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 – 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.

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.

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Section 498-A IPC – Dowry Harassment – Vague and General Allegations – FIR filed by complainant alleging dowry demands and mental cruelty by in-laws – Specific demand mentioned only once in complaint; other allegations vague and lacking particulars – Held: Allegations in FIR did not disclose essential ingredients of cruelty as required under Explanation to Section 498-A – No prima facie case made out to warrant prosecution of in-laws – FIR against appellants quashed [Paras 8-10].

Criminal Law – Offences under Sections 377 and 506 IPC – Allegations restricted to complainant’s husband – No specific allegations against in-laws – Held: Complaint solely implicated husband in charges of unnatural sex and criminal intimidation – No basis to prosecute in-laws under Sections 377 and 506 IPC – Proceedings against appellants quashed [Paras 11].

Criminal Procedure – Power under Section 482 CrPC – Abuse of Process – Applicability of Bhajan Lal Guidelines – FIR containing omnibus allegations with no specific role assigned to appellants – Continuation of proceedings against in-laws would amount to abuse of process – Supreme Court invoked inherent powers to quash proceedings following principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [Paras 12-13].

Decision: Appeal allowed – FIR and criminal proceedings under Sections 498-A, 377, and 506 read with Section 34 IPC quashed as against appellants – Clarified that proceedings against complainant’s husband (accused No.1) to continue independently on merits.

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Resolution Plan – Concurrent Findings – Appeals under Section 62 lie only on a question of law – NCLT and NCLAT concurrently upheld JSW’s plan with minor modification regarding EBITDA – Held: Appeals not maintainable in absence of statutory grounds under Section 61 – Concurrent findings not to be disturbed unless perverse, arbitrary or contrary to statute [Paras 87-96].

IBC – Clause Permitting CoC to Extend Implementation Period – Validity – Clause authorising CoC to extend effective date of implementation by 66% majority not open-ended – No renegotiation or withdrawal of plan involved – Distinguished from Ebix Singapore and Amtek Auto – Held: Such discretion to CoC permissible to address exigencies – Delay not attributable to JSW or CoC but due to litigation, ED attachments and interim orders – Plan validly implemented on 26.03.2021 [Paras 97-128].

IBC – Compliance with IBBI (CIRP) Regulations – Priority of OCs – Resolution Plan submitted when Regulation 38 mandated only liquidation value to OCs – Subsequent amendment (05.10.2018) providing priority complied with via addendum – Ex gratia payment of Rs. 350 crores to OCs beyond entitlement – Later amendment (27.11.2019) inapplicable as prospective – No contravention of law – Promoters cannot raise issue not agitated by OCs [Paras 130-143].

IBC – Upfront Infusion of Funds – CCDs as Equity – JSW infused Rs. 8,450 crore by compulsorily convertible debentures – CCDs mandatorily convertible into equity treated as equity instruments in law (Narendra Kumar Maheshwari, IFCI Ltd.) – Upfront commitment fulfilled – Commercial wisdom of CoC paramount and non-justiciable [Paras 144-152].

IBC – Distribution of EBITDA – NCLT directed distribution based on NCLAT Essar – NCLAT relying on SC Essar held EBITDA not distributable absent provision in RfRP – CoC initially opposed distribution, later took contrary stand in affidavit post-review – Held: RfRP silent, no such claim permissible after plan approval – EBITDA to remain with corporate debtor – Finality of resolution plan cannot be unsettled [Paras 153-171, 185-190].

IBC – Classification of Contingent Creditors – Jaldhi – Claim based on foreign arbitral awards – Withdrawn execution petitions before Calcutta High Court – Awards not deemed decrees under Section 49 of Arbitration Act – Stand of creditor inconsistent – CoC’s commercial wisdom in classifying as contingent creditor upheld – Non-justiciable [Paras 172-180].

IBC – Pre-CIRP Dues – Medi & Darcl – Payments made during CIRP adjusted against services rendered – No CoC approval for pre-CIRP dues – Must be treated only under resolution plan – Appeals dismissed [Paras 181-184].

IBC – Section 32A Immunity – Corporate debtor’s liability for pre-CIRP offences ceases after plan approval – ED attachments and prosecutions could not continue once management changed – Delay due to pendency of such proceedings not attributable to JSW – Implementation valid [Paras 105-123, 116-118].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – NCLAT order dated 17.02.2020 upholding resolution plan of JSW Steel Limited affirmed – Implementation of plan on 26.03.2021 valid – Contingent claims, EBITDA demands, and objections of ex-promoters rejected – Section 32A immunity reiterated – Resolution Plan attained finality [Paras 185-192].

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.

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.

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 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.