Partition – Ancestral Property – Oral Partition and Family Arrangement – Validity – Suit Item No.1 admitted to be ancestral property in the hands of father – Ex-B2 Partition Agreement held to be memorandum recording prior oral partition and admissible in evidence – Subsequent oral family arrangement proved due to frustration of earlier arrangement caused by court auction sales – Held: Oral family arrangement prior to 1989 valid and binding [Paras 16, 28–29].

Coparcenary Rights – Daughters – Section 6 Hindu Succession Act (Amended 2005) – Though daughters married prior to 1989 and not entitled to benefit of Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1990, they are coparceners by birth under amended Section 6 – Held: Daughters entitled to coparcenary status irrespective of date of father’s death [Paras 24–25].

Oral Partition Prior to 20.12.2005 – Saving Clause – Sub-section (5) of Section 6 – Oral family arrangement between father and sons held to have taken place prior to 1989 – Such partition saved from challenge by daughters under amended Section 6 – Reliance placed on Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma – Held: Plaintiffs bound by pre-2005 oral family arrangement [Para 30].

Nature of Property Allotted to Father – Effect on Succession – Property allotted to father in oral partition takes character of separate property qua his legal heirs – Upon his death, succession opens under Section 8 Hindu Succession Act – Daughters and other Class-I heirs entitled to shares in father’s allotment [Paras 31–32].

Partition – Determination of Shares – Mathematical Apportionment – Father entitled to 1/3rd share in Suit Item No.1 under oral family arrangement – On his demise, his share devolved on wives, children and daughter’s branch – Plaintiffs each held entitled to 9/144 share – Defendants 6 & 7 together to 12/144 share – First defendant entitled to 114/144 share after application of Section 43 TPA (feeding the grant by estoppel) [Paras 31–32].

Suit Item No.2 – Separate Property – Court Auction Sale – Non-joinder of Necessary Parties – Evidence showed Suit Item No.2 sold through court auctions and subsequently alienated – Auction purchasers and subsequent transferees not impleaded – Held: Suit Item No.2 not available for partition and suit bad for non-joinder to that extent [Paras 17, 26–27].

Trial Court Error – Partial Interference Warranted – Trial Court failed to consider devolution of father’s share under Section 8 HSA – Dismissal of entire suit held erroneous – High Court interfered to extent of Suit Item No.1 only [Paras 32–33].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Judgment and Decree of Trial Court set aside in respect of Suit Item No.1 – Preliminary decree passed granting Plaintiffs 9/144 share each in Suit Item No.1 – Decree dismissing suit regarding Suit Item No.2 confirmed – No order as to costs [Paras 33–34].

Right to Information – Personal Information – Salary Details of Employee – Petitioner sought copies of pay slips/details of salary paid to an employee of the respondent department for specific period – Information denied on ground that it pertains to third party and is personal in nature – Held: Service-related details including pay slips fall within ambit of “personal information” under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act – Disclosure impermissible in absence of larger public interest [Paras 3–4].

Section 8(1)(j), RTI Act – Third Party Information – Exemption – Information relating to performance and service matters of an employee is primarily between employer and employee – Such information has no relationship to public activity or public interest unless larger public interest is shown – No overriding public interest demonstrated by petitioner [Para 4].

Judicial Review under Article 226 – Scope – Orders of competent authority and State Information Commission refusing disclosure upheld – No illegality or infirmity found warranting interference in writ jurisdiction [Paras 3–5].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Order dated 23.10.2024 of Rajasthan State Information Commission upheld – No direction for disclosure of pay slips/salary details – Stay petition disposed of.

Family Law - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13(1)(i-a) – Divorce on Ground of Cruelty – Sustained mental cruelty – Appellant-wife subjected to dowry harassment and cruelty – After birth of female child, harassment intensified – Multiple criminal and maintenance proceedings initiated – Respondent persistently failed to appear before courts and willfully defaulted in payment of maintenance despite judicial orders – Held: Cumulative conduct of respondent amounts to grave and continuing mental cruelty making cohabitation impossible – Marriage dissolved [Paras 8, 9, 10, 12, 18].

Mental Cruelty – Assessment on Totality of Circumstances – Family Court examined incidents in isolation and ignored consistent pattern of neglect and non-compliance – Appellant’s sworn testimony remained unshaken in cross-examination and stood corroborated by judicial records of maintenance and domestic violence proceedings – Failure to appreciate cumulative effect of conduct amounts to manifest error of appreciation of evidence – Appellate interference warranted [Paras 11, 12, 13, 17].

Non-Payment of Maintenance – Wilful Disobedience of Court Orders – Recovery warrants issued under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. – Arrears of interim maintenance under Domestic Violence Act remained unpaid – Repeated ex parte proceedings due to respondent’s absence – Such deliberate defiance of judicial orders and financial deprivation of wife and minor child constitutes sustained mental cruelty [Paras 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 9, 10].

Abandonment of Proceedings – Forfeiture of Right to Contest – Respondent disengaged counsel and willfully refrained from participating in mediation and appellate proceedings – Consistent abandonment of defence across matrimonial and criminal litigations – Held: Conduct signifies forfeiture of right to contest and implied acquiescence – Appeal allowed [Paras 14, 15, 18].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree dated 20.08.2024 passed by Family Court, Pokaran set aside – Petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act decreed – Marriage between parties dissolved – Decree sheet directed to be prepared.

Contract – Oral Agreement – Commission Claim – Proof of Concluded Contract – Suit for recovery of commission alleging oral agreement from 1986 to pay 5% commission on all sales of chemical products – Defendant contended arrangement was only ad-hoc and temporary – Correspondence revealed insistence by defendant for execution of written contract which plaintiff refused – Held: Mere past dealings or temporary arrangement cannot constitute a perpetual concluded contract – Plaintiff failed to establish existence of binding oral contract for indefinite period [Paras 12–14, 19–20].

Agency – Temporary Arrangement vs Permanent Appointment – Plaintiff claimed appointment as marketing agent for indefinite period – Evidence showed defendant sought formal written consultancy agreement which plaintiff declined – Continued insistence on earlier oral understanding insufficient to prove permanent agency – Arrangement held to be ad-hoc and non-conclusive [Paras 13–14, 18–19].

Evidence – Secondary Evidence – Photocopies of Invoices – Section 65B Evidence Act – Plaintiff relied on photocopies of invoices (Exs.P22–P24) to prove sales and commission – No pleadings in plaint regarding source or loss of originals – No foundational facts laid for leading secondary evidence – No notice under Order XII Rule 8 CPC issued to defendant for production of originals – Documents unauthenticated and unsigned – Held: Photocopies inadmissible and unreliable – Trial Court rightly rejected them [Paras 15–16].

Accounts and Proof of Commission – Burden on Plaintiff – Plaintiff admitted maintenance of accounts but failed to produce ledgers, income tax returns or authenticated statements to prove receipt or entitlement of commission – Mere assertion without corroborative documentary proof insufficient to sustain money decree [Paras 14, 17, 19].

Admissions and Correspondence – Limited Evidentiary Value – Legal notice and reply showed settlement of dues up to 31.03.1992 – No acknowledgment of continuing liability thereafter – Non-examination of one officer of defendant not sufficient to draw adverse inference in absence of documentary proof of agreement [Paras 20].

Civil Appeal – Interference with Trial Court Findings – Appellate Court found no perversity or misappreciation of evidence by Trial Court – Findings based on proper appreciation of pleadings and evidence – No ground to interfere under Section 96 CPC [Paras 19–21].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 22.12.2016 in O.S. No. 5859 of

Interim Maintenance – Wife and Minor Child – Article 227 – Modification of Quantum – Trial Court directed husband to pay Rs.5,000/- per month each to wife and minor child – High Court held that in absence of concrete evidence regarding income of husband, maintenance awarded was on higher side – Held: Interim maintenance reduced to Rs.3,000/- per month each to wife and child [Paras 8–9].

Marriage – Plea of Non-Consummation – Absence of Specific Pleading – Husband sought dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty and desertion – No specific plea of non-consummation raised in main H.M.O.P. – Such plea raised only at interim maintenance stage held unsustainable – Objection to maintenance on ground of non-consummation rejected [Paras 6–7].

Presumption of Legitimacy – Section 112 Evidence Act – Child Born Within Wedlock – Marriage solemnised on 10.02.2017 and child born on 09.12.2017 – Statutory presumption of legitimacy attracted – Wife entitled to rely on presumption under Section 112 – Prima facie entitlement to maintenance upheld [Para 6].

Maintenance Proceedings – Burden Regarding Income – Conflicting Claims – Wife alleged husband earning Rs.40,000/- per month as flower decorator – Husband claimed to be daily wage worker earning Rs.400/- per day – No documentary proof produced by either side – Court assessed maintenance on overall circumstances and reasonableness [Para 8].

Scope of Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Limited Interference – High Court not inclined to set aside grant of interim maintenance – Interference confined only to correction of quantum found excessive – Order of Trial Court otherwise affirmed [Paras 8–10].

Decision – Civil Revision Partly Allowed – Interim maintenance modified from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.3,000/- per month each to wife and minor child – Arrears to be paid within six weeks – Trial Court directed to dispose of main H.M.O.P. expeditiously – No costs [Paras 9–10].

Service Law – Pay Anomaly – Drivers vis-à-vis Clerks/Patwaris – Mid-term Pay Revision 2011 – Petitioners sought pay band of Rs.10,300-34,800/- + Grade Pay Rs.3,200/- w.e.f. 01.12.2011 alleging anomaly – Claim earlier rejected vide order dated 23.03.2020 – Petition filed after more than five years – Held: Inordinate and unexplained delay disentitles petitioners to discretionary relief under Article 226 – Petition dismissed on ground of delay and laches [Paras 6, 12, 13].

Writ Jurisdiction – Delay and Laches – Stale Claims – Cause of action arose on rejection of claim on 23.03.2020 – Petitioners approached Court after lapse of over five years – No satisfactory explanation for delay – Held: High Court may refuse to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction where petitioner is negligent in asserting rights – Equity aids the vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights [Paras 6, 12].

Service Benefits – Repeated Representations – Effect on Limitation – Mere representations or reliance on subsequent Pay Commission observations do not revive stale claims – Issue of delay to be examined with reference to original cause of action – Belated invocation of writ jurisdiction cannot unsettle settled matters [Paras 8, 9, 12].

Precedents – Supreme Court on Delay – Court relied upon Yunus (Baboobhai) A. Hamid Padvekar, State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and other judgments holding that delay and laches are relevant factors in exercise of writ jurisdiction – Discretionary relief may be denied even where claim otherwise appears arguable on merits [Paras 7, 8].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed on ground of gross delay and laches – No relief granted – Parties left to bear their own costs [Paras 12, 13].

Employees’ Compensation Act – Appeal under Section 30 – Scope – Insurer challenged award contending absence of employer–employee relationship and non-liability due to alleged transfer of vehicle prior to accident – High Court examined registration, insurance policy and pleadings – Held: No substantial question of law involved – Appeal dismissed at admission stage [Paras 1–3, 17–18].

Motor Vehicles Act – Ownership of Vehicle – Transfer prior to accident – Registered owner continues to be owner for statutory purposes – Even if vehicle allegedly sold, failure to transfer registration under Section 50 MV Act renders transferor as owner in law – Liability fastened on registered owner and insurer – Reliance placed on Pushpa @ Leela v. Shakuntala and Brij Bihari Gupta v. Manmet – Principle reiterated that claimants cannot be burdened to trace successive transfers [Paras 4–10].

Insurance Liability – Policy Coverage – IMT-29 – Employees in Private Car – Insurer contended that paid driver not covered – Policy disclosed premium under IMT-29 – Court held that charging premium for two employees in a private car necessarily includes driver – Non-mentioning of driver by name not fatal – Insurer cannot avoid liability after collecting premium [Paras 11, 14–15].

Insurance Law – IRDAI Circular dated 18.10.2023 – Mandatory inbuilt IMT-29 coverage – Employees including paid driver to be compulsorily covered in private car policies without additional premium – Circular applied to clarify scope of IMT-29 and reinforce insurer’s liability [Paras 13–14].

Evidence – Written Statements of Owner and Alleged Transferee – Both admitted that registered ownership remained with Rakesh on date of accident – Deceased admitted to be employed as driver and died during course of employment – Employer–employee relationship duly established – Findings of Commissioner upheld [Paras 8–10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed at admission stage – Award dated 03.11.2025 affirmed – Insurer liable to indemnify compensation – Direction to Commissioner to disburse deposited compensation amount to claimants in accordance with award.

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Compromise-Based Bail – Breach of Settlement – Recall and Cancellation of Bail – Anticipatory bail earlier granted solely on the basis of a compromise arrived at before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre – Bail order expressly recorded that parties shall abide by settlement terms – Accused failed to comply with agreed obligation of handing over alternate flat and executing sale deed within stipulated time – Held: When bail is granted on the foundation of a compromise, such settlement ceases to be a private contract and becomes a solemn undertaking to the Court – Breach thereof amounts to abuse of the process of law and violation of judicial trust – Bail liable to be recalled and cancelled [Paras 7–7.2, 11].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Abuse of Process – “Shopping for Liberty” through Hollow Undertakings – Judicial Condemnation – Court took judicial notice of a growing trend where accused secure liberty on the pretext of settlement and subsequently resile from commitments – Such conduct undermines dignity of courts and reduces judicial orders to negotiable instruments – Held: Courts cannot permit litigants to take the judicial process for a ride by securing discretionary relief through deceptive compromises – Stern response warranted to preserve sanctity of justice delivery system [Paras 7.1, 10].

Criminal Procedure – Section 362 CrPC / Section 403 BNSS – Bar on Review – Distinction between Review and Cancellation of Bail – Objection raised that recall of bail order is barred by Section 362 CrPC – Rejected – Held: Setting aside bail due to violation of conditions does not amount to review or alteration of final judgment – Power to cancel bail is inherent and statutory corollary to power to grant bail – Where the very basis of bail order is destroyed by accused’s conduct, Court is competent to withdraw protection [Paras 9, 15].

Anticipatory Bail – Consideration on Merits after Recall – Nature and Gravity of Offence – Criminal Antecedents – Upon recalling compromise-based bail, Court proceeded to examine anticipatory bail on merits for the first time – Allegations disclose cheating, criminal breach of trust and fraud involving substantial monetary loss – Accused involved in multiple FIRs of similar nature – Repeated conduct not a mere civil dispute – Held: Seriousness of allegations, pattern of criminal conduct and societal impact disentitle accused from discretionary relief under Section 438 CrPC [Paras 8, 12, 13].

Anticipatory Bail – Custodial Interrogation not Sole Test – Prima Facie Case and Gravity Paramount – Argument that custodial interrogation not required rejected – Held: Absence of custodial interrogation by itself is not a ground for grant of anticipatory bail – Court must first assess prima facie case, nature of offence and severity of allegations – Reliance placed on Supreme Court precedents [Paras 8.1, 13–14].

Costs – Exemplary Costs for Misuse of Judicial Process – Court imposed costs of Rs.25,000/- on petitioner for abusing process of law – Costs directed to be deposited with Punjab State Legal Services Authority – Recovery mechanism provided in case of default – Held: Exemplary costs necessary to deter litigants from manipulating judicial leniency and to ensure no premium is placed on dishonesty [Paras 10–11].

Decision: Application for recall allowed – Earlier order granting anticipatory bail dated 17.01.2022 set aside – Main anticipatory bail petition dismissed – Petitioner directed to surrender within 15 days with liberty to apply for regular bail – Costs imposed – All pending applications disposed of.

Arbitration – Section 34 Challenge – Stock Market Trades – Refund of Brokerage – Trades Held Authorised – Patent Illegality – Respondent permitted a third party to operate trading account and handed over login credentials – Huge volume trades executed with respondent’s knowledge and confirmations – IGRC and arbitral tribunals concurrently held trades to be authorised and denied restitution of shares or trading losses – Despite this, brokerage directed to be refunded on ground of alleged brokerage-driven trades – Held: Once trades are authorised, charging of brokerage is lawful and cannot be refunded merely to cushion investor’s losses – Award directing refund of brokerage suffers from patent illegality and violates fundamental policy of Indian law [Paras 24–36, 52–53, 65].

Arbitration – Scope of Arbitral Powers – Equity and Fairness – Ex Aequo et Bono – Arbitral tribunals granted refund of brokerage on equitable considerations to “balance equities” – Parties had not authorised tribunal to decide ex aequo et bono under Section 28(2) – Held: Arbitrators cannot adopt justice-oriented or panchayati approach contrary to contractual terms – Relief granted on equity without contractual or legal basis contravenes Section 28(2) and (3) and amounts to patent illegality [Paras 44–51].

Stock Broker Liability – Regulatory Lapses – Effect on Civil Liability – Alleged procedural and regulatory violations by broker including AP registration and compliance lapses – Trades nevertheless confirmed and authorised by investor – Held: Regulatory violations may invite disciplinary action by SEBI/Exchanges but do not ipso facto create civil liability to refund brokerage or compensate investor for authorised trades [Paras 27–30, 62–63].

Arbitration – Award Beyond Pleadings – Grant of Unclaimed Relief – Investor’s primary prayer before IGRC was for restoration of shares or their value and compensation – No specific prayer for refund of brokerage – IGRC and arbitral tribunals nevertheless awarded refund of brokerage – Held: Grant of relief not specifically claimed, and inconsistent with findings on authorisation of trades, renders the award unsustainable [Paras 41–43].

Public Policy – Compensation Without Breach – No breach of contract by broker established – Respondent held responsible for authorising trades and bearing losses – Yet compensation awarded in form of brokerage refund – Held: Awarding compensation without establishing breach violates Section 73 of the Contract Act and fundamental policy of Indian law – Such award is opposed to public policy [Paras 52–53].

Investor Conduct – Trust in Third Party – Subsequent Behaviour – Respondent continued association with same third party even after incurring losses and shifted account to another broker through him – Demonstrates intention to continue trading for profit rather than protest unauthorised activity – This conduct militates against claim for equitable relief against broker [Paras 59–61].

Decision – Arbitration Petition allowed – Awards of IGRC, Lower Arbitral Tribunal and Appellate Arbitral Tribunal set aside – Petitioner entitled to withdraw deposited amount with interest – No order as to costs – Regulatory authorities free to take action for any compliance lapses [Paras 66–67].