Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988) , S.168— Compensation - Injury claim - Injured aged about 14 years at time of accident and suffered 100% permanent disability - Amount awarded towards loss of income as well as attendant charges was enhanced - Sum awarded towards mental pain and suffering along with loss of amenities - Compensation awarded towards future medical expenses was enhanced - Sum awarded towards loss of marriage prospects - Sum awarded under head head of special diet and transportation - Injured entitled to enhanced compensation along with interest payable from date of filing of claim petition till actual payment.

(Paras 891011)

(Para 8 9 10 11)

Constitution of India , Art.226, Art.309— Rajasthan Prosecution Subordinate Service Rules (1978) , R.12— Appointment - Relevant date for acquiring minimum essential qualification - Posts of Assistant Prosecution Officer - As per advertisement, candidate is required to possess Degree in Law or integrated Law degree from University established by law in India - Proviso to R.12 which granted relaxation to candidates appearing in final year of qualifying examination, was deleted by State - Legislative intent underlying such deletion was clear and unambiguous, that candidates who did not acquire requisite educational qualification as on relevant date were not eligible to apply for post in question - State Public Service Commission issued press note which clarified that candidates who did not possess prescribed qualifications for said post were required to withdraw their applications, failing which they would be liable to be disqualified - Thus, advertisement, governing rules and press note clarified that relevant date for determining eligibility, including educational qualification, was date of submission of application - Since petitioners were yet to appear in final examination of their course, High Court erred in directing Public Service Commission to permit them to appear in preliminary examination as they did not possess minimum essential qualification as on last date for submission of online applications.

Maxims - aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum” - Applicability ofAIROnline 2025 RAJ 351-Reversed(Paras 1117182021232425)

(Para 11 17 18 20 21 23 24 25)

(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023) , S.173(1), S.173(4), S.175(3)— Constitution of India , Art.226— Registration of FIR - Invocation of writ jurisdiction - ExtrAORdinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of ought not to be invoked when alternative equally efficacious statutory remedies were available - If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by police, or having been registered, proper investigation is not being conducted, then remedy does not ordinarily lie in invoking writ jurisdiction in first instance, but in seeking recourse to statutory framework, unless of course urgency of circumstances warrant otherwise.

AIR 2008 SC 907-Relied on

(B) Constitution of India , Art.226— Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023) , S.173— Writ petition - Issuance of directions for registration of FIR - Challenge against - Complainant Company initially approached Land Record Authority, by way of complaints, with copies thereof being sent to police authority - It did not avail any of statutory remedies provided under BNSS and directly invoked writ jurisdiction of High Court, seeking directions for registration of FIR - Such recourse was contrary to settled principles of law, in absence of imminent danger of violation of life or liberty of individual - Complainant had neither approached Superintendent of Police or Magistrate prior to filing writ petition, nor placed any material on record to show that such remedies were unavailable or inefficacious - Complainant not exhausted sequential statutory remedies available under BNSS - Entertaining a writ petition, in said circumstances, would in effect, result in High Court, acting as forum of first instance thereby bypassing statutory scheme in its entirety - High Court was not bound to entertain a writ petition merely because case of alleged inaction or negligence was made out against statutory authority -Writ petition being premature was not fit to be entertained - Order of High Court directing police to record statement of complainant and initiate necessary action as per provisions of law was set aside - FIR was quashed - Liberty was reserved to parties to espouse alternative remedies.

Writ Petition No.5154 of 2025, D/- 17.12.2025 (Bom)-Reversed(Paras9101112)

(Para 9 10 11 12)

Penal Code (45 of 1860) , S.498A, S.34— Evidence Act (1 of 1872) , S.32— Cruelty - Dying declaration - Allegation that accused persons i.e. husband and in-laws poured kerosene and set deceased on fire on account of dowry demand, within nine months of marriage - Two dying declarations were recorded - First implicating accused alleging murder for dowry; second stating that deceased committed suicide due to quarrels over dowry - Material contradiction between two dying declarations - Evidence of relatives alleging dowry demand were found unreliable due to improvements and absence of independent corroboration - Alleged letter written by deceased was not proved by forensic evidence - Neighbours turned hostile and indicated cordial relations - If the accused persons wanted her to die, no reason for them to take her to hospital - Suspicion of tutoring in first dying declaration - No direct evidence was produced to implicate father-in-law - Conviction of father-in-law, was set aside.

Criminal Appeal No. 1248 of 2002, (M.P.)-Reversed(Paras171819202223272829)

(Para 17 18 19 20 22 23 27 28 29)

(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (31 of 2016) , S.7— Limitation Act (36 of 1963) , Art.137— Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) - Period of limitation - Commencement of - Corporate debtors defaulted in repayment - On 06.12.2016, their accounts were classified as Non-Performing Assets (NPA) - 60 days as mandated under S.13(4) of SARFAESI Act was concluded on 06.02.2017 - Application under S.7 of Code is governed by Art.137 of Act, 1963 - Limitation begins to run from date of classification of account as NPA, being date of default i.e. from 06.12.2016 and not from any subsequent proceeding initiated for recovery i.e. 06.02.2017.

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (54 of 2002) , S.13(4)— (Para13)

(Para 13)

(B) Insolvancy and Bankruptcy Code (31 of 2016) , S.7— Limitation Act (36 of 1963) , Art.137— Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) - Bar of limitation - Accounts of corporate debtors were classified as Non-Performing Assets (NPA) on 06.12.2016 by DHFL - Period of limitation for filing petition under S.7 of Code, commence from 06.12.2016 - Period of limitation would have expired on 06.12.2019 - Period from 03.12.2019 to 07.06.2021 were excluded as commencement of CIRP of DHFL - Further, limitation period was extended by another 90 days from 01.03.2022 due to Covid-19 - Thereafter CIRP as against corporate debtor itself was commenced on 23.12.2021 and continued till 29.07.2024 - After reckoning three years from 06.12.2016 and excluding above referred periods, only three days remain from 29.07.2024 which would expire on 01.08.2024 - Petition under S.7 was filed on 23.09.2024 - Petition was well beyond period of limitation.

(Paras1415)

(Para 14 15)

(C) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (31 of 2016) , S.7, S.18— Limitation Act (36 of 1963) , Art.137— Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) - Admission of debt by IRP - Whether acknowledgment of liability or not - RP performs its administrative duties under S.18 of Code - Admission of claim by RP is merely administrative/clerical task performed as part of its statutory duties under S.18 of Code - Admission of claim by RP is akin to mere recital/reference of debt, which does not amount to acknowledgment under S.18 of 1963 Act - IRP's admission of secured financial creditors debt in first CIRP was not acknowledgement under Section 18 of 1963 Act.

(Para16)

(Para 16)

(D) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (31 of 2016) , S.7— Limitation Act (36 of 1963) , Art.137— Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) - Admission of claim by IRP - Extend/renew limitation period - Limitation period can be extended only by acknowledgment which is made within the period of limitation - Admission of claim of secured financial creditor by IRP did not enure to benefit of secured financial creditor as same was not made within period of limitation.

(Para17)

(Para 17)