Daily Judgments of 06 August
Supreme Court
C.A. No.-004906-004906 - 2015
Parties: BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. vs DELHI ELECTRICITY REGULATORY, COMMISSION
Judge(s): JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Area of Law: Administrative Law
The Court held that the creation, continuation and management of a "regulatory asset" by the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC) has led to a situation of "regulatory failure", with the regulatory asset ballooning disproportionately over the years.
The court examined the legal regime governing regulatory assets, including the Electricity Act 2003, National Tariff Policy, Electricity Rules, and the DERC's own regulations. It laid down the following key principles:
1. Tariff shall be cost-reflective, and there shall be no revenue gap between the approved Annual Revenue Requirement (ARR) and estimated annual revenue from approved tariff, except in exceptional circumstances.
2. The regulatory asset should not exceed 3% of the approved ARR. If created, it must be liquidated within 3 years, or in case of existing assets, within a maximum of 7 years.
3. The Regulatory Commissions must provide a clear trajectory and roadmap for liquidation of the regulatory asset, including carrying costs, and undertake strict audit of the circumstances leading to its continuation.
4. The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) has the power under Section 121 of the Act to issue directions to the Regulatory Commissions to ensure compliance with the legal principles on regulatory assets, and it must monitor the same through a suo motu proceeding.
The court disposed of the writ petitions and civil appeals filed by the distribution companies, while directing the DERC and APTEL to implement the principles laid down in the judgment.
Crl.A. No.-002189-002189 - 2017
Parties: SHAIL KUMARI vs THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Judge(s): THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The Court held that the conviction of the appellant Shail Kumari for the offense of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is not sustainable in law. The Court found that the prosecution's case rests solely on the testimony of a single witness (PW-2), whose evidence was found to be contradictory and unreliable, with significant improvements from his prior police statement. Apart from this unreliable testimony, there was no other corroborating evidence to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, quashed the judgments of the High Court and the Trial Court, and acquitted the appellant of all charges.
C.A. No.-010225-010226 - 2025
Parties: LOKESH B vs SURYANARAYANA RAJU JAGGARAJU
Judge(s): JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
Area of Law: Insurance Law
The Court of India held that the appellant was entitled to a higher compensation amount of ₹16,60,891/- after increasing the monthly income by adding 40% towards future prospects and the disability percentage from 35% to 41.77% based on the medical evidence. The court affirmed the finding of 20% contributory negligence on the part of the appellant made by the lower courts. The total compensation awarded to the appellant was enhanced, and the insurer was directed to deposit the additional amount within six weeks.
C.A. No.-010227-010227 - 2025
Parties: KAVITA DEVI vs SUNIL KUMAR
Judge(s): JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
Area of Law: Civil Law
The Court held that the deceased's full salary of ₹6,500 per month, including allowances, should have been considered for calculating the loss of dependency compensation, instead of the lower basic salary. The Court applied the principles laid down in previous judgments to add 50% future prospects to the income and use a multiplier of 16 based on the deceased's age. The Court further awarded conventional head compensation amounts for loss of estate, funeral expenses, and spousal and parental consortium. Overall, the Court enhanced the total compensation to ₹14,29,500.
SLP(Crl) No.-000069 - 2025
Parties: JAMNALAL vs THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Judge(s): JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA, JUSTICE K. V. VISWANATHAN
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The Court set aside the High Court's order suspending the sentence and granting bail to the accused, who was convicted under the POCSO Act and IPC for sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl. The Supreme Court found the High Court's reasoning for suspending the sentence, such as lack of conclusive medical evidence and doubting the prosecutrix's testimony, to be untenable and not in line with the principles laid down for considering an application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 of the CrPC. The Supreme Court directed the accused to surrender before the trial court, without making any observations on the merits of the case.
Delhi High Court
FAO(OS)-117/2024
Parties: JITENDARJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA vs SURRINDERJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL, JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
Area of Law: Civil Law
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant, Jitendarjit Singh Ahluwalia, against the order of the single judge rejecting his application to amend the written statement in a civil suit for partition, declaration, permanent injunction and rendition of accounts.
The court found that the proposed amendment to introduce a will dated 20.09.2009 that allegedly left the suit property to the appellant would not be of much relevance, as the key issue in the case is the identity of the actual owner of the suit property - whether it belonged to the respondents' late father Mr. Bhupinder Singh Ahluwalia or the appellant's late mother Mrs. Mohini Ahluwalia.
The court held that since the appellant has consistently claimed that Mrs. Mohini Ahluwalia was the owner, the will sought to be introduced would not impact the decision in the civil suit. The court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in it, and stated that the civil suit shall be decided without being influenced by the observations made in this order.
BAIL APPLN.-1316/2025
Parties: SWAPNIL vs THE STATE N.C.T OF DELHI AND ANR
Judge(s): JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court granted regular bail to the accused/applicant, Swapnil, in a case involving charges under Sections 364A, 377, 419, 347, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The court found that the accused/applicant was not a flight risk, as he had been released on interim bail four times and surrendered back each time. The court also considered the accused/applicant's poor health condition as a ground to grant him bail, given his prolonged incarceration as an undertrial. However, the court expressed caution regarding the prosecution's claim that a witness named Sarfaraz was inadvertently not named earlier and is now being introduced, which could be an attempt to nullify the testimony of the complainant (X) who turned hostile.
BAIL APPLN.-2613/2025
Parties: VIJAY @ VIJAY KUMAR vs STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)
Judge(s): JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court granted regular bail to the accused Vijay @ Vijay Kumar, who was arrested for offenses under Sections 377/419/364A/34/120B IPC and 25/27 Arms Act. The court noted that the role ascribed to the accused was much lighter compared to the co-accused Swapnil, who had been granted regular bail earlier. Considering the overall circumstances, the court found the accused Vijay @ Vijay Kumar deserving of the same relief and directed him to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and surety.
BAIL APPLN.-2759/2025
Parties: MOHAMMAD AAJAD@AAZAD vs THE STATE (GOVT., N.C.T. OF DELHI)
Judge(s): JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court granted bail to the accused in a case under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. The court found that the prosecution's case was questionable, as the allegedly seized substance was not initially tested with a field testing kit and was directly sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for analysis. The court observed that the seizure memo indicated the recovered material was only dried leaves and seeds, which would not meet the legal definition of ganja under the NDPS Act. Considering these factors, the court held that denying the accused liberty while awaiting the FSL report would not be appropriate, and allowed the bail application.
LPA-495/2025
Parties: NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY vs NISHU MAURYA & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
Area of Law: Education Law
The High Court held that the methodology used in the Disha Panchal judgment to award compensatory marks for loss of examination time cannot be extended to the present cases involving delays in biometric authentication of candidates in the NEET (UG) 2025 examination. The Court found that the difficulties faced by the candidates were due to their own conduct of arriving close to the last entry time and the locking of their Aadhaar biometrics, which was not attributable to the testing agency. The Court noted that unlike the Computer Based Test in Disha Panchal, the NEET (UG) examination was pen and paper based, making it difficult to precisely measure the time lost by candidates. Applying the normalization formula in such a scenario would be arbitrary and unscientific. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's reservations about the applicability of the Disha Panchal methodology in the context of the NEET examination.
Bombay High Court
IAL/22738/2023
Parties: ASHIM KUMAR BAGCHI Vs BALAJI TELEFILMS LIMITED
Judge(s): JUSTICE R. I. CHAGLA
Area of Law: Intellectual Property Law
The High Court Bombay dismissed the plaintiff's interim application, finding that the plaintiff was seeking a monopoly over unprotectable elements like common themes, ideas, and scenes à faire, which are not eligible for copyright protection. Applying the test laid down in landmark judgments, the court found that the plaintiff failed to establish actionable similarity between the rival works, as the differences outweighed any alleged similarities. The court also rejected the plaintiff's claim for breach of confidence, as the plaintiff did not identify the confidential information with precision or show that it was original and not in the public domain. Considering the plaintiff's failure to establish the fundamental aspects of the claim, the court deemed this a fit case to award costs to the defendants under the Commercial Courts Act, ordering the plaintiff to pay Rs. 2 lakh in costs.
Calcutta High Court
AP/43/2024
Parties: KAMINII FERROUS LIMITED Vs OM SHIV MANGALAM BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE SHAMPA SARKAR
Area of Law: Arbitration Law
The High Court held that the dispute between the parties, arising from a development agreement, is covered by the arbitration clause in the contract. While the respondents argued that the petitioner's claim is time-barred, the court noted that the petitioner contends the time for performance was mutually extended. The court found that it would not be appropriate to reject the application at this stage, and the issue of limitation should be decided by the arbitrator as a preliminary matter. Accordingly, the court allowed the application and appointed a sole arbitrator to arbitrate the disputes between the parties.
AP-COM/461/2024
Parties: P.K THAKUR AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED Vs STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED
Judge(s): JUSTICE SHAMPA SARKAR
Area of Law: Arbitration Law
The High Court held that the existence of the arbitration agreement between the parties was not in dispute. The court found that the validity of the petitioner's claim, the applicability of principles like res judicata and estoppel, and the computation of the limitation period should be determined by the arbitral tribunal, not the referral court. The court concluded that a deeper examination of the facts and evidence was beyond the limited scope of the referral court's powers under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
The writ petition and appeals were dismissed earlier on the grounds that the disputed questions of fact and interpretation of the contract could not be decided without evidence, which was beyond the scope of the writ court. However, the courts did not make a final determination on the validity of the petitioner's claim. Accordingly, the court referred the dispute to a sole arbitrator for adjudication.
WPA/3928/2024
Parties: RAJA BASU & ORS. Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE PARTHA SARATHI SEN
Area of Law: Land Acquisition Law
The High Court held that the land acquisition process for the two plots of land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had not lapsed, as a portion of the land was also acquired under the Defence of India Rules. The court found that the writ petitioners, including the third petitioner who had purchased parts of the land, were unauthorized encroachers and not lawful occupants. Accordingly, the court dismissed the writ petition, affirmed the order for eviction of the petitioners, and imposed costs on them.
WPA/5366/2025
Parties: MADHUSUDAN ADHIKARY Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL)
Area of Law: Labor Law
The High Court upheld the decisions of the Industrial Tribunal and the Labour Courts in this matter, finding the termination of the petitioner, Madhusudan Adhikary, by the respondent company to be illegal and unjustified. The Tribunal had granted the relief of reinstatement with 50% back wages, which was challenged by the petitioner in the subsequent computation cases. The Labour Courts determined the petitioner's salary at the time of termination to be Rs. 3,000 per month, contrary to the petitioner's claim of Rs. 9,000 per month, and allowed part of the petitioner's claim for back wages and other benefits. The High Court, after considering the materials on record, held that the findings of the Tribunal and the Labour Courts were in accordance with the law and did not require any interference, and consequently dismissed the writ petitions filed by the petitioner.
WPA/11788/2020
Parties: MD. SIRAJUDDIN @ MD. SIRAJUDDIN & ORS Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
Area of Law: Land Acquisition Law
The High Court held that the petitioners, who are subsequent purchasers of the land, cannot challenge the completed land acquisition proceedings, as per the binding precedents of the Supreme Court. The court found that the land in question was validly acquired by the government through due process, and vested in the state free from all encumbrances.
The court rejected the petitioners' arguments that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed due to non-compliance with the statutory requirements, as subsequent purchasers have no right to raise such challenges to completed acquisitions. The court dismissed the writ petition and vacated the interim order, allowing the respondent authorities to take immediate possession of the land for the national highway project.
WPA/13480/2025
Parties: RAJESH DAS & ORS Vs THE THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA
Area of Law: Education Law
The High Court held that the District Inspector of Schools' (respondent no. 3) decision to postpone the interview for the post of Assistant Headmaster in the Chandra High School, scheduled on 17th April, 2025, through the impugned memo dated 16th April, 2025 was not proper. The court set aside the impugned memo, as the respondent no. 3 had misinterpreted the court's earlier order dated 25th February, 2025 which had given him the power to supervise the selection process. However, the court also observed that the panel prepared based on the interview held on 17th April, 2025 should not be given effect, as only 3 out of the 10 eligible candidates had participated in the interview. The court directed the school authority to hold the interview again, ensuring due participation of all eligible candidates.
WPA/23265/2024
Parties: MADHUSUDAN ADHIKARY Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL)
Area of Law: Labor Law
The High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the petitioner, Madhusudan Adhikary, challenging the orders of the Labour Courts regarding the computation of his back wages and benefits. The Court found that the Labour Courts' findings on the petitioner's salary of Rs. 3,000 per month at the time of termination were in accordance with the law, based on the admission of the respondent company and the evidence on record. The High Court upheld the earlier ruling of the Industrial Tribunal that the petitioner's termination was illegal and unjustified, and the Labour Courts' orders on the computation of the petitioner's back wages and benefits.
CRR/1387/2015
Parties: RATNA ROYCHOWDHURY @ RATNA RAICHAUDHURI AND ANR. Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER
Judge(s): JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR GUPTA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioners under Section 430 of the Indian Penal Code, finding that the evidence provided by the prosecution witnesses was riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions, and that the charge was framed against the petitioners after an unreasonable delay of 13 years, violating their right to a speedy trial. The court noted that the case falls under the category where the uncontroverted allegations and evidence do not disclose the commission of any offence against the accused, and concluded that there were sufficient reasons to quash the proceedings to prevent the abuse of the process of law and secure the ends of justice.
CRR/4611/2022
Parties: SUDIPTA GHOSH Vs TAPAS PAL
Judge(s): JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR GUPTA
Area of Law: Commercial Law
The High Court dismissed the petitioner's revisional application challenging the Metropolitan Magistrate's order rejecting the petitioner's request to send a trade license (Exhibit 8) to the CFSL for forensic examination. The court held that in a proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the focus should be on the core elements of the offense, which were not in dispute. The court found that the complainant's status as the proprietor of M/s. Ashray was established by the trade license, which was admitted into evidence without objection. The court relied on Supreme Court precedents to hold that once the issuance of the cheque is admitted or proved, the presumption under the Act arises, and the complainant's eligibility as the payee or holder in due course is the only criteria. The court found no illegality or perversity in the Magistrate's order and dismissed the revisional application.