Daily Judgments of 08 August
Supreme Court
Crl.A. No.-000305-000305 - 2011
Parties: SHYAM KALI DUBEY vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Judge(s): JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The Court acquitted Shyam Kali Dubey of murder under Section 302 IPC, finding significant discrepancies in the prosecution's case, including inconsistencies in the timeline and unexplained injuries on the deceased's family members. The court determined that these factors created reasonable doubt, warranting the benefit of the doubt for the appellant.
C.A. No.-009854-009854 - 2016
Parties: NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs SUNITA DEVI
Judge(s): JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA
Area of Law: Insurance Law
The Court ruled that an insurer remains liable to compensate third-party claimants despite the cancellation of an insurance policy for non-payment of premium. Citing the 'pay and recover' principle, the court mandated the insurer to pay compensation upfront and subsequently recover the amount from the vehicle owner. The accident occurred three months post-cancellation, and the insurer had already deposited 50% of the compensation, which the claimants withdrew. The court prohibited the insurer from recovering this amount but permitted recovery of the remaining 50% with interest from the vehicle owner.
C.A. No.-006338-006339 - 2024
Parties: BRIJ BIHARI GUPTA vs MANMET
Judge(s): JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA
Area of Law: Insurance Law
The Court determined that passengers in a goods vehicle were not gratuitous but were accompanying their transported goods. It ruled that the transfer of possession to the appellant did not constitute a valid ownership transfer due to unpaid balance consideration and unchanged registration. Consequently, the registered owner retained ownership at the time of the accident, making them liable for compensation, which the insurance company must indemnify. The court dismissed the insurance company's selective challenge to only 3 of 11 claim petitions as irrelevant, having already rejected its grounds for liability exemption.
SLP(C) No.-020569-020572 - 2023
Parties: ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs SHELF DRILLING RON TAPPMEYER LIMITED
Judge(s): JUSTICE NAGARATHNA, JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
Area of Law: Tax Law
The Court addressed the legal interpretation of the relationship between Section 144C and Section 153(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The judges disagreed on whether the time limit under Section 144C for Dispute Resolution Panel proceedings is included within the overall time limit under Section 153(3) for final assessment orders. Due to these differing conclusions, the case is referred to a larger bench for further examination.
C.A. No.-000820-000820 - 2019
Parties: KULWINDER KAUR vs PARSHANT SHARMA
Judge(s): JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA
Area of Law: Civil Law
The Court ruled that the appellants were entitled to a 40% addition for "future prospects" in compensation calculations, following the Pranay Sethi judgment. The deceased, a self-employed individual in the United States, warranted this adjustment. The Court also revised compensation amounts for loss of consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses according to Pranay Sethi parameters. The appeal was partially allowed, granting an additional compensation of Rs. 42,95,080/- with 6% interest.
C.A. No.-003595-003595 - 2024
Parties: THANGAVEL vs THE MANAGING DIRECTOR TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION LIMITED
Judge(s): JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA
Area of Law: Civil Law
The Court upheld the Tribunal's compensation for the death of a 10-year-old in a motor vehicle accident, finding the Tribunal's monthly income assessment of Rs.5,000 and a multiplier of 18 for loss of dependency appropriate. It reduced the compensation for loss of love and affection to Rs.40,000 each for the parents and funeral expenses to Rs.15,000, while restoring the Tribunal's awards for transportation and loss of personal items. The total compensation was set at Rs.8,70,000.
Delhi High Court
LPA-294/2024
Parties: PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK vs NITA PURI
Judge(s): JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR, JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
Area of Law: Banking Law
The High Court set aside the Identification Committee and Review Committee's declarations of the respondents as "wilful defaulters" under the RBI's Master Circular. The court found that the authorities did not exercise the necessary circumspection and objective examination before making such declarations, which have severe implications. It clarified that a default must be "intentional, deliberate and calculated" to qualify as "wilful" and emphasized the need to consider the borrower's overall track record rather than isolated transactions or an unreliable Forensic Audit Report. The court highlighted the serious consequences of being labeled a wilful defaulter and the importance of adhering to the Master Circular's requirements.
CRL.A.-262/2021
Parties: SYED AHMAD SHAKEEL vs NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
Judge(s): JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA, JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court granted bail to Syed Ahmad Shakeel (A-8) due to his prolonged incarceration and the unlikely early conclusion of the trial. In contrast, Shahid Yusuf (A-7) was denied bail based on serious allegations of involvement in a conspiracy to fund the proscribed terrorist organization Hizb-ul-Mujahideen. The court highlighted evidence linking Yusuf to the organization and concerns regarding potential flight risk and evidence tampering, while refraining from commenting on the merits of the case due to pending appeals against the framing of charges.
CRL.M.C.-5388/2025
Parties: DANISH ANSARI@DANISH ALI & ORS. vs STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court quashed FIR No. 357/2024 against the petitioners under sections 115(2)/126(2)/351(3)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, citing an amicable settlement between the parties. The court referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in Gian Singh vs State of Punjab, emphasizing the importance of resolving disputes amicably and quashing criminal proceedings in such instances. The respondent confirmed the settlement was reached voluntarily, without coercion, and expressed no objection to the FIR's quashing. The court concluded that continuing the proceedings would be futile and quashed the FIR and all related actions in the interest of justice.
W.P.(CRL)-2455/2025
Parties: DHEERAJ CHAUDHARY & ANR. vs THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI) & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court quashed FIR No. 162/2025 against the petitioners under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, citing an amicable resolution of the dispute through a Memorandum of Understanding. Citing Gian Singh vs State of Punjab, the court determined that continuing criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process due to the settlement. Consequently, the court quashed the FIR and all related proceedings.
BAIL APPLN.-1755/2025
Parties: DIVESH vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Judge(s): JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court granted bail to the accused/applicant charged under multiple IPC sections and the Arms Act. The court noted that the complainant did not support the prosecution and the accused was not identified in CCTV footage. It distinguished the roles of the accused/applicant and co-accused Asif Khan but granted bail based on the similarity in the legality and circumstances of their arrests, referencing a prior bail order for Asif Khan.
BAIL APPLN.-2429/2025
Parties: MANOJ @ PAHELWANJI vs STATE & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court granted bail to Manoj @ Pahelwanji, charged under Sections 319(2), 318(4), and 61(2) of the BNS Act for allegedly snatching a bag containing gold from the complainant while on a motorcycle. The Court noted that the Supreme Court had previously granted bail to co-accused Sukhbir @ Kallu, who had served a similar duration of incarceration (9 months). The bail was granted based on the principle of parity with the co-accused.
W.P.(CRL)-1016/2025
Parties: SONU @ JEETU vs STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Judge(s): JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court allowed Sonu @ Jeetu's writ petition challenging the Competent Authority's rejection of his furlough application. The court emphasized the importance of reformation and the role of furlough in this process, granting the petitioner a three-week furlough upon furnishing a personal bond. It noted that his prior punishment for consuming a prescribed cough syrup was merely a warning and that his earlier release on parole was a significant factor in its decision.
CRL.A.-926/2024
Parties: AZAM vs STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Judge(s): JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court upheld the appellant's conviction under Sections 397/392/411/34 IPC, ruling that brandishing a knife to threaten a victim suffices to invoke Section 397 IPC, even without the knife's recovery. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the court affirmed that a knife is a deadly weapon regardless of size, rejecting the argument that its dimensions must be assessed to classify it as such under Section 397 IPC.
W.P.(CRL)-2468/2025
Parties: RAVINDER SINGH vs STATE NCT OF DELHI
Judge(s): JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court quashed the FIR against the petitioner under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, determining that the possession of live cartridges was inadvertent and lacked conscious awareness, thus not constituting an offence. Citing precedents from Gunwant Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Sanjay Dutt v. State through CBI, the court emphasized the necessity of conscious possession for liability under the Act. The petitioner held a valid Arms license, and the circumstances suggested no mala fide intent. The court, invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C., concluded that continuing prosecution would serve no useful purpose.
W.P.(CRL)-2100/2025
Parties: SUKHBIR SINGH vs STATE NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SHO
Judge(s): JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court upheld the extension of the investigation period and continued judicial remand of the petitioner under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA). The court determined that the Special Public Prosecutor's (SPP) appointment, although delayed in formal notification, was valid as it had been approved by the Government of NCT of Delhi. This procedural irregularity did not constitute a substantive illegality or prejudice the petitioner. While the court noted the need for prompt action in the appointment process, it concluded that the extension and detention were legally valid, as the statutory requirements under MCOCA were substantially met.
CRL.M.C.-863/2017
Parties: PRIYANK SUKHIJA & ORS. vs STATE & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court quashed FIR No. 21/2010 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC against the petitioners, noting that the respondent voluntarily agreed to a reduced settlement of Rs. 30 lakhs during divorce proceedings, following an initial agreement of Rs. 1.75 crores. The court emphasized that the respondent acted without coercion and had withdrawn other litigations based on this settlement. Citing precedent, it held that an FIR can be quashed when parties have acted on a settlement, even if one later disputes it. However, the court clarified that the settlement must not compromise the rights of the couple's daughter.
W.P.(C)-1024/2010
Parties: ANIL KUMAR UPADHAYA vs UOI AND ORS
Judge(s): JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR, JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
Area of Law: Service Law
The Supreme Court affirmed the jurisdiction of the Summary Security Force Court to try the petitioner for a civil offence under Section 354 IPC, confirming compliance with Section 74(2) of the BSF Act. The court ruled that the petitioner's medical condition did not invalidate the trial, as he was deemed fit by medical authorities prior to proceedings. The dismissal from service was upheld as a justified consequence of the established misconduct, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.
W.P.(C)-14156/2009
Parties: BHUPINDER KUMAR MALIK vs UOI
Judge(s): JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR, JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
Area of Law: Service Law
The High Court ruled that the positions of Assistant Commandant (General Duty) in the ITBP cadre and Judge Attorney (Assistant Commandant) in the JAG cadre are analogous. Consequently, the petitioner's seniority in the JAG cadre should be calculated from his 1995 appointment as Assistant Commandant (General Duty), rather than from his 2003 absorption into the JAG cadre. The court clarified that "regular service in the grade" includes service in an analogous post for deputationists and dismissed the argument that the petitioner waived his seniority upon absorption.
The court mandated a review Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for 2002 to evaluate the petitioner's promotion suitability to Deputy Judge Attorney General/Deputy Commandant, with the possibility of setting aside the 2009 promotion order if suitable. Additionally, it directed consideration for relaxation of eligibility criteria for the petitioner's 2009 promotion to Additional Judge Attorney General/Commandant, with promotions and benefits being notional.
Bombay High Court
WP/2498/2024
Parties: DURGESH S/O SAJANPAL MASKE Vs GONDIA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,THR. GENERAL MANAGER, GONDIA AND ANOTHER
Judge(s): JUSTICE SACHIN SHIVAJIRAO DESHMUKH
Area of Law: Service Law
The High Court upheld the Industrial Court's decision allowing the Gondia District Central Co-operative Bank to conduct a fresh departmental enquiry against the petitioners, despite a prior enquiry officer's partial findings of misappropriation of Rs. 44,49,000. The court affirmed the disciplinary authority's right to order a de novo enquiry, citing the serious nature of the charges. It distinguished the petitioners' cited cases on double jeopardy, noting that no punishment had been imposed yet, thus permitting the bank to initiate a new enquiry.
WP/3045/2025
Parties: PUSHPA SHIVAJI KAKADE Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS
Judge(s): JUSTICE S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR
Area of Law: Service Law
The High Court ruled that the termination of an Anganwadi Karyakarti was invalid, as she had three children born before the Maharashtra Civil Services (Declaration of Small Family) Rules, 2005 took effect. The court referenced the proviso to Rule 3, which exempts individuals with more than two children at the time of the Rules' implementation from disqualification. Despite the petitioner declaring only two children, her status was not disqualified due to the birth of her three children prior to 2005. The court distinguished this case from Pawan Kumar v. Union of India, emphasizing that suitability assessments depend on the specific post and its duties.
Calcutta High Court
WPO/593/2018
Parties: TAPATI BOSE & ANR. Vs KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE RAI CHATTOPADHYAY
Area of Law: Property Law
The High Court ruled that the Kolkata Municipal Corporation's upward revision of property valuation was invalid, as the cited grounds of "apportionment/separation" do not qualify under Section 180(2) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. The court also found the Hearing Officer's order to be unreasoned, violating the requirement for a reasoned decision under Section 188(4) of the Act. Despite the existence of an alternative appeal remedy, the court entertained the writ petition due to significant legal questions regarding natural justice and the unreasoned order. The writ petition was allowed, the impugned notice and supplementary bills were set aside, and KMC was directed to conduct a fresh valuation revision if deemed appropriate.
CS-COM/70/2025
Parties: TIRUPATI VANCOM PRIVATE LIMITED Vs JAMES GLENDYE & CO. PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE KRISHNA RAO
Area of Law: Commercial Law
The High Court dismissed the application by defendants 2 and 3 to revoke the plaintiff's leave to bypass pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The court determined that the plaintiff demonstrated urgency due to the arbitration award against defendant 1, ongoing legal proceedings, and a recent Supreme Court order permitting defendant 2 to withdraw a significant court deposit. The court emphasized that the plaintiff's need for urgent relief was justified, referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in the Dhanbad Fuels case.
CRA/135/2012
Parties: KITAB SK Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Judge(s): JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court overturned Kitab Sk's conviction for attempted murder under Section 307 IPC, citing significant deficiencies in the prosecution's case. Key issues included inconsistencies in witness testimonies, delays in filing the FIR, lack of corroboration for the victim's evidence, a hostile political relationship between the parties, failure to establish the crime scene, and non-recovery of the weapon. Due to these reasonable doubts, the court granted the appellant the benefit of doubt and acquitted him.
WPA/2293/2018
Parties: PADMABATI MITRA, SINCE DECEASED SUBSTITUTED BY UTPAL MITRA, SON AND ESHA BASU MULLICK, DAUGHTER Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE RAI CHATTOPADHYAY
Area of Law: Service Law
The High Court ruled that the respondent authority, as a state instrumentality, did not incur tortious liability or negligence in handling the petitioner's family pension claim under the CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939. The court determined that the initial rejection of the claim was based on a factual assessment regarding whether the deceased was 'on duty' at the time of the accident, rather than any malafide intent or gross negligence. Although the petitioner was later awarded the extraordinary pension and interest by court order, this did not establish tortious liability for the respondent. The court clarified that the case did not involve negligence or fundamental rights violations that were 'patent and incontrovertible' or 'gross and shocking.' Consequently, the petitioner's claim for compensation was dismissed.
WPA/5090/2009
Parties: BHAGIRATH BAURI Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE RAI CHATTOPADHYAY
Area of Law: Education Law
The High Court ruled that the validity of the appointment panel for a group-D post at Shankhari Bansberia High School remains intact beyond one year, as the delay was not caused by the second-ranked candidate, Bhagirath Bauri. The court identified discrepancies in the school leaving certificate of the first-ranked candidate, Kanailal Bouri, and mandated the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education to conduct disciplinary proceedings against him within a specified timeframe. Should the allegations of document forgery against Kanailal be substantiated, the court instructed that Bhagirath be appointed to the position, referencing principles from the Supreme Court's decision in Purushottam v. MSEB and other relevant High Court precedents.
WPA/11601/2025
Parties: ASHOK KUMAR GORAIN Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE OM NARAYAN RAI
Area of Law: Administrative Law
The High Court ruled that the State Transport Authority, West Bengal improperly demanded tax before countersigning the petitioner's interstate permit, which had been renewed by the State Transport Authority, Jharkhand. The court dismissed the State's reliance on the proviso to Section 81(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, clarifying that a renewed permit is considered a fresh permit requiring countersignature. The court ordered the State Transport Authority, West Bengal to promptly countersign the permit, after which the petitioner would be liable for the applicable taxes.
WPA/14022/2025
Parties: APU SINHA Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE OM NARAYAN RAI
Area of Law: Administrative Law
The High Court upheld a penalty of Rs. 4,00,000 imposed on the petitioner by the State Transport Authority under Section 86(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for habitual violations of inter-regional bus permit conditions. The court confirmed the Authority's discretion to impose higher penalties as a deterrent for repeat offenders and dismissed the writ petition, finding no grounds for interference.
WPA/22479/2012
Parties: THE WEST BENGAL POWER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL)
Area of Law: Labor Law
The High Court held that West Bengal Power Development Corporation Limited (WBPDCL) is liable for provident fund dues of contractor's employees from March 1991 to August 2001, including the period before WBPDCL took over the Santaldih Thermal Power Station on April 1, 2001. The court cited Section 17B of the EPF and MP Act, 1952, which establishes joint and several liability for provident fund dues upon transfer of an establishment. It found that a notification dated June 28, 2001, transferred all assets and liabilities to WBPDCL, validating the Provident Fund Authority's order. Consequently, WBPDCL's writ petition was dismissed.
CO/1002/2022
Parties: THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Vs BIKASH BANERJEE & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA
Area of Law: Administrative Law
The High Court dismissed the revision petition by the Municipal Corporation challenging the Municipal Assessment Tribunal's order. The court ruled that the Municipal Commissioner had an alternative remedy to file a review petition within 90 days, which was time-barred. It found no sufficient reason for the delay in filing the revision petition and emphasized that government agencies are not treated differently from ordinary litigants regarding delay condonation. The court concluded that the revision petition could not be entertained as the alternative remedy had lapsed, absent exceptional circumstances, which were not present.
CRR/1493/2024
Parties: BHABATOSH GHOSH & ORS. Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court dismissed criminal revision applications CRR 1493 of 2024 and CRR 1494 of 2024 filed by Bhabatosh Ghosh, Avijit Ghosh, and Biswajit Ghosh, which sought to quash criminal proceedings (G.R. Case No. 1988 of 2023 and G.R. Case No. 1784 of 2023). The court acknowledged suspicions of a retaliatory motive linked to a civil land dispute but determined that the alleged criminal acts—forceful entry, assault, and criminal intimidation—were separate from the civil matter and required adjudication in criminal court. The court ruled that the petitioners' defenses, including evidence contradictions and claims of malicious prosecution, should be evaluated at trial and did not satisfy the criteria for quashing under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Consequently, the court directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings.
MAT/117/2023
Parties: SAHA INSTITUTE OF NUCLEAR PHYSICS & ORS. Vs SUPRIYA GANGOPADHYAY
Judge(s): JUSTICE PARTHA SARATHI CHATTERJEE, JUSTICE TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY
Area of Law: Service Law
The High Court ruled that Supriya Gangopadhyay, a Senior Security Officer at the Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, is entitled to a grade pay of Rs. 6,600, equal to that of her predecessor, Joydev Maity. The court found no valid justification for the pay discrepancy despite SINP's claims regarding promotion norms requiring 10 years of service. It directed SINP to grant Supriya notional benefits of the higher pay scale from her promotion date of 17.05.2012 and corrected a clerical error in the promotion order.