Family Law - Custody and Visitation – Paramount Consideration – Welfare of Child – Visitation rights of father modified by Family Court reducing frequency of physical meetings and introducing regulated video calls – Held: In matters of custody and visitation, welfare of the minor child is the paramount consideration overriding rights and convenience of parents – Courts must ensure physical safety, emotional well-being and psychological stability of the child [Paras 11, 15–18].

Interim Visitation – Power to Modify – Change in Circumstances – Family Court modified earlier consensual interim visitation arrangement dated 14.11.2024 based on subsequent incidents including alleged altercations, registration of FIR and complaints under PWDV Act – Held: Interim visitation arrangements are always subject to modification if subsequent events demonstrate potential impact on child’s welfare – No vested right accrues to either parent [Paras 14–16].

Discretionary Jurisdiction – Limited Appellate Interference – Family Court exercised discretionary jurisdiction after considering relevant material – Appellate court cannot substitute its own view unless order is perverse, arbitrary or contrary to welfare of child – Mere reduction in visitation frequency does not amount to denial of parental contact [Paras 20–21].

Balancing Parental Contact with Child’s Safety and Stability – Modified arrangement permitted physical meetings twice a month at neutral public place and video calls twice a month – Held: Arrangement strikes balance between father’s right to meaningful contact and need to protect child from instability arising from inter se parental disputes – Modification protective rather than punitive [Paras 17–18].

Ongoing Parental Conflict – Impact on Child – Record reflected multiple litigations and acrimonious disputes between parties – Courts duty-bound to insulate child from parental conflict as far as possible – Stability, routine and academic needs of school-going child must be prioritised over frequent short-duration meetings [Paras 19–20].

Allegations Pending Investigation – No Final Adjudication Required at Interim Stage – While allegations against father disputed, Family Court not required to conclusively determine truth at interim stage – Existence of surrounding circumstances sufficient to warrant cautious approach in regulating visitation [Paras 16–18].

Visitation Rights – Not Absolute – Subject to Regulation – Right of a parent to visitation is not absolute and can be reasonably regulated in interest of child’s welfare – Interim arrangements remain open to future modification upon demonstrable change in circumstances [Paras 20–23].

Counselling and Mediation – Observations – Court emphasised shared parental responsibility to foster healthy environment for child – Family Court may explore counselling or mediation to evolve harmonious co-parenting framework [Para 24].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Impugned order dated 15.12.2025 upheld – Modified interim visitation arrangement to continue until further orders – Observations confined to interim visitation and not to affect merits of pending proceedings [Paras 21–25].

Transfer of Property – Settlement Deed – Unilateral Cancellation – Invalidity – Registered settlement deed executed by the settlor in favour of grandson – Subsequent unilateral cancellation deed executed by settlor without consent of settlee – Held, once settlement deed is executed and registered, vesting rights in favour of settlee, it cannot be unilaterally cancelled unless a specific right of revocation is reserved in the deed or conditions are violated – Cancellation deed held void and inoperative [Paras 7–9].

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 122 – Acceptance of Gift – Delivery of Possession – Not Sine Qua Non – Acceptance of settlement deed can be inferred from conduct of parties – Possession of original title deed with plaintiff and registration of settlement deed sufficient to establish acceptance – Settlement deed held duly acted upon during lifetime of executant [Paras 9].

Fraud, Coercion and Undue Influence – Burden of Proof – Mere allegation by settlor that deed was executed without knowledge or under pressure insufficient – No plea or proof of fraud or coercion raised contemporaneously in cancellation deed or subsequent settlement deed – Failure to establish grounds for invalidating the original settlement deed [Paras 4, 9].

Subsequent Settlement and Mortgage Deeds – Validity – Once original settlement deed stood valid and irrevocable, settlor ceased to have any right, title or interest in property – Subsequent settlement deed executed in favour of daughters and mortgage deed executed thereafter declared null and void [Paras 7–9].

Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – Concurrent findings of fact by Trial Court and First Appellate Court – No perversity or substantial question of law made out – High Court declined to interfere with concurrent judgments [Paras 9–10].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Judgments and decrees of Trial Court and First Appellate Court upheld – Unilateral cancellation of settlement deed declared void – Subsequent settlement and mortgage deeds held invalid – No costs – Connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Tenancy Law - Cultivating Tenants Protection – Fixation of Arrears – Jurisdiction of Revenue Court – Tenant filed petition only seeking permission to deposit rent – Despite memo not pressing the petition, Revenue Court unilaterally determined arrears of Rs.93,418/- based on market value of paddy and revenue reports – Held, fixation of fair rent can be done only by the competent authority under the Puducherry Cultivating Tenants Payment of Fair Rent Act, 1970 – Revenue Court lacked jurisdiction – Order dated 08.09.1999 held a nullity [Paras 21–27].

Counsel’s Concession – Binding Nature – Alleged consent by tenant’s counsel to determination of arrears contrary to statute and contract – Held, counsel has no authority to surrender substantive rights or make concessions on questions of law – Such concession neither binds the client nor cures lack of jurisdiction – Reliance placed on Supreme Court precedent [Paras 26–27].

Eviction for Non-Payment of Rent – Section 3(4)(b), Puducherry Cultivating Tenants Protection Act – Mandatory Opportunity – Before ordering eviction, Revenue Court bound to grant reasonable time to tenant to deposit arrears – Tenant filed multiple applications expressing readiness to pay arrears – Applications kept pending for 20–28 years and dismissed mechanically along with eviction petition – Statutory mandate violated – Eviction order vitiated [Paras 28–30].

Abandonment of Cultivation – Pleadings and Proof – No plea by landlord alleging abandonment – Revenue Court suo motu relied on Tahsildar’s report and wrongly treated it as admission by tenant – Evidence without pleadings impermissible – Finding of abandonment held perverse and unsustainable [Paras 31–32, 38].

Beneficial Legislation – Interpretation – Puducherry Cultivating Tenants Protection Act is a welfare statute intended to protect cultivating tenants from unjust eviction – Courts must adopt liberal and tenant-oriented interpretation – Revenue Court failed to keep in view objects of the Act and scheme for fixation of fair rent – Eviction order set aside [Paras 24, 29, 34–35].

Legal Representatives of Cultivating Tenant – Status – Landlord himself impleaded legal heirs of deceased cultivating tenant – Revenue records showed cultivation by deceased tenant and his son – Objection that legal representatives are not cultivating tenants rejected – Petitioners entitled to protection under the Act [Paras 33, 37].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition allowed – Order dated 29.11.2023 in PCTPA.No.1 of 2001 set aside – Petitioners directed to deposit entire arrears of rent payable strictly in terms of the contract within eight weeks – On such deposit, possession to be restored within one week – Liberty reserved to respondents to initiate fresh eviction proceedings in accordance with law – No costs – Connected CMP closed.

Registration Act – Section 22-A – Government Land – Mandatory Refusal of Registration – Deed of Transfer executed pursuant to BIFR scheme sought to be registered after payment of stamp duty – Registering Authority refused registration holding that instrument involved transfer of more than 1700 acres of Government leased land without sanction – Held: Section 22-A casts a mandatory duty on Registering Officer to refuse registration of instruments relating to transfer of immovable property belonging to State Government unless prior sanction of competent authority is produced – Provision has overriding effect and is attracted irrespective of parties executing the instrument [Paras 7–7.2].

Scope of Enquiry by Registering Authority – K. Gopi v. Sub-Registrar Distinguished – Reliance placed on K. Gopi to contend that Registrar cannot enquire into title – Held: K. Gopi dealt with private sale transactions and validity of Rule 55-A, not with Section 22-A or Government land – Registrar is not adjudicating title but discharging statutory obligation to verify compliance with Section 22-A – Incidental power to call for documents upheld [Paras 7.3–7.3.2].

Lease vs. Assignment of Leasehold Rights – Mining Lease – Contention that Section 22-A applies only to lease and not assignment of leasehold rights rejected – Held: Lease is the instrument; leasehold rights are the interest conveyed – Assignment of leasehold rights is in substance transfer of lease – Expression “by way of” in Section 22-A is illustrative, not exhaustive – Assignment of mining lease over Government land squarely attracts Section 22-A [Paras 8–8.8].

Mining Law – Prior Consent of State Government – Mandatory Requirement – Assignment of mining lease without previous consent in writing of State Government prohibited under Section 12-A MMDR Act, Rule 37 of 1960 Rules and lease deed conditions – Such transfer is void and unenforceable – Requirement of prior consent cannot be cured by subsequent ratification [Paras 9–10].

Section 22-B Registration Act – Transactions Prohibited by Law – Assignment of mining lease in contravention of MMDR Act and Rules amounts to transaction prohibited by law – Registering Authority bound to refuse registration under Section 22-B as well [Paras 11–11.1].

Public Trust Doctrine – Minerals as National Assets – State holds minerals as trustee for present and future generations – Strict compliance with statutory regime governing mining essential – Assignment of mining rights must conform to MMDR Act to subserve public interest and intergenerational equity [Paras 11.2–11.4].

BIFR Scheme – No Immunity from Statutory Mandates – Transfer under BIFR sanctioned scheme does not override MMDR Act or requirement of prior State consent – Courts cannot interpret schemes or judicial orders as permitting acts contrary to statute – No exemption expressly granted under the scheme [Paras 12–12.4].

Acceptance of Royalty/Dead Rent – No Deemed Consent – Acceptance of dead rent or royalty by State does not amount to consent for renewal or assignment of mining lease – Mere payment and acceptance of rent insufficient to infer assent [Paras 13–13.1].

Judicial Review – Remand for Fresh Consideration – Impugned refusal order set aside for failure to conduct proper enquiry on requirement of prior State consent and applicability of Sections 22-A and 22-B – Matter remanded to Registering Authority to pass fresh order after detailed enquiry – Court acting as sentinel on the qui vive to protect public resources [Paras 14–15].

Decision: Impugned refusal order dated 21.04.2025 set aside – Matter remanded to respondent authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law – Writ Petition disposed of – No costs.

Land Acquisition – Negotiated Compensation – Section 29(2) KIAD Act – Finality of Settlement – Petitioner accepted compensation through negotiation and executed agreement and indemnity bond under Section 29(2) KIAD Act – Compensation included market value, solatium, additional market value and interest – Held: Once compensation accepted in full and final settlement, claimant estopped from seeking further compensation or alternative reliefs such as allotment of sites [Paras 45–47].

Suppression of Material Facts – Acceptance of Compensation – Writ Jurisdiction – Petitioner failed to disclose receipt of ₹51,36,250/- towards compensation – Suppression of material facts disentitles petitioner from discretionary relief under Articles 226 and 227 – Writ petition liable to be dismissed on this ground alone [Paras 45–46].

Bangalore–Mysuru Infrastructure Corridor Project – Framework Agreement (FWA) – Binding Nature – FWA dated 03.04.1997 read with Project Technical Report (PTR) governs entire project – Project proponents entitled to develop only five demarcated self-sustaining townships – Any deviation impermissible without prior approval of State Government – Land acquired can be used only in conformity with FWA and PTR [Paras 56–62, 71–74].

Allotment of Sites to Land Losers – Contrary to FWA – Not Permissible – Claim for allotment of residential sites as compensation outside notified townships rejected – Such allotment would defeat integrated nature of infrastructure corridor and violate binding contractual framework – No enforceable promise shown for allotment of sites [Paras 68–74].

Effect of Supreme Court Judgment – BMICAP v. NICE (2021) 18 SCC 401 – Supreme Court authoritatively held that project proponents cannot develop land or layouts beyond five townships specified in FWA – Planning authorities lack jurisdiction to permit deviations without prior State approval – High Court bound by said declaration of law – Claims inconsistent with FWA/PTR not maintainable [Paras 56–62, 68–74].

Delay and Laches – Long Silence After Acquisition – Acquisition notifications issued in 1998 and 2003 – Compensation paid in 2007 – Writ petition pursued belatedly for additional benefits without explanation – Relief rightly declined on ground of delay and acquiescence [Paras 45–47].

Public Infrastructure Projects – Courts Not to Rewrite Contracts – Courts cannot compel State or project proponents to grant benefits not contemplated under statutory framework or binding agreements – Equity cannot override express contractual and statutory limitations governing large infrastructure projects [Paras 71–74].

Observations on BMIC Project – Public Interest – Court recorded serious concern over failure of BMIC Project to achieve objectives of decongestion and township development – Directed State Government to re-examine viability and future of project – However, such observations do not confer individual rights contrary to law [Paras 75–78].

Decision – Writ petition dismissed – Claim for allotment of sites and further compensation rejected – No relief granted – Pending applications disposed of [Para 79].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheque – Section 138 – Pre-cognizance Stage – Section 223 BNSS – Magistrate directed issuance of notice to accused before taking cognizance – Held impermissible in complaints under Section 138 N.I. Act, which is a special enactment – No requirement of issuing notice or summons to accused prior to taking cognizance [Paras 5–10].

Criminal Procedure – BNSS, 2023 – Section 223 – Interpretation of First Proviso – Opportunity of Hearing to Accused – Supreme Court clarified that proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS does not mandate pre-cognizance notice in cheque dishonour cases – Trial Court erred in applying proviso mechanically at pre-cognizance stage [Paras 6–10].

Precedent – Binding Nature – Supreme Court Decision – Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar – Law declared that issuance of notice to accused prior to cognizance is not required in N.I. Act cases – Held: Trial Court order contrary to binding precedent suffers from legal infirmity [Paras 8–10].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Motion Stage Disposal – Pure Question of Law – In view of settled legal position, criminal revision taken up and decided at motion stage – Issuance of notice to private respondents dispensed with [Paras 11].

Remand – Cognizance and Issuance of Process – Trial Court directed to reconsider matter afresh in accordance with law and Supreme Court ruling – Impugned order quashed to the extent of issuing pre-cognizance notice [Paras 10, 12–14].

Decision: Criminal revision allowed – Impugned order dated 25.09.2025 quashed to the extent it directed issuance of notice to accused at pre-cognizance stage – Trial Court directed to take fresh decision on cognizance and issuance of process in accordance with law.

Employees’ Compensation – Insurer’s Liability – Interest on Compensation – Policy Exclusion Clause – Appeal by Insurance Company – Workman sustained permanent total disability due to fall from height during employment – Commissioner awarded compensation with 12% interest and imposed liability jointly on employer and insurer – Insurance policy produced at appellate stage showing specific exclusion of liability for interest and penalty – Held: Liability of insurer under Employees’ Compensation Act is purely contractual and governed by terms of insurance policy – In absence of statutory compulsion akin to Motor Vehicles Act, insurer cannot be fastened with liability beyond contract – Exclusion clause valid and enforceable – Insurer liable only to pay compensation amount – Employer liable to pay statutory interest [Paras 11–20].

Additional Evidence – Insurance Policy – Acceptance at Appellate Stage – Certified copy of full insurance policy not produced before Commissioner due to inadvertent omission – Policy certificate and premium receipts already on record – Additional document relevant for adjudication of substantial question of law – No dispute as to genuineness of document – Held: In the interest of justice, additional evidence permitted and relied upon [Paras 11–12].

Wages and Coverage – Employees’ Compensation Insurance – Insurer contended policy covered only seven welders drawing wages up to ₹4,000 per month whereas claimant alleged wages of ₹15,000 – Commissioner assessed wages at ₹4,000 per month – Held: Once Commissioner fixed wages within policy limit, insurer cannot deny coverage solely based on higher wage claim by workman [Para 10].

Substantial Question of Law – Direction to Pay Interest Contrary to Policy Terms – Whether Commissioner was justified in directing insurer to pay interest despite express exclusion in policy – Held: Issue involves interpretation of insurance contract and statutory scheme – Constitutes substantial question of law – Answered in favour of insurer [Paras 18–20].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Award modified – Insurer directed to pay only compensation amount – Employer directed to pay interest as awarded by Commissioner – No liability on insurer for interest or penalty.

Criminal Law – Grievous Hurt – Conviction under Section 325 IPC – Reliability of Injured Witness – Sentence Modified – Appellants convicted by Trial Court for causing grievous hurt to victim by assaulting him with wooden stick and bicycle pump – Prosecution case supported by injured eyewitness (P.W.2), independent eyewitnesses and medical evidence – Defence contended inconsistencies regarding weapon used and role of accused – Held: Evidence of injured witness carries greater evidentiary value and inspires confidence – Minor discrepancies as to number of assailants or nature of weapon do not discredit core prosecution case – Conviction upheld [Paras …].

Evidence – Injured Eyewitness – Legal Principles – Statement of injured witness corroborated by medical evidence and eyewitnesses – No material contradictions elicited in cross-examination – Reliance placed on Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra – Held: Presence and testimony of injured witness cannot be doubted unless serious infirmities exist – Broad substratum of prosecution case to be accepted [Paras …].

Medical Evidence – Corroboration – Doctors (P.W.9 and P.W.12) proved grievous head injuries including fracture – Injury reports consistent with assault by hard and blunt objects – Seized weapons produced and proved – Medical evidence lends assurance to ocular testimony [Paras …].

Sentence – Reduction – Long Lapse of Time – Ends of Justice – Incident dated 12.06.2008 – Appellants already suffered custody for more than one month – After lapse of nearly 17½ years, sending appellants back to prison would serve no useful purpose – Sentence of two years’ simple imprisonment reduced to period already undergone – Conditional bond under Section 106(4) Cr.P.C. directed for two years [Paras …].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 325 IPC affirmed – Sentence modified to period already undergone subject to furnishing bond – Appeal disposed of.

Tenancy Law - Landlord–Tenant – Forfeiture of Tenancy – Denial of Title – Claim of Adverse Possession – Section 111(g) Transfer of Property Act – Tenant issued notice claiming ownership on basis of alleged oral gift and alternatively adverse possession – Tenant disputed title of landlord’s vendor and asserted that proposed sale would not confer title on purchaser – Held: Tenant not only disputed landlord’s title but claimed title in himself – Clear renunciation of character as tenant – Forfeiture of tenancy attracted [Paras 4, 11, 14].

Adverse Possession – Tenant Claiming Ownership – Effect on Tenancy – Tenant asserted long, peaceful possession as owner and payment of municipal taxes – Assertion of hostile title inconsistent with continuance of tenancy – Held: Claim of adverse possession by tenant amounts to disclaimer of landlord’s title and results in forfeiture [Paras 4, 14].

Notice of Forfeiture – Addressed to Vendor – Validity – Contention that notice disputing title was issued to landlord’s vendor and not landlord himself – Notice clearly indicated that purchaser would derive no title – Held: Dispute of vendor’s title directly affects title of purchaser-landlord – Forfeiture not avoided merely because notice was addressed to vendor [Paras 7, 11, 14].

Waiver of Forfeiture – Demand and Acceptance of Rent – Section 112 Transfer of Property Act – Landlord issued notice demanding rent after forfeiture but expressly stated demand was “without prejudice” to claim of forfeiture – Rent accepted under protest and adjusted towards damages – Held: Mere demand and acceptance of rent with express reservation does not amount to waiver of forfeiture [Paras 5, 8, 15, 18].

Without Prejudice Demand – Intention of Landlord – Subsequent notices and correspondence consistently asserted forfeiture and denial of tenancy – Filing of eviction suit shortly thereafter reinforced absence of waiver – Intention to continue forfeiture clearly established [Paras 15, 17–18].

Distinguishing Waiver by Conduct – Chandrashekhar Gadgil Case – In earlier case landlord invoked Rent Act provisions years after forfeiture notice and sought eviction on statutory grounds – Held: Facts materially different – No waiver in present case as landlord never abandoned forfeiture plea and consistently reserved rights [Para 16].

Protection under Rent Control Laws – Effect of Forfeiture – Once tenant forfeits character by denying title and claiming ownership, protection under rent control legislation is unavailable – Conceded legal position correctly applied [Paras 6, 13–14].

Second Appeal – No Substantial Question of Law – Concurrent findings of Trial Court and First Appellate Court based on correct application of law – No perversity or legal error demonstrated – Second Appeal dismissed [Paras 18–19].

Equitable Relief – Time to Vacate – Considering long possession and residential nature of premises – Six months’ time granted to vacate subject to undertaking – Tenant directed to hand over vacant possession on or before 15/07/2026 [Paras 20–21].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Concurrent decrees for eviction confirmed – No order as to costs – Time granted to vacate till 15/07/2026.