Local Self-Government – Removal of Elected Municipal President – Section 48(2-A), U.P. Municipality Act, 1916 – Meaning of “such inquiry as it may consider necessary” – Full-fledged inquiry mandatory – Petitioner, elected President of Nagar Palika Parishad, removed on allegations of corruption, favouritism in tenders and misuse of municipal funds – Removal order based on preliminary inquiry reports and show-cause proceedings – No formal charge-sheet framed – No Inquiry Officer appointed – No oral evidence recorded – No opportunity of cross-examination afforded – Preliminary inquiry reports relied upon without associating petitioner – Held: Once charges are denied and explanation is found unsatisfactory, State Government is mandatorily required to conduct a full-fledged inquiry before removal of an elected representative – Removal without such inquiry violates Section 48(2-A) and principles of natural justice – Impugned order quashed with liberty to conduct fresh inquiry in accordance with law [Paras 11–23].

Elected Representative – Higher Constitutional Pedestal – Comparison with Government Servant – Elected President of Municipality stands on a higher footing than a government servant – If even a temporary government employee cannot be removed without full-fledged inquiry, removal of an elected representative without such inquiry is impermissible – Removal curtails statutory right of office-bearer and democratic right of constituency – Strict adherence to statutory procedure essential [Paras 13, 20].

Inquiry – Preliminary vs. Regular Inquiry – Evidentiary Value – Preliminary inquiry meant only to form prima facie opinion – Evidence recorded therein cannot be relied upon for final punishment – Reliance on preliminary reports without examination of witnesses in presence of delinquent and without cross-examination is illegal – Documents do not prove themselves and must be proved through competent witnesses [Paras 15, 16, 21].

Natural Justice – Supply of Inquiry Material – Right to Defence – Non-supply of relied-upon material including inquiry reports and comments vitiates proceedings – Right to receive inquiry report is part of reasonable opportunity of defence – Prejudice need not be separately proved where mandatory procedural safeguards are breached [Paras 15, 21].

Administrative Law – Quasi-Judicial Power – Recording of Reasons – Order of removal must record clear reasons based on legally admissible evidence – Mere reference to allegations and replies without discussion of evidence reflects non-application of mind – Quasi-judicial orders affecting elected office must demonstrate fairness, objectivity and strict compliance with law [Paras 21–22].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Order dated 29.10.2025 removing petitioner from office quashed – Respondents directed to conduct a full-fledged inquiry strictly in accordance with Section 48(2-A) of the Act, 1916 and principles of natural justice – Consequential relief granted [Para 23–24].

Criminal Law – Section 482 CrPC – Quashing of Proceedings – Mechanical Cognizance on Protest Complaint – Magistrate took cognizance of offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 r/w 34 IPC on a protest complaint after police filed refer report finding allegations false – Order merely recorded “prima facie case made out” without reasons – No discussion of evidence recorded under Section 200 CrPC – No reasons for disagreeing with police refer report – Held: Such casual and mechanical order reflects non-application of mind and vitiates cognizance – Proceedings liable to be quashed to prevent abuse of process [Paras 5–6].

Protest Complaint – Duty of Magistrate – When a refer report is filed, Magistrate must apply independent judicial mind, evaluate materials, record reasons for differing from investigation findings and indicate sufficient grounds to proceed – Failure to do so renders order unsustainable [Paras 6, 8].

Forgery of Will – Mere Clerical Error Not Sufficient – Allegation of forgery based solely on misdescription of name of one attesting witness in Will deed – Investigation revealed it to be a typographical error with same person having signed – Magistrate ignored investigation findings without justification – Criminal prosecution held unjustified [Paras 8–9].

Public Servant – Sub-Registrar – Acts Done in Official Capacity – Section 197 CrPC – Fourth accused was Sub-Registrar who registered Will deed in discharge of statutory duty – No allegation of independent role in conspiracy or forgery except official act of registration – Magistrate failed to consider requirement of prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC – Proceedings against public servant without sanction held impermissible [Paras 7–8].

Abuse of Process of Law – Ends of Justice – Continuation of criminal proceedings against private parties and public servant despite false refer report and absence of prima facie material amounts to abuse of process – Inherent jurisdiction rightly invoked to secure ends of justice [Para 9].

Decision: Criminal Miscellaneous Cases allowed – Proceedings in C.C. No. 93 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Piravom, against Accused Nos. 1 to 4 quashed – Impugned order taking cognizance set aside.

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.

Land Acquisition – Bangalore Development Authority Act – Lapse of Scheme under Section 27 – Substantial Implementation – Preliminary Notification issued for 1532 acres – Final Notification restricted to 750 acres – BDA took possession of 580 acres 18 guntas and formed layout carving out thousands of sites – Majority of sites allotted – Held, scheme substantially implemented – No lapse under Section 27 of BDA Act [Paras 6, 10, 13–14].

Land Acquisition – Taking Possession – Mahazar and Section 16(2) Notification – Award passed, compensation deposited in Court, possession taken by drawing mahazar and notification under Section 16(2) published – Mutation effected in favour of BDA – Held, acquisition proceedings showed seamless and lawful flow of events – Mode of taking possession not illegal or irregular [Paras 11].

Writ Jurisdiction – Delay and Laches – Final Notification published in 2003 – Five years expired in 2008 – Writ petition filed only in 2013 without satisfactory explanation – Alleged fresh cause of action based on entry by BDA officials rejected – Held, petition barred by delay and laches [Paras 11].

Locus Standi – Subsisting Interest – Challenge by Subsequent Claimants – Original khatedars did not challenge acquisition – Gift deeds executed prior to preliminary notification – Held, petitioners lacked locus in respect of certain survey numbers – However, legal heirs of Ammayamma held to have locus regarding Sy.No.36/1 [Paras 8].

Res Judicata – Constructive Res Judicata – Earlier writ petitions challenged acquisition notifications but did not raise plea of lapsing under Section 27 of BDA Act – Held, subsequent petition on ground of lapse not barred by res judicata or constructive res judicata [Paras 9].

Discrimination – Betterment Charges – Denotification – BDA permitted certain landowners to retain lands on payment of betterment charges – Petitioners’ claim of discrimination rejected – Held, deletion based on rational considerations and public interest – No right to claim parity [Paras 6, 13].

Precedent – Coordinate Bench – Binding Effect – Earlier Division Bench judgment upheld acquisition for same layout and specifically negatived plea of lapse – Supreme Court dismissed civil appeals arising therefrom – Held, consistency required – No ground for interference with Single Judge’s order [Paras 12–14].

Public Interest – Urban Development – Acquisition for planned development – Courts should not interfere once substantial development has taken place – Individual interests must yield to larger public purpose [Paras 13–14].

Decision: Writ Appeal No. 944 of 2024 and Writ Appeal No. 926 of 2024 dismissed – Judgment and order dated 08.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.10331 of 2013 upheld – Land acquisition proceedings sustained – No order as to costs.

Taxation Law - Income Tax – Penalty – Immunity under Section 270AA – Mandatory Nature – Assessee applied for immunity from penalty under Section 270AA after issuance of notice under Section 270A – Rectification under Section 154 allowed subsequently resulting in nil tax demand – Held: Section 270AA(3) is couched in mandatory terms – Once statutory conditions are satisfied, Assessing Officer is bound to grant immunity – Discretion does not survive where conditions stand fulfilled [Paras 14, 17–19].

Section 270AA – Conditions for Immunity – Compliance by Assessee – Application filed in prescribed Form 68 within statutory time – No appeal filed against assessment order – Penalty proceedings not initiated under Section 270A(9) – Rectification leading to nil demand satisfies condition of payment of tax and interest – Application could not be rejected mechanically without examining compliance with statutory requirements [Paras 15–17].

Administrative Law – Requirement of Reasons – Speaking Order – Order rejecting immunity merely stated that conditions were not fulfilled without specifying which condition was violated – Absence of reasons amounts to non-application of mind – Reasons are live links between material on record and conclusion – Non-speaking order held unsustainable in law [Paras 20–21].

Natural Justice – Opportunity of Hearing – Proviso to Section 270AA(4) – Though notice of hearing issued, final order did not deal with submissions made in immunity application – Mere grant of opportunity insufficient without meaningful consideration – Rejection without addressing contentions violates principles of natural justice [Paras 20–21].

Rectification of Assessment – Effect on Penalty Proceedings – Scrutiny assessment originally resulted in substantial demand – Rectification under Section 154 reduced demand to nil – Subsequent dropping of penalty proceedings reinforces assessee’s claim for immunity – Penalty proceedings lose substratum once assessed income itself stands rectified [Paras 10, 14].

Jurisdictional Error – Passing of Order by Transferred Officer – Contention raised that Assessing Officer had been transferred prior to passing of impugned order – Though not finally adjudicated, issue highlights procedural infirmity surrounding decision-making process [Para 9].

Precedent – Requirement of Reasoned Rejection of Immunity – Reliance placed on Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) Pte. Ltd. v. ACIT – Orders declining immunity must disclose reasons and application of mind – Principle affirmed [Paras 11, 22].

Decision – Writ petition allowed – Order dated 27.05.2025 rejecting application under Section 270AA set aside – Assessing Officer directed to reconsider application afresh in accordance with law after granting opportunity of hearing – No costs [Paras 23–24].

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.

Criminal Law - Rape of Minor – Conviction – Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix – Sufficiency of Evidence – Appellant convicted under Section 376(2)(f)(i) IPC, Section 6 POCSO Act and Section 451 IPC – Victim aged about 9 years at time of incident – Victim categorically stated in cross-examination that appellant made full penetration – Held: Conviction can be sustained on sole testimony of prosecutrix if it inspires confidence – No rule of law requiring corroboration in every case [Paras 3.1–3.4, 4.2].

Medical Evidence – Absence of Injuries – Not Fatal to Prosecution – Doctor found no recent clinical signs of sexual intercourse and no injuries on victim – Held: Absence of medical corroboration does not discredit reliable ocular testimony of victim – Medical evidence is corroborative and not substantive – Where testimony of prosecutrix is trustworthy, conviction can be based thereon [Paras 2.5–2.7, 4.2].

Child Witness – Credibility – Statement under Section 164 CrPC – Victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC consistent with FIR and deposition before Court – Victim stood firm during cross-examination – No material contradictions or infirmities found – Evidence inspires confidence [Paras 3, 4.2].

Rape Jurisprudence – Corroboration – Rule of Prudence Not of Law – Reiterated that corroboration of prosecutrix’s testimony is not a sine qua non – Minor discrepancies or absence of physical injuries do not negate prosecution case – Reliance placed on recent Supreme Court decisions affirming settled principles [Paras 3.2–3.3, 4.2].

Defence Plea – Prior Enmity – Not Substantiated – Suggestion of prior quarrel between families insufficient to discard victim’s evidence – No evidence of false implication established – Mere existence of past dispute does not demolish prosecution case [Paras 2.4, 4.2].

POCSO Act – Strict Liability – Protection of Child Victims – Victim being a minor, statutory presumption operates in favour of prosecution – Sexual assault on child proved beyond reasonable doubt through victim’s testimony – Conviction under Section 6 POCSO Act justified [Paras 3.4, 4.2].

Sentence – No Interference – Sentence of 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment under IPC and POCSO Act directed to run concurrently – Trial court judgment found to be legal and proper – No ground made out for appellate interference [Paras 1, 4.3].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence dated 30.11.2018 passed by Special Judge, Nuapada affirmed – Appellant to undergo sentence as awarded – No interference warranted [Para 4.3].

Domestic Violence Act – Section 2(f) – “Relationship in the Nature of Marriage” – Live-in Relationship with Married Man – Not Maintainable – Petitioner claimed reliefs under PWDVA alleging marriage and long-standing cohabitation with Respondent No.1 during subsistence of his first marriage – Evidence of joint property purchase, financial arrangements, IVF treatment, and birth of child relied upon – Sessions Court reversed reliefs granted by JMFC – Held: Relationship between an unmarried woman and a married man, entered into with knowledge of subsisting marriage, does not qualify as a “relationship in the nature of marriage” – Such relationship lacks legal sanctity and falls outside ambit of Section 2(f) PWDVA [Paras 24–28].

Live-in Relationship – Supreme Court Guidelines – Indra Sarma and D. Velusamy Applied – Court reiterated that all live-in relationships are not relationships in the nature of marriage – Essential conditions include parties being legally eligible to marry – Respondent No.1, being married, failed to satisfy mandatory condition of legal eligibility – Ratio of Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma and D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal squarely applicable [Paras 22–27].

Knowledge of Existing Marriage – Effect – Petitioner admitted awareness of Respondent No.1’s marital status at inception of relationship – Even if induced by misrepresentation, such relationship cannot be elevated to marriage-like status under PWDVA – Relationship akin to concubinage or extra-marital affair, for which Act does not presently provide protection [Paras 25–26].

Joint Property, Financial Control, Childbirth – Not Conclusive – Factors such as joint ownership of property, handling of bank accounts, sexual relationship, IVF treatment, or birth of child, though relevant, are insufficient by themselves to establish relationship in the nature of marriage when core legal requirements are absent – Social projection as husband and wife and legal capacity to marry remain determinative [Paras 25–27].

PWDVA – Beneficial Legislation – Limits of Interpretation – While PWDVA is a beneficial statute intended to protect women from abuse, courts cannot extend its scope beyond statutory definition – Expansion of protection to relationships knowingly entered with married persons requires legislative intervention and not judicial enlargement [Paras 26–28].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Limited Interference – Sessions Court correctly applied settled law and reversed trial court’s findings – No perversity or jurisdictional error found warranting interference under Article 227 – Concurrent appreciation of law upheld [Para 28].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Judgment and Order dated 26.07.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune upheld – Petitioner held not entitled to reliefs under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Civil Law  – Order 9 Rule 7 CPC – Nature of Relief – Discretionary and Equitable – Application for setting aside ex parte proceedings is not a matter of right – Applicant must establish “good cause” for non-appearance on date when proceeded ex parte – Unlike Order IX Rule 13, Rule 7 does not confer vested right to reopen proceedings – Discretion must be exercised on conduct of party and surrounding circumstances [Paras 10, 16].

Limitation – Article 137 Limitation Act – Applicability to Order IX Rule 7 CPC – Though CPC does not prescribe specific limitation, residuary Article 137 applies to all applications before civil courts unless expressly excluded – Period of three years cannot be rendered meaningless by prolonged inaction – Application filed after more than five years held barred by limitation and laches [Paras 11–14].

Service of Summons – Order V Rule 15 CPC – Validity of Service on Family Member – Summons served on petitioner’s father at correct address – Minor discrepancy in petitioner’s name not material where identity established – Process server reported prior conversation with petitioner and acceptance of summons by father at petitioner’s responsibility – Service held valid and in compliance with procedural requirements [Paras 7, 9].

Knowledge of Proceedings – Conduct of Party – Estoppel – Material on record showed petitioner’s prior knowledge of pendency of suit – Compromise entered before police authorities bearing petitioner’s signature acknowledging civil dispute and next date of hearing – Plea of lack of knowledge rejected as afterthought and attempt to mislead Court [Paras 8–9].

Delay and Laches – Equitable Relief Denied – Ex parte order passed on 10.01.2020 – Application under Order IX Rule 7 filed on 02.09.2025 without satisfactory explanation – Gross and unexplained delay destructive of equitable relief – Courts cannot reward deliberate inaction [Paras 14–15].

Stage of Proceedings – Prejudice to Opposite Party – Suit had progressed to stage of defendants’ evidence – Allowing belated application would unsettle concluded proceedings – Procedural discipline must be maintained to ensure certainty in civil trials [Para 15].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope – No Interference with Discretionary Orders – High Court’s revisional power limited to correcting jurisdictional error, perversity or material illegality – Trial Court exercised discretion on cogent material and settled principles – Mere possibility of different view no ground for interference [Paras 16–17].

Balancing Natural Justice – Limited Participation Permitted – Though revision dismissed, petitioner permitted to participate in further proceedings – Such participation not to reopen concluded stages – Petitioner barred from filing written statement or leading evidence [Para 18].

Decision – Civil revision dismissed – Order rejecting application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC upheld – No perversity or illegality found – Limited participation allowed in interest of natural justice without reopening proceedings [Paras 17–18].