A mistaken factual premise can invalidate appellate interference

The High Court relied on the owner’s earlier denial. It concluded that no employer–employee relationship existed. The Supreme Court found that conclusion erroneous. The High Court also misidentified who lodged the FIR. These errors affected its appreciation of the record. The Commissioner’s finding had considered the relevant evidence. The Supreme Court found no perversity or legal infirmity there. The High Court’s order was accordingly set aside. Panganti Vijaya v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. | 2026 INSC 9