Criminal Law – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Fraudulent Loan Disbursement – Complaint case based on FIR alleging misappropriation of ₹8 lakhs through fraudulent withdrawal by bank officials, including Branch Manager, Loan Manager, Deputy Manager, Head Cashier and Peon – Applicants sought quashing of proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, claiming lack of direct role and clean chit in police final reports – Court held: Detailed and specific allegations made by complainant under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC supported by witnesses – Final reports have no bearing once complaint is registered and cognizance is taken [Paras 5–7, 25–27, 29]

Banking Fraud – Role of Bank Officials – Complainant alleged he was misled into opening an account and made to sign blank documents – Loan of ₹8 lakhs sanctioned without proper signatures and withdrawn in violation of bank norms through loose cheque exceeding ₹25,000 limit – RTI replies and documentary annexures reveal absence of due process and support fraud allegations – Involvement of sanctioning and disbursing authorities, including Ayushi Mishra, Rajesh Kumar and Brijesh Kumar @ Brijesh Kumar Kashyap, prima facie evident [Paras 17–18, 26–27]

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 CrPC – Scope – Summoning Order – Court reiterates settled law that at quashing stage, evidence cannot be evaluated – Magistrate’s summoning order based on specific statements under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC and supported by documents and witnesses – Held: Magistrate applied mind to material and exercised discretion properly – No interference warranted at pre-trial stage [Paras 14, 26–29]

Complaint Proceedings – Relevance of Final Report – Twice police submitted final reports giving clean chit – Complainant filed protest petition, converted into complaint case – Court holds: Once complaint is registered and Magistrate takes cognizance after examining complainant and witnesses, findings of police investigation lose relevance – Statements under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC form basis for summoning [Paras 7, 23–24]

Forgery and Economic Offence – Prima Facie Case – Allegations involve forging documents, unauthorized withdrawal, and misuse of public trust in banking system – Supreme Court precedents cited (Dharambeer Kumar Singh, Aryan Singh, Parbatbhai Aahir) emphasise that economic offences with social impact warrant trial – Court finds material sufficient to proceed – Quashing rejected [Paras 20–22, 26–28]

Decision: Applications under Section 482 CrPC dismissed – Summoning orders upheld – Allegations disclose commission of cognizable offences – Sufficient prima facie material available – Trial required to adjudicate facts – No costs imposed.

Civil Law – Partnership Property – Validity of Transfer – Appeal challenging dismissal of suit seeking possession, mesne profits, and cancellation of documents relating to partnership property – Plaintiffs claimed that Defendant No.1 transferred the sole immovable asset of the partnership firm (suit property) to Defendant No.2 without Plaintiff No.2’s consent, in contravention of Clause 9 of the Partnership Deed and Section 19(2)(g) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 – Trial court held that Plaintiff No.2 had knowledge and gave post-facto consent, based on documentary evidence – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1, 17, 22, 39, 47] –

Consent and Knowledge – Partner’s Consent Inferred from Conduct and Records – Plaintiffs alleged that subject transaction dated 03.07.2000 was without Plaintiff No.2’s consent – Court found that Plaintiff No.2 signed Balance Sheets for FY ending 31.03.2000 and 31.03.2001, which reflected sale of the partnership’s only immovable asset – Plaintiff No.2 failed to depose in court or plead that she signed documents in good faith or without reading – Adverse inference drawn against Plaintiff No.2 for not entering the witness box – Consent inferred from signatures and subsequent Retirement Deed dated 30.06.2002 acknowledging accounts and final settlement – Held: Consent of Plaintiff No.2 established [Paras 16(iii)-(iv), 26–33] –

Partnership Law – Section 19(2)(g) of Indian Partnership Act – Scope and Application – Appellants argued that transfer was void as it contravened Section 19(2)(g) and Clause 9 of the Partnership Deed – Court held that Section 19(2)(g) restricts a partner’s implied authority to transfer immovable property but does not prohibit such transfer if consent is established – Post-facto consent through conduct and documents permissible – Clause 9 merely declares such unauthorized action “null and void” without specifying requirement of prior consent – Hence, transaction valid due to established consent [Paras 23–25, 35] –

Retirement and Settlement – Final Settlement Documents Confirm Consent – MOU dated 18.06.2002 and Retirement-cum-Partnership Deed dated 30.06.2002 clearly recorded full and final settlement of Defendant No.1’s share – These were signed after Plaintiffs allegedly came to know of the transaction – No challenge to these documents – Court concluded accounts were settled with knowledge of subject transaction – Supports inference of consent [Paras 14, 33–34] –

Burden of Proof – Plaintiffs Failed to Discharge Burden – Plaintiffs neither pleaded nor led evidence to prove that Balance Sheets were signed blindly or without reading – Plaintiff No.2’s failure to testify was fatal to their case – Held: Best evidence was withheld, resulting in adverse inference [Paras 28–32] –

Construction Claim – Lack of Documentary Evidence – Plaintiffs claimed that a 3.5 storey building was constructed after purchasing the property – No documentary proof regarding source or expenditure for such construction – Only self-serving oral statements of PW-2 – Held: Claim not proved in absence of cogent evidence [Paras 40–42] –

Dormant Partner – Irrelevance of Dormancy – Issue of Plaintiff No.2 being a dormant partner held to be irrelevant once consent was established – Whether active or dormant, Plaintiff No.2’s signatures and conduct indicated knowledge and acceptance of transaction – Hence, dormancy had no effect on outcome [Paras 43–44] –

Reliefs – Rejected in Absence of Proof – Plaintiffs sought possession, cancellation, and mesne profits – All denied due to failure to prove lack of consent and authority – Suit rightly dismissed by Single Judge – No ground for appellate interference [Paras 6, 45–47] –

Decision: Appeal Dismissed – Impugned Judgment upheld – Plaintiffs failed to prove absence of consent or authority – No relief granted – Parties to bear own costs [Para 47].

Transfer of Matrimonial Proceedings – Convenience of Wife – Two divorce petitions filed by husband in Nimbahera under Sections 10 and 13 of Hindu Marriage Act – Wife sought transfer to Udaipur citing financial dependency, custody of minor child, and pendency of multiple related proceedings in Udaipur – Court held that comparative hardship was greater for wife and transfer would not prejudice husband who was travelling from Mumbai in any case – Transfer to Udaipur allowed [Paras 3–5, 11, 14]

Allegations of Bias – Judicial Impartiality – Husband alleged that the Family Court Judge at Udaipur was biased and influenced by wife’s family connections – Court found allegations to be vague, unsupported and lacking evidentiary backing – Held: Transfer cannot be granted on generalised assertions – Presiding officers must be protected from unfounded bias claims [Para 12]

Expeditious Disposal – Supreme Court Directions – Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 3171/2025 stayed order of interim maintenance and directed expeditious disposal of all matters between parties – Court held that having cases in different districts would hinder timely adjudication – Transfer to single forum (Udaipur) facilitates compliance with Supreme Court mandate [Paras 10, 13, 15]

Comparative Hardship – Travel Burden and Financial Dependence – Wife living in Udaipur with minor son without independent income – Husband posted in Mumbai and already travelling to both forums – Udaipur better equipped in terms of infrastructure and medical care – Held: Greater hardship for wife justifies consolidation at Udaipur [Para 11]

Decision: S.B. Civil Transfer Applications No. 309/2024 and 174/2025 allowed – Divorce petitions (Case Nos. 129/2024 and 104/2024) pending at Family Court, Nimbahera transferred to Family Court No.2, Udaipur – S.B. Civil Transfer Application No. 75/2025 filed by husband dismissed – Family Court, Udaipur directed to expedite hearings as per Supreme Court’s order dated 28.07.2025 – No order as to costs [Paras 14–16]

^{Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Fiduciary and Moral Obligation – Maintenance of Dependents – Widow of deceased government employee appointed as LDC under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment Rules, 1996, based on an affidavit undertaking to maintain her aged in-laws—subsequently abandoned them and began living separately—Petitioner, father of the deceased, sought deduction of 50% of her salary—Held: Compassionate appointment is not a vested right but an act of State benevolence intended for the entire family unit of the deceased, not an individual benefit—Respondent No.4 having derived employment solely on her solemn undertaking to support the petitioner cannot resile from that obligation—Her conduct amounts to breach of trust and frustration of the object of the 1996 Rules—Department directed to deduct ₹20,000/month from her salary for petitioner’s maintenance [Paras 9–15, 20–22].}

^{Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel – Enforcement of Undertakings in Welfare Schemes – Affidavit by respondent No.4 stating she would maintain her in-laws and not remarry formed the foundation of the compassionate appointment—Having accepted employment on that representation, she is estopped from disowning the obligation—Principle of promissory estoppel applies with full force even in administrative benevolence—Held: Respondent No.4’s repudiation of the undertaking constitutes moral and legal breach; authorities must ensure continued maintenance of the petitioner [Paras 12, 15, 21–22].}

^{Administrative Law – Object of Compassionate Scheme – Equity and Public Policy – Compassionate appointment is not a mode of regular employment but a social welfare measure to prevent destitution—Benefit extended to one dependent is in representative capacity for the entire family—Authorities failed to appreciate that the appointment was first offered to the petitioner and later transferred to his daughter-in-law in trust—State’s parens patriae role obliges it to ensure fairness and protection of all dependents—Court can issue equitable directions under Article 226 to uphold the humanitarian purpose of the scheme [Paras 13, 16–19].}

^{Remarriage – Effect on Compassionate Obligation – Though remarriage of respondent No.4 is a matter of personal liberty, her remarriage and abandonment of the deceased’s parents after obtaining employment on compassionate grounds underscores violation of her solemn undertaking and negates the moral basis of her appointment [Paras 12, 14, 21].}

^{Decision: Writ petition partly allowed – Respondent-department directed to deduct ₹20,000 per month from respondent No.4’s salary and deposit the same in the petitioner’s bank account from 01.11.2025 onwards towards his maintenance—To continue during petitioner’s lifetime or until modified by competent authority—Writ petition disposed of with observations [Para 22–23].}

Tenancy – Eviction – Bona Fide Requirement – Greater Hardship – Landlord's Requirement Upheld – Section 16(1)(g) Maharashtra Rent Control Act – Landlord pleaded bona fide requirement of tenanted room for personal residential use due to growing family and marriage of son – Defendants had purchased alternate house in Bhusawal and were not residing in suit premises – Courts below held that landlord’s need was genuine and tenants would not suffer greater hardship – Held: Findings of fact by Trial Court and First Appellate Court based on evidence – No jurisdictional error or perversity – Revision dismissed [Paras 4.5–4.13, 8.2–8.9].

Civil Procedure – Revisional Jurisdiction – Interference with Findings of Fact – Limited Scope – Challenge raised to concurrent factual findings including hardship and bona fide requirement – Held: Revisional Court cannot interfere unless findings are perverse or suffer from jurisdictional error – No perversity or illegality found in concurrent findings – Revision not maintainable [Paras 8.1, 8.10, 9].

Eviction – Comparative Hardship – Test and Burden – Tenants failed to produce evidence of search for alternative accommodation or establish greater hardship – Ownership of alternate accommodation established – Even if hardship is equal, decree of eviction is justified – Plaintiff’s growing family and son’s marriage proved [Paras 8.5–8.7, 8.9].

Modification of Findings – Appellate Court Jurisdiction – Effect on Eviction Decree – First Appellate Court modified findings on two issues (Issue Nos. 3 and 5) but did not disturb core finding of landlord's bona fide requirement – Held: Modification was permissible and did not affect outcome – Grounds under Section 16(1) are not mutually exclusive – Decree of eviction stands [Paras 8.11–8.13].

Landlord is Best Judge of Need – Judicial Endorsement – High Court reiterated settled principle that landlord is best judge of his need – Convenience or opinion of tenant not determinative – Cited precedents affirming liberal interpretation of bona fide requirement to include family needs [Paras 8.6, 8.7].

Decision: Civil Revision Application dismissed – Decree of eviction under Section 16(1)(g) upheld – Petitioners directed to vacate premises within three months.

Income Tax – Assessment under Section 153D – Mechanical Approval – Validity – Revenue challenged ITAT order which quashed assessments for AY 2007–08 on ground that approval under Section 153D was granted mechanically by Additional CIT through a single omnibus letter covering 246 assessments – Tribunal held approval lacked application of mind and violated legislative intent requiring due consideration of seized materials – Following Pr. CIT (Central-2) v. M/s MDLR Hotels Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.593/2023 (Del) and Pr. CIT (Central-2) v. M/s King Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.754/2024 (Del) – Held: Approval given in bulk without reference to individual records or seized material defeats purpose of Section 153D – Such “rubber-stamp” or blanket approval unsustainable [Paras 3–5].

Administrative Approval – Requirement of Satisfaction – Court reaffirmed that statutory satisfaction under Sections 151 and 153D must reflect due application of mind – Merely appending “Yes” or issuing a common sanction letter to multiple assessments cannot be deemed valid approval – Citing Pr. CIT-7 v. Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1685; N.C. Cables Ltd.; and Central India Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. ITO [Paras 4, 15–21].

Judicial Precedent – Binding Effect – Court followed coordinate bench rulings in MDLR Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and King Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., arising from identical ITAT order dated 08.02.2023 and involving same issue of Section 153D approval – Held: No new substantial question of law arises – Appeal covered by settled precedent [Paras 4–6].

Decision – Delay in refiling (812 days) condoned – Appeal dismissed – No substantial question of law arises – Issue concerning interplay of Section 144A and Search & Seizure Manual, 2007 kept open for future consideration [Paras 1, 6–7].

Insurance Law – Life Insurance – Suppression of Material Facts – Section 45 Insurance Act – Appellant’s husband obtained life insurance and died within six months of issuance – Claim repudiated by LIC alleging non-disclosure of diabetes, hypertension, and chronic renal failure – Trial Court decreed suit holding LIC failed to prove suppression – Appellate Court reversed, holding insured guilty of concealment – Held: Contract of life insurance governed by principle of uberrima fides – LIC must prove with cogent evidence that insured knowingly suppressed material facts – LIC failed to examine its own medical officer or investigating officer and relied only on post-policy hospital records – Such evidence insufficient to meet burden under Section 45 – Repudiation unsustainable – Appeal allowed – Trial court decree restored [Paras 23–26].

Evidence – Adverse Inference – Section 114(g) – LIC withheld best evidence including authorised doctor who examined insured at proposal stage – Held: Adverse inference arises – Non-production of crucial witnesses and records undermines insurer's defence of concealment – Court may presume withheld evidence would be unfavourable to LIC [Para 23].

Contract Law – Fraud and Misrepresentation – Burden of Proof – Mere presence of illness or post-policy hospital admission not sufficient to infer fraud at the time of proposal – Insurer must prove insured's knowledge of illness and wilful suppression at the time of entering contract – No direct evidence led by LIC to prove intention or knowledge of falsehood – Held: Contract not vitiated by fraud – Decree for insured’s nominee maintained [Paras 25–26].

Appellate Review – Misapplication of Law – Appellate Court reversed trial court findings relying solely on post-policy medical records and inferences – Held: Findings based on conjecture and not legally sustainable – Misapplication of evidentiary burden under Section 45 – Trial court's view held to be reasonable and based on proper appreciation of evidence [Paras 25–26].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of District Judge dated 2.11.1995 set aside – Judgment and decree of Trial Court dated 4.8.1994 restored – Plaintiff entitled to recover ₹50,000 under life insurance policy with 12% interest and consequential benefits – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 27–28].

Civil Procedure – Second Appeal – Concurrent Findings – Plaintiff sought injunction to restrain defendants from encroaching upon a street claimed as common passage – Trial Court decreed suit based on documentary evidence, witness testimony, and admissions – Appellate Court affirmed, finding no ownership documents from defendants and holding the passage to be common – Held: No substantial question of law arises – Findings are neither perverse nor contrary to law – Second appeal dismissed [Paras 4–8].

Evidence – Site Plan and Admission – Plaintiff relied on multiple site plans including Ex.P1 and Ex.P9 depicting common passage – Defendant’s own admission that plaintiff’s house opens onto disputed passage and that waste water from adjacent property drains there – Defendants failed to produce title documents – Draftsman’s plan (Ex.D1) unreliable due to omission and lack of impartial inspection – Findings of common passage upheld [Paras 5–6].

Injunction – Encroachment on Common Property – Courts below restrained defendants from interfering with plaintiff’s use of a shared passage – Courts found long-standing use and no proof of exclusive ownership by defendants – Concurrent decree for injunction held proper [Paras 4–6].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal dismissed – No substantial question of law found – Findings of lower courts upheld – No interference warranted [Para 8].

Motor Accident Claims – Delay in FIR – Rejection of Claims – Set Aside – Appellants, husband and wife, injured in motorbike accident, filed claims which were dismissed by Tribunal for delay in lodging FIR – Medical records (Exhibits P7 and P10) substantiated road traffic accident – Held: Delay alone not sufficient ground to disbelieve accident – Mental agony, treatment needs, and absence of fabrication sufficient justification for delay [Paras 2–6, 8–9].

Evidence – Weight of Medical Certificates – Wound certificates clearly recorded cause as road traffic accident – Tribunal erred in ignoring such documentary evidence – Hospital’s failure to report accident should not prejudice claimants – Court emphasized evidentiary value of injury documentation in absence of prompt police report [Paras 6–7].

Principles of Law – FIR Delay Not Fatal – FIR delay in genuine accident cases cannot override material evidence – Reiterated Supreme Court precedent (Ravi v. Badrinarayan, 2011 ACJ 911) – Emphasized that lodging delay does not per se imply fabrication or false claim – Tribunal's conclusion reversed as legally unsustainable [Paras 4, 7, 8].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Order of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belgaum in MVC No.1710/2013 and MVC No.1798/2013 dated 10.09.2014 set aside – Tribunal directed to restore cases, consider evidence afresh, and decide on merits.