Family Law – Custody of Minor Children – Split Custody – Welfare of Child Paramount – Preference of Minor Considered – Family Court granted custody of elder daughter to mother and younger son to father – Appellant-mother sought custody of both children to restore sibling bond – Held: Both parents are educated and financially stable; minor son (aged 11) has lived with father and paternal grandmother for 7 years and expressed genuine, independent desire to continue in same environment – No indication of coaching or adverse conditions – Court found no compelling reason to alter settled custody arrangement, especially where change could disrupt child’s emotional equilibrium and academic stability [Paras 1–3, 6–7, 15–17].

Child Custody – Preference of Child – Emotional Bonding and Continuity – Court interacted with both siblings – Son displayed strong attachment to father and grandmother and showed comfort in present routine – Although emotional bond with sister existed, frequent interaction was minimal due to years of separation – Court observed absence of hostility but also absence of shared day-to-day life – Held: Disruption of established bond with current caregiver not warranted solely to reunite siblings [Paras 6–9, 15–16].

Custody Jurisprudence – Allegations Between Parents Not Determinative – Welfare Principle Supersedes Fault-Based Arguments – Appellant cited father’s alleged misconduct, alcohol use, and discriminatory parenting – Family Court found such allegations either unproven or not materially affecting welfare of minor son – Court reiterated settled principle that child custody determination must transcend mutual recriminations between parties and focus only on child’s best interest [Paras 10.4, 13–14, 17].

Visitation Rights – Parental Cooperation Essential – Possibility of Future Modification Not Barred – Court upheld existing arrangement but emphasized that child welfare is dynamic – Directed both parties to maintain cordial interaction and ensure continuity in sibling relationship through visitation – Liberty granted to approach competent court for modification upon substantial change in circumstances [Paras 19–21].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Impugned order dated 18.09.2023 upheld – Custody of minor son to remain with father and minor daughter with mother – Existing visitation rights of mother to continue – No costs [Paras 19–21].

Prevention of Money Laundering – Search and Seizure – Applicability of Section 17 PMLA – Complaint Against Co-Accused – Search Valid – ED conducted search under Section 17 PMLA at respondent’s premises on 09.02.2016 recovering ₹26.30 lakhs, laptop and other devices – Respondent not named in original 2011 prosecution complaint but allegedly facilitated main accused Hassan Ali Khan in obtaining forged passport and opening foreign account – Tribunal wrongly held search invalid for want of complaint against respondent – Held: Section 17 only requires prior institution of complaint or report under Section 157 CrPC, not necessarily against the same person whose premises is searched – Search based on “reason to believe” and linked to ongoing proceedings against co-accused held valid [Paras 19, 29, 34–38, 41].

Criminal Law – Money Laundering – Applicability of Retention and Attachment Provisions – Sections 5 vs. 17 PMLA – Retention was under Section 17(4) PMLA, not under Section 5 – Distinction clarified: Section 5 applies when ED believes person possesses proceeds of crime and may conceal it, requiring prior complaint/report under Section 173 CrPC – Section 17 applies to broader categories including possession of related records and allows search based on report under Section 157 CrPC – Tribunal erred in applying incorrect legal standard [Paras 24–30, 37].

Due Process – Tribunal’s Reasoning Based on Unraised Grounds – Procedural Impropriety – Remand Ordered – Tribunal allowed appeal on ground that no complaint was filed against respondent, though such contention was not raised before it – Respondent’s actual plea was that seizure had no nexus with any proceeds of crime and that ED failed to rebut his explanation of legitimate income – Held: Tribunal misdirected itself by deciding on an unargued issue – Matter remanded for fresh adjudication with liberty to respondent to raise all contentions [Paras 19, 23, 33, 43–45].

Supplementary Complaint – Effect of Respondent’s Death – No Impact on Validity of Search – Respondent died during pendency of appeal; his legal heir impleaded – Though ED failed to mention this fact in supplementary complaint filed later, Court held it has no bearing on legality of search conducted prior to his death or on retention proceedings under challenge [Paras 16, 20, 42].

Decision: Impugned order of Appellate Tribunal dated 21.05.2019 set aside – Appeal remanded for fresh decision by Tribunal in accordance with law – Parties granted opportunity to raise all relevant contentions – Appeal disposed accordingly [Paras 45–46].

Labour Law – Gratuity – Forfeiture – Post-Employment Conduct – Petitioner-company forfeited gratuity under Section 4(6)(b)(ii) of the Payment of Gratuity Act citing breach of post-resignation confidentiality and non-compete clauses – Allegation that respondents joined rival firm and misused trade secrets – Held: Even assuming misconduct, alleged acts occurred after cessation of employment – Section 4(6)(b)(ii) applies only to offences involving moral turpitude committed during the course of employment – Forfeiture not legally sustainable [Paras 1, 4, 8–10, 14–15].

Natural Justice – No Prior Notice – Petitioner did not issue any show cause notice to employees before forfeiting gratuity – Held: Violation of natural justice renders action unsustainable – Forfeiture of property-like entitlement (gratuity) cannot be done arbitrarily – Reliance on State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, (2013) 12 SCC 210, affirmed [Paras 11, 14–15].

Industrial Disputes – Forfeiture Requires Statutory Compliance – Petitioner’s reliance on Western Coal Fields Ltd. v. Manohar Govinda Fulzele and Ramchandra Joshi v. Bank of Baroda misplaced – Forfeiture under Section 4(6)(b)(ii) must be preceded by valid termination for an act committed in course of employment – No such termination or allegation existed at relevant time [Paras 5, 12–13].

Civil Litigation – No Prejudice in Pending Civil Suit – Court clarified that its findings or those of authorities under Gratuity Act will not prejudice petitioner’s ongoing civil suits seeking damages against respondents – Petitioner free to prove its claims independently therein [Paras 6, 16, 18].

Decision: Writ petitions dismissed – Concurrent findings of Labour and Industrial Courts upheld – Forfeiture of gratuity invalid as alleged misconduct occurred post-employment and without notice – Observations not to prejudice petitioner’s pending civil suits.

Accident Claim - Motor Vehicles Act – Driving Licence – Statutory Grace Period – Expired licence remains valid for 30 days under proviso to Section 14 – Licence expired on 04.06.2001; accident on 04.07.2001 within grace period – Driver legally licensed – No breach of policy conditions – Insurer not entitled to recovery rights – Tribunal’s award upheld [Paras 3–6].

Motor Vehicles Act – Section 14 Proviso – Effect of expiry of driving licence – Statutory extension of validity – Held: Proviso explicitly provides that a driving licence continues to remain effective for 30 days from the date of expiry – Licence of driver expired on 04.06.2001; statutory grace period ran from 05.06.2001 to 04.07.2001 – Accident at 10:45 AM on 04.07.2001 fell squarely within grace period – Licence deemed valid at time of accident [Paras 3–4].

Insurance Law – Breach of Policy Conditions – Absence of valid licence – Insurer’s plea rejected – Renewal made after accident irrelevant as licence had statutory efficacy on accident date – No willful breach attributable to insured – Recovery rights cannot be granted to insurer [Paras 2–4, 6].

Interpretation – Computation of statutory period – Section 9, General Clauses Act – Counting of days – Grace period begins the day after expiry – 30th day falls on 04.07.2001 – Court affirms correct computation and applicability of grace period [Paras 3–4].

Precedent – Proviso to Section 14 consistently interpreted – Court relies on:

(a) State of Haryana & Anr. v. Karkor & Ors. (P&H, 24.05.2018) – licence valid during statutory grace period; insurer not entitled to recovery rights;

(b) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Santosh Kumari, 2018 (4) ADJ 527 (Allahabad HC) – expired licence continues to be effective for 30 days and insurer cannot allege breach during this period –

Held: Same view applies; Tribunal’s findings correct; no reason for appellate interference [Para 5].

MACT Appeal – Scope of interference – Tribunal correctly fastened liability upon insurer – No infirmity in findings – Appeal devoid of merit – Dismissed [Paras 1–2, 6–7].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Award dated 04.01.2003 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind affirmed – Driver’s licence deemed valid on date of accident due to statutory 30-day extension under proviso to Section 14 MV Act; consequently, no breach of policy conditions – Insurer not entitled to recovery rights – Pending applications also disposed of [Paras 6–8].

Criminal Law - Forgery – Wills – Civil Dispute Converted into Criminal Case – Criminal complaint filed alleging will dated 17.3.2015 is forged and used to claim property – Discharge sought on ground that genuineness of both wills (dated 17.3.2015 and 11.1.2017) already sub judice in civil suit filed in 2017 – FIR filed in 2019 as retaliatory measure – Held: Allegations raise disputed questions of title and ownership – No prima facie case under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 or 120-B IPC – Continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process [Paras 5, 8, 14, 21–26]

Criminal Revision – Discharge – Jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC – Trial court refused discharge – High Court held that when allegations are entirely civil in nature and issues are pending adjudication in civil court, criminal prosecution must not proceed – Reliance placed on Sanjay Kumar Rai v. State of U.P. and Urmila Devi v. Balram – Power to discharge should be exercised to prevent misuse of criminal process [Paras 18, 19, 25]

Misuse of Criminal Law – FIR Against Deceased Person – FIR lodged against one Shamsher Singh who had died months prior to the complaint – Court held this indicated malice and misuse of process – Further strengthens case for discharge [Para 24]

Probate and Will Dispute – No Final Adjudication – Probate petition for will dated 17.3.2015 was dismissed in default and not on merits – Pending civil suit to determine genuineness of rival wills – Until civil court decides validity, treating will as forged is premature [Paras 13, 22]

Decision: Revision allowed – Impugned order dated 6.1.2025 set aside – Revisionists discharged from proceedings – Trial against co-accused Sushil Narula to continue as per law [Paras 26–27]

Senior Citizen Law – Eviction of Legal Heirs – Beneficial Legislation – Petitioner, an 80-year-old senior citizen, challenged the order of the Appellate Authority setting aside eviction of his daughter and her family from second floor of property – Appellate Authority held eviction unjustified as no ill-treatment or non-maintenance was proved – Held: Such a requirement is not a mandatory precondition where legal heirs have no right or interest in the property – Rule 22(3)(1) permits eviction from property where senior citizen merely has a right or interest – Appellate Authority's view contrary to established precedents [Paras 31–38].

Right or Interest in Property – Scope of Protection – Respondents claimed rights on second floor based on alleged contribution to construction and long-term residence – Court rejected this contention as induction was solely on basis of petitioner’s ownership and license – Held: Possession of respondents is referable to petitioner's permission – Even a “modicum of right” in property is sufficient to seek eviction under Rule 22(3)(1) – Senior citizen’s interest in safety and peaceful possession overrides conflicting claims of licensees [Paras 39–43, 46–47].

Ill-treatment Not Mandatory – Purpose of Act – Court reiterated that the Senior Citizen Act is a beneficial statute – Held: Senior citizens need not establish ill-treatment or wait for abuse to seek protection or eviction of children – Even apprehension of threat to peace, safety and well-being is sufficient – Delay in filing complaint not fatal if harassment persists or senior citizen sought reconciliation before seeking legal remedy [Paras 32–34].

Title Dispute – Not a Bar to Eviction – Court held that eviction proceedings under Senior Citizen Rules are summary in nature – Pendency of civil suit or lack of title in children/legal heirs does not prevent eviction – Civil courts can still be approached by parties if title is to be conclusively adjudicated – Summary eviction permissible for protective purposes [Paras 42–44, 50].

Decision: Eviction Upheld – Impugned Appellate Order dated 28.08.2023 set aside – District Magistrate’s eviction order dated 24.03.2022 restored – Respondents directed to vacate second floor within four weeks – Deputy Commissioner of Police directed to ensure enforcement – Respondents also restrained from harassing or abusing the petitioner in the interim [Paras 48–52].

Election Law – Impleadment in Interlocutory Applications – Application by respondent No.1 in election petition seeking impleadment of respondent No.2 as opposite party in three pending IAs relating to dismissal of election petition – Held: Election petitioner had not claimed any relief against respondent No.2 – Respondent No.2 neither a necessary nor proper party for adjudication of pending IAs – Petition for impleadment rejected as not maintainable under Rule 27(a) of Orissa High Court Rules [Paras 1, 4, 7, 10–12]

Court Procedure – Rule 27(a) of Orissa High Court Rules – Interim Relief – Separate Applications – Rule mandates that a separate petition must be filed for each interlocutory relief – Filing of single I.A. seeking impleadment in multiple pending I.As. not permissible – I.A. No.93 of 2025 dismissed as contrary to procedural rules [Paras 5–7]

CPC – Non-Applicability of Order 1 Rule 10 to Election Proceedings – Court held that power of impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC cannot be exercised in election petitions governed by specific provisions of the R.P. Act, 1951 – Reiterated Supreme Court’s view that general CPC provisions cannot override special statute [Paras 8, 11]

Election Law – Scope of Participation – No Right to Participate in IAs – Respondent No.2, not being a contesting party in the interlocutory applications, held to have no legal standing to participate – Mere impleadment in main election petition does not warrant involvement in interim applications filed prior to such impleadment [Paras 9–10]

Decision: Interlocutory Application No.93 of 2025 dismissed on contest – Held not maintainable in law – No merit found in prayer for impleadment – Separate IAs required for separate interlocutory reliefs under Rule 27(a) – No role demonstrated for respondent No.2 in pending IAs – Petition disposed of finally [Paras 11–12]

Civil Law – Injunction Suit – Suppression of Material Facts – Non-specification of Suit Land – Plaintiff described suit land by khasra number, area and location – Evidence of parties and witnesses clearly identified the suit land – Held: Mere absence of boundary description not fatal when parties are aware of identity of land – No suppression of material facts established – Suit maintainable [Paras 11–16].

Property Law – Transfer of Immovable Property – Section 138, J&K Transfer of Property Act – Mandatory Requirement of Written and Registered Instrument – Defendant claimed possession based on alleged transfer from daughters of plaintiff – No registered sale deed or legal instrument produced – Held: Transfer without compliance with Section 138 is void and confers no right of ownership or lawful possession [Paras 18–21].

Property Law – Possession Follows Title – Illegal Possession – Defendant admittedly purchased land only from daughters of plaintiff – Vendor cannot convey better title than he possesses – Plaintiff never executed any transfer deed – Held: Defendant’s possession, if any, without lawful title amounts to trespass and cannot defeat lawful owner’s claim [Paras 15, 18–23].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Reversal of Findings of Fact – First Appellate Court set aside Trial Court decree without appreciating statutory mandate of Section 138 – Erroneously vested ownership and possession in defendant without documentary title – Held: Interference with Trial Court’s well-reasoned findings was perverse and unsustainable in law [Paras 21–24].

Civil Law – Permanent Prohibitory Injunction – Plaintiff Established Ownership and Lawful Possession through Revenue Records and Oral Evidence – Defendant failed to establish any legal right to possess suit land – Trial Court decree rightly granted injunction restraining interference – Restoration of Trial Court decree justified [Paras 22–25].

Decision: Civil Second Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree dated 24.08.2018 passed by the Principal District Judge, Anantnag set aside – Judgment and decree of the Trial Court granting permanent prohibitory injunction restored – Suit of the plaintiff decreed – Registry directed to prepare decree sheet.

Taxation Law - Sales Tax – Trademark – Assignment of Intangible Asset – Situs of Trademark – Transaction Held as Export – Not Taxable Under State Sales Tax Law – Brand Acquisition Agreement transferring ownership of registered trademark ‘Crocin’ from Indian company to UK-based entity executed in London – Held: Trademark, being an intangible asset, follows owner’s situs – Application of principle of mobilia sequuntur personam – Since assignee is based in UK, assignment deemed as sale in course of export under Section 5(1) of CST Act – State not entitled to levy local sales tax under BST Act [Paras 36–38, 45]

Indirect Taxation – Central Sales Tax Act – Section 5(1) – Meaning of Export – No Physical Movement Required for Intangibles – Intangible Asset May ‘Move’ Juridically With Owner – Court held that the word “goods” under CST Act includes intangibles – Movement of such asset not necessarily physical – Deeming fiction applies when trademark assigned to foreign entity – Assignment amounts to export even without physical translocation across borders [Paras 30–31, 38, 41]

Intellectual Property – Assignment of Trademark – Registration Not Mandatory for Valid Transfer – Legal Title Transfers Upon Execution – Relying on Sun Pharmaceuticals and Parksons Cartamundi, Court held that assignment is complete upon execution; registration with Registrar of Trademarks not prerequisite for validity – Ownership passes immediately upon assignment even if registration occurs later [Paras 18(c), 44]

Sales Tax – Situs of Trademark – Registration Location Irrelevant – Ownership Determines Jurisdiction – Tribunal erred in treating location of trademark registration (India) as determinant of situs – Held: For intangible property, situs is determined by owner’s location – Decision of Tribunal overturned [Paras 17, 36–37, 43]

Constitutional Law – Article 286 – Bar on State Taxation of Export Sales – CST Act to Be Harmoniously Construed with Constitutional Scheme – Court emphasized that CST Act (Sections 3–5) must be interpreted in line with Article 286 – State barred from taxing sales in course of export – Harmonious construction of provisions ensures consistency in treatment of tangibles and intangibles under tax laws [Paras 30–31, 32–35]

Decision: Reference answered in favour of Applicant – Assignment of trademark ‘Crocin’ deemed to be in course of export under Section 5(1) of CST Act – Not a local sale within State of Maharashtra – Not liable to 4% sales tax under BST Act – Sales Tax Reference No. 9 of 2012 disposed of accordingly. [Paras 45–46]