeals, SLPs, and Writ Petition disposed of – Qualified petitioners directed to be appointed as District Judges as special case – No precedent – Parties to bear own costs.

Negotiable Instruments – S.138 – Presumptions under Ss.118 & 139 – Cash loans over ₹20,000 not void for S.269SS breach; presumption still arises – Revisional court cannot upset concurrent findings absent perversity – Non-reply to demand notice permits adverse inference – “Blank cheque given to help secure bank loan” defence held unbelievable – Comprehensive directions issued to cut S.138 pendency (service incl. dasti/e-service; QR/UPI payment links; mandatory complaint-synopsis; no pre-cognizance summons under S.223 BNSS; structured S.251 CrPC/S.274 BNSS questioning; interim compensation; physical listing; realistic evening-court thresholds; dashboards & HC committees) – Damodar S. Prabhu graded costs modified downward – Appeal allowed; HC order set aside; trial & appellate convictions restored; instalment payment ordered [Paras 11-18, 19-21, 27-32, 29-31, 32, 33-36, 37-39, 40].

Presumptions – Sections 118 & 139 NI Act – Once execution/signature admitted, presumptions of consideration and legally enforceable debt arise – APS Forex does not negate presumption for cash loans; it only recognises rebuttable nature shifting onus back upon rebuttal [Paras 15-18].

Income-tax Act – S.269SS/S.271D – Violation invites penalty but does not render cash loan illegal/void or unenforceable for S.138 purposes – Kerala HC view in P.C. Hari (2025 SCC OnLine Ker 5535) set aside [Paras 19-21].

Criminal Procedure – Revisional jurisdiction – High Court cannot reappreciate evidence to upset concurrent findings in absence of perversity/jurisdictional error [Paras 27-28].

Evidence – Financial capacity – Accused led no independent evidence; reading PW-1 as a whole showed capacity (partly from father/own borrowings); trial and sessions courts’ concurrent findings sustained [Paras 22-26].

Notice – Failure to reply to S.138 demand notice – Permits inference supporting complainant’s version; burden to raise capacity defence at reply stage emphasised [Paras 29-31].

Defence – “Signed blank cheque to help obtain bank loan” – Defence rejected as absurd/unbelievable on facts [Para 32].

Practice & Procedure – Pendency of S.138 Cases – SC issues detailed guidelines:

(A) Dasti + e-service of summons per BNSS 2023; complainant to furnish verified contact details

(B) Affidavit of service; false affidavit actionable

(C) QR/UPI payment facilities with option for early compounding

(D) Mandatory synopsis format for complaints

(E) No summons at pre-cognizance stage under S.223 BNSS

(F-G) Structured questioning under S.251 CrPC / S.274 BNSS at cognizance stage

(H) Use of interim deposit under S.143A NI Act

(I) Physical listing post-service; limited exemptions

(J) Realistic pecuniary limits for evening courts

(K) District dashboards for pendency and disposals

(L) HC committees for monitoring, ADR promotion [Paras 33-36].

Compounding – Damodar S. Prabhu guidelines revisited – New graded costs: Nil if payment made before defence evidence; 5% before judgment; 7.5% at revisional/appellate stage; 10% before Supreme Court – Courts may suggest compounding; if broader settlement demanded, court may accept guilty plea and consider Probation of Offenders Act benefits [Paras 37-39].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s 16/04/2009 order set aside – Trial and Sessions Court convictions restored – Respondent No.1 to pay ₹7,50,000 in 15 equal monthly instalments of ₹50,000 – Guidelines to be implemented by High Courts and District Courts not later than 01/11/2025 [Para 40].

Insolvency Law – Transfer of Partnership Share – Appellant inducted as partner after father’s death; creditors initiated insolvency (1975); official receiver executed transfer deed (1983) in favour of respondent based on alleged offer/acceptance (Ex.P4, Ex.P6) – District Court (2004) found documents fabricated, cancelled transfer, restored appellant’s share – High Court (2011) reversed relying on S.37, holding acts of receiver saved – Held: High Court erred; once order dated 04.01.1983 allowing transfer was set aside and matter remanded, transfer deed had no legal foundation – Section 37 protects only duly concluded acts, not those based on fabricated documents – Appellate court must give reasons when reversing fact findings; here, High Court failed in its duty under Santosh Hazari principles – District Court’s detailed factual findings restored – Appeals by appellants allowed; connected appeals by respondents dismissed [Paras 19-27].

Insolvency – Section 37, Provincial Insolvency Act – Annulment wipes out insolvency retrospectively but saves only valid and duly concluded sales/acts of receiver – Transfer based on fabricated documents not “duly made” – Sale deed dated 11.03.1983 cannot be protected [Paras 17-23].

Evidence – Fabricated documents – District Court meticulously analysed contradictions, failure to produce originals, improbabilities, and concluded Ex.P4 offer and Ex.P6 acceptance were concocted – Findings binding absent proper reappreciation by appellate court [Paras 20-22].

Appellate Jurisdiction – High Court reversed District Court findings without analysis of evidence – Error of law; appellate court must engage with trial court reasoning and give independent reasons when reversing findings [Paras 24-25].

Decision – Appeals (CA Nos. 12048-12049/2018) allowed – High Court judgment set aside – District Court’s order dated 16.02.2004 restored – Connected appeals (CA Nos. 12050-12053/2018) dismissed [Paras 27-29].

Electricity – Power Purchase Agreement – Diversion of allocated share – EPL diverted GUVNL’s contracted 58% share of 515 MW capacity to sister concern ESL – Held: Such diversion violated proportionate principle – GUVNL entitled not only to “compensation” at HTP-1 tariff (less variable costs) but also to reimbursement of fixed charges proportionately – APTEL and GERC erred in denying reimbursement – Restitution prevents EPL from appropriating fixed charges twice (from both GUVNL and ESL) – SC clarifies distinction between “compensation” and “reimbursement” [Paras 30-38].

Contract Interpretation – Earlier SC decision (2016) restoring GERC’s order binding – Proportionate principle governs both supply and fixed charges – EPL obligated to declare weekly capacity for full 515 MW plant – Diversion to ESL beyond allocated 215 MW not permissible [Paras 20-24].

Computation Methodology – Though PPA defined “availability period” as hourly, EPL itself sought CEA’s advice (2003) leading to adoption of half-hourly metering from 21.02.2005 – Parties acted upon it – EPL estopped from opposing half-hourly basis for diversion computation – GERC rightly applied half-hourly basis; APTEL erred in reversing [Paras 39-41].

Delayed Payment Charges – GERC rightly applied simple interest as per PPA – However, parity mandated: if EPL secures compound interest in its other proceedings, same benefit extends to GUVNL [Para 28].

Remand – Issues of exact quantum of Deemed Generation Incentive refund (₹34.42 Cr vs. ₹36.62 Cr) and deductions from invoices remanded to GERC – SC upholds remand on factual quantification but modifies findings on fixed charges and computation basis [Paras 42-43].

Decision – Appeals partly allowed – GERC’s order dated 27.12.2019 and APTEL’s judgment dated 21.03.2025 modified – GUVNL entitled to reimbursement of fixed charges (in addition to compensation) – Diversion to be computed on half-hourly basis – Other remanded issues stand – Parties to bear own costs [Para 43].

Banking Law – Leasehold Plot – Validity of mortgage and e-auction sale of leasehold property allotted by DDA – Mortgage without prior permission of Lieutenant Governor held void – DDA’s rights of pre-emption and unearned increase ignored – Recovery Officer and Bank failed to disclose material encumbrances in auction proclamation – E-auction notice dated 27.09.2012 and sale held on 09.11.2012 declared illegal for violation of Rule 53 Second Schedule, Income-tax Act and Rule 16 of 1962 Rules – High Court erred in applying res judicata – Fresh cause of action arose when auction violated lease terms – Auction purchaser found bona fide and entitled to restitution – Bank directed to refund full deposit with 9% interest – Appeal allowed; auction and sale certificate quashed [Paras 18-27, 28-32].

Mortgage – Leasehold property allotted by statutory authority – Mortgage created without written consent of Lieutenant Governor – Held: Mortgage void ab initio; Bank cannot claim lawful security interest [Paras 5, 18-19].

Debt Recovery – Auction under RDDBFI Act – Recovery Officer bound to disclose encumbrances and statutory dues in proclamation – Failure to mention DDA’s unearned increase claim vitiates sale [Paras 23-27].

Res Judicata – Earlier writ petition withdrawn on Bank’s undertaking that auction would be subject to lease conditions – Not decided on merits – Fresh cause of action arose upon breach of undertaking – High Court erred in dismissing subsequent writ as barred [Paras 28-29].

Restitution – Innocent auction purchaser caught in illegal sale – Restitution a moral imperative – Bank, having auctioned what it never lawfully possessed, must refund money with interest [Paras 30-32].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court order dated 11.08.2014, e-auction notice dated 27.09.2012, auction dated 09.11.2012, and confirmation/sale certificate dated 08.07.2013 and 12.07.2013 quashed – Bank directed to refund entire deposit with 9% interest to auction purchaser within one month [Para 32-33].

Service Law – Lecturer Appointment – Rule Applicability – Appellant selected as Lecturer in History in 2006 under Assam Government Aided Junior College Management Rules, 2001 – Age condonation granted by Government for 2 years 7 months – Appointment approved and 18 years of continuous service rendered – High Court Division Bench wrongly applied Rule 19(iv) of Assam Secondary Education (Provincialisation) Service Rules, 2003 to aided post, quashing appointment – Held: 2003 Rules not applicable to aided colleges at the time of advertisement – Appointment validly made under 2001 Rules – Orders of Division Bench and Review dismissed as illegal – Appellant entitled to reinstatement with continuity but no back wages [Paras 2, 3, 5, 6, 7].

Education Law – Distinction Between Aided and Provincialised Institutions – 2001 Rules governed appointments in aided junior colleges pre-provincialisation – 2003 Rules under 1977 Act apply only post-provincialisation and cannot retrospectively invalidate appointments in aided institutions – High Court erred in conflating rules applicable to distinct statutory regimes [Paras 2, 3, 6].

Reinstatement – Break in Service – Appellant removed after review dismissal – Supreme Court directs reinstatement within 4 weeks without treating intervening period as break in service – Continuity of service for all purposes except back wages allowed [Para 7].

Civil Procedure – Summary Suit – Leave to Defend – High Court allowed defendant to file reply to summons for judgment without prior leave to defend under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) CPC – Held: Permitting reply without prior leave undermines the summary nature of Order XXXVII proceedings – Order suffers from serious procedural defect and is unsustainable – Impugned order set aside [Paras 6, 7, 9].

Civil Procedure – Order XXXVII CPC – Procedure Mandate – Summary suits under Order XXXVII require strict compliance with sequence of steps – Entry of appearance, filing of summons for judgment, and leave to defend must precede filing of written statement or reply – Deviation from mandated procedure strikes at the root of Order XXXVII scheme [Paras 6, 7].

Delay – Condonation of Delay in Filing Leave to Defend – Application for condonation of delay in seeking leave to defend pending before High Court – Supreme Court held that mere pendency or wrong provision invoked cannot justify bypassing procedural compliance – No opinion expressed on merits of delay or entitlement to decree [Paras 8, 9].

Procedural Law – Distinction Between Regular and Summary Suit – Allowing reply in summary suit without leave equates it with ordinary suit, thereby nullifying the purpose of Order XXXVII – Procedural safeguard is integral to summary disposal – Order set aside while preserving rights of both parties to pursue appropriate remedies [Paras 9, 10].