Matrimonial Law – Maintenance - Section 24 HMA – Interim Maintenance to Spouse – Independent Income and Assets – Order to Wife Set Aside – Wife was a Director in a diagnostic company and had received substantial dividends in consecutive financial years; she also held valuable immovable properties – Held: Section 24 aims to ensure sustenance commensurate with the standard of living, but where the spouse already has sufficient independent income, interim maintenance is unwarranted – Family Court’s award of ₹30,000 p.m. to the wife set aside [Paras 13-16, 19-20].

Child Maintenance and Educational Expenses – No Challenge by Husband – Continuation – Husband accepted and complied with ₹30,000 p.m. for the minor son and payment of NEET coaching/educational fees – Family Court’s directions on child’s maintenance and educational expenses left undisturbed [Paras 2, 11-12, 20].

Assessment of “Sufficient Income” – Dividends and Property Holdings Considered – Self-Restraint on Dividend Receipt Irrelevant – Receipts by RTGS for three financial years were admitted; re-transfer/settlement of a valuable property during pendency viewed as lacking bona fides – Court found the wife possessed adequate means and declined interim spousal maintenance [Paras 5-6, 10, 14-16].

Guiding Principles – Capability to Earn vs. Actual Sufficiency – Supreme Court in Shailja v. Kobbanna: mere capability to earn is not a ground to reduce maintenance; Rajnesh v. Neha: no straightjacket formula, consider status, needs, qualifications, and independent income – Applied here, the wife’s actual income and assets rendered further interim maintenance unnecessary [Paras 17-19].

Supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 227 – Interference with Interim Maintenance Order – Justified where the Family Court overlooks material factors like existing substantial income and assets of the claimant – Order to wife interfered with; order for the child maintained [Paras 14, 16, 19-20].

Decision – Civil Revision Petition partly allowed – Interim maintenance to the wife under Section 24 HMA set aside; maintenance and education-related directions for the minor son remain; no order as to costs [Para 20].

Adoption – Consent of Biological Father – Inference Permissible – Petitioners, mother and stepfather, applied for adoption – State Authority insisted on father’s written consent though he had relinquished custody/visitation rights in matrimonial settlement – Biological father remained silent before Court – Held: silence and prior relinquishment justify inference of consent; insistence on express consent would defeat child’s welfare – Court directed authorities to complete adoption treating order as proof of consent [Paras 1-5].

Child Welfare – Paramount Consideration – Welfare of child to prevail over technical objections – Refusal or indecision of biological parent cannot deprive child of belonging fully to adoptive family – Court emphasized need for certainty and security in child’s status [Paras 4-5].

Decision – Writ petition disposed – Inference of consent drawn against biological father; petitioners permitted to upload this order as proof of consent – Authorities directed to complete adoption process accordingly [Para 5].

Administrative Law – Cancellation of Tender – Delay in Communication of Government Approval – Arbitrary Action by State Instrumentality – Decision Set Aside – CIDCO cancelled the tender process for allotment of hospital plot despite approval being granted by the Chief Minister for the revised eligibility criteria which included partnership firms like the Petitioner – Court held that CIDCO’s inaction in not following up on approval and subsequent cancellation was arbitrary and perverse – CIDCO’s justification of non-receipt of communication was not accepted – Held: Cancellation order dated 4 October 2024 is unsustainable and set aside [Paras 16–18, 24–25].

Public Auctions – Legitimate Expectation – Highest Bidder Denied Allotment Due to Fault of Authority – Relief Granted – Petitioner, though highest bidder offering price above revised base value, was denied allotment – Court held Petitioner had legitimate expectation as CIDCO had allowed participation of partnership firms and later relied on internal delay to cancel tender – Held: Petitioner cannot be penalised for CIDCO’s failure to act diligently – Directed issuance of allotment letter to Petitioner [Paras 14–17, 25].

Reasoned Orders – Requirement Under Law – Vague Administrative Grounds Not Sufficient – Decision Must Record Justifiable Reasons – CIDCO’s cancellation order failed to disclose valid reasons – Vague reference to “administrative grounds” held insufficient – Reliance placed on SC decisions emphasizing need for reasoned administrative orders – Mere anticipation of higher price or reference to other plots not a valid ground in facts of case [Paras 16, 21].

Public Interest – Healthcare Infrastructure – Plots Earmarked for Hospitals – Delay in Allotment Impacts Public Services – Court noted that the plot in question was earmarked for hospital use in Navi Mumbai and delay in allotment deprived local residents of essential healthcare – Speculative commercial motives of CIDCO held contrary to public interest in this context – Directed prompt finalization in favour of Petitioner [Paras 23–24].

Final Relief – Writ Allowed – Cancellation Set Aside – CIDCO Directed to Issue Allotment Letter – Writ Petition allowed – CIDCO’s decision dated 4 October 2024 quashed – CIDCO directed to allot Plot No.25 to the Petitioner as per procedure [Para 25].

Money Laundering – Bail on Medical Grounds – Section 45(1) PMLA – Interim Bail Granted – The petitioner, suffering from Spinocerebellar Ataxia Type 12, a rare and incurable neurodegenerative disorder, sought bail on grounds of being “sick and infirm” – Medical Board confirmed severe physical and cognitive disabilities – Held: The petitioner falls within the exception under the proviso to Section 45(1) and is not required to meet the twin bail conditions – Interim bail granted till 15.11.2025 [Paras 2, 10-15, 17].

Custodial Treatment vs. Medical Needs – Jail Facilities Inadequate – Quality of Treatment Differential – The Court noted that jail authorities were unable to provide the level of continuous and prolonged care required for the petitioner’s condition – Citing Naresh Goyal’s case, it was held that treatment as a free citizen is qualitatively different from custodial care – Humanitarian grounds warranted release [Paras 11, 14].

Interpretation of PMLA – Proviso to Section 45(1) – Scope and Applicability – The Court held that the exemption under the proviso to Section 45(1) extends only to serious illnesses which cannot be adequately treated in custody – Once the exemption is applicable, the triple test under Section 45(2) or CrPC does not need to be satisfied – Authorities cited by ED distinguished on facts [Paras 8-13].

Decision – Interim Bail Granted on Medical Grounds – Petition Allowed – The Court found the petitioner’s condition to fall within the statutory exception for bail under the PMLA – Held: Petitioner to be released on interim bail upon furnishing bond of ₹10,000 with two sureties (one local), subject to strict conditions including cooperation with trial court, non-tampering with evidence, and restricted residence – Interim bail to continue till 15th November, 2025 [Paras 15-17].

Civil Law – Dismissal for Non-Prosecution – Counterclaim Proceeded – Appeal by Plaintiff Abandoned - Plaintiff failed to appear, resulting in dismissal of the suit for non-prosecution – However, defendant’s counterclaim for ₹1.68 crores was entertained as it was filed with appropriate stamp duty and supported by evidence – Held: Defendant permitted to proceed with counterclaim despite dismissal of original suit [Paras 2-4].

Counterclaim – Promissory Note and Deed of Undertaking – Execution Admitted – Counterclaim Decreed - Defendant relied on Ex.D1 (promissory note for ₹1.68 crores) and Ex.D2 (deed of undertaking) both executed by the plaintiff – Cheques issued by plaintiff were dishonoured and police complaint resulted in registration of FIR – Plaintiff did not appear to refute documents – Held: Counterclaim proved through oral and documentary evidence; decree granted as prayed for [Paras 3-4, 7-9].

Fraud and Misrepresentation – Plaintiff Misused Blank Signed Promissory Notes – FIR Registered – Supporting Evidence Marked - Defendant demonstrated that plaintiff had collected funds in a fraudulent scheme involving auctioned goods purportedly through the Central Excise Department – Supporting cheques and their dishonour established through Exs.D3 to D10 – Criminal proceedings under Sections 406 and 420 IPC pending – Held: Sufficient material to support counterclaim of misuse and liability [Paras 3-4, 7-9].

Law of Indemnity – Affirmation of Ownership and Inducement – Defendant Entitled to Recover Losses - Citing Adamson v. Jarvis (1827) 4 Bingham 66, court reiterated that a person misrepresenting authority or ownership and inducing another into transactions is liable to compensate – Held: Defendant entitled to recover loss from plaintiff under indemnity principles [Para 8].

Decision – Counterclaim Decreed – ₹1.68 Crores with Costs – Suit Dismissed – Judgment for Defendant - Plaintiff’s suit dismissed without trial – Defendant’s counterclaim allowed based on unrefuted evidence – Judgment and decree granted for ₹1.68 crores with costs [Para 9].

Criminal Law - Preventive Relief – Quashing of Notice - Section 160 Cr.P.C. – Political Vendetta Allegation – Petitions Dismissed - Petitioners sought protection from arrest and quashing of notices issued under Section 160 Cr.P.C. in relation to FIRs involving NDPS and Prevention of Corruption Act alleging political harassment after dissociating from ruling party – Held: As petitioners are not named accused and only summoned as witnesses, no direction for prior notice before arrest can be issued – Search warrants and investigation held valid – Petitioners have liberty to seek anticipatory bail if nominated as accused [Paras 5, 6, 8-11].

Police Powers – Section 160 Cr.P.C. – Improper Use – No Blanket Relief - Reliance on Calcutta High Court judgment in Sutapa Adhikari was held misplaced – Supreme Court ruling in Gopichand Ramchandani applied – High Court cannot impose precondition of notice before arrest as it curtails police authority – Directions to issue prior notice before arrest set aside [Paras 6, 9].

Investigation Process – Search Warrants – Validity Upheld – Allegations of malice and political pressure were not supported by evidence – Searches were based on proper warrants issued before petitioner’s political shift – Petitioners failed to appear before SIT despite notice – Held: Investigation proceeded lawfully, and petitioners’ apprehension of arrest without being accused was baseless [Paras 4, 5.1, 7].

Decision – Both Petitions Dismissed – Court refused to issue any preventive directions or quash the notices under Section 160 Cr.P.C. – Petitioners directed to avail remedies under law if later nominated as accused [Paras 10-11].

Medical Negligence – Principles of Natural Justice – Improper Inquiry Process – Order Set Aside - Petitioner, an advocate, alleged gross medical negligence in diagnosis and treatment of Gestational Trophoblastic Disease, including misdiagnosis and improper chemotherapy – Inquiry by Tamil Nadu Medical Council conducted without presence of both parties simultaneously and without an oncologist on panel – Held: Inquiry vitiated due to violation of principles of natural justice; order quashed and matter remanded for fresh inquiry following guidelines laid in P. Basumani – [Paras 13–22].

Enquiry Procedure – Role of Enquiry Committee and Disciplinary Board – Guidelines Mandated - Court reiterated that disciplinary proceedings should be conducted in two stages: (i) before an Enquiry Committee comprising a specialist in the relevant field and (ii) before the Disciplinary Board based on the committee's findings – Both parties must be present and given access to each other's submissions – [Paras 19–20].

Right to Appeal – National Medical Commission Act – Applicability Limited – Interpretation of Section 30(3) & 30(4) - Appeal provisions under NMC Act are restricted to registered medical practitioners – Aggrieved patients cannot avail this statutory remedy – Court impleads NMC Secretary to clarify appeal scope – [Paras 6–7].

Due Process – Recommendatory Guidelines – Interim Compliance Directed - Court held that until National Medical Commission issues regulations under NMC Act incorporating principles from P. Basumani, such guidelines shall be mandatorily followed – [Paras 17–18].

Final Relief – Impugned Order Quashed – Fresh Inquiry Ordered - Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order dated 08.01.2024 of Tamil Nadu Medical Council – Directed reconstitution of panel including oncology expert and completion of inquiry within four months – [Para 22].

Criminal Law – Cheating & Breach of Trust – Settlement through MOU – Complainant alleged misuse of signatures and cheating of ₹4 crores – FIR 355/2008 registered – During investigation, parties entered into MOU (14.06.2008) where petitioners paid ₹5 crores in full and final settlement, both agreed to withdraw civil/criminal cases – Once complainant accepted benefit, he cannot later approbate and reprobate by filing fresh complaints – Criminal proceedings for same allegations unsustainable [Paras 7-11].

Closure Report – Effect – FIR 355/2008 closed as civil in nature, accepted by Trial Court on 05.08.2011 – Protest petition later dismissed for default – Subsequent protest petition after long delay impermissible – Once closure report accepted, criminal proceedings attain finality – Fresh complaints barred [Paras 9, 12, 13].

Further Investigation – Limits – Trial Court ordered reinvestigation u/s 156(3) CrPC in 2018 – Held improper – Power to direct further investigation is extraordinary and sparingly exercisable – Where closure report based on settlement already accepted, directing reinvestigation defeats finality – Reliance placed on Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali (2013) 5 SCC 762 [Paras 12, 13].

Doctrines – Estoppel & Approbate/Reprobate – Complainant, having received ₹5 crores in settlement, estopped from denying binding effect of MOU – Cannot blow hot and cold – Repeated complaints constitute abuse of process [Para 11].

Standard for Discharge – At charge stage, Court must examine if prima facie case exists – Here, entire case rested on allegations already settled – No new evidence unearthed in further investigation – Cognizance by Magistrate held mechanical without considering earlier closure and settlement – Discharge warranted [Paras 12-14].

Decision – Order of XI Metropolitan Magistrate dated 22.11.2024 dismissing discharge petition set aside – Petitioners discharged in C.C. No. 1163 of 2023 – Criminal revision allowed – Connected miscellaneous petitions closed [Para 14].

Examination Law - Civil Writ - OMR Evaluation – Incorrect Bubbling of Roll Number – DSSSB Exams – Petitions filed against conflicting CAT orders involving identical issues – One candidate’s OMR sheet was evaluated despite incorrect bubbling and later rejected, while the other’s was not evaluated at all – Held: If the OMR was already evaluated and candidate declared successful, later rejection is impermissible; where OMR was not evaluated due to technical default, no relief can be granted [Paras 1-5, 35-36, 42-46, 56].

Procedural Error – Evaluation of OMR Answer Sheets – Candidate Benefited by Prior Evaluation – Relief Granted - In W.P.(C) 1282/2025 (Kusum Gupta), despite bubbling error, candidate’s OMR sheet was evaluated and she was shortlisted – Later rejection deemed arbitrary – Directed that appointment letter be issued subject to eligibility – Entitled to notional benefits without actual pay [Paras 38-43, 56].

Instructions to Candidates – Mandatory Nature – Mistakes in Bubbling Roll Number – Strict Compliance Required - In W.P.(C) 17595/2024 (Niharika Puhan), OMR sheet not evaluated due to incorrect bubbling – Despite writing roll number correctly in digits, non-compliance with explicit instructions proved fatal – Tribunal’s order set aside – Petition dismissed [Paras 31-33, 49-53, 55].

Relief Limited to Litigating Candidate – No Reopening of Entire Result - Court clarified that similar candidates disqualified for identical reasons cannot claim automatic relief unless they have approached Tribunal/Court – Judgment confined to litigating party [Paras 47-48].

Role of Invigilators – Countersigning OMR – Responsibility to Detect Errors – Considered but Not Determinative - Though Court noted invigilator countersigned the OMR sheets, this factor alone does not excuse candidate’s responsibility to fill details accurately [Paras 36-39].

Decision – Petition by DSSSB in W.P.(C) 17595/2024 Allowed – Tribunal’s Order Set Aside – Petition by Kusum Gupta in W.P.(C) 1282/2025 Allowed – DSSSB Directed to Issue Appointment Letter within Eight Weeks – Relief Limited to Present Litigants [Paras 55-57].