Panchayat Reconstitution – Constitution of New Panchayats – Article 243 and Section 4 of Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 – Challenge to Notification Failed – The petitioners challenged the notification issued by the State Government creating two new Panchayats, Pinjarzadi and Panchmauli, by bifurcating Burudkhe Panchayat – The Court held that the State Government acted in accordance with law, following due consultation process and in compliance with Section 4 of the Act of 1959 – Held: Petition dismissed, impugned notification upheld [Paras 2-15].

Scheduled Area – Protection of Status – No Violation – Petitioners contended that the Scheduled Area status of Burudkhe Village was affected by the notification – Court clarified that inclusion in Scheduled Area was of the ‘village’ under the Scheduled Areas (Maharashtra) Order, 1985 and not the Panchayat – The notification did not affect the Scheduled Area status of the village, thus contention was rejected [Paras 13-14].

Naming of Panchayats – Largest Population Criteria – The petitioners sought retention of Burudkhe Panchayat – Court held that as per Section 4 of the Act of 1959, Panchayats must be named after the village with the largest population – Panchmauli had a higher population than Burudkhe, hence Panchayat rightly named Panchmauli – Held: No arbitrariness in naming [Para 12].

Consultation Requirement – Compliance Established – On the question of mandatory consultation, Court referred to precedents and confirmed that required consultation with the Gram Sabha and Standing Committee was duly undertaken before issuing the notification – Held: Mandatory procedural requirement was fulfilled [Paras 9-11].

Executive Power of State – Valid Exercise of Power – Court upheld the exercise of power by the State under Article 154 of the Constitution, clarifying that issuance of notification in the name of the Governor constitutes valid executive action of the State – Held: No procedural infirmity [Para 14].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – The Court found no merit in the petitioners' objections on procedural or constitutional grounds and dismissed the petition affirming the legality of the bifurcation of Panchayat and naming as per law [Para 15].

Family Law - Senior Citizens Act – Right of Residence – Interplay with Domestic Violence Act – Tribunal’s order upheld – Petitioners (daughter-in-law and relatives) challenged Maintenance Tribunal’s order under Senior Citizens Act permitting 2nd respondent (mother-in-law) to reside on first floor of same building occupied by petitioners on ground floor – Petitioners relied on Apex Court decision in Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner to contend right to shared household under PWDV Act cannot be defeated – Held: Vanitha does not bar invocation of Senior Citizens Act where no prejudice is caused to protection order under PWDV Act – Separate entrances and floors ensured no interference with petitioners’ rights – Tribunal’s order sustained [Paras 8].

Maintainability – Daughter-in-law within definition of “children” – Purposive interpretation applied – Petitioners contended proceedings under Senior Citizens Act not maintainable against daughter-in-law – Court held that purposive interpretation of “children” in Section 2(a) includes daughter-in-law when in possession of property and relief sought is for senior citizen’s residence – Refusal would defeat object of Act to provide speedy remedy – Telangana High Court’s decision in Deepika H. followed [Paras 9-12].

Apprehension of Harassment – Not a ground to deny senior citizen residence in own property – Petitioners argued past incidents of harassment justify denial of residence – Court noted 2nd respondent’s undertaking to reside only on first floor with separate access – Petitioners free to seek remedies under Section 31 PWDV Act or alternate accommodation under Section 19(f) if protection order violated – Mere apprehension insufficient [Paras 13].

Decision – Writ petition dismissed – Ext.P10 order of Maintenance Tribunal permitting 2nd respondent’s residence on first floor upheld [Final Para]

Civil Law  – Eviction Suit – Challenge to Registered Will – Appeal Dismissed – Plaintiffs 2 to 4 (second wife and her daughters) claimed ownership through a registered holograph Will executed by the original plaintiff (father) – Trial Court decreed eviction against the first defendant (son through first wife) and First Appellate Court upheld the Will’s validity – Second Appeal dismissed holding that the Will was duly proved through attesting witnesses and no suspicious circumstances existed – Findings of both Courts held to be legal and valid – No substantial question of law arose for consideration [Paras 1, 12, 33, 45-47].

Testamentary Law – Holograph Will – Greater Presumption of Authenticity – Will written in testator’s own handwriting carries higher presumption of genuineness – Held: Execution of holograph Will (Ex-A8) registered at Sub-Registrar’s Office at Madurai stands proved through credible testimony of two attesting witnesses – Will was written by the testator (a retired Sheristadar) in a sound state of mind – Registration at a place other than his residence does not create suspicion – No infirmity in Will’s execution [Paras 29-33, 38].

Suspicious Circumstances – Mere Disinheritance Not Sufficient – Legal Heirs Omitted from Will – Not Suspicious Per Se – Appellant argued that exclusion of eight children born through first wife renders Will suspicious – Held: Mere exclusion of natural heirs is not sufficient to invalidate a Will – Proven strained relationships, adversarial litigation history, and cohabitation with second wife and her daughters explained the exclusion – No valid suspicion arose – Courts correctly relied on Supreme Court precedents [Paras 34-37].

Evidence Law – Section 68, Indian Evidence Act – Attesting Witnesses Credible – Witnesses Not Beneficiaries – Held: Testimony of attesting witnesses PW-3 and PW-4 was consistent and credible – Both affirmed execution in testator’s presence – Witnesses were not beneficiaries under the Will – No contradiction or bias established – Proof requirements under Sections 63 of Succession Act and 68 of Evidence Act duly met [Paras 31-33, 40].

Judicial Findings – No Perversity – Concurrent Findings Based on Evidence – Held: Both lower Courts analyzed oral and documentary evidence and concluded validity of Will – No perversity or illegality found in such concurrent findings – Second Appeal does not warrant interference under Section 100 CPC [Paras 45-47].

Bail Appeal – Group Assault – Sections 118, 117 of BNS and SC/ST Act – Bail Granted – The appellant challenged rejection of bail under multiple sections of BNS, 2023 and SC/ST Act alleging injuries inflicted during an altercation – The High Court observed no specific role was initially attributed to the appellant and the parties had since entered into a compromise – The appellant had undergone over five months of incarceration, the investigation was complete, and the trial was yet to commence – Held: Considering the compromise, prolonged custody, and absence of adjudication on merits at the pre-trial stage, the appellant was granted regular bail, subject to conditions [Paras 3-8].

SC/ST Act – Accused Himself Belonging to Scheduled Caste – Prima Facie Non-Applicability – The appellant contended being from a Scheduled Caste himself, hence, provisions of SC/ST Act were not applicable – The Court noted this contention without deciding on merits, considering it was a bail stage and such issues would be decided during trial [Paras 3, 7].

Compromise Between Parties – Impact on Bail – Role in Assault Disputed – The complainant affirmed compromise and settlement of disputes arising from misunderstanding – The Court held that though the allegations were serious, the settlement weighed in favour of granting bail – Held: Settlement between parties is a valid consideration in bail proceedings, especially where custodial trial would be prolonged [Paras 4-8].

Custodial Detention – Right to Liberty – Prolonged Detention Without Trial – The Court emphasised the principle of liberty where the appellant had been in custody since 28.01.2025 with no substantial trial progress – Held: Further pre-trial incarceration not justified, bail granted [Paras 6-8].

Decision – Bail Granted – The appeal was allowed and appellant ordered to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of trial court – Court clarified that non-furnishing of bail bonds within one week would exclude further custody counting in the present case [Paras 8-9].

Second Regular Bail – Sections 307, 324, 323, 506, and 34 of the IPC - Extended Custody and Near Completion of Trial – Bail Granted – The petitioner, accused of attempted murder in a familial dispute, sought bail after over three years in custody – The Court found the prosecution evidence nearly concluded, with only one witness left, reducing risk of tampering – Held: Prolonged pre-trial detention unjustified when evidentiary phase nearly complete; bail granted with conditions [Paras 3, 6-8].

Fair Trial Rights – Right to Defence – Bail Facilitates Defence Preparation – The Court emphasized the accused’s right to fair trial includes proper preparation of defence, which is hampered by extended custody – Held: Bail necessary to ensure robust defence in adversarial criminal proceedings [Para 6].

Second Bail Petition Maintainable – Change of Circumstances – The earlier bail plea was withdrawn; present plea justified by extended incarceration and completion of prosecution evidence – Held: Second bail petition maintainable on changed circumstances; Court followed principles laid in Rafiq Khan v. State of Haryana [Para 7].

No Criminal Antecedents – Age Consideration – Accused aged 69 years with no past criminal record – Held: Advanced age and absence of prior offences weigh in favour of bail [Paras 3, 6].

Conditions Imposed – Safeguards Against Misuse – Bail subject to strict conditions: no tampering of evidence, no absence from trial, no re-offending, surrender of passport, and mandatory mobile number registration with investigating agency [Para 8].

Decision – Bail Granted – Petition Allowed – The Court allowed the petition, granted regular bail with standard and additional safeguards; State/complainant granted liberty to seek cancellation upon any violation [Paras 8-10].

Service Law – Writ - Challenging Dismissal Order - Departmental Inquiry – Compliance with Natural Justice – Departmental Action Upheld – The petitioner, a first-grade clerk, challenged his dismissal on allegations of forging documents and preparing freehold sale deeds for ineligible persons, causing loss of ₹600 lakhs to the Kanpur Development Authority – After the Appellate Authority remanded the matter with directions to consider petitioner’s reply and conduct proceedings properly, the Disciplinary Authority issued a fresh show-cause notice, provided opportunity for reply, and personal hearing – Held: There was no procedural lapse or violation of natural justice, as the petitioner participated in proceedings and endorsed satisfaction with the inquiry process – Writ dismissed [Paras 7-8, 18-19, 24].

Scope of Judicial Review in Departmental Proceedings – Limited Interference – High Court reiterated the settled principle that in writ jurisdiction, interference in departmental proceedings is limited to procedural irregularities or perverse findings – Where findings are based on material evidence, sufficiency thereof cannot be scrutinized by the Court – Held: Inquiry report contained detailed charge-wise analysis based on documentary evidence, and findings of misconduct were valid – No interference warranted under Article 226 [Paras 15, 21-24].

Principles of Natural Justice – Denial of Oral Inquiry – Not Attracted Where Full Opportunity Provided – Petitioner’s plea of de novo inquiry and lack of oral evidence rejected – Held: After remand, petitioner received documentary evidence, filed replies, appeared personally, and accepted the inquiry process – Oral inquiry is necessary where warranted by facts; here, sufficient opportunity was provided and there was no prejudice – Petitioner's reliance on Kaptan Singh’s case was found distinguishable [Paras 11-12, 20].

Punishment – Dismissal Justified in Case of Proven Forgery and Loss to Public Exchequer – On the proven charges of forgery, manipulation of public records, and causing large financial loss, the punishment of dismissal from service was held not to be shockingly disproportionate – Held: Major penalty appropriate considering the gravity of misconduct [Paras 22-25].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – The High Court upheld the departmental dismissal order, finding no violation of natural justice or procedural irregularity and confirming the established findings of grave misconduct involving forgery and financial embezzlement – Writ petition dismissed [Para 26].

Criminal Contempt – Publication of Scandalous Remarks – Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act – Conviction Upheld – The respondent posted a series of derogatory and scurrilous statements on Facebook targeting sitting Judges of the Kerala High Court, alleging political bias, improper motives, and judicial dishonesty – The Court held that attributing such motives to Judges adversely affects public confidence in the administration of justice and amounts to criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Act – Evidence included Facebook posts marked Exts.C3 to C7 and oral testimony of two prosecution witnesses – Held: Respondent guilty of criminal contempt [Paras 2-5, 9-10, 27-29, 45-46].

Fair Criticism vs. Scandalising the Court – Limits of Free Speech – Article 19 of the Constitution – Justification Rejected – The Court noted that while fair criticism of judgments is permissible, imputing improper motives to Judges and making baseless allegations undermines the integrity of the judiciary – Defence of fair comment and truth was rejected as the respondent failed to substantiate allegations – Reliance placed on precedents including E.M. Sankaran Nampoothiripad v. Narayanan Nambiar, D.C. Saxena v. Chief Justice of India – Held: Freedom of speech cannot be used as a shield for scandalising the Court [Paras 34-44].

Repeated Contempt and Absence of Remorse – Effect on Sentence – The respondent, previously discharged in an earlier contempt case upon tendering unconditional apology, resumed similar conduct within a short time – The Court found the respondent’s shifting stand (admitting authorship in affidavit but denying during evidence) to reflect absence of bona fide – Considering previous conduct and contumacious attitude, the Court imposed a deterrent sentence – Held: Respondent sentenced to 3 days simple imprisonment and Rs. 2000 fine under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 [Paras 4-5, 29, 45-49].

Punishment in Contempt – Scope of Court’s Discretion under Section 12 – Sentence Justified – The Court declined to suspend the sentence under Section 19(3) of the Act in view of the seriousness of the offence, the respondent’s repeated misconduct, and absence of genuine remorse – Held: Prayer for suspension of sentence rejected; immediate execution of sentence directed [Paras 48-50].

Decision:

The Court convicted the respondent under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, sentenced him to simple imprisonment for 3 days and a fine of Rs. 2000; in default, a further one-month simple imprisonment; application for suspension of sentence was rejected.

Civil Law - Partition Suit – Final Decree in Partition – Section 96, CPC and Orders 20 Rule 12 & 26 Rule 13 CPC – Appeal partly allowed – The appeal was filed by the defendant challenging the division of agricultural land and residential house finalized in a decree – The Court held that while the Commissioner’s report was overall valid, the irrigation facilities required equitable modification – Bore-wells, though situated in the portion allotted to the plaintiff, were directed to be treated as common along with the open well, ensuring access to water resources for both parties – The division of residential house by horizontal partition was upheld, considering equitable division without prejudice to possession rights [Paras 1-22].

Irrigation Rights – Common Use of Water Resources – Section 96 CPC – Modification Directed – The Court noted that the open well was already declared common, but additional bore-wells crucial for irrigation were solely allotted to the plaintiff – To ensure fairness and agricultural sustainability, the Court modified the decree, directing shared use of bore-wells and ensuring unhindered water passage between properties – Held: Right to irrigation is a crucial civil right warranting equitable access in partition proceedings [Paras 15-21].

Residential Property – Division Despite Possession – Partition Suit – The appellant's contention to exclusively retain the residential house was rejected – The Court observed that long-term residence did not extinguish the plaintiff’s right – Horizontal division was upheld based on Commissioner’s report ensuring both parties received equitable share including access to roadways – Demolition was avoided by suggesting minimal structural alteration for effective division [Paras 19-20].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Court modified final decree concerning irrigation rights by making bore-wells common to both parties while upholding the division of house property and agricultural land – No costs awarded – Connected civil miscellaneous petition closed [Paras 21-22].

Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail – Economic Offence – Sections 3 & 4 of PMLA – Bail Denied – Petitioner sought anticipatory bail contending false implication in ECIR case regarding cryptocurrency fraud – ED objected highlighting petitioner’s alleged mastermind role in running Ponzi scheme under fake crypto “Emollient Coin” – Allegations included laundering ₹6.05 crores, evasion of investigation, and cheating thousands of innocent investors – Held: Considering petitioner’s non-cooperation, abscondence, gravity of economic offence, custodial interrogation essential, discretionary relief of anticipatory bail declined [Paras 1-19].

Pre-Arrest Bail – Applicability of Section 45 of PMLA – Twin Conditions – Reiterated – The Court reaffirmed that anticipatory bail in PMLA cases is circumscribed by twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA – Satisfaction of non-guilt and likelihood of non-repetition of offence mandatory – Petitioner failed to establish compliance with twin conditions – Held: No merit in plea for extraordinary bail in economic offences impacting large investor base [Paras 15-17].

Principles for Grant of Pre-Arrest Bail – Guidelines from Apex Court – Reviewed – Court discussed and applied guiding factors from judgments Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2011) and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020), focusing on gravity of accusation, risk of absconding, non-cooperation in investigation, and societal impact – Held: Petitioner’s conduct of evasion, non-compliance with summons, and gravity of alleged scam justified rejection of bail [Paras 7-10].

Economic Offences – Custodial Interrogation – Necessity – Bail Refused – Petitioner was allegedly central in managing the fraudulent company and responsible for laundering large proceeds of crime – Held: In view of large-scale victimization and evasion, custodial interrogation warranted to ensure thorough and fair investigation [Paras 18-19].

Decision – Bail Application Dismissed – High Court dismissed the application for anticipatory bail, holding custodial interrogation necessary and no ground made out to exercise discretion in favour of petitioner – Application dismissed without prejudice to further remedies under law [Para 20].