Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Compensation – Computation – Inclusion of allowances and perks – Future prospects @ 50% for age 27 – Deduction of income tax to follow slab rates, not flat 30% – Multiplier 17 – High Court’s reduction set aside – Compensation enhanced to ₹74,43,631 with 6% interest [Paras 3, 6, 11–16].

Motor Vehicles – Compensation under Ss. 140 & 166 MV Act – Computation – Allowances includible – Future prospects @ 50% (age below 40) – Income tax deduction to follow slab rates applicable for the relevant financial year and not a flat 30% – Multiplier 17 applicable – Tribunal rightly included salary allowances and computed compensation at ₹74,43,631 – High Court’s reduction set aside – Held: Compensation to be enhanced and interest @ 6% p.a. payable from date of claim petition till payment [Paras 3, 6, 11–16].

Motor Accident Claims – Inclusion of Allowances – “Income” for the purpose of loss of dependency includes allowances and perquisites reflected in the last pay slip – Exclusion by High Court erroneous – Tribunal’s determination of ₹53,367 per month upheld [Para 12].

Income Tax Deduction – Deduction permissible but must be based on slab rates as per the relevant year – Flat deduction of 30% unjustified – Annual income ₹6,40,400; tax liability ₹62,080; net income ₹5,78,324 accepted for computation [Para 13].

Future Prospects – For a permanent salaried employee aged 27 years, addition of 50% towards future prospects correct – High Court’s reduction to 40% unsustainable [Para 14].

Multiplier – Multiplier of 17 correctly applied as per Sarla Verma guidelines, deceased aged 27 years [Para 11].

Computation of Compensation – After applying deductions and future prospects, loss of dependency ₹73,73,631 – Conventional heads (estate ₹15,000; filial consortium ₹40,000; funeral ₹15,000) – Total ₹74,43,631 – Interest @ 6% from date of claim petition till realization [Para 15].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – Compensation enhanced to ₹74,43,631 with 6% interest p.a. from the date of the claim petition till actual payment [Para 16].

Civil Procedure Code – Order 7 Rule 11(d) – Limitation – Mutation proceedings – Possession based on title – Suit for declaration and possession not ex facie barred where mutation proceedings culminated in 2017 and suit filed within three years – Limitation for possession 12 years under Article 65 – Declaratory right continuing – Rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) erroneous – Order 2 Rule 2 not attracted – High Court orders set aside; Trial Court’s order restored – [Paras 15–24].

Civil Procedure Code – Order 7 Rule 11(d) – Rejection of plaint – Limitation – High Court erred in rejecting plaint as barred by limitation – For deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d), only averments in the plaint are to be considered – Mutation proceedings are fiscal in nature and do not confer title – Plaint indicated that mutation proceedings culminated in 2017 and the suit filed in 2019 was within limitation – [Paras 15–17].

Limitation Act – Articles 58 & 65 – Possession based on title – Suit for possession based on title carries a limitation period of 12 years from the date possession becomes adverse – Declaratory relief in such cases is a continuing right – Held, limitation for possession to prevail; suit not ex facie barred – [Paras 17, 20].

Order 2 Rule 2 CPC – First suit of predecessor-in-interest rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 for being improperly framed – Fresh suit with appropriate relief not barred under Order 2 Rule 2 – [Para 22].

Mutation Proceedings – Mutation entries do not confer ownership rights but serve fiscal purposes; validity of will or title must be tested in civil proceedings – [Para 16].

Adverse Possession – Question whether defendants perfected title by adverse possession is a mixed question of law and fact—Cannot be basis for rejection of plaint at threshold—To be determined on evidence during trial – [Para 23].

Principle – When multiple reliefs are claimed, if any one relief is within limitation, plaint cannot be rejected as barred by law under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC – [Para 19].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Orders of the High Court dated 27.01.2022 and 04.07.2022 set aside – Order of the Trial Court rejecting application under Order 7 Rule 11 restored – Suit to proceed to trial on merits – [Para 23–24].

Criminal Law – Murder and Dowry Death – Circumstantial Evidence – False Defence – Conviction Restored – Deceased Pushpa found dead inside matrimonial home – Accused (father-in-law) lodged false report alleging electrocution – Medical evidence proved death by strangulation; burn injuries were post-mortem – Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in discarding cogent evidence and misapplying settled principles – False explanation by accused regarding cause of death formed an additional link completing the chain of circumstances – Conviction under Sections 302, 498-A, and 201 IPC restored [Paras 3–7, 16–21].

Dowry Death – Cruelty and Demand – Corroboration by Relatives – Testimony of deceased’s parents (PW-2 and PW-19) and uncle (PW-4) consistent regarding persistent cruelty and dowry demands – Minor delay in recording statements not fatal when corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence – High Court erred in treating delay as fatal to prosecution [Paras 8, 10, 18].

Evidence Act – Section 106 – Burden of Proof – Facts Especially Within Knowledge of Accused – Death occurred inside house exclusively occupied by accused – Explanation that deceased was electrocuted while ironing found false – Once prosecution established homicidal death inside house, burden shifted to accused to explain circumstances – Failure to discharge such burden strengthens prosecution case [Paras 13–14, 19].

Circumstantial Evidence – Chain of Circumstances – Completeness Test – Prosecution proved (i) death by strangulation, (ii) occurrence within accused’s house, (iii) false report of electrocution, (iv) prior cruelty and dowry harassment – Each circumstance formed a continuous chain pointing unerringly to guilt of accused, excluding any hypothesis of innocence – High Court’s contrary finding perverse [Paras 16–19].

Appeal Against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Misappreciation of Evidence – High Court ignored material testimony and medical findings, and failed to address reasons given by Trial Court – Supreme Court held that though presumption of innocence strengthens post-acquittal, interference warranted where findings are perverse or contrary to evidence [Paras 15, 20].

Fabrication of Evidence – Lodging of False Report – Section 201 IPC – Accused filed false report of accidental electrocution to mislead police – Such conduct establishes guilty mind and attracts Section 201 IPC for causing disappearance of evidence and furnishing false information [Paras 4, 17, 21].

Result – Appeal Partly Allowed – Conviction Restored – High Court’s judgment dated 06.04.2010 set aside – Trial Court’s conviction and sentence of accused under Sections 302, 498-A, and 201 IPC restored – Accused to be taken into custody forthwith to serve remainder of sentence [Paras 21–23].

Labour and Service Law – Gratuity – Applicability of Government Notified Ceiling – Regulation 107 – Interpretation – Respondents retired between 2018–2019 from AFC – Gratuity paid with ceiling of ₹7 lakhs as per 2012 Office Order – Held: Regulation 107 of the 2007 Staff Regulations specifically provides gratuity to be paid as per internal formula or “as notified by the Government of Assam from time to time” – State Government had increased gratuity limit to ₹15 lakhs in 2017 – AFC’s failure to adopt higher ceiling does not defeat right of employees – Higher limit notified by State is applicable by operation of the regulation itself [Paras 12–18]

Service Law – Delay in Adoption of Enhanced Benefits by Public Sector Corporation – Equitable Treatment – Lethargy of Corporation – Consequences – Though AFC deferred proposal to enhance ceiling in 2022, Court held that employees who retired prior to formal decision are also entitled to enhanced limit – Observed: Inequitable to deny benefit due to AFC’s inaction – Regulation already incorporated dynamic link with State's notification – Gratuity must be paid as per State-notified ceiling of ₹15 lakhs [Paras 16–19]

Labour Law – Gratuity Act – Non-obstante Clause in Section 14 – No Finding on Statutory Applicability – Though High Court granted relief relying on Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Supreme Court refrained from expressing conclusive view on Act’s applicability to AFC – Held: Since benefit flowed directly from Regulation 107, no need to determine whether AFC is covered under the Act – Statutory question left open [Para 20]

Interpretation of Service Regulations – Liberal Construction in Favour of Employees – Court held that Regulation 107 must be interpreted benevolently – Restriction of benefit solely based on Board approval is untenable when regulation already mandates alignment with government notification – Notification by Government of Assam to prevail [Paras 16–18]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment of Gauhati High Court affirmed – Employees of Assam Financial Corporation held entitled to gratuity up to ₹15 lakhs as per Government of Assam notification – Gratuity to be recalculated and paid within six months – Pending applications also disposed of.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Scope of Interference under Section 482 CrPC – High Court’s “Mini Trial” Deprecated – High Court quashed complaint alleging fabrication of caste certificate by holding that accused acted out of “legal illiteracy” and no criminality was made out – Supreme Court held such findings conjectural and impermissible at quash stage – High Court virtually conducted a pre-trial appraisal of evidence, which is beyond its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC – Proper course was to allow trial to proceed to determine whether forgery and cheating offences were made out [Paras 20–24].

Forgery and Cheating – False Caste Certificate to Contest Reserved Seat – Prima Facie Offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC Made Out – Complaint alleged that accused obtained SC certificate (“Sansi”) based on false affidavits, fabricated panchnamas, and forged verification reports – Certificate later cancelled by Scrutiny Committee and upheld up to Supreme Court – Held: Allegations disclose prima facie case of cheating and forgery – Whether acts constitute offences must be determined at trial, not quashed summarily [Paras 21–27].

Public Office – Misuse of Authority – Role of Public Officers in Issuing False Certificate – Conspiracy – Allegations that local revenue officials, patwari, and councillor abetted in issuance of false certificate by certifying accused as Scheduled Caste without inquiry – Held: Where complaint attributes active collusion to named officials, cognizance justified; proceedings cannot be quashed merely because officials relied on earlier records [Paras 6–9, 25].

High Court’s Approach – “Legal Illiteracy” as Defence at Threshold Impermissible – Finding that accused might have been “ignorant of law” or “mistaken about their caste” is speculative – Such subjective explanations cannot ground quashment when complaint and official findings (Scrutiny Committee) indicate deliberate falsification – Supreme Court emphasizes that issues of knowledge and intent must be tested by evidence at trial [Paras 23–24].

Caste Certificate Fraud – Effect of Cancellation by Scrutiny Committee – Independent Criminal Liability Survives – Even after administrative cancellation of false caste certificate, criminal liability for its fraudulent procurement remains – Complaint alleging forged affidavits and panchnamas discloses independent offences; cancellation does not extinguish culpability [Paras 20–22].

Madhuri Patil Guidelines – Enforcement through Prosecution – Reliance placed on Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development (1994) 6 SCC 241 – Supreme Court reiterates that persons found to have obtained false caste certificates are liable to prosecution; quashing such complaints frustrates the object of the rule of law and constitutional reservation policy [Para 16].

Criminal Conspiracy – Common Intention – Section 120B IPC – Scope – Allegations that accused persons, including councillor and father of principal accused, forged documents and executed false affidavits in concert – Such coordinated acts sufficient to invoke Section 120B IPC at the cognizance stage – Whether conspiracy proved is for trial [Paras 5–7, 22–26].

Result – Appeals Allowed – Quashing Order Set Aside – Trial Restored – Orders of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated 28.06.2016 quashing criminal proceedings in Misc. Criminal Cases Nos. 5897/2014 and 6319/2014 set aside – Criminal Complaint Case No. 1072/2014 restored to file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guna – Trial directed to proceed from stage of cognizance and conclude within one year – Trial to be held uninfluenced by findings of High Court or Supreme Court [Para 28].

Criminal Law – Bail after Conviction – Section 319 CrPC – Appellant not named in FIR nor chargesheeted after investigation – Later summoned under Section 319 CrPC based on testimony of PW1 and PW2 and convicted under IPC Sections 307, 149, 147, 148, and 506 – High Court rejected suspension of sentence – Supreme Court noted that appellant had initially been exonerated by police and was implicated only later through witness testimony – Held: Actual role of appellant is a matter to be adjudicated in pending appeal – Continued detention not warranted – Bail granted [Paras 3, 5, 6, 9]

Criminal Law – Threat to Witnesses – Objection by Complainant – Respondent-State and complainant opposed bail citing threats to complainant and family – Court allowed bail with stringent conditions including regular police attendance to ensure complainant’s safety – Held: Apprehension of threat addressed through conditions imposed on bail, not by continued incarceration [Paras 7, 10–11]

Section 319 CrPC – Scope – Appellant brought into trial only after initial exoneration – FIR and investigation did not implicate him – Conviction based on later statements of PW1 and PW2 – Court held that this late implication and lack of overt act directly attributable to appellant justified reconsideration of custody during appeal [Paras 5, 9]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Appellant enlarged on bail pending appeal – Sessions Court to impose appropriate and stringent conditions, including twice-a-week police attendance [Paras 11–12]

Criminal Law - UAPA – Grounds of Arrest – Mandatory Written Communication – Appellants arrested under UAPA without being furnished written grounds of arrest at the time of apprehension – State argued that grounds were explained by remand court and later supplied to counsel – Held: Explanation by court or post-facto supply to counsel does not satisfy requirement under Section 43B UAPA and Article 22(1) – Arrest and remand proceedings quashed

Constitution of India – Article 22(1) – Protection Against Arbitrary Arrest – Supreme Court reiterates that furnishing written grounds of arrest to the accused at the time of arrest is mandatory – Reading out or explaining by the court is inadequate – Compliance must be contemporaneous and in writing to ensure right to legal remedy – Violation renders arrest illegal

Distinction Between “Reasons for Arrest” and “Grounds of Arrest” – Court draws distinction between general reasons (standard proforma) and personal grounds necessitating arrest – Arrest memo without specific grounds is insufficient under constitutional and statutory mandates

Precedents – Binding Nature – Supreme Court affirms that decisions in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, (2024) 7 SCC 576, and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254 are binding under Article 141 – Followed and reiterated by Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana – Recent decisions in Kasireddy Upender Reddy and Sri Darshan also affirm compliance requirement

Decision: Appeal allowed – Arrest and remand proceedings set aside solely on ground of non-compliance with statutory requirement of furnishing written grounds of arrest – Liberty granted to State to take appropriate action in accordance with law, if warranted

Criminal Law – Kidnapping – Rape – Unnatural Offences – Conviction Restored – Appellant took 15-year-old minor to another city and subjected her to forcible sexual and anal intercourse – Trial Court acquitted appellant – High Court reversed acquittal and convicted under Sections 363, 366, 376, and 377 IPC – Held: As victim was a minor, her consent is irrelevant – Conviction upheld [Paras 2.5, 11, 15].

Victim Testimony – Credibility – Sterling Witness – Victim (PW-4) gave consistent and detailed deposition of rape and sodomy – Stated sequence of events from abduction to abuse – Also made similar disclosures to examining doctors – No material contradictions – Held: Victim's testimony reliable and qualifies as sterling witness – Conviction can be sustained solely on such testimony [Paras 11, 12, 13].

Medical Jurisprudence – Corroboration of Rape Allegations – PW-1 and PW-2 examined the victim and opined she may have undergone recent sexual intercourse – Though no direct evidence of anal intercourse, possibility of sodomy not ruled out – Medical evidence supported and did not contradict victim’s version – Held: Medical evidence need not conclusively prove offence if ocular testimony is credible [Paras 12–14].

Criminal Procedure – Reversal of Acquittal – Permissible Scope – Trial Court gave undue benefit of doubt despite clear and cogent prosecution evidence – High Court reappreciated evidence and found only possible view was conviction – Held: High Court rightly set aside acquittal – No interference called for by Supreme Court [Paras 5, 16].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court’s judgment affirmed – Conviction and sentence of 7 years’ imprisonment with ₹20,000 fine confirmed – Default sentence of 1-year simple imprisonment upheld.

Arbitration – Appointment of Arbitrator – Bar of Limitation – Petition seeking appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(5) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 dismissed as hopelessly barred by limitation – Claim based on alleged payments under a partnership agreement dated 20.09.2014 and property purchase on 04.05.2016 – Notice invoking arbitration issued only on 09.12.2020 – Court held that even computing limitation from last alleged payment on 04.08.2017, claim was still time-barred – Petition under Section 11(5) filed after further delays, including two years after notice of arbitration – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-6]

Limitation – Last Cause of Action – Receipt of Rs. 1 lakh on 04.08.2017 cited as last transaction – Court held that even with that date as starting point, limitation expired by 09.12.2020 – Prior criminal complaint filed in 2017 also rejected – Subsequent filing before High Court of Karnataka in June 2022, and again before Supreme Court in 2025 held to be belated – No explanation for delay provided – Held: Arbitration claim hopelessly time-barred [Paras 3-6]

Decision: Arbitration Petition dismissed – Pending applications disposed of.