Pre-emption – Co-sharer’s Right – Superior Right – Plaintiff proved to be co-sharer at time of sale and institution of suit – Suit land forming part of joint holding and not partitioned – Held: Co-sharer in unpartitioned land has superior right of pre-emption over vendee [Paras 5–7, 15–16].

Pre-emption – Gair Mumkin Bara – Section 5(b) Punjab Pre-emption Act – Exclusion of reclaimed waste land – Mere entry of land as Gair Mumkin Bara does not automatically attract bar under Section 5(b) – No evidence that land was reclaimed waste land by vendee – Held: Suit land remains pre-emptable [Paras 14–15].

Partition – Effect on Right of Pre-emption – Private partition mutation relied upon by vendee – Mutation related only to agricultural land – No proof of partition of Bara portion – Bara continued to remain joint – Held: Plaintiff continued as co-sharer retaining right of pre-emption [Paras 15–16].

Improvements – Claim by Vendee – Expenditure on improvements – Plea of spending ₹4,500/- on raising boundary walls – No cogent evidence produced – Self-serving plea rejected by courts below – Findings affirmed [Paras 5–7].

Concurrent Findings – Scope of Regular Second Appeal – Trial Court and First Appellate Court concurrently held plaintiff entitled to decree of pre-emption – Findings based on proper appreciation of evidence – No substantial question of law arising – Held: No interference warranted under Section 100 CPC [Paras 16–17].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal dismissed – Judgments and decrees dated 22.07.1992 and 27.07.1993 passed by the Courts below upheld – Concurrent findings affirmed – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 17–18].

Matrimonial Law - Maintenance – Wife Living Separately – Sufficient Cause – Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. – Family Court denied maintenance to wife on ground that she refused to return to matrimonial home during proceedings under Section 9 HMA – Held, refusal to resume cohabitation despite restitution proceedings does not by itself disentitle wife from maintenance – Disqualification under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. wrongly applied – Impugned finding unsustainable [Paras 8–9].

Maintenance – Cruelty and Dowry Demand – Proof – Family Court held absence of dowry or cruelty complaints fatal to wife’s claim – Held, non-filing of criminal complaint cannot be sole basis to deny maintenance – Conduct of husband in denying paternity of minor child indicative of matrimonial discord – Approach of Family Court held erroneous and hyper-technical [Paras 8–10].

Maintenance – Earning Capacity of Wife – Educational Qualification – Gainful Employment – Family Court rejected wife’s claim on ground of concealment of education and alleged earning capacity – Held, mere qualification or potential to earn not sufficient to deny maintenance – No cogent evidence of actual gainful employment produced by husband – Capacity to earn distinct from actual earning – Statutory right to maintenance cannot be defeated on speculative grounds [Paras 10, 11, 15–16].

Maintenance – Minor Child – Quantum – Adequacy – Maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month awarded to adolescent son held grossly inadequate – Father’s admitted gross salary of Rs. 48,350/- per month ignored – Excessive deductions towards loans wrongly permitted – Principles laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha requiring fair and realistic assessment overlooked [Paras 11, 17].

Maintenance – Social Justice – Object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Courts must adopt humane and practical approach – Maintenance provision intended to prevent destitution and ensure dignified life for wife and child – Mere ability to work or earn meagre income insufficient to deny relief – Wife entitled to live with dignity consistent with husband’s status [Paras 11–14].

Criminal Revision – Interference with Family Court Order – Family Court misconstrued evidence and misapplied settled legal principles – Order found legally unsustainable – Matter remanded for fresh determination of maintenance in accordance with law and Supreme Court guidelines [Paras 15–18].

Decision: Criminal Revision allowed – Order dated 03.10.2024 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bulandshahr set aside – Matter remanded to Family Court for fresh determination of maintenance payable to wife and minor son – Family Court directed to pass a reasoned order within one month – All rights and contentions of parties kept open.

Criminal Law – Murder and Attempt to Murder – Appeal against Conviction – Abatement of Appeal on Death of Co-Accused – Appeal surviving only for one accused – Sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC – Common Intention – Proof – Appeal partly abated due to death of accused-appellant Nos. 1 and 2 – Appeal considered only qua surviving appellant – Conviction challenged on ground of absence of common intention and overt act – Prosecution case based on prompt FIR, consistent eyewitness testimony and corroborative medical and forensic evidence – Accused arrived together armed with country-made pistols and bombs and jointly attacked victims – Pre-planned and premeditated assault established – Held: Ingredients of Section 34 IPC fully proved and conviction justified [Paras 1, 10, 21, 29, 33].

Common Intention – Section 34 IPC – Scope and Application – Contention that surviving appellant did not fire at deceased and therefore could not be convicted with aid of Section 34 IPC – Rejected – Common intention can be inferred from conduct, circumstances and participation in joint criminal act – Active presence, being armed, and participation in attack sufficient – Supreme Court precedents relied upon – Held: Section 34 IPC rightly invoked [Paras 11–13, 26–29].

Evidence Appreciation – Eyewitness Testimony – Credibility – Informant (PW-1) natural and reliable witness – Presence at place of occurrence established – Testimony consistent with FIR and corroborated by PW-2 – No material contradictions or embellishments – Evidence inspires confidence – Held: Conviction can safely be based on such testimony [Paras 16–20].

Medical and Forensic Evidence – Corroboration of Ocular Version – Multiple firearm and blast injuries found on deceased and injured witnesses – Medical opinion consistent with use of firearms and bombs – Recovery of empty cartridges, pellets, tiklis and bomb remnants from scene – Oral evidence fully supported by medical and scientific evidence – Held: Prosecution version proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 21–25].

Sentence – Life Imprisonment – No Interference Warranted – Trial Court’s judgment based on proper appreciation of evidence – No perversity or illegality found – Appeal dismissed – Surviving appellant directed to surrender to undergo remaining sentence – Bail cancelled [Paras 30–36].

Decision: Criminal Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC affirmed – Direction issued for surrender of surviving appellant and compliance by Chief Judicial Magistrate.

NDPS Act – Possession of Poppy Husk – Conviction under Section 15(c) – Acquittal on Appeal – Failure to Prove Case Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Appellants convicted for possession of three gunny bags each containing about 40 kg poppy husk – Conviction challenged on grounds of contradictions in prosecution evidence and non-compliance of statutory provisions – Held: Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction set aside and appellants acquitted [Paras 21, 29].

Evidence – Official Witnesses – Material Contradictions – Effect – Prosecution case rested solely on police witnesses – DSP shown to be present simultaneously at two different places in two separate FIRs on same date and time – Contradictions regarding place of bags in jeep, weighing method, seals, custody and return of seals – No independent public witness joined despite availability – Held: Contradictions go to root of prosecution case and render recovery doubtful [Paras 22].

Search and Seizure – FIR Number Mentioned on Documents Prepared Prior to Registration of FIR – Serious Infirmity – Recovery memo, site plan and other documents prepared allegedly at spot contained FIR number though FIR registered later – No explanation offered by prosecution – Reliance placed on precedents – Held: Indicates documents were prepared subsequently and investigation is doubtful [Paras 23].

NDPS Act – Section 52A – Non-Compliance – Fatal to Prosecution – Case property and samples not produced before Magistrate – No inventory certified by Magistrate – Samples sent to FSL were those drawn at spot – Mandatory safeguard under Section 52A violated – Held: Non-compliance vitiates prosecution and benefit must go to accused [Paras 24–25].

Delay in Sending Samples to FSL – Violation of Standing Order No. 1 of 1988 – Sample sent after unexplained delay of nine days – Standing Order mandates dispatch within 72 hours – Seal custody doubtful – Possibility of tampering not ruled out – Adverse inference drawn against prosecution [Paras 26–27].

Sample Seal – Preparation and Custody – Serious Lapse – Prosecution witnesses silent on preparation of sample seal at spot – Contradictory versions regarding handing over and return of seal – Sample seal not produced before Magistrate – Held: Sanctity of samples compromised and prosecution case weakened [Paras 27–28].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgment of conviction dated 20.09.2004 set aside – Appellants acquitted of charge under Section 15(c) NDPS Act – Bail bonds discharged – Case property ordered to be confiscated and destroyed – Jeep to be returned to registered owner as per rules.

Civil Law – Framing of Issues – Will Propounded by Defendant – Mandatory Duty of Court – Plaintiff filed suit claiming ownership by natural inheritance – Defendants pleaded Will dated 16.08.1978 to defeat plaintiff’s claim – Trial Court framed general issue on entitlement to declaration but failed to frame specific issue on validity and effect of Will – Application by plaintiff for framing additional issue dismissed on ground that only defendants could seek such issue – Held: Plea of Will constitutes a distinct and material proposition of fact and law and Court is statutorily bound to frame a specific issue thereon [Paras 2, 5].

Order XIV Rules 1 and 5 CPC – Scope and Application – Issues are to be framed by Court on basis of pleadings and not at discretion of parties – Any party affected by a plea raised is entitled to seek framing of an issue – Court empowered to frame or amend issues at any stage before passing of decree if necessary for determining real controversy – Stage of rebuttal evidence no bar to framing additional issue [Paras 7].

Will – Proof – Burden of Proof – Procedural Safeguards – Proof of Will governed by special statutory requirements under Indian Succession Act and Evidence Act – Burden lies on propounder of Will – Absence of specific issue on Will renders trial procedurally deficient and final adjudication vulnerable to challenge – General issue cannot substitute a specific issue on Will [Paras 6].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Failure to Exercise Jurisdiction – Trial Court declined to frame necessary issue on erroneous understanding of law – Such refusal amounts to material error of jurisdiction – Interference by High Court warranted to ensure proper adjudication of lis [Paras 8].

Decision: Civil Revision allowed – Impugned order dated 26.11.2025 set aside – Trial Court directed to frame additional issue regarding validity, execution and binding effect of Will dated 16.08.1978 and proceed with suit in accordance with law [Paras 9–10].

Arbitration and Conciliation Act – Section 11(6) – Institutional Arbitration – Exhaustion of Agreed Procedure Mandatory – Employment agreements contained arbitration clause providing for appointment of sole arbitrator in accordance with MCIA Rules – Respondent accepted invocation of arbitration and did not default in agreed procedure – Held: Where parties have consciously agreed to an institutional mechanism for appointment of arbitrator, Court cannot appoint arbitrator under Section 11 without first requiring parties to exhaust agreed procedure – Section 11 jurisdiction arises only upon failure of agreed mechanism [Paras 13–16].

Arbitration Clause – MCIA Rules – Seat and Venue at Indore – No Inconsistency – Contention that MCIA Rules can operate only if seat is Mumbai rejected – Rule 30 of MCIA Rules permits parties to agree on seat of arbitration – Fixing Indore as seat and venue does not render MCIA Rules inapplicable – Arbitration clause held coherent and workable [Paras 11–12].

Section 11 Jurisdiction – Prematurity of Petition – Applicants invoked arbitration and respondent consented to invocation – Applicants failed to take further steps under MCIA Rules for appointment of arbitrator – Direct approach to High Court held premature and impermissible – Court cannot bypass institutional framework agreed by parties [Paras 13–16].

Party Autonomy – Binding Nature of Arbitration Agreement – Parties bound by dispute resolution clause consciously agreed in employment contracts – Applicants cannot resile from agreed procedure merely because arbitration is institutional – Party autonomy is cornerstone of arbitration law and must be respected [Paras 14–16].

Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent – Parmar Construction Case – Reiterated that default procedure under Section 11 can be invoked only when agreed appointment mechanism fails or becomes inoperative – High Court must first give effect to contractual mechanism before appointing independent arbitrator [Paras 14–15].

Multiple Applications – Common Arbitration Clause – Common Outcome – All three employment agreements contained identical arbitration clause – Common order passed dismissing all three applications – Liberty granted to applicants to invoke MCIA mechanism in accordance with rules [Paras 1, 17].

Decision – Arbitration Case Nos. 105, 106 and 107 of 2025 dismissed – Liberty granted to applicants to approach Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration for appointment of sole arbitrator as per MCIA Rules and employment agreements – No appointment made by Court under Section 11 [Para 17].

Writ Jurisdiction – Article 226/227 – Disputed Questions of Fact – Insurance Coverage Dispute – Where adjudication requires examination of terms of master insurance policy and factual issues of deficiency in service – High Court ought not to exercise writ jurisdiction – Remedy lies before Consumer Forum [Paras 5, 7].

Home Loan – Loan Linked Insurance – Expiry of Policy – Borrower’s Death After Expiry – Insurance cover limited to 15 years – Death occurred after expiry of policy period – Prima facie insurer not liable, subject to adjudication by competent consumer forum [Paras 2, 4–5].

SARFAESI Act – Sections 13(2) and 13(4) – Enforcement Proceedings – Interim Protection – Possession notice challenged on ground of pending insurance claim – Court granted interim protection but declined to adjudicate insurance liability in writ proceedings [Paras 2, 3, 6–8].

Consumer Law – Deficiency in Service – Appropriate Forum – Claim alleging wrongful denial of insurance benefit to be adjudicated by District/State Consumer Forum – Writ Court declined to record findings on merits [Paras 7–8].

Equitable Relief – Liberty with Protection – Interim Order Continued – Petitioner permitted to approach Consumer Forum within 60 days – Interim protection against dispossession to continue till disposal of consumer complaint – Failure to approach forum within stipulated period would entitle Bank to proceed under SARFAESI Act [Paras 8–8.2].

Decision: Writ Petition Disposed of – High Court declined to adjudicate disputed insurance claim under writ jurisdiction – Liberty granted to petitioner to approach jurisdictional District/State Consumer Forum within 60 days – Interim order staying dispossession to continue subject to filing of consumer complaint – No findings rendered on merits of insurance claim.

Criminal Law – Medical Negligence – Quashing of Complaint – Section 304-A IPC – Doctors prosecuted for alleged negligence leading to death of patient after delivery – Complaint and summoning order challenged under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Held: In absence of prima facie medical evidence indicating gross rashness or negligence, continuation of criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of process of law [Paras 1–5, 12–13].

Medical Negligence – Requirement of Prima Facie Expert Opinion – Compliance with Jacob Mathew Guidelines – Hon’ble Supreme Court mandates credible and competent medical opinion before prosecuting doctors for criminal negligence – In present case, inquiry by medical board constituted pursuant to High Court directions found no negligence – Even prosecution witness (CW-3), supervising doctor at referral hospital, categorically deposed absence of negligence – Held: Summoning without such prima facie opinion unsustainable [Paras 8–10, 12].

Summoning Order – Non-application of Mind – Appreciation of Medical Evidence – Learned Magistrate relied on complaint narrative without recording any finding of rash or negligent act attributable to petitioners – Medical testimony on record exonerated doctors – Failure to refer matter to independent medical board or to appreciate expert evidence renders summoning order legally infirm [Paras 10–12].

Criminal Negligence – Distinction between Civil and Criminal Liability – Degree of Negligence – For offence under Section 304-A IPC, negligence must be gross and of very high degree – Mere complication during medical treatment or adverse outcome not sufficient – Postpartum hemorrhage and subsequent death held to be natural medical complication without proof of gross negligence [Paras 11–12].

Inherent Powers – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Abuse of Process – Where criminal proceedings against medical professionals are initiated without adherence to settled legal safeguards and expert medical opinion, High Court justified in exercising inherent jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice – Complaint and all consequential proceedings quashed [Paras 12–13].

Decision: Petition allowed – Criminal Complaint No. 164 of 2015 and summoning order dated 23.03.2018 quashed – All consequential proceedings set aside qua petitioners.

Criminal Law - Quashing - Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Dishonour of Cheque – Not Negotiable Endorsement – Applicability – Petitioner sought quashing of complaint under Section 138 NI Act on ground that cheque bore "Not Negotiable" marking – Held: Endorsement “Not Negotiable” merely restricts transferee from acquiring better title under Section 130 NI Act – It does not nullify drawer’s liability or exclude application of Section 138 – Drawer remains liable if cheque issued in discharge of debt and dishonoured due to insufficient funds – Complaint maintainable – No ground to quash proceedings at preliminary stage [Paras 6–7]

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 CrPC – Inherent Powers – Scope – Petitioner challenged concurrent orders of trial and revisional court rejecting application to drop proceedings under NI Act – Held: Courts below rightly held that legality of cheque and existence of enforceable debt are triable issues requiring evidence – No jurisdictional error or abuse of process shown – Petition under Section 482 CrPC dismissed [Paras 6–7]

Interpretation of NI Act – “Not Negotiable” Endorsement – Legal Effect – Cited case Durga Shah Mohal Lal Bankers v. Governor General in Council, AIR 1952 All 590 explained – Endorsement does not destroy negotiability or legality of cheque – Trial to proceed to determine liability [Para 6]

Decision: Petition dismissed – Courts below rightly held that issue of whether cheque was issued in discharge of legally enforceable debt and applicability of Section 138 are matters of trial – “Not Negotiable” endorsement does not render Section 138 inapplicable – No interference warranted under Section 482 CrPC.