sadalawpublications.com

August 30, 2025

Rahul Ganpatrao Sable v. Laxman Maruti Jadhav (Dead) through LRs & Ors. – Supreme Court Enhances Motor Accident Compensation (2023)

Trending Today Santhosh Maize & Industries Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. (2023) – Supreme Court on Tax Classification of Maize Starch & Retrospective Clarifications LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT JM FINANCIAL HOME LOANS LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT VISTAAR FINANCE LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT FORESIGHT LAW OFFICES INDIA, DELHI Pradeep v. State of Haryana (2023) – Supreme Court Acquits Accused, Cautions on Sole Testimony of Child Witness Rahul Ganpatrao Sable v. Laxman Maruti Jadhav (Dead) through LRs & Ors. – Supreme Court Enhances Motor Accident Compensation (2023) Dhanraj N. Asawani v. Amarjeetsingh Mohindersingh Basi & Ors. (2023): Right of Shareholder to Initiate Criminal Proceedings in Co-operative Bank Scam Uggarsain v. State of Haryana – Supreme Court on Uniformity and Proportionality in Sentencing for Group Offences S. Narahari v. S.R. Kumar – Supreme Court Refers Maintainability of Second SLP after Withdrawal to Larger Bench (2023) Ranjeet Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh – Supreme Court Acquittal in Murder Case for Unreliable Eyewitness Testimony (2023) Rahul Ganpatrao Sable v. Laxman Maruti Jadhav (Dead) through LRs & Ors. – Supreme Court Enhances Motor Accident Compensation (2023)    Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Vikram Nath 05 July 2023 Headnote The Supreme Court held that in cases of severe permanent disability resulting in loss of livelihood, compensation must be calculated on the basis of full functional disability without deductions in income while applying the multiplier method. The Court enhanced compensation under various heads, ensuring just and fair relief to the victim. Introduction The case Rahul Ganpatrao Sable v. Laxman Maruti Jadhav (Dead) through LRs & Ors., decided by the Supreme Court of India on 5 July 2023, concerns a motor vehicle accident compensation claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The appellant, who suffered 85% permanent partial disability in a road accident, sought enhanced compensation. The judgment clarifies the proper application of the multiplier method, emphasizing that deductions should not apply when functional disability leads to complete loss of earning capacity. Facts of the Case Rahul Ganpatrao Sable, a 29-year-old welder, sustained grievous injuries in a 2011 road accident, resulting in 85% permanent disability. His disability left him unable to continue his skilled profession, effectively rendering him unemployable. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded reduced compensation by applying deductions. The Bombay High Court upheld the Tribunal’s order. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court, contending that the lower courts had undervalued his loss of livelihood and economic dependency. Issue of the Case Whether the appellant, suffering 85% permanent disability that functionally amounts to 100% loss of earning capacity, is entitled to enhanced compensation without deductions in monthly income under the multiplier method? Petitioner’s Arguments Disability of 85% equated to functional disability of 100%, leaving him unemployable as a welder. The High Court wrongly applied deductions to income, contrary to precedents like Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar. Compensation must reflect total loss of earning capacity. Sought additional amounts for medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and future livelihood. Respondent’s Arguments Disability was only 85% in the right lower limb, not 100%. The appellant could still pursue alternative less strenuous work. Compensation already covered medical costs and non-pecuniary damages. Tribunal and High Court exercised proper discretion based on evidence. Judgment The Supreme Court set aside the lower courts’ orders, holding that: Functional disability equated to 100% loss of earning capacity. No deductions in income should apply when the victim is rendered completely unemployable. Compensation recalculated on full pre-accident monthly income of ₹15,000, with the correct multiplier of 18. Enhanced awards were granted under multiple heads, including: Pain and suffering Future medical expenses Attendant charges Loss of marriage prospects Loss of amenities The Court reaffirmed that just and fair compensation must consider both economic and human suffering. Conclusion The judgment in Rahul Ganpatrao Sable v. Laxman Maruti Jadhav (Dead) through LRs & Ors. underscores that compensation in motor accident claims must reflect full functional disability and loss of livelihood. The ruling strengthens victim-centric interpretation of the Motor Vehicles Act, ensuring that seriously injured claimants receive compensation that secures dignity, sustenance, and justice. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Santhosh Maize & Industries Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. (2023) – Supreme Court on Tax Classification of Maize Starch & Retrospective Clarifications Sada Law • August 30, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Pradeep v. State of Haryana (2023) – Supreme Court Acquits Accused, Cautions on Sole Testimony of Child Witness Sada Law • August 30, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Rahul Ganpatrao Sable v. Laxman Maruti Jadhav (Dead) through LRs & Ors. – Supreme Court Enhances Motor Accident Compensation (2023) Sada Law • August 30, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next » Rahul Ganpatrao Sable v. Laxman Maruti Jadhav (Dead) through LRs & Ors. – Supreme Court Enhances Motor Accident Compensation (2023)   Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Vikram Nath 05 July 2023 Headnote The Supreme Court held that in cases of severe permanent disability resulting in loss of livelihood, compensation must be calculated on the basis of full functional disability without deductions in income while applying the multiplier method. The Court enhanced compensation under various heads, ensuring just and fair relief to the victim. Introduction The case Rahul Ganpatrao Sable v. Laxman Maruti Jadhav (Dead) through LRs & Ors., decided by the Supreme Court of India on 5 July 2023, concerns a motor vehicle accident compensation claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The appellant, who suffered 85% permanent partial disability in a road accident, sought enhanced compensation. The judgment clarifies the proper application of the multiplier method, emphasizing that deductions should not apply when functional disability leads to complete loss of earning capacity. Facts of the Case Rahul Ganpatrao Sable, a 29-year-old welder, sustained grievous injuries in a 2011 road accident, resulting in 85% permanent disability. His disability left him unable to continue his

Rahul Ganpatrao Sable v. Laxman Maruti Jadhav (Dead) through LRs & Ors. – Supreme Court Enhances Motor Accident Compensation (2023) Read More »

Dhanraj N. Asawani v. Amarjeetsingh Mohindersingh Basi & Ors. (2023): Right of Shareholder to Initiate Criminal Proceedings in Co-operative Bank Scam

Trending Today Dhanraj N. Asawani v. Amarjeetsingh Mohindersingh Basi & Ors. (2023): Right of Shareholder to Initiate Criminal Proceedings in Co-operative Bank Scam Uggarsain v. State of Haryana – Supreme Court on Uniformity and Proportionality in Sentencing for Group Offences S. Narahari v. S.R. Kumar – Supreme Court Refers Maintainability of Second SLP after Withdrawal to Larger Bench (2023) Ranjeet Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh – Supreme Court Acquittal in Murder Case for Unreliable Eyewitness Testimony (2023) Supreme Court Grants Interim Protection to Journalist Abhisar Sharma in Assam FIR Kerala High Court Rules Judges Must Personally View Obscene Video Evidence Before Conviction Gujarat HC Lawyers Meet CJI Over Transfer Proposal of Justice Sandeep Bhatt Bombay High Court Restrains Sanjay Nirupam from Making Communal Remarks Against Slum Developer Ankita Bhati v. Dev Raj Singh Bhati – Supreme Court Reiterates Wife’s Convenience Paramount in Transfer of Matrimonial Cases (2023) Presidential Reference on Deadlines for Governors: Supreme Court Hearing Enters Day 5 Dhanraj N. Asawani v. Amarjeetsingh Mohindersingh Basi & Ors. (2023): Right of Shareholder to Initiate Criminal Proceedings in Co-operative Bank Scam Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Misra 25 July 2023 Introduction This case dealt with a critical legal issue — whether a shareholder or former director of a co-operative society can initiate criminal proceedings under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) when special provisions under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 exist. The question before the Supreme Court was whether Section 81(5B) of the Act barred any person other than an auditor or Registrar from filing an FIR in cases of financial irregularities in co-operative banks. Facts of the Case The appellant, Dhanraj N. Asawani, filed FIR No. 806/2019 against the CEO and Chairperson of Seva Vikas Co-operative Bank for offences under Sections 420, 406, 409, 465, 467, 468, and 471 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The FIR was based on an inspection report alleging that loans were given to ineligible borrowers, funds were misappropriated, and recovery measures were mishandled, causing massive NPAs. The Bombay High Court quashed the FIR, holding that only the auditor or Registrar, under Section 81(5B), could lodge such FIRs. Issues Does Section 81(5B) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act bar shareholders from filing FIRs in cases of financial irregularities? Do special provisions under the 1960 Act override the general provisions of Section 154 CrPC, which allows any person to report a cognizable offence? Judgment The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the FIR. Key findings included: Section 81(5B imposes obligations, not prohibitions: The duty of auditors/Registrars to file FIRs does not mean others are barred from doing so. No express or implied prohibition: The Act does not contain language excluding shareholders or individuals from initiating criminal law. CrPC prevails in absence of express bar: Under Section 4 CrPC, criminal law applies to all offences unless explicitly excluded, unlike MCOCA or TADA which contain overriding clauses. Principle of criminal law: As reaffirmed in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, locus standi is not a requirement in criminal law — any person can set the law in motion. Public interest & accountability: Restricting FIRs only to auditors/Registrars would hamper transparency and undermine depositors’ rights. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the Bombay High Court ruling and reinstated FIR No. 806/2019. Conclusion The Supreme Court clarified that Section 81(5B) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act does not prevent shareholders from filing FIRs. Every citizen retains the right to report cognizable offences under the CrPC. The judgment strengthens public accountability in co-operative banks, ensuring that financial frauds affecting depositors and shareholders can be promptly investigated.   Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Dhanraj N. Asawani v. Amarjeetsingh Mohindersingh Basi & Ors. (2023): Right of Shareholder to Initiate Criminal Proceedings in Co-operative Bank Scam Sada Law • August 30, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Uggarsain v. State of Haryana – Supreme Court on Uniformity and Proportionality in Sentencing for Group Offences Sada Law • August 30, 2025 • Case law • No Comments S. Narahari v. S.R. Kumar – Supreme Court Refers Maintainability of Second SLP after Withdrawal to Larger Bench (2023) Sada Law • August 29, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Dhanraj N. Asawani v. Amarjeetsingh Mohindersingh Basi & Ors. (2023): Right of Shareholder to Initiate Criminal Proceedings in Co-operative Bank Scam Read More »

Uggarsain v. State of Haryana – Supreme Court on Uniformity and Proportionality in Sentencing for Group Offences

Trending Today Uggarsain v. State of Haryana – Supreme Court on Uniformity and Proportionality in Sentencing for Group Offences S. Narahari v. S.R. Kumar – Supreme Court Refers Maintainability of Second SLP after Withdrawal to Larger Bench (2023) Ranjeet Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh – Supreme Court Acquittal in Murder Case for Unreliable Eyewitness Testimony (2023) Supreme Court Grants Interim Protection to Journalist Abhisar Sharma in Assam FIR Kerala High Court Rules Judges Must Personally View Obscene Video Evidence Before Conviction Gujarat HC Lawyers Meet CJI Over Transfer Proposal of Justice Sandeep Bhatt Bombay High Court Restrains Sanjay Nirupam from Making Communal Remarks Against Slum Developer Ankita Bhati v. Dev Raj Singh Bhati – Supreme Court Reiterates Wife’s Convenience Paramount in Transfer of Matrimonial Cases (2023) Presidential Reference on Deadlines for Governors: Supreme Court Hearing Enters Day 5 LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT CHAMBERS FOR JUSTICE, DELHI Uggarsain v. State of Haryana – Supreme Court on Uniformity and Proportionality in Sentencing for Group Offences Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta 3 July 2023 Introduction This case arises from an appeal against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which altered the conviction of the accused from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC. The High Court further reduced the sentences to the period already undergone. The appellant, Uggarsain (informant/complainant), challenged this decision, arguing for proportionality and uniformity in sentencing, as the High Court’s approach resulted in glaring disparities in punishment despite similar roles of the accused. Facts of the Case On 7 March 2012 (Holika Dahan eve), Krishan (A-1) insulted Subhash (deceased). Next morning, Brahmjit (Krishan’s son) assaulted Subhash with a danda. Later, a group of accused, armed with weapons, attacked Subhash, Sita Ram (PW1), Uggarsain (the appellant), and Pawan near their residence. Subhash sustained severe head injuries and died after a few days in hospital. FIR was initially filed under Sections 147, 148, 149, and 323 IPC; after Subhash’s death, Section 302 IPC was added. The Trial Court convicted all eight accused under Sections 148, 323, and 302 read with Section 149 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The High Court altered the conviction to Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced each accused to the period already undergone, leading to vast discrepancies (from 11 months to over 9 years). Issues of the Case Was the High Court justified in altering the conviction from murder (Section 302 IPC) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part II IPC)? Was it correct for the High Court to reduce the sentence to “time served,” leading to arbitrary disparities among similarly placed convicts? What constitutes a proportionate and uniform sentence in cases involving group offences? Judgment The Supreme Court criticized the High Court’s reasoning as “inexplicable, if not downright bizarre,” noting that sentencing should not create arbitrary disparities when the roles of accused are indistinguishable. Proportionality Principle: Sentences must reflect the seriousness of the crime and be consistent across similarly placed accused. Uniform Sentencing: The High Court erred by treating “sentence undergone” as the basis, disregarding the gravity of the offence and injuries. Factors Considered: Serious head injuries suffered by the deceased (at least six). Presence of deadly weapons. Injuries to multiple members of the complainant party. Final Decision: Krishan and Brahmjit: Sentence not disturbed, as they already served over five years. Other accused (Raju, Parveen, Sunder s/o Amit Lal, Sandeep, Nar Singh, Sunder s/o Rajpal): Sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment. They were directed to surrender within six weeks. Appeals were partly allowed. Conclusion The judgment reinforces the importance of consistency, fairness, and proportionality in sentencing, especially in group offences where individual roles cannot be clearly distinguished. The Supreme Court corrected the disparity created by the High Court’s flawed “time served” approach and set a guiding precedent that sentences must correspond to the gravity of the crime and remain uniform across similarly situated convicts. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Uggarsain v. State of Haryana – Supreme Court on Uniformity and Proportionality in Sentencing for Group Offences Sada Law • August 30, 2025 • Case law • No Comments S. Narahari v. S.R. Kumar – Supreme Court Refers Maintainability of Second SLP after Withdrawal to Larger Bench (2023) Sada Law • August 29, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Ranjeet Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh – Supreme Court Acquittal in Murder Case for Unreliable Eyewitness Testimony (2023) Sada Law • August 29, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Uggarsain v. State of Haryana – Supreme Court on Uniformity and Proportionality in Sentencing for Group Offences Read More »