Family Law – 125 CrPC - Maintenance – Assessment of Income – Reliance on ITR – Petitioner-husband claimed low income but his ITR for AY 2018-19 showed annual income of Rs. 5,18,268/- (approx. Rs. 43,189/- pm) – Petitioner claimed subsequent ITRs showed reduced income – Held: Family Court rightly relied on the ITR of AY 2018-19 as the most reliable indicator, rejecting subsequent lower ITRs and undated salary certificates as unreliable attempts to conceal income – [Paras 8, 9, 11].

Family Law – Maintenance – Quantum and Apportionment – Annurita Vohra Formula – Family Court awarded Rs. 25,000/- pm to wife out of husband's assessed income of Rs. 43,189/- pm – Held: Awarding more than half of the husband's income is excessive – Applying the principle of apportionment (2 shares for husband, 1 for wife), the wife is entitled to roughly 1/3rd of net income – Considering inflation and need for dignified living, maintenance modified to Rs. 17,000/- per month – [Paras 12, 13].

Criminal Procedure – Section 125 vs. Interim Order – Petitioner argued final maintenance cannot exceed interim maintenance without proof of changed circumstances under Section 127 Cr.P.C. – Held: Final determination under Section 125 is independent of the interim order and is based on evidence led during trial – It is not a modification under Section 127 Cr.P.C. – Family Court can enhance or reduce amount in final judgment based on evidence – [Para 10].

Decision: Petition disposed of. Impugned judgment modified; maintenance reduced from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 17,000/- per month.

Negotiable Instruments – Cheque Dishonour – Appeal against Acquittal – Admitted Signature – Defence Unproved – Accused issued cheque for Rs.2,00,000 allegedly towards friendly loan – Cheque dishonoured for 'insufficient funds' – Accused admitted signature but claimed cheque was misused – Claimed cheque given to third party (Subramaniam), but failed to examine him as witness – Trial Court acquitted accused holding loan not proved and transaction improbable – Appellate Court held such reasoning erroneous as cheque and signature were admitted and presumption under Section 139 NI Act not rebutted – However, respondent died during pendency of appeal – Appeal rendered infructuous and dismissed [Paras 1–3, 5].

Criminal Procedure – Death of Accused – Effect on Appeal – During pendency of appeal against acquittal, police confirmed death of accused – Death Certificate produced and verified through official report – Held: No further adjudication possible – Appeal dismissed as abated [Para 3].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – In view of death of accused during pendency of appeal, no further adjudication warranted – Criminal Appeal abated.

Election Law – Writ of Quo Warranto - Reservation and Caste Certificate – Requirement for Reserved Posts – Appellant contested and won election for Zila Panchayat Member from a seat reserved for OBC category – Appellant submitted an affidavit claiming OBC status ("Pal Baghele") but admittedly did not possess a caste certificate – Held: A candidate contesting for a reserved post must possess a valid caste certificate as proof of belonging to that category – Self-declaration via affidavit is insufficient to contest an election for a reserved seat – The requirement is mandatory to ensure the benefit of reservation reaches the intended beneficiaries – [Paras 11, 14].

Constitutional Law – Writ of Quo Warranto – Maintainability after Election Petition Dismissal – Respondent No. 6 sought a writ of quo warranto challenging appellant's authority to hold office after his wife's election petition was dismissed on technical grounds – Appellant argued that the dismissal of the election petition barred the writ – Held: Dismissal of an election petition does not debar an independent voter/citizen from seeking a writ of quo warranto if the holder of the office lacks the fundamental eligibility (caste certificate) – No right can be conferred on an individual which they cannot possess under law – The writ is maintainable to prevent a usurper from holding public office – [Paras 8, 12, 13].

Constitution of India – Article 226 – Interference in Election Matters – Held: While Article 329(b) bars interference during the election process, the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 after the election process is over if there is a violation of constitutional provisions or statutory eligibility criteria – Allowing a person ineligible for a reserved seat to continue in office would be a fraud on the Constitution – [Paras 13, 14].

Decision: Appeal dismissed - The order declaring the appellant ineligible to hold the post of Member, Zila Panchayat is upheld - [Para 15].

Land Laws – Validity of Housing Site Allotment (Patta) – Requirement of Prior Approval – Section 122-C of U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act – Petitioner claimed title over land based on a Patta allegedly granted by the Gram Pradhan in 1973/1981 without producing the actual lease deed or Form 49-F – Held: Section 122-C(2), introduced by the 1971 Amendment, mandates prior approval of the Assistant Collector for any allotment of housing sites – This requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional, not directory – The contention that prior approval was introduced only in 1975 via Rule amendment is incorrect as the substantive statutory provision existed since 1971 – Any Patta issued without such approval is void ab initio and unenforceable – Paras [76-78], [86-87], [89(ii)].

Land Laws – Eligibility for Allotment – Order of Preference – Petitioner’s father was an Ex-Army personnel belonging to the General Category – Held: Under Section 122-C(3), preference is given to SC/ST, OBC, and General Category persons living below the poverty line – The Petitioner’s father did not fall within any eligible category for preferential allotment of housing sites – No legal allotment could have been made in his favor – Paras [89(vi)].

Administrative Law – Procedure for Allotment – Adherence to Statutory Mode – Petitioner relied on receipts issued by Gram Pradhan and entries in Parivar Register made by the Pradhan – Held: When a statute prescribes a particular act to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner alone (Rule in Taylor v. Taylor) – Entries in the Parivar Register can only be made by the Secretary under the relevant Rules, not the Pradhan – Receipts issued without following the procedure of Rules 115-L to 115-O (public announcement, LMC meeting, drawing of lots) hold no evidentiary value – Paras [75], [89(iii)-(v)].

Civil Law – Fraud and Misrepresentation – Suppression of Material Facts – Petitioner concealed details of prior civil suits and the fact that the land was acquired by LDA and compensation paid to recorded tenure holders – Held: Jurisdiction under Article 226 is equitable and discretionary – A litigant who suppresses material facts or approaches the Court with unclean hands plays fraud on the Court – Such petitions are liable to be dismissed at the threshold without considering merits – Suppressio veri, expressio falsi applies – Paras [80-85], [89(vii)].

Property Law – Encroachment vs. Title – Cancellation of Void Documents – Petitioner argued that the Patta was never cancelled – Held: Cancellation presupposes the existence of a validly issued document – Since the alleged Patta was void ab initio due to lack of competence and statutory compliance, it never legally existed – The Petitioner’s status is that of an encroacher on government land acquired by LDA – Paras [87], [89(i)].

Decision: Appeal dismissed - The Court upheld the LDA's actions as lawful, declaring the petitioner an encroacher with no valid title - Paras [89-90].

Partnership Act - Unregistered Firm - Eviction Suit - Maintainability - Statutory Right - Section 69(2) of Indian Partnership Act, 1932 - A suit for eviction based on a statutory right under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, is maintainable even if filed by an unregistered partnership firm, as the bar under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, applies only to rights arising from a contract-

Indian Partnership Act, 1932 - Section 69(2) - M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 - Eviction Suit - Bonafide Requirement - The respondent/plaintiff, an unregistered partnership firm, filed a suit for eviction of the appellants/defendants from a rented shop on the ground of bonafide requirement for business expansion under Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961- The appellants contended that the suit was not maintainable under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, as the plaintiff was an unregistered firm- Both lower courts decreed the suit- The High Court, in second appeal, framed a substantial question of law regarding the applicability of Section 69(2) to such a suit- Held: The bar under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, applies only to suits enforcing rights arising from a contract, not to statutory rights like eviction under the Rent Act- Therefore, the suit for eviction by an unregistered firm to enforce a statutory right is maintainable- The authorization of one partner to file the suit, supported by a partnership deed and power of attorney, further confirms maintainability- Findings on bonafide requirement are factual and not perverse, thus not warranting interference in second appeal- Paras [1-18, 20]

Indian Partnership Act, 1932 - Section 69(2) - Scope - Contractual vs. Statutory Rights - Held: Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, bars suits by unregistered firms only for the enforcement of rights arising from a contract- It does not apply where the claim originates from a statutory obligation- The right to eviction under Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, is a statutory right- Therefore, a suit filed by an unregistered partnership firm to enforce such a statutory right is maintainable and not hit by Section 69(2)- Paras [14, 16]

Partnership Law - Authority to Sue - Unregistered Firm - Held: A suit filed by an unregistered partnership firm through one of its partners is maintainable if the partner is duly authorized by all other partners- In the present case, the plaintiff proved authorization through a partnership deed and power of attorney, which was considered by the lower courts- Paras [17]

Second Appeal - Scope of Interference - Findings of Fact - Held: In a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts unless they are perverse or illegal- The findings on bonafide requirement are pure findings of fact and do not raise any substantial question of law- Paras [20]

Decision: Appeal dismissed - The judgment of the lower courts decreeing the eviction suit is upheld - Paras [22].

Service Law – Wrongful Dismissal – Grant of Back Wages – “No Work No Pay” – Petitioner, a PwD employee, dismissed from service solely on basis of criminal conviction despite stay of conviction by appellate court – Dismissal order later set aside and matter remanded for fresh decision – Competent authority granted all service benefits including salary up to extended age of retirement (60 years) – Successor authority later reviewed and denied salary for intervening period on principle of “no work no pay” – Held: Principle of “no work no pay” not applicable where employee was willing to work but was illegally prevented by employer – Department being at fault, petitioner entitled to full pay and allowances [Paras 18–21, 25].

Administrative Law – Review by Successor-in-Office – Illegality – Earlier order granting service benefits reviewed by successor authority without notice or hearing – Held: Successor in office has no jurisdiction to review or recall an order passed by predecessor unless statute so permits – Such review violates principles of natural justice and is impermissible in law [Paras 18, 22].

Criminal Law Impact on Service – Stay of Conviction – Effect – Conviction and sentence stayed by appellate court prior to dismissal – Subsequent release on probation under Sections 468 and 471 IPC – Protection under Section 12 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 – Held: Dismissal founded on conviction which stood stayed was illegal and unsustainable [Paras 3–5, 19].

Persons with Disabilities – Extension of Retirement Age – Service Benefits – Petitioner appointed against handicapped quota – Retirement age extended to 60 years pursuant to Supreme Court decision and Government instructions – Petitioner held entitled to continuation in service till 31.05.2015 with all consequential benefits [Paras 6, 16–18].

Interest on Delayed Retiral Benefits – Entitlement – Retiral dues including gratuity, pension and leave encashment released after inordinate delay of several years – Held: In absence of justification for delay, petitioner entitled to interest as compensation for wrongful retention of money by State – Interest awarded @ 7% per annum [Paras 23–25].

Principles of Natural Justice – Violation – Review order passed without issuing show cause notice or affording opportunity of hearing – Held: Order vitiated on account of violation of audi alteram partem [Paras 18–19].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Order dated 21.11.2019 set aside – Petitioner held entitled to pay and allowances for period from 01.06.2014 to 31.05.2015 with interest @ 7% per annum – Further entitled to interest @ 7% per annum on delayed payment of pensionary benefits w.e.f. 01.09.2015 till actual payment – Respondents directed to compute and release amounts within three months [Para 25].

Criminal Law – Quashing - Municipal Law – Octroi Evasion – Vicarious Liability – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Pune Municipal Corporation filed complaint alleging non-payment of octroi on import of gold bullions/coins by Bank – Summons issued against Bank and its senior officers including CEO, Deputy MD, Legal Officer and Branch Manager – Petitioners sought quashing on ground of absence of specific role attributed to individual officers – Held: Mere designation or official position insufficient to attract vicarious liability [Paras 1–6, 17].

Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 – Sections 398 and 401 – Ingredients of Offence – Section 398 requires import of goods liable to octroi, non-payment of octroi and intention to defraud Corporation – Section 401 creates vicarious liability only when specific role of director or officer is pleaded – In absence of averments demonstrating intention to defraud and active role of officers, prosecution against them unsustainable [Paras 9–11, 17].

Criminal Liability of Company Officials – Requirement of Specific Averments – Complaint contained only general and omnibus allegations against Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 – No pleading showing how or in what manner they were in charge of and responsible for conduct of business at relevant time – Held: Criminal prosecution against company officials cannot continue without specific and unambiguous allegations [Paras 6, 11, 17].

Interpretation of Vicarious Liability – Parity with Negotiable Instruments Act – Court held that principles governing vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are pari materia with Section 401 of the BPMC Act – Reliance placed on Supreme Court precedents holding that vicarious liability must be pleaded and proved and cannot be inferred merely from designation [Paras 12–16].

Criminal Process – Abuse of Process – Continuation of proceedings against officers without foundational pleadings amounts to abuse of process of law – Summons issued by JMFC based on conjectures and without prima facie material against officers – Liable to be quashed under writ jurisdiction [Paras 6, 17–19].

Partial Quashing – Distinction Between Company and Officers – Complaint and proceedings quashed only qua Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 – Proceedings against Petitioner No.1-Bank permitted to continue – All contentions left open before Trial Court insofar as Bank is concerned [Paras 19–21].

Decision: Criminal Writ Petition partly allowed – Complaint in Criminal Case No. 236 of 2009 and summons dated 20.11.2009 quashed and set aside against Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 – Complaint against Petitioner No.1-Bank to proceed – Rule made partially absolute [Paras 19–21].

Succession Law – Will – Proof of Execution – Registered Will dated 08.05.2003 relied upon by defendants to deny partition to sisters – Trial court held Will not proved – Held: Evidence of attesting witnesses (DW-2 and DW-3) and scribe (DW-4) consistent with execution requirements under Section 63(c) of Indian Succession Act – Witnesses stated Will was executed by father in sound mind and attested in presence of testator – Minor inconsistencies in recollection not fatal – Passage of eight years since execution considered – Will held duly proved [Paras 20–28, 34]

Succession Law – Presumption from Registration – Will was a registered document – Held: Though registration alone is not proof of Will, it creates presumption of genuineness – Respondents failed to raise any suspicious circumstances or prove forgery – Trial court erred in discarding Ex.B-1 solely based on witness inconsistencies [Paras 29–31]

Civil Procedure – Plaint filed alleging intestate death – Contradictory plea – Plaintiffs claimed father died intestate but produced earlier Will dated 03.06.1997 only during cross-examination – Held: Conduct of plaintiffs in concealing previous Will amounts to approaching court with unclean hands – Adds credibility to appellants’ case [Para 32]

Appeal – Reappreciation of Evidence – Trial court failed to appreciate testimony of attesting witnesses and wrongly concluded that Will was not proved – High Court found compliance with legal requirements and reversed preliminary decree [Paras 33–35]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of trial court in O.S. No. 149 of 2008 set aside – Will dated 08.05.2003 held to be proved in accordance with law – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Murder – Acquittal - Circumstantial Evidence – Standard of Proof – Held: In cases resting purely on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be complete and point irresistibly to the guilt of the accused, excluding any other hypothesis. Where the prosecution failed to prove the accused and deceased were last seen together, and witnesses had only hearsay knowledge of their cohabitation, the chain is broken. [Paras 13, 56, 60-62].

Criminal Law – Motive – Significance in Circumstantial Evidence – Held: While absence of motive may not be fatal in cases of direct evidence, it is fatal in cases based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution failed to allege or prove any motive for the appellant to murder the deceased, with whom he was allegedly in a live-in relationship. [Paras 45-47, 63].

Criminal Law – Recovery of Evidence – Section 27 of Evidence Act – Held: The recovery of the iron lever (MO-7) and wooden logs (MO-8) was not legally proved where the independent witness (PW18) did not support the recovery mahazar and stated he was standing on the road during the alleged seizure. [Paras 57-58].

Criminal Law – Benefit of Doubt – Two Views Theory – Held: Following the principle in Kali Ram v. State of H.P., if two views are possible on the evidence adduced—one pointing to guilt and the other to innocence—the view favourable to the accused must be adopted. The trial court erred in overlooking missing links regarding the accused's presence and the lack of flight after the incident. [Paras 59, 62].

Decision: Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted. [Para 63].