Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Approved Resolution Plan – Clean Slate Principle – Extinguishment of Claims – Industrial Disputes Act Proceedings – Held: All workmen claims not forming part of Resolution Plan stand extinguished – Resolution Plan approved by NCLT under Section 31 – No provision made for reinstatement, back wages or service benefits of respondent-employees – Employees neither included in list of existing manpower nor had lodged claims before Resolution Professional – Held: After approval of Resolution Plan, no proceedings can be continued or initiated in respect of claims not forming part of the Plan – Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court lacked jurisdiction to proceed further [Paras 15–18].

IBC v. Industrial Disputes Act – Section 238 IBC – Overriding Effect – In case of inconsistency between IBC and Industrial Disputes Act, provisions of IBC to prevail – Continuation of Section 33-A proceedings post-approval of Resolution Plan would defeat objectives of IBC – Tribunal erred in adjudicating merits after resolution approval [Paras 9, 15–16].

Section 32A IBC – Immunity to Successful Resolution Applicant – Change in Management – Resolution Plan resulted in complete change of control and management – Successful Resolution Applicant cannot be saddled with liabilities arising from acts of erstwhile management or CIRP period unless expressly provided in Resolution Plan – Protection under Section 32A attracted [Paras 9, 10, 16].

Moratorium under Section 14 IBC – Lifting of Moratorium – No Revival of Extinguished Claims – Lifting of moratorium after approval of Resolution Plan does not revive claims which stand extinguished – Moratorium intended to ensure smooth CIRP, not to preserve claims beyond Resolution Plan [Paras 15–18].

Reinstatement Claims – Workmen – Not Maintainable Post-Resolution Plan – Even claim for reinstatement without back wages cannot survive once Resolution Plan approved and claim not recognised therein – Industrial Tribunal’s view that reinstatement claim was tenable held erroneous [Paras 16–18].

Judicial Precedent – Binding Effect of Supreme Court Decisions – Reliance placed on Essar Steel India Ltd. Committee of Creditors v. Satish Kumar Gupta and Electrosteel Steel Ltd. v. Ispat Carrier Pvt. Ltd. – Held: Successful Resolution Applicant must not face undecided or residual claims after approval of Resolution Plan [Para 15].

Decision: Writ Petitions allowed – Impugned orders passed by Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court quashed and set aside – Pending industrial dispute and complaint proceedings held terminated – Rule made absolute.

NDPS Act – Regular Bail – Second Bail Petition – Commercial Quantity – Delay in Trial – Article 21 of Constitution – Second petition filed under Section 483 BNSS seeking regular bail in FIR under Sections 22(C) and 29 NDPS Act involving alleged recovery of 576 capsules (354.96 grams) – Petitioner in custody since 12.07.2024 – Earlier bail petition dismissed as withdrawn – Maintainability of second bail petition upheld upon showing substantial change in circumstances – Challan presented but only 3 out of 18 prosecution witnesses examined – Trial likely to take considerable time – Held: Prolonged incarceration of more than 1 year 5 months without likelihood of early conclusion of trial constitutes substantial change in circumstances – Continued detention unjustified [Paras 3, 6, 6.3].

NDPS Act – Section 37 – Rigours – Dilution on Ground of Prolonged Incarceration – State opposed bail citing bar under Section 37 NDPS Act – Court reiterated that statutory embargo cannot override fundamental right to speedy trial under Article 21 – Where delay in trial is not attributable to accused, rigours of Section 37 stand diluted – Conditional liberty can be granted notwithstanding commercial quantity – Reliance placed on Supreme Court and High Court precedents – Held: Statutory restrictions cannot be used to justify indefinite pre-trial detention [Paras 6.2].

Bail – Criminal Antecedents – Relevance – Custody certificate indicated involvement of petitioner in other FIRs – Held: Mere involvement in other cases not sufficient ground to deny bail when facts of present FIR justify grant of bail – Bail to be considered FIR-wise on its own merits [Para 6.1].

Right to Speedy Trial – Pre-trial Detention – NDPS Cases – Right to speedy trial is integral to Article 21 – Begins from date of arrest and continues through trial – Overcrowded dockets and systemic delays cannot justify prolonged incarceration – Pre-trial detention turning punitive held impermissible – Courts duty-bound to balance societal interest with individual liberty [Paras 6.2].

Conditions of Bail – Safeguards Imposed – Bail granted subject to stringent conditions including non-tampering of evidence, regular appearance, non-commission of offence, deposit of passport, monthly affidavit of good conduct and liberty to State to seek cancellation on breach – Held: Conditions sufficient to safeguard prosecution interest [Para 7].

Decision – Petition allowed – Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail subject to conditions – Clarified that observations shall not be construed as expression on merits of the case [Paras 7–11].

Civil Law - Probate Proceedings – Revocation of Probate – Scope and Limitations – Appeal filed challenging dismissal of application for revocation of probate granted in respect of a registered Will – Held: Probate Court is concerned only with proof of due execution and attestation of the Will – Issues relating to title, possession of property documents, or validity of adoption are beyond the scope of probate jurisdiction [Paras 3, 10].

Caveatable Interest – Remote Heirs – Effect of Adoption – Appellants were widow and son of brother’s son of husband of testatrix – Second respondent was adopted son of testatrix – Adoption admitted in earlier civil proceedings and not specifically denied – Held: By virtue of Section 12 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, adopted son becomes Class I heir – Remote Class II heirs stand excluded and have no caveatable interest [Paras 6–7, 19–20].

Pleadings – Admission – Effect of Non-Denial – In earlier partition suit, appellants had admitted relationship showing second respondent as adopted son of testatrix – No specific denial in written statement – Held: In view of Order VIII Rule 5 CPC and Section 53 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, admitted facts need not be proved and cannot be reagitated in subsequent proceedings [Paras 7–11].

Revocation of Probate – Section 263 Indian Succession Act – ‘Just Cause’ – Grounds such as defective proceedings, fraud, concealment, untrue essential allegations, or inutilisation of grant examined – Held: None of the statutory grounds for revocation established by appellants – Mere allegations regarding adoption or possession of title deeds insufficient [Paras 13–15].

Limitation – Application for Revocation of Probate – Article 137 Limitation Act – Probate granted in 2009 – Application for revocation filed in 2022 after nearly 13 years – No explanation for delay – Held: Application hopelessly barred by limitation – Article 137 applies to applications under Indian Succession Act as settled by Supreme Court [Paras 16–18].

Adoption – Effect on Succession – Exclusion of Collateral Heirs – Once adoption is admitted and not challenged by independent proceedings – Adopted son deemed natural son for all purposes – Collateral relatives cannot claim succession or caveatable interest [Paras 19–20].

Decision: Appeal dismissed with costs – Order of learned Single Judge upheld – No interference warranted.

Civil Law - Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Scope – At stage of deciding application under Order VII Rule 11(d), Court must confine itself to averments in plaint and documents filed therewith – Defence or written statement cannot be looked into – If plaint discloses triable issues, rejection impermissible – Suit cannot be dismissed on disputed questions of fact [Paras 17-19].

Benami Act – Section 4(1) – Bar of Suit – Trial court rejected plaint holding suit barred as plaintiff alleged property in mother’s name to be benami – Held, whether property is benami and whether it falls within exceptions under Section 4(3) are questions of fact requiring evidence – Bar under Section 4(1) not attracted at threshold stage [Paras 26-29].

Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) – Purchase from Joint Family Funds – Plaintiff pleaded that property was purchased from HUF funds and income of partnership firm – If proved, transaction may fall within exception under Section 4(3) – Such plea raises triable issue and cannot be adjudicated summarily [Paras 24, 28-29].

Fiduciary Capacity – Mother Holding Property – Though mother not coparcener, fiduciary relationship between son and mother can attract exception under Section 4(3)(b) – Whether mother held property in fiduciary capacity for benefit of plaintiff is matter for evidence – Suit not ex facie barred [Paras 29].

Burden of Proof – Benami Nature – Burden lies on person asserting benami transaction – Determination depends on source of funds, relationship of parties, conduct and surrounding circumstances – Cannot be decided without trial [Paras 21, 25, 27].

Error by Trial Court – Material Illegality – Trial court erred in concluding suit barred merely on plaint averment of benami – Failed to consider exceptions under Section 4(3) – Order held perverse and unsustainable [Paras 29-30].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment and decree dated 30.08.2025 set aside – Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC dismissed – Suit restored to original number – Trial court directed to decide suit within six months – Parties to bear their own costs.

Family Law - Custody and Visitation – Paramount Consideration – Welfare of Child – Visitation rights of father modified by Family Court reducing frequency of physical meetings and introducing regulated video calls – Held: In matters of custody and visitation, welfare of the minor child is the paramount consideration overriding rights and convenience of parents – Courts must ensure physical safety, emotional well-being and psychological stability of the child [Paras 11, 15–18].

Interim Visitation – Power to Modify – Change in Circumstances – Family Court modified earlier consensual interim visitation arrangement dated 14.11.2024 based on subsequent incidents including alleged altercations, registration of FIR and complaints under PWDV Act – Held: Interim visitation arrangements are always subject to modification if subsequent events demonstrate potential impact on child’s welfare – No vested right accrues to either parent [Paras 14–16].

Discretionary Jurisdiction – Limited Appellate Interference – Family Court exercised discretionary jurisdiction after considering relevant material – Appellate court cannot substitute its own view unless order is perverse, arbitrary or contrary to welfare of child – Mere reduction in visitation frequency does not amount to denial of parental contact [Paras 20–21].

Balancing Parental Contact with Child’s Safety and Stability – Modified arrangement permitted physical meetings twice a month at neutral public place and video calls twice a month – Held: Arrangement strikes balance between father’s right to meaningful contact and need to protect child from instability arising from inter se parental disputes – Modification protective rather than punitive [Paras 17–18].

Ongoing Parental Conflict – Impact on Child – Record reflected multiple litigations and acrimonious disputes between parties – Courts duty-bound to insulate child from parental conflict as far as possible – Stability, routine and academic needs of school-going child must be prioritised over frequent short-duration meetings [Paras 19–20].

Allegations Pending Investigation – No Final Adjudication Required at Interim Stage – While allegations against father disputed, Family Court not required to conclusively determine truth at interim stage – Existence of surrounding circumstances sufficient to warrant cautious approach in regulating visitation [Paras 16–18].

Visitation Rights – Not Absolute – Subject to Regulation – Right of a parent to visitation is not absolute and can be reasonably regulated in interest of child’s welfare – Interim arrangements remain open to future modification upon demonstrable change in circumstances [Paras 20–23].

Counselling and Mediation – Observations – Court emphasised shared parental responsibility to foster healthy environment for child – Family Court may explore counselling or mediation to evolve harmonious co-parenting framework [Para 24].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Impugned order dated 15.12.2025 upheld – Modified interim visitation arrangement to continue until further orders – Observations confined to interim visitation and not to affect merits of pending proceedings [Paras 21–25].

Transfer of Property – Settlement Deed – Unilateral Cancellation – Invalidity – Registered settlement deed executed by the settlor in favour of grandson – Subsequent unilateral cancellation deed executed by settlor without consent of settlee – Held, once settlement deed is executed and registered, vesting rights in favour of settlee, it cannot be unilaterally cancelled unless a specific right of revocation is reserved in the deed or conditions are violated – Cancellation deed held void and inoperative [Paras 7–9].

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 122 – Acceptance of Gift – Delivery of Possession – Not Sine Qua Non – Acceptance of settlement deed can be inferred from conduct of parties – Possession of original title deed with plaintiff and registration of settlement deed sufficient to establish acceptance – Settlement deed held duly acted upon during lifetime of executant [Paras 9].

Fraud, Coercion and Undue Influence – Burden of Proof – Mere allegation by settlor that deed was executed without knowledge or under pressure insufficient – No plea or proof of fraud or coercion raised contemporaneously in cancellation deed or subsequent settlement deed – Failure to establish grounds for invalidating the original settlement deed [Paras 4, 9].

Subsequent Settlement and Mortgage Deeds – Validity – Once original settlement deed stood valid and irrevocable, settlor ceased to have any right, title or interest in property – Subsequent settlement deed executed in favour of daughters and mortgage deed executed thereafter declared null and void [Paras 7–9].

Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – Concurrent findings of fact by Trial Court and First Appellate Court – No perversity or substantial question of law made out – High Court declined to interfere with concurrent judgments [Paras 9–10].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Judgments and decrees of Trial Court and First Appellate Court upheld – Unilateral cancellation of settlement deed declared void – Subsequent settlement and mortgage deeds held invalid – No costs – Connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Tenancy Law - Landlord–Tenant – Forfeiture of Tenancy – Denial of Title – Claim of Adverse Possession – Section 111(g) Transfer of Property Act – Tenant issued notice claiming ownership on basis of alleged oral gift and alternatively adverse possession – Tenant disputed title of landlord’s vendor and asserted that proposed sale would not confer title on purchaser – Held: Tenant not only disputed landlord’s title but claimed title in himself – Clear renunciation of character as tenant – Forfeiture of tenancy attracted [Paras 4, 11, 14].

Adverse Possession – Tenant Claiming Ownership – Effect on Tenancy – Tenant asserted long, peaceful possession as owner and payment of municipal taxes – Assertion of hostile title inconsistent with continuance of tenancy – Held: Claim of adverse possession by tenant amounts to disclaimer of landlord’s title and results in forfeiture [Paras 4, 14].

Notice of Forfeiture – Addressed to Vendor – Validity – Contention that notice disputing title was issued to landlord’s vendor and not landlord himself – Notice clearly indicated that purchaser would derive no title – Held: Dispute of vendor’s title directly affects title of purchaser-landlord – Forfeiture not avoided merely because notice was addressed to vendor [Paras 7, 11, 14].

Waiver of Forfeiture – Demand and Acceptance of Rent – Section 112 Transfer of Property Act – Landlord issued notice demanding rent after forfeiture but expressly stated demand was “without prejudice” to claim of forfeiture – Rent accepted under protest and adjusted towards damages – Held: Mere demand and acceptance of rent with express reservation does not amount to waiver of forfeiture [Paras 5, 8, 15, 18].

Without Prejudice Demand – Intention of Landlord – Subsequent notices and correspondence consistently asserted forfeiture and denial of tenancy – Filing of eviction suit shortly thereafter reinforced absence of waiver – Intention to continue forfeiture clearly established [Paras 15, 17–18].

Distinguishing Waiver by Conduct – Chandrashekhar Gadgil Case – In earlier case landlord invoked Rent Act provisions years after forfeiture notice and sought eviction on statutory grounds – Held: Facts materially different – No waiver in present case as landlord never abandoned forfeiture plea and consistently reserved rights [Para 16].

Protection under Rent Control Laws – Effect of Forfeiture – Once tenant forfeits character by denying title and claiming ownership, protection under rent control legislation is unavailable – Conceded legal position correctly applied [Paras 6, 13–14].

Second Appeal – No Substantial Question of Law – Concurrent findings of Trial Court and First Appellate Court based on correct application of law – No perversity or legal error demonstrated – Second Appeal dismissed [Paras 18–19].

Equitable Relief – Time to Vacate – Considering long possession and residential nature of premises – Six months’ time granted to vacate subject to undertaking – Tenant directed to hand over vacant possession on or before 15/07/2026 [Paras 20–21].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Concurrent decrees for eviction confirmed – No order as to costs – Time granted to vacate till 15/07/2026.

Employees’ Compensation – Insurer’s Liability – Interest on Compensation – Policy Exclusion Clause – Appeal by Insurance Company – Workman sustained permanent total disability due to fall from height during employment – Commissioner awarded compensation with 12% interest and imposed liability jointly on employer and insurer – Insurance policy produced at appellate stage showing specific exclusion of liability for interest and penalty – Held: Liability of insurer under Employees’ Compensation Act is purely contractual and governed by terms of insurance policy – In absence of statutory compulsion akin to Motor Vehicles Act, insurer cannot be fastened with liability beyond contract – Exclusion clause valid and enforceable – Insurer liable only to pay compensation amount – Employer liable to pay statutory interest [Paras 11–20].

Additional Evidence – Insurance Policy – Acceptance at Appellate Stage – Certified copy of full insurance policy not produced before Commissioner due to inadvertent omission – Policy certificate and premium receipts already on record – Additional document relevant for adjudication of substantial question of law – No dispute as to genuineness of document – Held: In the interest of justice, additional evidence permitted and relied upon [Paras 11–12].

Wages and Coverage – Employees’ Compensation Insurance – Insurer contended policy covered only seven welders drawing wages up to ₹4,000 per month whereas claimant alleged wages of ₹15,000 – Commissioner assessed wages at ₹4,000 per month – Held: Once Commissioner fixed wages within policy limit, insurer cannot deny coverage solely based on higher wage claim by workman [Para 10].

Substantial Question of Law – Direction to Pay Interest Contrary to Policy Terms – Whether Commissioner was justified in directing insurer to pay interest despite express exclusion in policy – Held: Issue involves interpretation of insurance contract and statutory scheme – Constitutes substantial question of law – Answered in favour of insurer [Paras 18–20].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Award modified – Insurer directed to pay only compensation amount – Employer directed to pay interest as awarded by Commissioner – No liability on insurer for interest or penalty.

Local Self-Government – Removal of Elected Municipal President – Section 48(2-A), U.P. Municipality Act, 1916 – Meaning of “such inquiry as it may consider necessary” – Full-fledged inquiry mandatory – Petitioner, elected President of Nagar Palika Parishad, removed on allegations of corruption, favouritism in tenders and misuse of municipal funds – Removal order based on preliminary inquiry reports and show-cause proceedings – No formal charge-sheet framed – No Inquiry Officer appointed – No oral evidence recorded – No opportunity of cross-examination afforded – Preliminary inquiry reports relied upon without associating petitioner – Held: Once charges are denied and explanation is found unsatisfactory, State Government is mandatorily required to conduct a full-fledged inquiry before removal of an elected representative – Removal without such inquiry violates Section 48(2-A) and principles of natural justice – Impugned order quashed with liberty to conduct fresh inquiry in accordance with law [Paras 11–23].

Elected Representative – Higher Constitutional Pedestal – Comparison with Government Servant – Elected President of Municipality stands on a higher footing than a government servant – If even a temporary government employee cannot be removed without full-fledged inquiry, removal of an elected representative without such inquiry is impermissible – Removal curtails statutory right of office-bearer and democratic right of constituency – Strict adherence to statutory procedure essential [Paras 13, 20].

Inquiry – Preliminary vs. Regular Inquiry – Evidentiary Value – Preliminary inquiry meant only to form prima facie opinion – Evidence recorded therein cannot be relied upon for final punishment – Reliance on preliminary reports without examination of witnesses in presence of delinquent and without cross-examination is illegal – Documents do not prove themselves and must be proved through competent witnesses [Paras 15, 16, 21].

Natural Justice – Supply of Inquiry Material – Right to Defence – Non-supply of relied-upon material including inquiry reports and comments vitiates proceedings – Right to receive inquiry report is part of reasonable opportunity of defence – Prejudice need not be separately proved where mandatory procedural safeguards are breached [Paras 15, 21].

Administrative Law – Quasi-Judicial Power – Recording of Reasons – Order of removal must record clear reasons based on legally admissible evidence – Mere reference to allegations and replies without discussion of evidence reflects non-application of mind – Quasi-judicial orders affecting elected office must demonstrate fairness, objectivity and strict compliance with law [Paras 21–22].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Order dated 29.10.2025 removing petitioner from office quashed – Respondents directed to conduct a full-fledged inquiry strictly in accordance with Section 48(2-A) of the Act, 1916 and principles of natural justice – Consequential relief granted [Para 23–24].