Education Law – Excess Admissions – Pharmacy Course – Writ appeal filed by student whose admission was cancelled due to college exceeding the Pharmacy Council’s sanctioned intake – Pharmacy Council refused to regularise over-admission citing academic standards and regulatory discipline – Held: No authority vested in college or court to approve admission beyond PCI limit – Regulations are binding and mandatory – Admission in excess of intake declared void ab initio [Paras 8–18].

Admission Validity – First Come First Serve – College followed a documented ‘first come first serve’ admission policy under management quota – Respondent No.3 had applied and completed admission formalities before the appellant – Payment and online acceptance by respondent No.3 completed before appellant's – Held: Cancellation of appellant’s admission was not arbitrary – No grounds to cancel admission of respondent No.3 [Paras 20–28].

University Autonomy – Judicial Non-Interference – PCI’s decision to reject ex post facto approval for over-admission based on educational policy – Court declined to override PCI’s discretion in enforcing regulatory discipline and teacher-student ratio – Held: No writ of mandamus can be issued to compel PCI to breach its own regulations [Paras 15–18].

Equity – Appellant Not Entitled to Relief – Although removal affected academic future of student, appellant failed to comply with prescribed admission procedures (e.g., online acceptance, digital payment) – Admission remained provisional and was ultimately invalid under PCI norms – Relief sought denied on merit and compliance grounds [Paras 23–27].

Judicial Review – Discretion of Single Judge – Appellate Court upheld the dismissal of writ petition by learned Single Judge – No illegality or perversity found in the reasoning or outcome – Appeal dismissed [Paras 29–30].

Decision: Writ appeal dismissed – No relief granted – Pharmacy Council's rejection of over-admission regularisation upheld – College admission process found to be compliant with internal procedures – No interference warranted with Single Judge’s decision [Para 29].

Municipal Law – Unauthorized Construction – Bar on Civil Court Jurisdiction – Section 433A MMC Act – Civil Court Cannot Entertain Suit Challenging Demolition Notices – Plaint Rejected – Plaintiff challenged notices under Sections 260 and 478 MMC Act alleging unauthorized construction – Civil court refused to reject plaint holding suit not barred – Held: Suit was plain challenge to statutory notices; no specific averment of nullity or bad faith – Bar under Section 433A attracted – Plaint rejected under Order VII Rule 11 [Paras 14, 36, 42, 46–47]

Civil Procedure – Order VII Rule 11 – Rejection of Plaint – Barred by Statute – Duty of Court to Reject Suit at Threshold – Court held that where statutory bar exists, plaint must be scrutinised meaningfully to assess if jurisdiction is retained – If not, it must be rejected at inception – Trial Court erred by delving into merits and failing to apply strict standards under Order VII Rule 11 [Paras 44–46]

Interpretation – Scope of Civil Court Jurisdiction in Urban Planning Matters – Bar is Not Absolute but Limited to Cases Not Involving Nullity or Bad Faith – While recognising that some exceptions exist to ouster clauses (e.g. nullity, bad faith, abuse of power), Court reaffirmed that such exceptions must be specifically pleaded and not merely stated in vague terms – No such grounds found in plaint [Paras 20–28, 41]

Town Planning – Civil Suit to Prevent Demolition – Suit Filed as Tactical Measure to Delay Action Against Illegal Construction – High Court Disapproves Misuse of Court Process – Plaintiff expanded tin-shed without permission; sought to mask demolition notice challenge as suit for possession – Held: Suit a strategic device to delay statutory action – Not permissible in law [Paras 43, 45]

Municipal Law – Section 260 and 478 MMC Act – Action for Unauthorized Construction – Civil Court Cannot Interfere with Demolition Once Notice Issued Unless Action Is Nullity – Court reaffirmed statutory scheme where designated officers are empowered to demolish illegal structures – Civil suits against such notices are barred unless challenge is based on strong foundational grounds [Paras 15–17, 42]

Decision: Revisions allowed – Order of Trial Court dated 8 October 2015 set aside – Plaint in Regular Civil Suit No.130 of 2015 rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Civil suit barred under Section 433A of MMC Act – Status quo to continue for four weeks to allow appeal [Paras 47–49]

Criminal Law - Forgery – Wills – Civil Dispute Converted into Criminal Case – Criminal complaint filed alleging will dated 17.3.2015 is forged and used to claim property – Discharge sought on ground that genuineness of both wills (dated 17.3.2015 and 11.1.2017) already sub judice in civil suit filed in 2017 – FIR filed in 2019 as retaliatory measure – Held: Allegations raise disputed questions of title and ownership – No prima facie case under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 or 120-B IPC – Continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process [Paras 5, 8, 14, 21–26]

Criminal Revision – Discharge – Jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC – Trial court refused discharge – High Court held that when allegations are entirely civil in nature and issues are pending adjudication in civil court, criminal prosecution must not proceed – Reliance placed on Sanjay Kumar Rai v. State of U.P. and Urmila Devi v. Balram – Power to discharge should be exercised to prevent misuse of criminal process [Paras 18, 19, 25]

Misuse of Criminal Law – FIR Against Deceased Person – FIR lodged against one Shamsher Singh who had died months prior to the complaint – Court held this indicated malice and misuse of process – Further strengthens case for discharge [Para 24]

Probate and Will Dispute – No Final Adjudication – Probate petition for will dated 17.3.2015 was dismissed in default and not on merits – Pending civil suit to determine genuineness of rival wills – Until civil court decides validity, treating will as forged is premature [Paras 13, 22]

Decision: Revision allowed – Impugned order dated 6.1.2025 set aside – Revisionists discharged from proceedings – Trial against co-accused Sushil Narula to continue as per law [Paras 26–27]

Family Law – Divorce – Cruelty – Dismissal of Divorce Petition – Appeal by Husband – Appellant-husband sought divorce on grounds of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act – Alleged that respondent-wife was abusive, assaulted him, mistreated his parents, and refused marital relations – Respondent-wife denied allegations and alleged cruelty on part of husband – Trial Court found no grave acts of cruelty and held disputes were part of normal wear and tear of marriage – Held: Appellant failed to prove cruelty – Trial Court rightly appreciated evidence and law – No perversity found in judgment – Appeal dismissed [Paras 6, 7, 20, 45, 62, 64, 66-70].

Evidence – Proof of Cruelty – Allegation of Assault and Abuse – P.W.1 (Mother of Husband) and P.W.2 (Husband) testified about wife’s rude behavior, physical assaults, and threats – However, no independent witnesses produced – No prior complaint lodged before police – Contradiction in husband's stand as he earlier filed restitution suit under Section 9 of HMA, not citing cruelty – Court found inconsistencies and lack of credible corroboration – Allegations considered ordinary wear and tear of married life – Not sufficient for decree of divorce [Paras 42-44, 61-64].

Interpretation of Law – Cruelty – Mental and Physical – Scope and Definition – Reiterated that cruelty must be grave and weighty, not trivial irritations – Intention not essential – Referred to precedents including Dastane v. Dastane, Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat, Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Majumdar – Held: Mere allegations or domestic disputes do not qualify as cruelty – Conduct must make it unreasonable for a spouse to continue cohabitation [Paras 51-60].

Decision: Divorce appeal dismissed – Trial Court judgment affirmed – No evidence of cruelty to warrant dissolution of marriage – No perversity or legal infirmity found in judgment [Paras 68-70].

Family Law – Guardianship – Custody of Children – Shared Parenting Order Modified – Appeal by Mother – Family Court had ordered “shared parenting” based on father’s petition under Section 6 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act – Appellant-mother challenged the arrangement – Court found strained relationship between parents and absence of conducive environment at father’s home – Held: Shared parenting not in welfare of children – Welfare of child is paramount – Custody granted to mother – Father granted visitation rights [Paras 72, 83, 126-128, 135-138, 148-150].

Guardianship – Welfare of Minor – Paramount Consideration – Court reiterated settled position of law that welfare of child is primary consideration, not legal rights of parents – Referenced key Supreme Court decisions including Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal, Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan, Nil Ratan Kundu v. Abhijit Kundu, and Gaytri Bajaj v. Jiten Bhalla – “Parens patriae” jurisdiction invoked – Welfare includes moral, ethical, emotional, and educational needs of child [Paras 109-125].

Shared Parenting – Not Suitable in High-Conflict Cases – Trial Court had acknowledged multiple litigations between parties and father’s lack of availability due to business commitments – Despite this, ordered shared parenting – Held: Shared parenting not viable in cases of deep parental conflict – Risks to child’s emotional well-being highlighted – Cited Braiman v. Braiman (US) to emphasize unsuitability of joint custody in bitter disputes [Paras 137-144].

Visitation Rights – Balanced Arrangement – Despite setting aside shared parenting, Court ensured father retains meaningful access to children – Permitted visitation every fortnight and during vacations with detailed schedule – Objective: Maintain parental bond without compromising child’s stability [Paras 151-152].

Decision: Shared parenting arrangement quashed – Custody granted to mother – Father granted structured visitation rights – Family Court judgment modified accordingly – Appeal disposed of [Paras 149-153].

Senior Citizen Law – Eviction of Legal Heirs – Beneficial Legislation – Petitioner, an 80-year-old senior citizen, challenged the order of the Appellate Authority setting aside eviction of his daughter and her family from second floor of property – Appellate Authority held eviction unjustified as no ill-treatment or non-maintenance was proved – Held: Such a requirement is not a mandatory precondition where legal heirs have no right or interest in the property – Rule 22(3)(1) permits eviction from property where senior citizen merely has a right or interest – Appellate Authority's view contrary to established precedents [Paras 31–38].

Right or Interest in Property – Scope of Protection – Respondents claimed rights on second floor based on alleged contribution to construction and long-term residence – Court rejected this contention as induction was solely on basis of petitioner’s ownership and license – Held: Possession of respondents is referable to petitioner's permission – Even a “modicum of right” in property is sufficient to seek eviction under Rule 22(3)(1) – Senior citizen’s interest in safety and peaceful possession overrides conflicting claims of licensees [Paras 39–43, 46–47].

Ill-treatment Not Mandatory – Purpose of Act – Court reiterated that the Senior Citizen Act is a beneficial statute – Held: Senior citizens need not establish ill-treatment or wait for abuse to seek protection or eviction of children – Even apprehension of threat to peace, safety and well-being is sufficient – Delay in filing complaint not fatal if harassment persists or senior citizen sought reconciliation before seeking legal remedy [Paras 32–34].

Title Dispute – Not a Bar to Eviction – Court held that eviction proceedings under Senior Citizen Rules are summary in nature – Pendency of civil suit or lack of title in children/legal heirs does not prevent eviction – Civil courts can still be approached by parties if title is to be conclusively adjudicated – Summary eviction permissible for protective purposes [Paras 42–44, 50].

Decision: Eviction Upheld – Impugned Appellate Order dated 28.08.2023 set aside – District Magistrate’s eviction order dated 24.03.2022 restored – Respondents directed to vacate second floor within four weeks – Deputy Commissioner of Police directed to ensure enforcement – Respondents also restrained from harassing or abusing the petitioner in the interim [Paras 48–52].

Accident Claim - Motor Vehicles Act – Driving Licence – Statutory Grace Period – Expired licence remains valid for 30 days under proviso to Section 14 – Licence expired on 04.06.2001; accident on 04.07.2001 within grace period – Driver legally licensed – No breach of policy conditions – Insurer not entitled to recovery rights – Tribunal’s award upheld [Paras 3–6].

Motor Vehicles Act – Section 14 Proviso – Effect of expiry of driving licence – Statutory extension of validity – Held: Proviso explicitly provides that a driving licence continues to remain effective for 30 days from the date of expiry – Licence of driver expired on 04.06.2001; statutory grace period ran from 05.06.2001 to 04.07.2001 – Accident at 10:45 AM on 04.07.2001 fell squarely within grace period – Licence deemed valid at time of accident [Paras 3–4].

Insurance Law – Breach of Policy Conditions – Absence of valid licence – Insurer’s plea rejected – Renewal made after accident irrelevant as licence had statutory efficacy on accident date – No willful breach attributable to insured – Recovery rights cannot be granted to insurer [Paras 2–4, 6].

Interpretation – Computation of statutory period – Section 9, General Clauses Act – Counting of days – Grace period begins the day after expiry – 30th day falls on 04.07.2001 – Court affirms correct computation and applicability of grace period [Paras 3–4].

Precedent – Proviso to Section 14 consistently interpreted – Court relies on:

(a) State of Haryana & Anr. v. Karkor & Ors. (P&H, 24.05.2018) – licence valid during statutory grace period; insurer not entitled to recovery rights;

(b) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Santosh Kumari, 2018 (4) ADJ 527 (Allahabad HC) – expired licence continues to be effective for 30 days and insurer cannot allege breach during this period –

Held: Same view applies; Tribunal’s findings correct; no reason for appellate interference [Para 5].

MACT Appeal – Scope of interference – Tribunal correctly fastened liability upon insurer – No infirmity in findings – Appeal devoid of merit – Dismissed [Paras 1–2, 6–7].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Award dated 04.01.2003 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind affirmed – Driver’s licence deemed valid on date of accident due to statutory 30-day extension under proviso to Section 14 MV Act; consequently, no breach of policy conditions – Insurer not entitled to recovery rights – Pending applications also disposed of [Paras 6–8].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Dishonour of Cheque – Alteration in Amount – Cheque dishonoured with endorsement “alterations require drawer’s authentication” – Complaint filed alleging legally enforceable debt of ₹14 lakhs – Accused contended that cheque was forged and amount was altered by complainant – Held: Dishonour on account of unauthenticated material alteration can attract Section 138 if alteration is attributable to drawer with intent to prevent honour of cheque – Whether alteration was made by drawer or payee is a pure question of fact to be determined at trial [Paras 9–13, 15].

Material Alteration – Section 87 NI Act – Effect – Alteration in cheque amount constitutes material alteration – Instrument becomes void only against a party who did not consent to alteration – If alteration made by drawer himself or with his consent, drawer cannot take advantage of Section 87 – Determination of consent or authorship of alteration requires evidence [Paras 12–14].

Criminal Proceedings – Quashing at Threshold – Disputed Questions of Fact – Accused sought quashing on plea of forgery and manipulation by complainant – Held: Such defence cannot be examined in proceedings for quashing – Issues relating to genuineness of cheque, extent of liability and responsibility for alteration must be adjudicated during trial [Paras 13–15].

Statutory Notice – Section 138(b) NI Act – Non-response by Drawer – Accused did not reply to statutory demand notice despite being informed of reason for dishonour – Held: Failure to respond strengthens necessity of trial to determine factual controversy regarding alteration [Para 16].

Precedential Guidance – Supreme Court Decisions – Reliance placed on M/s Lakshmi Dyechem v. State of Gujarat – Dishonour due to acts or omissions intended to prevent honour of cheque covered under Section 138 – Veera Exports v. T. Kalavathy – Question whether alteration made by drawer or payee is factual and cannot be decided at quashing stage [Paras 10–11, 14].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Complaint and summoning order under Section 138 NI Act sustained – Petitioner at liberty to raise all defences before Trial Magistrate during trial.

Prevention of Money Laundering – Discharge Application – Scope under Section 227 CrPC – Petitioners sought discharge from prosecution under PMLA on the ground that cognizance in predicate offence (scheduled offence) stood quashed – Special Court rejected the application – Held: Offence under Section 3 PMLA is a standalone and continuing offence – Proceedings under PMLA can survive even if cognizance in one scheduled offence is quashed, so long as other FIRs alleging scheduled offences remain pending – No automatic extinguishment of PMLA proceedings upon quashing of predicate offence [Paras 10 to 15, 31].

PMLA – Scheduled Offence – Relevance – Multiple FIRs – Quashing of cognizance in one predicate case – Whether affects PMLA proceedings – Held: Predicate offence is jurisdictional trigger, but proceedings under PMLA are distinct and can proceed independently – Where multiple FIRs exist, each can independently sustain the ECIR and prosecution under PMLA – PMLA process continues if at least one scheduled offence survives with prima facie link to alleged proceeds of crime [Paras 14 to 15, 19].

Money Laundering – Proceeds of Crime – Definition and Scope – Whether proceeds must involve monetary gain – Held: Proceeds of crime under Section 2(1)(u) PMLA includes any property obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of criminal activity – Property transfers without monetary exchange can constitute proceeds of crime if obtained through or represent advantage from the scheduled offence – Absence of cash component not fatal to prosecution under PMLA [Paras 24 to 25].

Burden of Proof – Presumption under Section 24 PMLA – Reverse burden – Applicability at discharge stage – Held: Once prima facie material exists linking property with scheduled offence, statutory presumption arises that it is proceeds of crime – Burden shifts to accused to explain legitimate origin – At Section 227 CrPC stage, accused must show lack of nexus or insufficiency of material to sustain presumption – Otherwise, matter must go to trial [Paras 20 to 23].

Supplementary Complaint – Validity – Whether reinforces ED’s case – Held: Filing of supplementary complaint under Section 45 PMLA akin to supplementary charge sheet under CrPC – Strengthens foundational basis for cognizance by bringing in new facts or materials – Reflects continuing nature of money laundering – Not illegal or improper if supported by fresh material [Paras 26 to 27].

Discharge – Consideration at Section 227 CrPC stage – Nature of evaluation – Held: Court not to assess sufficiency of evidence or enter into probative analysis – Only required to see whether there exists ground for presuming offence – Where prima facie material indicates systematic transactions linked to alleged crime, discharge not justified – Transactions across extended period involving numerous properties warrant scrutiny in trial [Paras 28 to 30].

Revision Jurisdiction – Scope – Interference in discharge orders – Held: Revisional court cannot re-appreciate evidence or enter into disputed factual determinations – Interference warranted only in case of legal bar or where no offence made out on admitted facts – No such infirmity found in Special Court’s order – Petitioners must face trial [Paras 32 to 33].

Decision: Criminal revision dismissed – Impugned order rejecting discharge upheld – Proceedings under PMLA to continue – No merit found in plea that proceedings were rendered unsustainable due to quashing of one predicate offence.

Prevention of Money Laundering – Search and Seizure – Applicability of Section 17 PMLA – Complaint Against Co-Accused – Search Valid – ED conducted search under Section 17 PMLA at respondent’s premises on 09.02.2016 recovering ₹26.30 lakhs, laptop and other devices – Respondent not named in original 2011 prosecution complaint but allegedly facilitated main accused Hassan Ali Khan in obtaining forged passport and opening foreign account – Tribunal wrongly held search invalid for want of complaint against respondent – Held: Section 17 only requires prior institution of complaint or report under Section 157 CrPC, not necessarily against the same person whose premises is searched – Search based on “reason to believe” and linked to ongoing proceedings against co-accused held valid [Paras 19, 29, 34–38, 41].

Criminal Law – Money Laundering – Applicability of Retention and Attachment Provisions – Sections 5 vs. 17 PMLA – Retention was under Section 17(4) PMLA, not under Section 5 – Distinction clarified: Section 5 applies when ED believes person possesses proceeds of crime and may conceal it, requiring prior complaint/report under Section 173 CrPC – Section 17 applies to broader categories including possession of related records and allows search based on report under Section 157 CrPC – Tribunal erred in applying incorrect legal standard [Paras 24–30, 37].

Due Process – Tribunal’s Reasoning Based on Unraised Grounds – Procedural Impropriety – Remand Ordered – Tribunal allowed appeal on ground that no complaint was filed against respondent, though such contention was not raised before it – Respondent’s actual plea was that seizure had no nexus with any proceeds of crime and that ED failed to rebut his explanation of legitimate income – Held: Tribunal misdirected itself by deciding on an unargued issue – Matter remanded for fresh adjudication with liberty to respondent to raise all contentions [Paras 19, 23, 33, 43–45].

Supplementary Complaint – Effect of Respondent’s Death – No Impact on Validity of Search – Respondent died during pendency of appeal; his legal heir impleaded – Though ED failed to mention this fact in supplementary complaint filed later, Court held it has no bearing on legality of search conducted prior to his death or on retention proceedings under challenge [Paras 16, 20, 42].

Decision: Impugned order of Appellate Tribunal dated 21.05.2019 set aside – Appeal remanded for fresh decision by Tribunal in accordance with law – Parties granted opportunity to raise all relevant contentions – Appeal disposed accordingly [Paras 45–46].