Hindu Succession Law – Rights of Daughters Prior to 1956 – Inheritance Excluded – The court held that under the Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act, 1937, inheritance rights to daughters were excluded if the father died before 1956 leaving behind a widow – The 1937 Act granted limited ownership only to the widow; daughters were not included in inheritance under this framework [Paras 9, 20, 33].

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Retrospective Application – Rejected – The appellants contended for retrospective application of the 1956 Act to cases where inheritance opened before 1956 – Held: Provisions of the 1956 Act, including the 2005 Amendment, apply prospectively; pre-1956 cases are governed by existing laws of that time [Paras 10, 29, 30].

Jurisprudence – Reconsideration of Precedents – Limited Rights Confirmed – The court clarified conflicts in earlier decisions regarding the inheritance rights of daughters prior to 1956 and concluded that inheritance rights to daughters emerged only after the 1956 Act, further strengthened by the 2005 Amendment [Paras 10, 31].

Historical Context – Widow as Sole Heir Pre-1956 – Under Mitakshara law and the 1937 Act, widows were equated to sons for inheritance purposes; daughters were recognized only upon the widow's absence – The legal framework emphasized patriarchal structures limiting inheritance rights for daughters in cases preceding the 1956 Act [Paras 9, 20, 30].

Decision: The appeals were decided in favor of the respondents, holding that a daughter does not acquire inheritance rights in the property of her deceased father who died prior to 1956 if a widow survives.

Execution of Will – Proof and Attestation – Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act – Will Upheld – The appellant challenged the Will (Ext.B2), alleging irregularities and suspicious circumstances – Held: The Will’s execution and attestation were duly proved by the attestor, satisfying legal requirements – The registration of the Will lends credence, though not conclusive proof – No material discrediting the attestor’s testimony was presented [Paras 9-14].

Suspicious Circumstances – Burden of Proof – Genuineness Established – The appellant argued that the Will excluded certain heirs without justifiable reasons and was fabricated – Held: Evidence confirmed the testator’s sound mind and deliberate exclusion of certain branches due to proximity and care received from other heirs – Appellant failed to substantiate claims of fabrication or undue influence [Paras 12-15].

Handwriting Expert and Fingerprint Analysis – Limited Weight – The appellant relied on expert opinions to dispute the testator’s signature – Held: Variations in signature over decades are natural and not conclusive; contemporaneous evidence was lacking – Fingerprint analysis affirmed the authenticity of the Will, bolstering its validity [Paras 16-17].

Exclusion of Heirs – Testamentary Intent – Not Suspicious – The exclusion of the appellant and her branch was contested as unjustifiable – Held: A Will’s purpose is to alter natural succession; exclusion of certain heirs, when supported by credible reasons, does not make the Will suspicious [Paras 18-19].

Decision: The appeal was dismissed. The trial court’s decision upholding the validity of the Will (Ext.B2) and dismissing the partition suit was affirmed.

Arbitration Law – Single Transaction and Interconnected Agreements – Enforceability of Arbitration Clause – Appellants sought to refer disputes to arbitration, citing a single transaction encompassing a sale agreement with an arbitration clause and subsequent MoU and Allotment Letter – Trial Court dismissed the application, treating the MoU as an independent agreement lacking an arbitration clause – Held: Conveyance deed’s execution ended the enforceability of the arbitration clause in the original sale agreement; subsequent agreements did not explicitly incorporate arbitration [Paras 16-20, 24-26].

Doctrine of Merger – Effect of Conveyance on Arbitration Clause – Court affirmed that conveyance execution concludes the original agreement, terminating any arbitration clause therein; absence of specific arbitration clause reference in MoU or Allotment Letter supports their independent status – Held: Arbitration clause cannot be revived post-conveyance; dismissal of application upheld [Paras 27-30, 35].

Decision: Arbitration Appeal dismissed; Interim Application disposed of. Trial Court’s rejection of arbitration reference application confirmed as valid under legal principles of contract termination and lack of arbitration clause incorporation.
 

Judicial Immunity – Protection under Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 – The petitioner argued that actions performed under Section 165 of the Land Revenue Code were judicial in nature, entitling him to protection under the Judges (Protection) Act – The Court noted that Additional Collectors are empowered to perform judicial functions per Section 17 of the Code – Held: Petitioner’s quasi-judicial actions fall within the ambit of “judge” under the Act, granting immunity from disciplinary proceedings based on such actions [Paras 5-12, 30-36].

Administrative Law – Competence of Additional Collector – The Court reviewed the petitioner’s authority to grant permissions under the work distribution order and found his exercise of powers as Additional Collector lawful – Prior High Court rulings confirmed that work distribution does not limit judicial functions to the Collector exclusively – Held: Petitioner’s authority under the work distribution order was valid, making the disciplinary action baseless [Paras 18-23].

Malafide Disciplinary Action – Impact on Career Advancement – The Court observed that initiating disciplinary proceedings after a prolonged delay, without findings of personal gain or misconduct, suggests malicious intent to impede petitioner’s promotion to IAS cadre – Held: Chargesheet quashed; proceedings deemed punitive and lacking in legal grounds [Paras 38-42].

Decision: The petition is allowed. The chargesheet dated 29.04.2019 and subsequent inquiry orders are quashed. Respondents are directed to consider the petitioner for promotion to IAS cadre, if otherwise eligible.

Right to Information Act – Disclosure of Candidate Marks – Petitioner, a candidate for Junior Clerk post, was denied information regarding marks obtained by other candidates on grounds of confidentiality under Maharashtra District Courts Right to Information (Revised Rules), 2009, and under Sections 8(1)(j) and 11 of RTI Act – Petitioner contended that public interest and transparency required disclosure of all candidates' marks – Held: Disclosure of marks obtained in a public recruitment process does not constitute an "unwarranted invasion of privacy" as it is related to a public activity – Disclosure justified by larger public interest, promoting transparency and accountability in recruitment process [Paras 5-7, 24-29, 35-38, 50-52, 54].

Confidentiality and Public Interest – Applicability of Rule 13(e) of Maharashtra District Courts RTI Rules – Rule 13(e) exempts information affecting examination confidentiality – Court clarified that once an exam concludes, disclosure of marks does not affect confidentiality but rather enhances transparency – Prior disclosure by another district court (Wardha) found relevant though not binding, affirming transparency practices in public recruitment [Paras 43-46, 51-52].

Privacy Concerns – Section 8(1)(j) and Privacy – Marks in public exams not deemed personal information exempt under Section 8(1)(j) – Court distinguished between genuinely private information and information relevant to public recruitment – Found that disclosure serves public interest by ensuring recruitment fairness and transparency, which outweighs privacy concerns of individual candidates [Paras 25-28, 30-34].

Precedent Analysis – Supreme Court Precedent in Central Public Information Officer v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal – Petitioner relied on Supreme Court’s clarification that disclosure of information related to public functions and transparency aligns with RTI Act objectives – Rationale of public interest and accountability reinforced need for disclosure in cases involving public selection process [Paras 31-37].

Decision – Petition partly allowed – Orders denying petitioner access to other candidates' marks set aside – Direction issued to furnish marks obtained by candidates from serial nos. 1 to 363 in written/screening test, Marathi and English typing test, and interview within six weeks upon payment of prescribed costs – Promotes public confidence in recruitment process and aligns with RTI's goal of transparency [Paras 54-56].

Bail Application – Custodial Detention – Section 439 CrPC – Bail Granted - The petitioner sought bail, asserting prolonged detention and lack of specific evidence linking him to the alleged offences of wrongful confinement, assault, and murder – The State opposed bail, citing witness statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC and the chargesheet naming eight accused, including the petitioner – The Court noted that despite completed investigation, the petitioner’s specific involvement was unclear, and extended detention was unjustified given the remote likelihood of early trial commencement – Held: Petitioner granted bail with conditions to avoid tampering with evidence or witness intimidation [Paras 1-3].

Conditions of Bail – Appearance and Conduct – Compliance Mandated - The Court imposed strict conditions on the petitioner, including restriction from entering the jurisdiction of the Nagrakata Police Station, regular reporting to the local police, and a warning that any breach would enable the trial court to cancel bail without further reference – Held: Bail conditional on compliance to ensure fair trial proceedings [Paras 4-5].

Decision: The bail application is allowed, subject to a bail bond of ₹10,000 with two sureties, one local. The petitioner must adhere to stipulated conditions, including staying outside Nagrakata Police Station limits and regular reporting, to retain bail.

Criminal Law – Cheating and Breach of Trust – Prima Facie Case for Summons – Petitioner challenged the order setting aside summons issued against Educomp and associates for alleged fraud and misrepresentation in a joint venture – Court found that allegations involved a contractual dispute lacking evidence of fraudulent intent at inception, dismissing claims under Sections 420, 406 IPC – Held: Mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offense unless deceitful intent exists from the start, as required for offenses under Section 420 IPC [Paras 8-12, 24-28].

Civil vs. Criminal Liability – Contractual Disputes and Penal Provisions – The Court emphasized that allegations arising solely from contract performance disputes should proceed through civil channels, with criminal liability reserved for clear deceit or misrepresentation – Relying on precedents, the Court stressed that invoking criminal process to resolve civil disputes constitutes abuse of law – Held: Civil remedies sufficient; penal proceedings inappropriate for the presented allegations [Paras 30-33].

Decision: Petition dismissed. The Court upheld the Sessions Court’s order quashing the summoning order, concluding the dispute was civil and did not justify criminal proceedings.

SC/ST Act – Prima Facie Case – Sections 3(1)(x)(xi) – Charges Dropped – Allegations under the SC/ST Act regarding caste-based abuse and intimidation not substantiated – Trial court rightly found that the complaints were contradictory and did not establish public view or deliberate caste-based insult – Charges dropped under the SC/ST Act due to lack of prima facie evidence [Paras 7-8].

Delay in Filing Complaint – Impact on Credibility – Delay of three months between the alleged incident and registration of the FIR under Section 3(1)(x)(xi) SC/ST Act held unexplained – Subsequent additions to allegations viewed as undermining the credibility of the charges [Para 8].

Quashing of FIR – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Scope – Powers to quash FIR to be exercised sparingly – Investigation completed, and charges framed – Defense to be presented during the trial – Quashing not justified as no abuse of legal process established [Paras 9-11].

Trial Court Jurisdiction – Stage of Charge Framing – At the stage of charge, detailed appreciation of evidence is unwarranted – Sufficient grounds found to proceed with other IPC charges, dismissing revision petition challenging the trial court's order [Para 11].

Decision: Both petitions dismissed. The court upheld the trial court's decision to drop charges under Sections 109 IPC and 3(1)(x)(xi) of the SC/ST Act while retaining charges under Sections 447, 427, 147, 148, 504, and 506 IPC. Quashing of FIR No. 153/2020 was also denied. Trial to proceed expeditiously.
 

Labour Law – ESI Act – Principal Employer Liability for Contract Workers – Petitioner contended that contract workers, engaged via petty contractors with no direct supervisory control by KSEB, should not be covered under the ESI Act – The Court highlighted that under Section 2(12), establishments employing more than 10 workers are covered, and principal employers bear responsibility for ensuring ESI contributions – Held: KSEB’s liability as principal employer includes contract workers engaged indirectly through contractors [Paras 14-20].

ESI Contribution Demands – Exemption for High Earners and Contract Workers – The petitioner argued exemption for employees earning above ₹21,000/month and claimed that ESI demands were incorrectly calculated based on exaggerated worker numbers – Held: Court found that ESI dues assessment must consider eligible employees and should re-evaluate worker count and wages under Section 45A; erroneous assessments warrant reconsideration [Paras 21-25].

Procedural Fairness – Requirement of Hearing and Fair Assessment – Noting discrepancies in assessments and lack of consultation, Court ordered a fresh determination of ESI liabilities after a hearing – Held: Demand notices quashed; respondents directed to reassess KSEB’s contributions following fair procedure [Paras 26-30].

Decision:

The writ petition is allowed in part. Demand notices (Exts.P4, P7, P9, and P10) are quashed. Respondents are directed to conduct a reassessment after giving the petitioner an opportunity for hearing.