Civil Law – Will - Probate Proceedings – Genuineness and Execution of Will – Sections 63 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act – Probate Granted – The Will dated 11.12.2004, purportedly executed by DKJ, was challenged by his daughter as being forged – The Court found the Will duly proved through testimony of an attesting witness and upheld the grant of probate – No obligation exists for a testator to provide reasons for exclusion of heirs, and unequal distribution does not invalidate a Will where due execution is established [Paras 2, 4, 8, 14-17, 31-34].

Challenge to Signatures – Handwriting Examination Not Insisted Upon – Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act – No Forensic Expert Produced – Appellant raised doubts over DKJ’s signatures and appearance of the paper but failed to produce any expert evidence – Court held that failure to pursue forensic examination despite liberty granted, undermines the claim of forgery [Paras 10(v), 22].

Conduct of Appellant – Admission of Will in Subsequent Documents – No-Objection Affidavit and MOU – Appellant had earlier acknowledged the validity of the Will and undertook to assist in the probate process – Reliance on MOU and transfer of assets indicated conscious acceptance of the Will, which estopped her from contesting it subsequently [Paras 23-25].

Executor’s Standing – Section 311 of the ISA – One Executor May Apply – The objection regarding maintainability of probate petition by only one executor was rejected – Section 311 allows grant of probate to one executor where the co-executor has not joined but has not objected either – Supporting affidavit filed by co-executor [Para 29].

Suspicious Circumstances – Delay in Will Surfacing – Unregistered Will – None Fatal – The emergence of the Will post-DKJ’s death and its custody with his widow was held as natural – The Court held that registration is not mandatory and unregistered status alone does not cast doubt, especially where due attestation is proved [Paras 28, 33].

Execution of Board Resolutions and Alleged Undue Favours – Insufficient to Discredit Will – The fact that Board resolutions were passed on the day of DKJ’s cremation and promotions given to attesting witnesses were not considered indicative of fabrication – No evidence established that these were related to the Will [Paras 30].

Testamentary Intent and Residual Clause – Broad Disposition – Court emphasized that DKJ, being a seasoned industrialist, meticulously outlined succession and made comprehensive dispositions including a residual clause to cover unenumerated assets – The Will reflected deliberate planning and not arbitrariness [Paras 15-18, 20-21].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Will Held Genuine – The Court upheld the order granting probate and dismissed the partition suit as infructuous, holding that the Will was valid, duly executed, and free of suspicious circumstances [Paras 34-35].

Transfer of Proceedings – Matrimonial Dispute – Overlapping Reliefs – Application Allowed – Applicant sought transfer of DV Case No. 62/DV/2024 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 71st Court, Bandra, to the Family Court at Bandra to be heard along with Divorce Petition and Restitution Petition – Court noted substantial overlap in reliefs and parties in both proceedings – Held: To avoid conflicting findings, duplication of evidence and conserve judicial time, DV proceedings transferred to Family Court [Paras 1-4, 9].

Jurisdiction – DV Act and Family Court – Overlapping Remedies – Court Held – Family Court competent to grant reliefs similar to those under the DV Act – DV reliefs related to protection, custody and residence can be adjudicated by Family Court – Proximity of courts and shared social context justify transfer – Respondent failed to demonstrate any prejudice or inconvenience [Paras 3-5, 9].

Distinguishing Precedents – Anurag Agarwal vs. Poonam Agarwal – Not Applicable – Court held that unlike the precedent cited by the Respondent where proceedings were at an advanced stage, here the DV matter was at preliminary evidence stage – Hence, transfer was not prejudicial [Paras 6, 10].

Consolidation of Proceedings – Avoiding Multiplicity – Supreme Court Guidelines Followed – Relying on N.C.V. Aishwarya v. Saravana Karthik Sha, Court emphasized the need for consolidation when proceedings involve common questions of law and fact – Held: Transfer promotes judicial economy and consistency in adjudication [Paras 11-12].

Final Decision – Transfer Allowed – DV Case No. 62/DV/2024 ordered to be transferred to Family Court, Bandra – Family Court directed to issue notice within 3 weeks and proceed expeditiously [Paras 13-15].

NDPS Act – Interim Bail on Humanitarian Grounds – Bail Denied – The petitioner sought interim bail for six weeks under Section 22 NDPS Act on the ground that his widowed mother required urgent medical intervention for cardiac issues – Medical certificate indicated surgery was advised but not undertaken – Status report revealed availability of petitioner’s wife and three brothers in joint family setup – Held: No ground made out to justify interim bail – Request rejected [Paras 1-5].

Medical Certification – Improper Recommendation by Treating Doctor – The treating doctor’s request to jail authorities for release of the petitioner to be beside his mother was criticized – Held: Such recommendations are beyond the professional scope of a medical practitioner – Court emphasized that objective medical opinion must not contain personal appeals or administrative suggestions [Para 6].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – No Case for Interim Bail – The Court found that alternate caretakers were available in petitioner’s joint family and medical urgency did not justify release – Held: Mere emotional or sentimental grounds not sufficient for bail under stringent NDPS Act – Petition dismissed [Paras 5-7].

Service Law – Compulsory Retirement – Judicial Officer Misconduct – Appeal Dismissed – Appellant, a Senior Division Civil Judge, was compulsorily retired based on charges of threatening police officials to influence investigation involving his sister – Enquiry Officer held charges proved and recommended penalty – Held: No infirmity in enquiry or penalty process – Principles of natural justice not violated – Penalty not shockingly disproportionate – Appeal dismissed [Paras 3–7, 10–11].

Judicial Review – Scope in Disciplinary Proceedings – Limited Interference – High Court reiterates that punishment imposed in domestic enquiry cannot be interfered with unless enquiry or penalty is shown to be contrary to law, vitiated by mala fides, or perverse – None of these grounds established by appellant – Interference declined [Para 10].

Findings of Misconduct – Sufficiency of Evidence – Allegations of abuse and threats by judicial officer substantiated through testimony of complainant and police officer – Explanation by appellant not accepted as credible – Held: Findings not perverse – Penalty justified [Paras 6–7].

Matrimonial Law - Divorce and Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Allegations of Cruelty and Desertion – Appeals Dismissed – Appellant/Husband challenged the Family Court’s common order dismissing his divorce petition and allowing the respondent/wife’s petition for restitution of conjugal rights – Allegations of mental, financial, and emotional cruelty were not supported by evidence – Claims of desertion disproved by continued cohabitation and reconciliation efforts – Family Court’s finding of condonation under Section 23(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act upheld – Appellate Court affirmed that no extraordinary circumstances existed to warrant dissolution of marriage – Appeals and all connected IAs dismissed [Paras 1-3, 10-12, 44-55].

Divorce – Allegation of Cruelty – No Evidence – Divorce Denied – Vague and unsubstantiated claims of financial cruelty, inappropriate behaviour by respondent’s relatives, and vague allegations regarding joint accounts and jewellery failed to establish cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act – No medical or documentary proof submitted – Acts allegedly constituting cruelty were either condoned or unrelated to the respondent – Divorce rightly denied [Paras 13-22, 45-48, 54].

Cruelty and Condonation – Section 23(1)(b), Hindu Marriage Act – Continued Cohabitation Negates Cruelty Claim – Appellant cohabited with respondent and children even after filing for divorce, took holidays and attempted reconciliation – Such conduct amounts to condonation – Bar under Section 23(1)(b) applicable – Divorce petition defeated on that ground alone [Paras 44-47].

Desertion – No Continuous Two-Year Separation – Divorce Denied – Appellant failed to prove desertion as defined under Section 13(1)(ib) – Family interactions and cohabitation up to 2017 disproved continuous separation – No legal ground made out for divorce based on desertion [Para 19].

Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Reconciliation Admitted – Decree Upheld – Evidence showed appellant was willing to settle and rejoin family – No legal ground to deny wife’s petition for restitution – Family Court’s decree confirmed as reasonable and lawful [Paras 36-38, 54].

Additional Evidence – Partition Suit – Rejected Under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – Attempt to introduce partition suit documents and sale deeds during appeal disallowed – Appellant had opportunity during trial but failed to act – No due diligence shown – No exceptional ground made out under CPC – IAs dismissed [Paras 25-35].

Allegation of Judicial Bias – Reconciliation Duty of Judge – Objection Rejected – No objection raised during trial to judge conducting reconciliation – Family Court Judge acted under Section 9 of Family Courts Act – Appellant participated in proceedings without protest – Late objection rejected as baseless [Paras 39-43].

Decision – Both appeals dismissed – No cruelty or desertion proved – Restitution of conjugal rights rightly granted – No merit in additional evidence or bias claims – Interim applications dismissed – No costs [Paras 54-55].

Matrimonial Law - Divorce – Mutual Consent – Section 13B HMA – Cooling-off Period Waived – During pendency of appeals, parties settled disputes and filed joint petition for divorce under Section 13B—High Court satisfied of voluntary, collusion-free consent—Held: Irretrievable breakdown of marriage established; parties living separately since 2017—Cooling-off period waived; divorce granted by mutual consent [Paras 4–5, 9–12].

Family Law – Property Settlement – Return of Gold and Maintenance Arrears – Husband returned 115 sovereigns of gold to wife in full and final settlement—Additionally paid ₹3,50,000 by demand draft for maintenance arrears of minor child—Court recorded and accepted settlement terms as lawful and binding [Paras 7–8].

Procedural Law – Appeals Disposed on Compromise – Joint Petition Accepted – Court noted that all three connected appeals (Mat.Appeal Nos. 729/2023, 784/2023 & 7/2024) were resolved based on joint petition—Following precedent, appeals disposed of accordingly—Marriage dissolved without further litigation [Paras 2–6].

Decision – I.A. No. 1/2025 under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act allowed – Marriage between appellant and respondent dissolved by mutual consent – Cooling-off period waived – Settlement recorded – Appeals disposed [Para 12].

Criminal Law – Demand and Acceptance of Illegal Gratification – Section 7 & Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act – Conviction Confirmed, Sentence Modified – Accused, a Telecom Mechanic, demanded Rs.500/- for telephone connection, received Rs.200/- earlier, and later accepted balance Rs.200/- during CBI trap – Trial Court convicted and sentenced him to 1 year RI under Section 7 and 3 years RI with fine under Section 13(1)(d) – High Court held demand and acceptance proved beyond reasonable doubt by complainant (PW1), trap witness (PW3) and independent witness (PW7), supported by recovery and phenolphthalein test – Contention of illegal trap rejected as FIR was registered prior to trap – Conviction sustained but sentence reduced to statutory minimum: 6 months RI & fine Rs.5,000/- under Section 7; 1 year RI & fine Rs.10,000/- under Section 13(1)(d) – Substantive sentences to run separately, default sentences concurrently – Appeal partly allowed [Paras 12, 20-25].

Trap Proceedings – FIR and Timing – Accused contended that trap was illegal as it occurred before FIR completion – Court held FIR was registered at 11.15 a.m. and trap occurred at 2 p.m.; subsequent completion at 3.30 p.m. did not invalidate proceedings – Complaint (Ext.P2) though assisted by CBI was voluntary – Trap valid [Paras 12-13].

Proof of Demand and Acceptance – Evidence of PW1 (complainant) corroborated by PW3 (trap witness) and PW7 (independent witness) – Recovery of tainted currency, positive phenolphthalein test, and recorded conversations (Ext.P3 & P7) established demand and acceptance – Demand and acceptance, being sine qua non under Sections 7 and 13, were satisfied – Conviction justified [Paras 16-21].

Sentence – Trial Court imposed 1 year RI (Sec.7) and 3 years RI with fine (Sec.13) – High Court modified to statutory minimum: 6 months RI with fine Rs.5,000/- (Sec.7) and 1 year RI with fine Rs.10,000/- (Sec.13) – Default sentences of 15 days and 4 weeks respectively – Appeal partly allowed [Paras 22-25].

Civil Law - Redevelopment Agreement – Prima Facie Contract – No Concluded Contract Found – Temporary Injunction Denied – Plaintiff-developer sought interim injunction based on Development Agreement dated 16/12/2011 and revised offers – Court held renegotiated terms amounted to fresh terms that did not culminate in a concluded contract – Mere resolution of society accepting revised offer did not constitute binding agreement – Hence, temporary injunction rightly denied [Paras 23–28, 34–35].

Developer’s Monetary Claim – Partial Protection Granted – Direction to Deposit – Balance of Convenience in Favour of Society – Despite absence of concluded contract, Plaintiff’s financial expenditure acknowledged – Court directed Society and new developer to deposit ₹5 crores to partly secure Plaintiff’s claims – Redevelopment process not halted in view of broader balance of convenience [Paras 36–41].

Public Interest in Redevelopment – Delay of 14 Years Considered – Interim Relief Refused – Court emphasized importance of not delaying redevelopment of dilapidated housing buildings – Developer’s commercial interests were held subordinate to safety and rights of residents – Refusal of injunction upheld to avoid further delay in redevelopment [Paras 31–33, 37–38].

Requirement of Plaintiff’s NOC – Condition Set Aside – Not Essential Once Compensation Directed – Single Judge’s condition directing new developer to obtain Plaintiff’s NOC was revoked – Plaintiff refused to cooperate despite compensation offer – Court held continued insistence on NOC would indirectly grant relief already denied – Monetary security deemed sufficient protection [Paras 39–41].

Decision – Appeals Disposed – Reconstruction Permitted – Commercial Appeal No. 45 of 2025 (filed by Plaintiff-developer) dismissed – Commercial Appeal (L) No. 17320 of 2025 (filed by Society) partly allowed – Condition of securing Plaintiff’s NOC set aside – Society and new developer to deposit ₹5 crores in Court within 6 weeks – Plaintiff allowed to withdraw amount on undertaking – Suit to be decided on merits without being influenced by interim findings [Para 42].

Civil Law – Substitution of Legal Heirs – Order 22 CPC – Writ Petition Maintainable - The petitioners, legal heirs of deceased plaintiffs, sought substitution in the original suit which had been remanded after appeal – The Trial Court rejected the substitution application citing absence of separate applications for delay condonation and setting aside abatement – Held: An application seeking substitution inherently includes prayer for setting aside abatement and condonation of delay – Writ petition is maintainable despite availability of appellate remedy under Order 43 Rule 1(k), especially considering long pendency and prior High Court admission [Paras 10-11].

Procedural Liberalism – Delay and Abatement – Liberal Interpretation – Technical Objections Rejected - Courts are to adopt a justice-oriented approach in abatement and substitution cases – Rigid technicalities should not defeat substantial rights – Delay in moving for substitution after remand was justified as the petitioners were unaware of proceedings – One heir had already been brought on record in appellate stage – Suit did not abate automatically when legal heir was already on record [Paras 17-21].

Right to Sue – Survival of Cause – Will and Legal Representation – Petition Allowed - Petitioner 2.1, holding a registered Will of original plaintiff No. 2, was entitled to be substituted – Right to sue survives in favour of legal representatives – Rejection by Trial Court caused substantial injustice – High Court set aside both orders of the Trial Court and restored the suit to be decided on merits [Paras 14, 33-34].

Final Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Orders Set Aside – High Court quashed the orders dated 01.10.2015 passed below Exh. 190 and Exh. 1 in Regular Civil Suit No. 60 of 1983 – Petitioners allowed to be substituted as plaintiffs – Trial Court directed to restore and decide suit on merits [Paras 41-42].