Family Law – DNA Test – Paternity – Children's Rights – Divorce Petition on Desertion – Petitioner filed HMOP No. 45 of 2019 seeking divorce under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of desertion – During pendency, petitioner filed I.A. No. 553 of 2022 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking DNA testing of two children to prove they were not born out of the wedlock – Trial court dismissed the application holding that DNA test would expose children to social ridicule and cannot be ordered mechanically – High Court upheld dismissal – Held: To prove adultery of wife, petitioner cannot seek DNA testing of children who are not parties to the lis, and the rights and best interests of the child cannot be sacrificed to enable one party to the marriage to have the benefit of fair trial [Paras 3, 9].

DNA Test – Child's Right to Identity – Right to Privacy vs. Right to Fair Trial – Supreme Court's position reiterated that DNA test is an extremely delicate and sensitive matter and courts must be reluctant to direct such tests as they may bastardise an innocent child – Presumption under Section 112 of the Evidence Act that a child born during a valid marriage is legitimate is very strong and blood test cannot be ordered as a matter of course without strong reasons – Child cannot be used as a pawn to establish the mother's alleged adultery – Right to fair trial of one party to a marriage cannot override the child's right to identity [Paras 5, 6, 7, 8].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 3,000/- payable to the District Legal Services Authority within three weeks – Interlocutory applications, if any, stand closed.

Education Law – Recognition as Research Guide – Alleged submission of forged publications – Petitioner, an Associate Professor in Hindi, applied for recognition as Research Guide under Mahatma Gandhi University Ph.D Regulations, 2016 – Application rejected by the University on the ground that the petitioner had submitted forged and unauthentic journals along with the guideship application – University also initiated proceedings by constituting an Institutional Academic Integrity Panel under UGC Regulations 2018 – Held: When allegations relate to authenticity of academic publications and possible academic misconduct, the competent academic authorities must first complete the statutory proceedings – Court declined to interfere at the preliminary stage [Paras 16–17].

Judicial Review – Academic Matters – Limited scope of interference – Dispute involved verification of genuineness of academic journals and allegations of submission of forged publications – Held: Such issues fall within the domain of expert academic bodies and the University authorities, and the High Court should not interfere unless the decision is arbitrary or without jurisdiction – Academic bodies are competent to determine authenticity of publications and compliance with research regulations [Paras 16–17].

UGC Regulations – Academic Integrity and Plagiarism – Institutional inquiry – Where allegations of submission of forged or unauthentic publications arise in the context of recognition as Research Guide, proceedings under the UGC Regulations on Promotion of Academic Integrity and Prevention of Plagiarism, 2018 may be initiated – Held: Determination of the allegations should be made through the Institutional Academic Integrity Panel constituted under the Regulations [Para 16].

Decision: Writ Petition disposed of – Respondents directed to complete proceedings initiated under UGC Regulations 2018 within three months – Petitioner's application for recognition as Research Guide to be reconsidered on the basis of the outcome of those proceedings [Para 17].

Taxation – MVAT – Settlement of arrears under Amnesty Scheme – Adjustment of refund – Petitioner entitled to refund of ₹33,29,000 for tax period 2007–08 – Department adjusted said refund against alleged dues for tax period 2008–09 while issuing settlement order – Petitioner had already applied for settlement and paid requisite amount under the Maharashtra Settlement of Arrears of Tax, Interest, Penalty or Late Fees Act, 2023 – Held: Such adjustment defeats the purpose of the Settlement Act which aims to bring quietus to tax disputes and unlock revenue locked in litigation – Adjustment of refund not permissible [Paras 13–18].

Settlement Act – Nature and scope – Amnesty scheme introduced to reduce old pending tax litigation and enable settlement by payment of specified portion of arrears – Once assessee satisfies conditions of the scheme and pays the requisite amount, he is entitled to waiver of the balance liability and discharge of tax dues – Authorities cannot interpret the scheme in a manner defeating its object [Paras 13–16].

Refund adjustment – Section 50 MVAT Act – Applicability – Department sought to justify adjustment of refund under Section 50 of the MVAT Act – Held: Settlement Act is a separate statute and a self-contained code – Authorities acting under the Settlement Act cannot import provisions of Section 50 of the MVAT Act unless an independent order under MVAT Act is passed – Powers under different statutes cannot be intermixed [Paras 19, 22].

Computation of arrears – Settlement Scheme – Determination of outstanding arrears must be made year-wise on the basis of statutory orders relating to that specific financial year – Refund of another financial year cannot be adjusted while computing arrears under the Settlement Act in absence of express statutory provision – Each financial year constitutes a separate unit for settlement [Paras 21–22].

Principles of Natural Justice – Settlement order adjusting refund passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner – Section 13(2) of the Settlement Act requires opportunity before rejecting or adversely affecting settlement application – Impugned order vitiated for violation of natural justice [Para 24].

Taxation – Amnesty Scheme interpretation – Department cannot compel assessee to pay settlement dues under the scheme and simultaneously deny legitimate refund due to him – Such interpretation would defeat the legislative intent of encouraging settlement of disputes [Para 18].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Settlement order dated 18.04.2024 quashed – Settlement application for tax period 2008–09 to be accepted without adjustment of refund – Respondents directed to refund ₹33,29,000 for tax period 2007–08 with interest within two weeks.

Arbitration – Challenge to Arbitral Award – Scope of interference under Section 34 – Court reiterated that judicial intervention with arbitral awards is limited – Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own view merely because another view is possible – Interference permissible only on limited grounds such as perversity, violation of natural justice or conflict with public policy of India [Paras 37–39].

Insurance Claim – Surveyor’s Report – Evidentiary value – Arbitrator relied primarily on surveyor’s report which assessed damage to only 15 polyethylene sheets as against claimant’s claim of 90 sheets – Surveyor admitted during cross-examination that he did not calculate the total number of damaged sheets, prepared report on memory, prepared no inventory and conducted no measurements – Held: Surveyor’s report though important is only a piece of evidence and cannot be treated as sacrosanct or binding when it suffers from serious infirmities [Paras 48–50].

Arbitral Award – Perversity – Ignoring material evidence – Arbitrator relied solely on survey report while ignoring vital documentary evidence including stock registers and testimony of claimant’s witnesses showing replacement of 90 sheets – Award failed to analyse claimant’s evidence at all – Held: Award ignoring vital evidence and based on contradictory material amounts to perversity and is liable to be set aside under Section 34 [Paras 51–61].

Insurance Law – Notice of loss – Interpretation of “forthwith” – Insurance policy required insured to inform insurer “forthwith” and within 15 days of loss – Storm damage occurred on 02.06.1998 and 04.06.1998 and notice was given on 05.06.1998 – Held: Such notice constitutes substantial compliance with policy condition – Arbitrator erred in holding that replacement of sheets before intimation violated Clause 6(i) [Paras 65–68].

Insurance Claims – Emergency repairs – Damage to greenhouse required immediate repair to prevent further loss to plants – Replacement of sheets prior to survey inspection held to be reasonable conduct of a prudent insured and not a ground to doubt the claim [Para 68].

Arbitrator – Disclosure under Section 12 – Petitioner alleged arbitrator’s relationship with its Managing Director and sought recusal shortly before award – Court held petitioner had participated in proceedings for years without raising objection and raised issue only three days before award – Held: Allegation vague and belated – ground rejected [Paras 63–64].

Decision: Petition allowed – Arbitral Award dated 17.03.2012 set aside.

POCSO Act – Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault – Section 6 – Conviction Upheld – Accused, the cousin brother and blood relative of the minor victim aged 14 years, subjected her to repeated forcible sexual intercourse from the time she was in 9th standard, taking advantage of the prohibited familial relationship and the victim's vulnerability as her parents were staying away in Coimbatore – Victim became pregnant; accused refused responsibility and directed her to give a false version of kidnap and rape – Held: Prosecution established the foundational facts; testimony of the victim is reliable, trustworthy and of sterling quality; conviction affirmed [Paras 18-40].

POCSO Act – Sole Testimony of Victim – Sterling Witness – Corroboration Not Required – Conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the victim in cases of sexual assault if the evidence is found trustworthy and of sterling quality – Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies do not constitute grounds to discard an otherwise reliable prosecution case – In the instant case, the victim was consistent in her complaint (Ex.P1), Section 164 statement (Ex.P2) and court deposition; withstood rigorous cross-examination; PW4 (independent witness) corroborated her version – Held: Corroboration not required; sole testimony sufficient [Paras 31-34].

POCSO Act – Statutory Presumption – Section 29 – Once foundational facts established that victim is a minor and has been subjected to sexual relationship, presumption under Section 29 POCSO Act arises – Accused offered no explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and adduced no evidence to rebut presumption – Held: Statutory presumption unrebutted; conviction justified [Para 35].

Evidence – Discrepancy – False Version of Kidnap Attributed to Accused's Instructions – Victim initially gave a version of kidnap and rape by one known and three unknown persons but retracted before the doctor stating she did so on the accused's instruction – Held: Discrepancy regarding kidnap and rape, explained by the victim's fear of shame and trauma of prohibited relationship, does not affect the core prosecution case of repeated sexual assault [Paras 34, 37].

POCSO Act – Delay in FIR – Sexual Assault by Blood Relative – Delay in lodging complaint in cases of sexual assault committed by a close blood relative in a prohibited relationship cannot be a ground to discredit the prosecution case, as the minor victim was under fear of shame and social stigma [Para 38].

Decision: Criminal appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of ten years RI under Section 6 POCSO Act affirmed – Trial Court directed to secure the accused and commit him to prison to undergo the remaining sentence.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Cheque Dishonour – Power of Attorney Holder as Witness – Competency – Cheque dated 05.03.2011 for Rs. 2,50,000/- issued by accused dishonoured – PW1, Power of Attorney Holder of complainant, examined as witness having direct knowledge of and having witnessed the transaction leading to execution of cheque – Trial court discarded his evidence solely on the ground that his name was not cited in the preliminary witness schedule filed with the complaint – Held: In a private complaint prosecution, omission to cite a witness in the initial witness schedule is not a reason to disbelieve his evidence when he was duly examined and his testimony remained unshaken in cross-examination — trial court's view was hyper-technical and erroneous [Paras 8–9].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Sections 118 and 139 – Presumption – Financial Capacity of Complainant – Burden of Proof – Trial court acquitted accused also on the ground that complainant did not prove his financial capacity to advance Rs. 2,50,000/- – Accused did not raise any challenge during trial as to complainant's financial incapacity – Held: Where accused does not dispute financial capacity of complainant during trial, no burden lies on complainant to prove the same — presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act arise in favour of complainant and were not rebutted by accused — finding of trial court on this point also erroneous [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal allowed — acquittal set aside — accused convicted under Section 138 of the NI Act — sentenced to imprisonment till rising of court and fine of Rs. 4,00,000/- with default imprisonment of six months — accused directed to appear before trial court on 10.04.2026.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheque – Appeal against Acquittal – Trial court acquitted the accused holding that the complainant failed to prove the transaction and financial capacity – Evidence of Power of Attorney holder rejected on the ground that his name was not included in the preliminary witness schedule – Held: Such omission in witness schedule is not a valid reason to discard the testimony of a witness whose evidence is otherwise credible and withstands cross-examination – Trial court adopted a hyper-technical approach [Paras 8–9].

Evidence – Testimony of Power of Attorney Holder – Power of Attorney holder who had direct knowledge of the transaction and personally witnessed the loan and issuance of cheque was examined as PW1 – Held: A power of attorney holder is competent to file a complaint and depose on behalf of the complainant provided he has personal knowledge of the transaction – Evidence cannot be rejected merely because he was not initially cited in the witness schedule [Paras 8–9].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Presumption under Sections 118 & 139 – Once execution of cheque and transaction are proved, statutory presumptions arise in favour of the complainant – Accused failed to rebut the presumptions by adducing evidence or effective cross-examination – Held: Presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 operate in favour of the complainant [Para 9].

Financial Capacity of Complainant – Burden of Proof – Trial court held that complainant failed to prove financial capacity to lend Rs.2,50,000/- – Held: Where the accused does not challenge the complainant’s financial capacity during trial, the complainant is not required to independently prove the source of funds – Absence of such challenge amounts to acceptance of the complainant’s financial capacity [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of acquittal set aside – Accused convicted for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Sentence: imprisonment till rising of the court and fine of Rs.4,00,000/-, with default imprisonment of six months [Paras 11–12].

Employment – Private Employment under Registered Society – Termination of Fixed Term Engagement – Damages – Appellant appointed as Director of respondent society for fixed term of five years with honorarium of Rs.30,000 per month – Appellant suffered serious illness and remained on prolonged medical leave – Respondents declined further extension of leave and relieved appellant from duties – Trial Court held termination governed by service rules of society and awarded damages equal to three months’ notice pay – Held: Respondent society being a registered society under the Societies Registration Act is not a statutory body and employment is governed purely by contract and service rules – Constitutional protection under Article 311 not applicable – Trial Court rightly limited damages to notice period salary – Appeal dismissed [Paras 11–12, 28–30].

Contract of Employment – Fixed Term Contract – Premature Termination – Appellant contended that since appointment was for a fixed period of five years, termination before expiry was illegal and she was entitled to compensation for remaining tenure – Held: Even fixed-term employment can be terminated earlier for sufficient cause – Prolonged absence due to medical leave affecting functioning of organisation constituted valid justification for termination [Paras 22, 25–26].

Service Rules – Medical Leave – Limits on Leave – Appellant had availed medical leave from February 2013 onwards and sought further extension – Service Rules permitted maximum 90 days medical leave in case of serious illness – Held: Appellant had already exceeded permissible limit and could not claim further extension as a matter of right [Paras 22–24].

Damages for Wrongful Termination – Principle of Notice Period Compensation – In cases of wrongful termination of employment governed by contract, damages are ordinarily limited to salary payable during notice period and not for the entire remaining term of service – Trial Court correctly awarded Rs.90,000/- equivalent to three months’ honorarium as compensation [Para 28].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of Trial Court upheld – Appellant entitled only to Rs.90,000/- with interest at 9% per annum representing three months’ notice pay [Paras 29–30].

Criminal Law – Bail – Section 69 BNS – Promise of Marriage – Sexual Exploitation – Pregnancy – Accused, the maternal aunt's son of the complainant, allegedly developed a physical relationship with her under repeated assurances of marriage, took her to an OYO room on 04.06.2025, and had physical relations with her – Complainant became seven months pregnant at the time of filing the complaint and subsequently gave birth to a baby boy on 18.02.2026 – Accused refused to marry her and denied paternity – DNA samples awaited as child had not yet attained the minimum age of two months required for collection – Petitioner in custody since 13.01.2026 – Held: Considering the period of incarceration and the facts and circumstances, bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 2, 6].

Decision: Criminal petition allowed – Bail granted on execution of personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of like amount – Petitioner to appear before the concerned SHO every Wednesday between 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM for eight weeks or till filing of charge sheet, whichever is earlier – Petitioner to abide by conditions under Section 483(2) BNSS.