Accident Claim - Motor Accident Compensation – Notional Income for Unskilled Worker – Enhanced Based on Precedent – Tribunal awarded compensation assuming monthly income of ₹15,000; High Court reduced it to ₹3,700 based on minimum wages – Supreme Court held ₹7,500/month as reasonable notional income for a coolie in 2010 based on Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance principle with future prospects at 40% – Loss of dependency recalculated accordingly [Paras 7-9].

Consortium – Entitlement to All Dependents – Pranay Sethi and Somwati Followed – Court reiterated that in addition to spousal consortium, parental and filial consortium must be granted – ₹40,000 awarded to each parent and child – Total consortium compensation revised to ₹2,00,000 for five dependents [Paras 10-11].

Insurance Liability – Driver’s License Invalid for Transport Vehicle – Recovery Permitted – Though license was valid for non-transport vehicles, it was not valid for transport vehicle (Eicher/Canter) on date of accident – Insurance Company directed to pay but granted right to recover from vehicle owner – Pranay Sethi and IFFCO Tokio v. Geeta Devi principles discussed [Paras 5-6, 12].

Decision – Appeals Partly Allowed – Total compensation enhanced to ₹18,36,500 – Right of insurer to recover from owner upheld – Cross-objections and pending applications disposed of [Paras 13-14].

Civil Law - Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Rejection of Plaint – Limitation – Mixed Question of Law and Fact – Rejection Set Aside – The plaint challenged alienation of property by appellant’s father acting beyond authority of power of attorney – High Court rejected plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC holding the suit was barred by limitation – Supreme Court held that since the appellant pleaded specific date of knowledge of alleged fraudulent transactions, limitation became a mixed question of law and fact necessitating trial – Rejection of plaint at preliminary stage was legally unsustainable [Paras 11-13].

Power of Attorney – Scope of Authority – Unauthorized Alienation – Triable Issue – The plaint averred that appellant’s father was granted limited authority to manage construction and not to alienate property – Sale executed by father in favour of granddaughter was beyond scope of power – These assertions raised serious issues of misuse and fraud – Not appropriate to reject suit at threshold without evidence [Paras 12, 14].

Specific Relief Act – Declaratory Suit with Consequential Relief – Maintainability – Court reiterated that suit seeking declaration with consequential injunction is not simpliciter – Suit cannot be dismissed solely because one relief appears barred or defective – Full pleadings and evidence required to determine maintainability [Paras 8.1, 13].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court’s judgment rejecting plaint set aside – Trial Court’s refusal to reject plaint affirmed – Suit restored for trial – Trial Court directed to proceed uninfluenced by High Court's prior observations [Para 15-16].
 

Child Custody - Facts – Appellant-mother and respondent-father, both professionals, were estranged since 2017—disputes arose over custody of two children aged 8 and 3—mother filed for permanent custody and father sought visitation—Family Court allowed limited access—High Court modified arrangement granting 15 days' interim custody monthly to father with directions regarding child care—Mother challenged order alleging non-compliance with care conditions and emotional harm to children.

Child Custody – Paramountcy of Child’s Welfare – Equal Division Not Always Feasible – Supreme Court held that High Court erred in granting 15-day alternate custody of both children without due consideration of emotional and physical implications – Emphasized that mere affection or good intention of a parent is not enough—child’s well-being and comfort must guide custody decisions – Set aside interim custody granted to father, especially in regard to 3-year-old son who was unfamiliar with father due to prolonged maternal care [Paras 19–21, 26–27].

Living Conditions – Absence of Nanny, External Food, Lack of Companionship – Custody Denied – Court found respondent-father failed to comply with High Court’s directions to engage a nanny – Child’s testimony revealed lack of home-cooked meals and loneliness during custody with father – Held: Such environment unsuitable for healthy emotional and physical growth of child – Preference given to stable home with maternal grandparents and sibling [Paras 14–18, 22–25].

Modified Visitation – Limited Interim Access and Supervised Custody – Balanced Relief – While rejecting full interim custody, Court allowed respondent-father to meet daughter on alternate weekends and granted 4-hour supervised custody with son – Directed engagement of child counsellor and efforts to provide home-cooked meals – Video call rights twice a week upheld – Family Court directed to expedite final custody decision [Paras 28–31].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court’s order dated 11th December 2024 reversed – Interim custody of both children retained with mother – Modified visitation and access arrangement granted to father with supervision – Family Court directed to decide pending guardianship case expeditiously [Paras 32–33].
 

Excise Duty – Re-classification of Products – Violation of Natural Justice – Appeal against CESTAT order upholding re-classification of Benzene and Toluene from Chapter 29 to Chapter 27 based on test reports not furnished to the appellant – Held: Only gist of test reports communicated through show-cause notices insufficient – Full test reports must be provided under Rule 56 of Central Excise Rules – Non-furnishing of test reports violated principles of natural justice – Re-classification and consequential differential duty demand set aside [Paras 34-40].

Central Excise – Provisional Assessment – Requirements under Rule 9B – CESTAT erroneously held assessments for January and February 1993 as provisional – Held: No provisional assessment order passed, no execution of bond, mere endorsement on RT-12 returns insufficient – Assessments held final – Consequently, demand for duty barred by limitation [Paras 42-49].

Principles of Natural Justice – Obligation to Furnish Complete Test Reports – Only furnishing gist amounts to breach of Rule 56(2) and violates the right to seek re-test under Rule 56(4) – Breach of procedural fairness vitiates subsequent duty demand – CESTAT’s contrary findings unsustainable [Paras 36-39].

Approval of Classification List – Legal Sanctity – Delay in Drawing Samples – Department’s failure to challenge classification promptly – Samples drawn after five months of approval – Department’s belated action casts doubt on procedure followed – Held: Classification approval under Rule 173B not an empty formality and entitled to respect unless procedurally challenged [Para 40].

Central Excise Act – Limitation under Section 11A – Impact of Non-Provisional Assessments – Without valid provisional assessments, normal limitation period applies – Demand raised by department for 1989-1993 period time-barred – Differential duty demands unsustainable [Paras 43-49].

Decision – Appeals allowed – CESTAT order dated 21.05.2010 set aside to the extent challenged – Orders of Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals) quashed – Re-classification annulled – No order as to costs [Paras 50-51].
 

Criminal Law – Honour Killing – Caste Bias – Brutal Murder of Inter-caste Couple – Convictions Upheld – Victims, a Dalit boy and a Vanniyar girl, were forcibly administered poison by family and community members due to opposition to their marriage – Deaths concealed initially with police connivance – Trial Court convicted 13 accused including 2 police officers – High Court modified certain sentences but upheld majority convictions – Supreme Court found sufficient corroborated evidence despite some witnesses turning hostile – Delay in trial not fatal – Strong reliance placed on testimonies of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-15 and PW-49 – Appeal dismissed [Paras 3-10, 7-9, 14, 40-45, 57-61].

Evidence Law – Hostile Witness – Scope and Evidentiary Value – Hostile testimony not wholly discarded – Court reaffirmed that creditworthy portions of hostile witness evidence can be accepted – Section 154(2) Evidence Act and decisions in Sat Paul and Neeraj Dutta cited – Witness PW-49 treated as credible despite hostile elements – Distinction drawn between interested and natural witnesses – Long delay and hostile witnesses explained and accommodated by careful judicial scrutiny [Paras 15-39].

Criminal Procedure – Summoning of Additional Witness – Power under Section 311 CrPC and Section 165 Evidence Act – Trial Court rightly summoned PW-49 during trial to uncover essential facts – High Court justified in dismissing objection to treating PW-49 as prosecution witness – Courts reminded of proactive role under Section 165 Evidence Act to extract truth – Concept of Court witness clarified with restrictions on cross-examination noted [Paras 46-54].

Criminal Law – Police Misconduct – Fabrication of Evidence and Malafide Investigation – Conviction Justified – Accused police officer A-15 found guilty of manufacturing extra-judicial confessions, falsely implicating Dalits, and framing incorrect records – Violations of Sections 217 and 218 IPC and Section 4 and 3(2)(i) SC/ST Act established – A-14 acquitted of harsher charges but convicted under Section 217 IPC and Section 4 SC/ST Act – False implication and caste discrimination condemned – Court highlighted mandatory duties of police under Sections 154, 156, and 157 CrPC, Lalita Kumari principles applied [Paras 55-74].

Criminal Law – SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – Neglect of Duties – Applicability – Police officers liable for wilful dereliction of duty under Section 4 – Fabrication of evidence to implicate Dalits attracted harsher punishment under Section 3(2)(i) – Differential roles of A-14 and A-15 carefully examined – A-15's conduct more culpable warranting confirmation of life sentence [Paras 55-74].

Principles of Criminal Justice – Trial Delay – Systemic Problems and Dilatory Tactics – 18-year delay in conclusion of trial acknowledged – Blame partly attributed to defence's repeated petitions – Court emphasized that mere delay does not automatically entitle accused to acquittal where strong evidence exists – Role of judiciary emphasized in curbing delay and ensuring witness protection [Paras 14-18, 37-39].

Victim Compensation – Responsibility of State – Victims' Families Entitled – Compensation of ₹5 lakhs awarded to parents of deceased, payable by State of Tamil Nadu – Compensation in addition to amounts already directed by lower courts – Recognition of systemic caste injustice and State’s duty to victims highlighted [Para 75].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Convictions and sentences upheld with minor modifications – Appellants on bail directed to surrender within two weeks – Interim orders vacated – Applications disposed of [Paras 76-78].
 

Arbitration – Challenge to Arbitral Award – Scope of Interference – Appeal against High Court Division Bench judgment setting aside Single Judge’s decision under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Appellant awarded construction contract, delayed completion by about 10 months – Liquidated damages deducted by respondent – Arbitral tribunal upheld deductions – Single Judge set aside award considering extension of time granted – Division Bench restored arbitral award, emphasizing limited grounds for interference under Section 34 [Paras 1-2, 5-6, 8-9, 23-24, 28].

Contract Law – Liquidated Damages – Extension of Time – Contract clauses 26, 27, and 28 examined – Despite extension of time, respondent reserved right to impose liquidated damages – Arbitral tribunal found financial loss to respondent due to delay – Held: Mere extension of time does not bar claim for liquidated damages if notice reserving right was given – Clause 26 not overridden by Clause 27 [Paras 12-17].

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 and 37 – Limited Review – Court reiterated that Section 34 proceedings are not appellate in nature – Award can be set aside only on specific grounds under Section 34(2) and (2A) – Single Judge exceeded jurisdiction by reassessing evidence and interpretation of contract – Division Bench rightly intervened under Section 37 to uphold arbitral award [Paras 21-24, 28].

Contract Law – Relevance of Sections 55, 73, and 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Delay causing loss to employer justified imposition of liquidated damages – Actual proof of damage not necessary if loss is established and quantum is reasonable – Acceptance of delayed performance with reservation of rights permissible [Paras 18-20].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Division Bench judgment restoring arbitral award upheld – No order as to costs [Para 29].
 

Criminal Procedure Code – Quashing of FIR – Exercise of Power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – FIR challenged relating to contract between parties and alleged suppression of restrictive covenant – Held: Allegations, even taken at face value, disclose purely civil dispute regarding payment of money and not criminal offence – No dishonest intention at inception shown – Quashing warranted [Paras 2, 5-7, 9-12].

Contract Law – Sub-contract without Principal's Consent – Effect – Suppression of restrictive covenant regarding subletting without consent – Held: Dispute between sub-contractor and main contractor is purely contractual – Principal (NBCCL) has no privity with sub-contractor – Suppression, even if assumed, does not constitute criminal offence [Paras 8-11].

Principles of Criminal Law – Commercial Transactions – Scope for Criminal Proceedings – Court reiterated that criminal law should not be used to settle civil or commercial disputes – Filing of FIR in present case found to be a tactic to exert pressure for recovery of money – Abuse of criminal process [Paras 6, 11].

Decision – Appeal allowed – FIR quashed – No further proceedings to continue against appellants – Pending applications disposed of [Para 12-13].
 

Criminal Law – Murder of Children – Mental Instability and Absence of Motive – Conviction Converted – Appellant, mother of two deceased children, claimed to be under influence of "invisible power" during incident – Prosecution evidence established actus reus (physical act) but not mens rea (intention) beyond reasonable doubt – Absence of motive, normal family relations, and peculiar behaviour at scene raised doubt about intention – Conviction under Section 302 IPC altered to Section 304 Part II IPC [Paras 1-6, 14-18, 22-25, 36-47, 57-60].

Criminal Procedure – Burden of Proof and Benefit of Doubt – Sections 105 Evidence Act and 84 IPC – Burden on accused to prove legal insanity is on preponderance of probability – However, even prosecution evidence can raise doubt about existence of intention – Plea of insanity considered despite lack of defence witnesses – Court must scrutinize such pleas seriously especially when motive is absent [Paras 25, 30-31, 33-36, 54-55].

Evidence Act – Duty of Court under Section 165 – Active Role to Discover Truth – When faced with strange or inexplicable circumstances, Trial Court and High Court must proactively invoke Section 165 Evidence Act to clarify mental state of accused – Failure to explore such crucial aspects can affect fairness of trial [Paras 54-56, 63-64].

Mens Rea – Inference from Circumstances – Court held that in absence of established motive, existence of guilty intention cannot be presumed solely based on act – Circumstantial evidence showed remorse, absence of attempt to flee, cordial domestic life – These pointed towards lack of requisite mens rea for murder [Paras 37-45, 47-49].

Decision – Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside – Conviction modified to Section 304 Part II IPC – Sentence limited to period already undergone (9 years 10 months) – Appellant directed to be released forthwith – Appeal partly allowed [Paras 60-62].
 

Criminal Law - Administrative Action vs Criminal Proceedings – Clear Distinction – Court held that administrative actions (declaring fraud) and criminal proceedings (FIRs) are distinct – Setting aside administrative orders for violation of principles of natural justice does not automatically invalidate criminal proceedings based on the same facts [Paras 6-10].

Scope of Natural Justice – Limited Application to Criminal Process – Court reiterated that principles of natural justice apply to administrative actions but not to the registration of FIRs – No opportunity of hearing required before initiation of criminal proceedings [Paras 7-9, 10].

Misinterpretation of Rajesh Agarwal Case – Error by High Courts – High Courts wrongly relied on State Bank of India v. Rajesh Agarwal (2023) 6 SCC 1 to quash criminal proceedings – Court clarified that criminal investigation proceeds independently of administrative classification of fraud [Paras 5, 9, 10].

Restoration of FIRs – Categorization of Cases – Matters classified into five categories – Criminal proceedings restored with directions depending on the status of investigation and interim protection granted by High Courts [Paras 13.1-13.7].

Opportunity to Respondents – Fresh Remedies – In cases where FIRs were quashed despite no challenge, respondents granted liberty to avail appropriate remedies within two weeks, CBI to be impleaded as necessary party [Para 13.2].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Impugned judgments of various High Courts set aside – Criminal proceedings restored – Matters remitted to High Courts for fresh adjudication, to be disposed of preferably within 4 months – Directions given regarding interim protection, ongoing investigations, and impleadment of CBI [Paras 13-15].