^{Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Fiduciary and Moral Obligation – Maintenance of Dependents – Widow of deceased government employee appointed as LDC under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment Rules, 1996, based on an affidavit undertaking to maintain her aged in-laws—subsequently abandoned them and began living separately—Petitioner, father of the deceased, sought deduction of 50% of her salary—Held: Compassionate appointment is not a vested right but an act of State benevolence intended for the entire family unit of the deceased, not an individual benefit—Respondent No.4 having derived employment solely on her solemn undertaking to support the petitioner cannot resile from that obligation—Her conduct amounts to breach of trust and frustration of the object of the 1996 Rules—Department directed to deduct ₹20,000/month from her salary for petitioner’s maintenance [Paras 9–15, 20–22].}

^{Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel – Enforcement of Undertakings in Welfare Schemes – Affidavit by respondent No.4 stating she would maintain her in-laws and not remarry formed the foundation of the compassionate appointment—Having accepted employment on that representation, she is estopped from disowning the obligation—Principle of promissory estoppel applies with full force even in administrative benevolence—Held: Respondent No.4’s repudiation of the undertaking constitutes moral and legal breach; authorities must ensure continued maintenance of the petitioner [Paras 12, 15, 21–22].}

^{Administrative Law – Object of Compassionate Scheme – Equity and Public Policy – Compassionate appointment is not a mode of regular employment but a social welfare measure to prevent destitution—Benefit extended to one dependent is in representative capacity for the entire family—Authorities failed to appreciate that the appointment was first offered to the petitioner and later transferred to his daughter-in-law in trust—State’s parens patriae role obliges it to ensure fairness and protection of all dependents—Court can issue equitable directions under Article 226 to uphold the humanitarian purpose of the scheme [Paras 13, 16–19].}

^{Remarriage – Effect on Compassionate Obligation – Though remarriage of respondent No.4 is a matter of personal liberty, her remarriage and abandonment of the deceased’s parents after obtaining employment on compassionate grounds underscores violation of her solemn undertaking and negates the moral basis of her appointment [Paras 12, 14, 21].}

^{Decision: Writ petition partly allowed – Respondent-department directed to deduct ₹20,000 per month from respondent No.4’s salary and deposit the same in the petitioner’s bank account from 01.11.2025 onwards towards his maintenance—To continue during petitioner’s lifetime or until modified by competent authority—Writ petition disposed of with observations [Para 22–23].}

Civil Procedure – Second Appeal – Concurrent Findings – Plaintiff sought injunction to restrain defendants from encroaching upon a street claimed as common passage – Trial Court decreed suit based on documentary evidence, witness testimony, and admissions – Appellate Court affirmed, finding no ownership documents from defendants and holding the passage to be common – Held: No substantial question of law arises – Findings are neither perverse nor contrary to law – Second appeal dismissed [Paras 4–8].

Evidence – Site Plan and Admission – Plaintiff relied on multiple site plans including Ex.P1 and Ex.P9 depicting common passage – Defendant’s own admission that plaintiff’s house opens onto disputed passage and that waste water from adjacent property drains there – Defendants failed to produce title documents – Draftsman’s plan (Ex.D1) unreliable due to omission and lack of impartial inspection – Findings of common passage upheld [Paras 5–6].

Injunction – Encroachment on Common Property – Courts below restrained defendants from interfering with plaintiff’s use of a shared passage – Courts found long-standing use and no proof of exclusive ownership by defendants – Concurrent decree for injunction held proper [Paras 4–6].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal dismissed – No substantial question of law found – Findings of lower courts upheld – No interference warranted [Para 8].

Civil Law – Partnership Property – Validity of Transfer – Appeal challenging dismissal of suit seeking possession, mesne profits, and cancellation of documents relating to partnership property – Plaintiffs claimed that Defendant No.1 transferred the sole immovable asset of the partnership firm (suit property) to Defendant No.2 without Plaintiff No.2’s consent, in contravention of Clause 9 of the Partnership Deed and Section 19(2)(g) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 – Trial court held that Plaintiff No.2 had knowledge and gave post-facto consent, based on documentary evidence – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1, 17, 22, 39, 47] –

Consent and Knowledge – Partner’s Consent Inferred from Conduct and Records – Plaintiffs alleged that subject transaction dated 03.07.2000 was without Plaintiff No.2’s consent – Court found that Plaintiff No.2 signed Balance Sheets for FY ending 31.03.2000 and 31.03.2001, which reflected sale of the partnership’s only immovable asset – Plaintiff No.2 failed to depose in court or plead that she signed documents in good faith or without reading – Adverse inference drawn against Plaintiff No.2 for not entering the witness box – Consent inferred from signatures and subsequent Retirement Deed dated 30.06.2002 acknowledging accounts and final settlement – Held: Consent of Plaintiff No.2 established [Paras 16(iii)-(iv), 26–33] –

Partnership Law – Section 19(2)(g) of Indian Partnership Act – Scope and Application – Appellants argued that transfer was void as it contravened Section 19(2)(g) and Clause 9 of the Partnership Deed – Court held that Section 19(2)(g) restricts a partner’s implied authority to transfer immovable property but does not prohibit such transfer if consent is established – Post-facto consent through conduct and documents permissible – Clause 9 merely declares such unauthorized action “null and void” without specifying requirement of prior consent – Hence, transaction valid due to established consent [Paras 23–25, 35] –

Retirement and Settlement – Final Settlement Documents Confirm Consent – MOU dated 18.06.2002 and Retirement-cum-Partnership Deed dated 30.06.2002 clearly recorded full and final settlement of Defendant No.1’s share – These were signed after Plaintiffs allegedly came to know of the transaction – No challenge to these documents – Court concluded accounts were settled with knowledge of subject transaction – Supports inference of consent [Paras 14, 33–34] –

Burden of Proof – Plaintiffs Failed to Discharge Burden – Plaintiffs neither pleaded nor led evidence to prove that Balance Sheets were signed blindly or without reading – Plaintiff No.2’s failure to testify was fatal to their case – Held: Best evidence was withheld, resulting in adverse inference [Paras 28–32] –

Construction Claim – Lack of Documentary Evidence – Plaintiffs claimed that a 3.5 storey building was constructed after purchasing the property – No documentary proof regarding source or expenditure for such construction – Only self-serving oral statements of PW-2 – Held: Claim not proved in absence of cogent evidence [Paras 40–42] –

Dormant Partner – Irrelevance of Dormancy – Issue of Plaintiff No.2 being a dormant partner held to be irrelevant once consent was established – Whether active or dormant, Plaintiff No.2’s signatures and conduct indicated knowledge and acceptance of transaction – Hence, dormancy had no effect on outcome [Paras 43–44] –

Reliefs – Rejected in Absence of Proof – Plaintiffs sought possession, cancellation, and mesne profits – All denied due to failure to prove lack of consent and authority – Suit rightly dismissed by Single Judge – No ground for appellate interference [Paras 6, 45–47] –

Decision: Appeal Dismissed – Impugned Judgment upheld – Plaintiffs failed to prove absence of consent or authority – No relief granted – Parties to bear own costs [Para 47].

Transfer of Matrimonial Proceedings – Convenience of Wife – Two divorce petitions filed by husband in Nimbahera under Sections 10 and 13 of Hindu Marriage Act – Wife sought transfer to Udaipur citing financial dependency, custody of minor child, and pendency of multiple related proceedings in Udaipur – Court held that comparative hardship was greater for wife and transfer would not prejudice husband who was travelling from Mumbai in any case – Transfer to Udaipur allowed [Paras 3–5, 11, 14]

Allegations of Bias – Judicial Impartiality – Husband alleged that the Family Court Judge at Udaipur was biased and influenced by wife’s family connections – Court found allegations to be vague, unsupported and lacking evidentiary backing – Held: Transfer cannot be granted on generalised assertions – Presiding officers must be protected from unfounded bias claims [Para 12]

Expeditious Disposal – Supreme Court Directions – Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 3171/2025 stayed order of interim maintenance and directed expeditious disposal of all matters between parties – Court held that having cases in different districts would hinder timely adjudication – Transfer to single forum (Udaipur) facilitates compliance with Supreme Court mandate [Paras 10, 13, 15]

Comparative Hardship – Travel Burden and Financial Dependence – Wife living in Udaipur with minor son without independent income – Husband posted in Mumbai and already travelling to both forums – Udaipur better equipped in terms of infrastructure and medical care – Held: Greater hardship for wife justifies consolidation at Udaipur [Para 11]

Decision: S.B. Civil Transfer Applications No. 309/2024 and 174/2025 allowed – Divorce petitions (Case Nos. 129/2024 and 104/2024) pending at Family Court, Nimbahera transferred to Family Court No.2, Udaipur – S.B. Civil Transfer Application No. 75/2025 filed by husband dismissed – Family Court, Udaipur directed to expedite hearings as per Supreme Court’s order dated 28.07.2025 – No order as to costs [Paras 14–16]

Criminal Law – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Fraudulent Loan Disbursement – Complaint case based on FIR alleging misappropriation of ₹8 lakhs through fraudulent withdrawal by bank officials, including Branch Manager, Loan Manager, Deputy Manager, Head Cashier and Peon – Applicants sought quashing of proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, claiming lack of direct role and clean chit in police final reports – Court held: Detailed and specific allegations made by complainant under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC supported by witnesses – Final reports have no bearing once complaint is registered and cognizance is taken [Paras 5–7, 25–27, 29]

Banking Fraud – Role of Bank Officials – Complainant alleged he was misled into opening an account and made to sign blank documents – Loan of ₹8 lakhs sanctioned without proper signatures and withdrawn in violation of bank norms through loose cheque exceeding ₹25,000 limit – RTI replies and documentary annexures reveal absence of due process and support fraud allegations – Involvement of sanctioning and disbursing authorities, including Ayushi Mishra, Rajesh Kumar and Brijesh Kumar @ Brijesh Kumar Kashyap, prima facie evident [Paras 17–18, 26–27]

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 CrPC – Scope – Summoning Order – Court reiterates settled law that at quashing stage, evidence cannot be evaluated – Magistrate’s summoning order based on specific statements under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC and supported by documents and witnesses – Held: Magistrate applied mind to material and exercised discretion properly – No interference warranted at pre-trial stage [Paras 14, 26–29]

Complaint Proceedings – Relevance of Final Report – Twice police submitted final reports giving clean chit – Complainant filed protest petition, converted into complaint case – Court holds: Once complaint is registered and Magistrate takes cognizance after examining complainant and witnesses, findings of police investigation lose relevance – Statements under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC form basis for summoning [Paras 7, 23–24]

Forgery and Economic Offence – Prima Facie Case – Allegations involve forging documents, unauthorized withdrawal, and misuse of public trust in banking system – Supreme Court precedents cited (Dharambeer Kumar Singh, Aryan Singh, Parbatbhai Aahir) emphasise that economic offences with social impact warrant trial – Court finds material sufficient to proceed – Quashing rejected [Paras 20–22, 26–28]

Decision: Applications under Section 482 CrPC dismissed – Summoning orders upheld – Allegations disclose commission of cognizable offences – Sufficient prima facie material available – Trial required to adjudicate facts – No costs imposed.

Insurance Law – Life Insurance – Suppression of Material Facts – Section 45 Insurance Act – Appellant’s husband obtained life insurance and died within six months of issuance – Claim repudiated by LIC alleging non-disclosure of diabetes, hypertension, and chronic renal failure – Trial Court decreed suit holding LIC failed to prove suppression – Appellate Court reversed, holding insured guilty of concealment – Held: Contract of life insurance governed by principle of uberrima fides – LIC must prove with cogent evidence that insured knowingly suppressed material facts – LIC failed to examine its own medical officer or investigating officer and relied only on post-policy hospital records – Such evidence insufficient to meet burden under Section 45 – Repudiation unsustainable – Appeal allowed – Trial court decree restored [Paras 23–26].

Evidence – Adverse Inference – Section 114(g) – LIC withheld best evidence including authorised doctor who examined insured at proposal stage – Held: Adverse inference arises – Non-production of crucial witnesses and records undermines insurer's defence of concealment – Court may presume withheld evidence would be unfavourable to LIC [Para 23].

Contract Law – Fraud and Misrepresentation – Burden of Proof – Mere presence of illness or post-policy hospital admission not sufficient to infer fraud at the time of proposal – Insurer must prove insured's knowledge of illness and wilful suppression at the time of entering contract – No direct evidence led by LIC to prove intention or knowledge of falsehood – Held: Contract not vitiated by fraud – Decree for insured’s nominee maintained [Paras 25–26].

Appellate Review – Misapplication of Law – Appellate Court reversed trial court findings relying solely on post-policy medical records and inferences – Held: Findings based on conjecture and not legally sustainable – Misapplication of evidentiary burden under Section 45 – Trial court's view held to be reasonable and based on proper appreciation of evidence [Paras 25–26].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of District Judge dated 2.11.1995 set aside – Judgment and decree of Trial Court dated 4.8.1994 restored – Plaintiff entitled to recover ₹50,000 under life insurance policy with 12% interest and consequential benefits – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 27–28].

NDPS Act – Appeal Against Acquittal – Acquittal Upheld – Prosecution case based on recovery of 1 kg 50 grams charas from each accused – Trial court acquitted accused due to contradictions in evidence – High Court found inconsistencies in timing of arrest, packing and sealing procedure, and absence of independent witnesses – Held: Prosecution failed to establish conscious possession and failed to maintain chain of custody – Suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 35–44]

Criminal Procedure – Scope of Appeal Against Acquittal – Principles Reiterated – Appellate Court has power to reappreciate evidence, but interference is justified only where acquittal is perverse or unreasonable – Trial court’s view held to be plausible based on evidence – Appeal dismissed [Paras 31–34, 45–47]

Evidence – Contradictions – Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses – Conflicting testimony regarding time of departure and arrest (2:35 PM vs 4:50 PM), and material discrepancies in packaging (matchboxes vs cigarette packets) – Variance in sample weights noted in FSL report – Held: Serious contradictions undermine prosecution’s credibility [Paras 35–38]

Chain of Custody – Missing Links – Samples Not Traced Reliably to FSL – No proper explanation for delay or method of deposit at FSL – Constable who allegedly carried rukka and samples not examined – Prosecution failed to prove unbroken chain of custody [Paras 40–43]

Independent Witness – Non-examination – Effect – Prosecution failed to associate any local witness during alleged recovery – Statements of officials contradictory on efforts to secure independent witness – Held: Non-association of public witness creates doubt in prosecution version [Paras 35–36]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal upheld – Bail bonds discharged.

Dowry Death – Appeal Against Acquittal – Contradictions in prosecution evidence regarding post-marriage dowry payments – No specific proof of cruelty or harassment “soon before death” – Presumption under S.113-B Evidence Act not attracted – Two reasonable views possible – No perversity in evaluation of evidence – Acquittal upheld – Additional direction issued to trial courts in U.P. not to write judgments partially in Hindi and partially in English except for limited permissible quotations [Paras 19–33, 34–38].

Criminal Law – Dowry Death – Ingredients of Section 304-B – Requirement of proof of cruelty or harassment “soon before death” – Held, though death occurred within 7 years of marriage and was unnatural (aluminium phosphide poisoning), prosecution failed to prove cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demand soon before death – Mere proof of unnatural death insufficient to invoke Section 304-B IPC [Paras 19–21, 31–32].

Evidence Law – Section 113-B Presumption – Presumption arises only when prosecution proves cruelty/harassment for dowry “soon before death” – Contradictions in evidence regarding alleged payment of ₹5 lakhs / jewellery worth ₹3–4 lakhs; no complaint ever made during 32 months of marriage; no specific act of cruelty proved – Presumption under Section 113-B not attracted and stood rebutted [Paras 20–23, 31–32].

Witness Credibility – Contradictions and Improvements – PW1 (father) contradicted FIR regarding post-marriage payments; PW2 (cousin) failed to specify exact amount allegedly given; neither narrated any specific act of cruelty; improvements and omissions held material – Trial Court’s findings upheld [Paras 12(2), 20–21, 25].

Conduct of Accused – Husband admitted deceased to hospital, cleared bills, remained present till last rites – Found by both courts to indicate bona fides and absence of incriminating conduct – No evidence of absconding or concealment – Supports acquittal [Paras 23–24, 26–28].

Medical Evidence – No ante-mortem injuries found – Cause of death established as aluminium phosphide poisoning – Prosecution failed to prove whether death was suicidal or homicidal – No link established between accused and poisoning [Paras 12(4), 32].

Appeal Against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Reliance on precedents: Bharwad Jakshibhai Nagjibhai (1995) 5 SCC 602; Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 561; Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao (2009) 10 SCC 636 – Held: Unless findings are perverse or based on misreading of evidence, High Court cannot substitute its own view if two views are reasonably possible – Trial court’s view held reasonable – Acquittal sustained [Paras 15–18, 33].

Dowry Demand – No Demand at Marriage – PW2 admitted marriage was cordial and “rajī-khushī se huī thī” – Prosecution failed to prove demand at marriage or that any post-marriage payment was in connection with dowry within Section 2, Dowry Prohibition Act – Essential ingredients not established [Paras 25–26, 31].

Trial Court Judgment – Bilingual Drafting Defect – High Court noted that the impugned judgment contained 63 paragraphs in English, 125 paragraphs in Hindi, and 11 mixed paragraphs with sentences half in Hindi and half in English – Held improper – Direction issued that trial courts may write judgments either entirely in Hindi or entirely in English, except for quoting extracts of higher-court judgments or evidence, which must then be translated – Circulars and prior orders referred – Judgment circulated to all Judicial Officers and placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for appropriate action [Paras 34–38].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Acquittal upheld – Statutory presumption in favour of acquitted accused reinforced – No perversity or misreading proved [Paras 33].

Insurance Law – Motor Accident – Personal Accident Cover – Deceased had purchased the insured vehicle and applied for ownership transfer on the same day – Fatal accident occurred before the registration certificate was formally updated – Insurer repudiated the claim citing absence of policy endorsement and privity of contract – Insurance Ombudsman upheld the repudiation – Held: Registration certificate is not conclusive of ownership – Doctrine of relation back applies – Once application for transfer is allowed, ownership is deemed to relate back to the date of application – Absence of endorsement within 14 days does not invalidate claim where accident occurs within that window – Performance of such formality made impossible by death cannot be insisted upon [Paras 5–9, 18–21]

Insurance Law – Section 157 MV Act – Deemed Transfer – Personal Accident Cover – Court held that statutory fiction under Section 157 extends to personal accident cover which is now a statutory, non-derogable component of every motor insurance policy – IRDAI regulations mandate PAC as a compulsory and non-optional benefit – Therefore, PAC travels with the policy and attaches to the transferee with effect from date of ownership transfer – Technical objections on delay or non-endorsement cannot defeat statutory rights [Paras 10–17]

Contract Law – Privity of Contract – Personal Nature of Insurance – Argument that PAC is personal to the original insured and nomination bars claim by transferee's legal heirs rejected – Once ownership transfers and premium is paid, insurable interest passes to transferee – No breach of policy shown – Insurer cannot deny benefit on procedural grounds when substantive rights have vested [Paras 19–21]

Decision:

Writ Petition Allowed – Repudiation letter (Ext.P4) and Ombudsman Award (Ext.P7) quashed – Insurer directed to honour the insurance claim and release compensation within one month.