Medical Negligence – Principles of Natural Justice – Improper Inquiry Process – Order Set Aside - Petitioner, an advocate, alleged gross medical negligence in diagnosis and treatment of Gestational Trophoblastic Disease, including misdiagnosis and improper chemotherapy – Inquiry by Tamil Nadu Medical Council conducted without presence of both parties simultaneously and without an oncologist on panel – Held: Inquiry vitiated due to violation of principles of natural justice; order quashed and matter remanded for fresh inquiry following guidelines laid in P. Basumani – [Paras 13–22].

Enquiry Procedure – Role of Enquiry Committee and Disciplinary Board – Guidelines Mandated - Court reiterated that disciplinary proceedings should be conducted in two stages: (i) before an Enquiry Committee comprising a specialist in the relevant field and (ii) before the Disciplinary Board based on the committee's findings – Both parties must be present and given access to each other's submissions – [Paras 19–20].

Right to Appeal – National Medical Commission Act – Applicability Limited – Interpretation of Section 30(3) & 30(4) - Appeal provisions under NMC Act are restricted to registered medical practitioners – Aggrieved patients cannot avail this statutory remedy – Court impleads NMC Secretary to clarify appeal scope – [Paras 6–7].

Due Process – Recommendatory Guidelines – Interim Compliance Directed - Court held that until National Medical Commission issues regulations under NMC Act incorporating principles from P. Basumani, such guidelines shall be mandatorily followed – [Paras 17–18].

Final Relief – Impugned Order Quashed – Fresh Inquiry Ordered - Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order dated 08.01.2024 of Tamil Nadu Medical Council – Directed reconstitution of panel including oncology expert and completion of inquiry within four months – [Para 22].

Partition Suit – Successive Litigation – Abuse of Process – Plaintiff in O.S. No.36 of 2021 was 16th defendant in earlier partition suit O.S. No.1407 of 2015 – Earlier suit rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on finding that property belonged to deceased husband as sole heir – No appeal or challenge to said rejection – Held: Subsequent suit on same cause of action amounts to abuse of process and is barred – Plaintiff cannot re-agitate same claim without setting aside earlier decree – Suit struck off under Article 227 of Constitution [Paras 3, 4, 8, 16, 22, 23].

Hindu Succession Act – Section 14 and 15 – Stridhan Property – Devolution – Property purchased by Kamalammal from her stridhan funds became her absolute property under Section 14 – Upon intestate death, devolves under Section 15(1)(a) and not under Section 15(2)(a) – Held: Surviving husband rightly inherited full interest – Plaintiff's claim as heir of father not maintainable – Will by husband valid – No share accrues to plaintiff [Paras 17, 19, 20, 22].

Re-litigation – Jurisdiction under Article 227 – Striking off of Plaint – When fresh suit is based on same cause and factual matrix as earlier suit which has attained finality – Filing of new suit without curing defects amounts to disguised re-litigation – Held: Even if alternate remedy exists, High Court can intervene to prevent misuse of court process – Suit struck off in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction [Paras 15, 21, 23].

Order VII Rule 13 CPC – Scope – Permits fresh suit after rejection under Rule 11 only if defects are cured – Held: In present case, fundamental ground of rejection remained unchanged – Mere refiling without curing legal bar does not revive cause – No protection under Rule 13 available [Paras 5, 15].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition allowed – Suit in O.S. No.36 of 2021 struck off as not maintainable – Connected miscellaneous petition closed – No costs [Para 24].

Civil Law - Permanent Injunction – Consolidation Proceedings – Ownership and Right of Way – Decree Partly Set Aside – Plaintiff sought injunction to restrain defendants from interfering with reconstruction of boundary wall over a passage he claimed was privately carved out during consolidation proceedings – Defendants contended it was a public rasta and necessary for access to their plots – Courts below wrongly placed burden on defendants to prove it was a public way – Held: As per Section 2(bb) and 23A of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, lands reserved during consolidation for roads/pathways vest in Panchayat unless proven otherwise – Plaintiff failed to produce any record showing exclusive private right – Therefore, injunction to block the passage was erroneous – However, injunction against interference with plaintiff’s peaceful possession of remaining land upheld [Paras 8-13].

Burden of Proof – Exclusive Right Over Passage – Requirement of Cogent Evidence – Plaintiff Failed to Discharge Onus – When plaintiff claims exclusive right over land carved out during consolidation, burden lies upon him to prove the same – Mere averment without documentary proof from consolidation proceedings insufficient – Courts erred in shifting burden on defendant to prove public character of passage [Paras 11-12].

Decree Modified – Partial Relief Granted – Injunction Against Interference with Possession Maintained – Relief Regarding Passage Rejected – Appeal allowed partly – Decree modified to the extent that defendants are restrained only from interfering with plaintiff’s possession of remaining suit land, not the passage which was not proved to be plaintiff’s exclusive property [Para 13].

Civil Law – Dismissal for Non-Prosecution – Counterclaim Proceeded – Appeal by Plaintiff Abandoned - Plaintiff failed to appear, resulting in dismissal of the suit for non-prosecution – However, defendant’s counterclaim for ₹1.68 crores was entertained as it was filed with appropriate stamp duty and supported by evidence – Held: Defendant permitted to proceed with counterclaim despite dismissal of original suit [Paras 2-4].

Counterclaim – Promissory Note and Deed of Undertaking – Execution Admitted – Counterclaim Decreed - Defendant relied on Ex.D1 (promissory note for ₹1.68 crores) and Ex.D2 (deed of undertaking) both executed by the plaintiff – Cheques issued by plaintiff were dishonoured and police complaint resulted in registration of FIR – Plaintiff did not appear to refute documents – Held: Counterclaim proved through oral and documentary evidence; decree granted as prayed for [Paras 3-4, 7-9].

Fraud and Misrepresentation – Plaintiff Misused Blank Signed Promissory Notes – FIR Registered – Supporting Evidence Marked - Defendant demonstrated that plaintiff had collected funds in a fraudulent scheme involving auctioned goods purportedly through the Central Excise Department – Supporting cheques and their dishonour established through Exs.D3 to D10 – Criminal proceedings under Sections 406 and 420 IPC pending – Held: Sufficient material to support counterclaim of misuse and liability [Paras 3-4, 7-9].

Law of Indemnity – Affirmation of Ownership and Inducement – Defendant Entitled to Recover Losses - Citing Adamson v. Jarvis (1827) 4 Bingham 66, court reiterated that a person misrepresenting authority or ownership and inducing another into transactions is liable to compensate – Held: Defendant entitled to recover loss from plaintiff under indemnity principles [Para 8].

Decision – Counterclaim Decreed – ₹1.68 Crores with Costs – Suit Dismissed – Judgment for Defendant - Plaintiff’s suit dismissed without trial – Defendant’s counterclaim allowed based on unrefuted evidence – Judgment and decree granted for ₹1.68 crores with costs [Para 9].

Rent—Order 15-A CPC—Scope of deposit obligation—Fixation of rent disputed—Second eventuality under O.15-A attracted—Upon judicial fixation, tenant must deposit arrears computed on the fixed rent up to the date of fixation and continue to deposit future rent as it falls due—Trial Court’s provisional fixation at ₹20,000 p.m. with arrears ₹21,10,000 from 16-04-2016 to 31-01-2025 sustained [Paras 10, 13-15].

Procedure—Application titled under S.151 CPC—Substance over form—Application treated as under O.15-A CPC having regard to pleadings, arguments, and treatment by Trial Court and High Court—Label of provision not determinative [Paras 8-9,12-13].

Eviction suit—Interim monetary directions—Prior remand—Earlier CRP (No. 447/2024) set aside ₹30,000 p.m. and directed enquiry to fix reasonable rent; Trial Court thereafter fixed ₹20,000 p.m. provisionally—No interference warranted in revision [Paras 2-3, 15].

Practice & Procedure—Striking off defence—Observation by Trial Court—Though beyond prayer, merely reiterative of O.15-A consequence; any actual striking off requires a separate order—No jurisdictional error [Para 7].

Decision—Civil Revision Petition dismissed—No order as to costs—Miscellaneous petitions closed [Para 16].

Matrimonial Law – Civil Revision - Interim Maintenance – Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act – Maintenance to Wife Set Aside – The petitioner-husband challenged the Family Court’s order directing him to pay ₹30,000/- per month each to his wife and son – While not disputing maintenance to the son, the petitioner contended that the wife was financially self-sufficient with substantial dividend income and valuable immovable assets – Held: The respondent-wife received significant income through dividends and owned immovable property – Interim maintenance to the wife not justified – Order of Family Court awarding maintenance to wife set aside; maintenance to son upheld [Paras 2, 11-16, 19-20].

Maintenance – Scope and Object of Section 24 HMA – Determination of "Sufficient Income" – Section 24 intended to ensure support during proceedings, not to enrich financially capable spouse – Held: Maintenance under Section 24 is for sustenance at the standard enjoyed in matrimonial home – Where wife has independent substantial income and assets, claim for interim maintenance not sustainable [Paras 13-16, 19].

Suppression of Income – Dividend and Asset Ownership – Conduct of Wife – Dividends from Scan World Pvt. Ltd. and re-transfer of property during proceedings considered material – Held: Respondent’s act of restraining dividend payout through NCLT and subsequent explanations for property transfer not bona fide – Court found deliberate suppression of income to justify maintenance claim – Family Court erred in overlooking these facts [Paras 5-8, 15].

Final Decision – Civil Revision Petition Partly Allowed – Order awarding maintenance to wife set aside – Maintenance of ₹30,000/- per month to son and NEET coaching fee of ₹2.77 lakhs already paid by petitioner not challenged – Held: Family Court order modified accordingly; no costs awarded [Paras 12, 20].

Criminal Law - Preventive Relief – Quashing of Notice - Section 160 Cr.P.C. – Political Vendetta Allegation – Petitions Dismissed - Petitioners sought protection from arrest and quashing of notices issued under Section 160 Cr.P.C. in relation to FIRs involving NDPS and Prevention of Corruption Act alleging political harassment after dissociating from ruling party – Held: As petitioners are not named accused and only summoned as witnesses, no direction for prior notice before arrest can be issued – Search warrants and investigation held valid – Petitioners have liberty to seek anticipatory bail if nominated as accused [Paras 5, 6, 8-11].

Police Powers – Section 160 Cr.P.C. – Improper Use – No Blanket Relief - Reliance on Calcutta High Court judgment in Sutapa Adhikari was held misplaced – Supreme Court ruling in Gopichand Ramchandani applied – High Court cannot impose precondition of notice before arrest as it curtails police authority – Directions to issue prior notice before arrest set aside [Paras 6, 9].

Investigation Process – Search Warrants – Validity Upheld – Allegations of malice and political pressure were not supported by evidence – Searches were based on proper warrants issued before petitioner’s political shift – Petitioners failed to appear before SIT despite notice – Held: Investigation proceeded lawfully, and petitioners’ apprehension of arrest without being accused was baseless [Paras 4, 5.1, 7].

Decision – Both Petitions Dismissed – Court refused to issue any preventive directions or quash the notices under Section 160 Cr.P.C. – Petitioners directed to avail remedies under law if later nominated as accused [Paras 10-11].

Civil Law - Injunction – Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC - Prima Facie Case – Co-sharer Rights – Injunction Denied – Lower appellate court granted interim injunction restraining petitioner from alienating suit land – Trial court had earlier rejected the injunction application – Held: Petitioner derived rights through a valid decree and registered Will from deceased co-sharer Chhajju – Revenue records reflected his possession – No injunction can be granted against a co-sharer in settled law – Appellate court's interference unsustainable [Paras 5, 9-10].

Fraud Allegation – Pending Civil Suit – Not a Ground for Interim Relief – Plaintiff challenged previous decree on grounds of fraud – Held: Whether decree was obtained by fraud is a matter of trial – Cannot form basis for interim injunction – Prima facie rights of petitioner remain unaffected at this stage [Para 8].

Balance of Convenience – Title and Possession in Petitioner’s Favour – Registered Will and consent decree favoured petitioner – Revenue record corroborated possession – Held: Balance of convenience tilted in favour of petitioner – No irreparable harm shown by respondent – Trial court order rightly declined injunction [Paras 9-10].

Decision – Civil Revision Allowed – Injunction Rejected – High Court held that the learned Additional District Judge failed to appreciate material facts and settled principles regarding co-sharers – Order dated 16.01.2014 set aside – Trial court’s order dated 10.04.2012 restored – Application for injunction rejected [Paras 10-11].

Adoption – Consent of Biological Father – Inference Permissible – Petitioners, mother and stepfather, applied for adoption – State Authority insisted on father’s written consent though he had relinquished custody/visitation rights in matrimonial settlement – Biological father remained silent before Court – Held: silence and prior relinquishment justify inference of consent; insistence on express consent would defeat child’s welfare – Court directed authorities to complete adoption treating order as proof of consent [Paras 1-5].

Child Welfare – Paramount Consideration – Welfare of child to prevail over technical objections – Refusal or indecision of biological parent cannot deprive child of belonging fully to adoptive family – Court emphasized need for certainty and security in child’s status [Paras 4-5].

Decision – Writ petition disposed – Inference of consent drawn against biological father; petitioners permitted to upload this order as proof of consent – Authorities directed to complete adoption process accordingly [Para 5].