Insurance Law – Motor Accident – Personal Accident Cover – Deceased had purchased the insured vehicle and applied for ownership transfer on the same day – Fatal accident occurred before the registration certificate was formally updated – Insurer repudiated the claim citing absence of policy endorsement and privity of contract – Insurance Ombudsman upheld the repudiation – Held: Registration certificate is not conclusive of ownership – Doctrine of relation back applies – Once application for transfer is allowed, ownership is deemed to relate back to the date of application – Absence of endorsement within 14 days does not invalidate claim where accident occurs within that window – Performance of such formality made impossible by death cannot be insisted upon [Paras 5–9, 18–21]

Insurance Law – Section 157 MV Act – Deemed Transfer – Personal Accident Cover – Court held that statutory fiction under Section 157 extends to personal accident cover which is now a statutory, non-derogable component of every motor insurance policy – IRDAI regulations mandate PAC as a compulsory and non-optional benefit – Therefore, PAC travels with the policy and attaches to the transferee with effect from date of ownership transfer – Technical objections on delay or non-endorsement cannot defeat statutory rights [Paras 10–17]

Contract Law – Privity of Contract – Personal Nature of Insurance – Argument that PAC is personal to the original insured and nomination bars claim by transferee's legal heirs rejected – Once ownership transfers and premium is paid, insurable interest passes to transferee – No breach of policy shown – Insurer cannot deny benefit on procedural grounds when substantive rights have vested [Paras 19–21]

Decision:

Writ Petition Allowed – Repudiation letter (Ext.P4) and Ombudsman Award (Ext.P7) quashed – Insurer directed to honour the insurance claim and release compensation within one month.

Motor Accident Claims – Delay in FIR – Rejection of Claims – Set Aside – Appellants, husband and wife, injured in motorbike accident, filed claims which were dismissed by Tribunal for delay in lodging FIR – Medical records (Exhibits P7 and P10) substantiated road traffic accident – Held: Delay alone not sufficient ground to disbelieve accident – Mental agony, treatment needs, and absence of fabrication sufficient justification for delay [Paras 2–6, 8–9].

Evidence – Weight of Medical Certificates – Wound certificates clearly recorded cause as road traffic accident – Tribunal erred in ignoring such documentary evidence – Hospital’s failure to report accident should not prejudice claimants – Court emphasized evidentiary value of injury documentation in absence of prompt police report [Paras 6–7].

Principles of Law – FIR Delay Not Fatal – FIR delay in genuine accident cases cannot override material evidence – Reiterated Supreme Court precedent (Ravi v. Badrinarayan, 2011 ACJ 911) – Emphasized that lodging delay does not per se imply fabrication or false claim – Tribunal's conclusion reversed as legally unsustainable [Paras 4, 7, 8].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Order of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belgaum in MVC No.1710/2013 and MVC No.1798/2013 dated 10.09.2014 set aside – Tribunal directed to restore cases, consider evidence afresh, and decide on merits.

Tenancy – Eviction – Bona Fide Requirement – Greater Hardship – Landlord's Requirement Upheld – Section 16(1)(g) Maharashtra Rent Control Act – Landlord pleaded bona fide requirement of tenanted room for personal residential use due to growing family and marriage of son – Defendants had purchased alternate house in Bhusawal and were not residing in suit premises – Courts below held that landlord’s need was genuine and tenants would not suffer greater hardship – Held: Findings of fact by Trial Court and First Appellate Court based on evidence – No jurisdictional error or perversity – Revision dismissed [Paras 4.5–4.13, 8.2–8.9].

Civil Procedure – Revisional Jurisdiction – Interference with Findings of Fact – Limited Scope – Challenge raised to concurrent factual findings including hardship and bona fide requirement – Held: Revisional Court cannot interfere unless findings are perverse or suffer from jurisdictional error – No perversity or illegality found in concurrent findings – Revision not maintainable [Paras 8.1, 8.10, 9].

Eviction – Comparative Hardship – Test and Burden – Tenants failed to produce evidence of search for alternative accommodation or establish greater hardship – Ownership of alternate accommodation established – Even if hardship is equal, decree of eviction is justified – Plaintiff’s growing family and son’s marriage proved [Paras 8.5–8.7, 8.9].

Modification of Findings – Appellate Court Jurisdiction – Effect on Eviction Decree – First Appellate Court modified findings on two issues (Issue Nos. 3 and 5) but did not disturb core finding of landlord's bona fide requirement – Held: Modification was permissible and did not affect outcome – Grounds under Section 16(1) are not mutually exclusive – Decree of eviction stands [Paras 8.11–8.13].

Landlord is Best Judge of Need – Judicial Endorsement – High Court reiterated settled principle that landlord is best judge of his need – Convenience or opinion of tenant not determinative – Cited precedents affirming liberal interpretation of bona fide requirement to include family needs [Paras 8.6, 8.7].

Decision: Civil Revision Application dismissed – Decree of eviction under Section 16(1)(g) upheld – Petitioners directed to vacate premises within three months.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Fraudulent Loan Disbursement – Complaint case based on FIR alleging misappropriation of ₹8 lakhs through fraudulent withdrawal by bank officials, including Branch Manager, Loan Manager, Deputy Manager, Head Cashier and Peon – Applicants sought quashing of proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, claiming lack of direct role and clean chit in police final reports – Court held: Detailed and specific allegations made by complainant under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC supported by witnesses – Final reports have no bearing once complaint is registered and cognizance is taken [Paras 5–7, 25–27, 29]

Banking Fraud – Role of Bank Officials – Complainant alleged he was misled into opening an account and made to sign blank documents – Loan of ₹8 lakhs sanctioned without proper signatures and withdrawn in violation of bank norms through loose cheque exceeding ₹25,000 limit – RTI replies and documentary annexures reveal absence of due process and support fraud allegations – Involvement of sanctioning and disbursing authorities, including Ayushi Mishra, Rajesh Kumar and Brijesh Kumar @ Brijesh Kumar Kashyap, prima facie evident [Paras 17–18, 26–27]

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 CrPC – Scope – Summoning Order – Court reiterates settled law that at quashing stage, evidence cannot be evaluated – Magistrate’s summoning order based on specific statements under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC and supported by documents and witnesses – Held: Magistrate applied mind to material and exercised discretion properly – No interference warranted at pre-trial stage [Paras 14, 26–29]

Complaint Proceedings – Relevance of Final Report – Twice police submitted final reports giving clean chit – Complainant filed protest petition, converted into complaint case – Court holds: Once complaint is registered and Magistrate takes cognizance after examining complainant and witnesses, findings of police investigation lose relevance – Statements under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC form basis for summoning [Paras 7, 23–24]

Forgery and Economic Offence – Prima Facie Case – Allegations involve forging documents, unauthorized withdrawal, and misuse of public trust in banking system – Supreme Court precedents cited (Dharambeer Kumar Singh, Aryan Singh, Parbatbhai Aahir) emphasise that economic offences with social impact warrant trial – Court finds material sufficient to proceed – Quashing rejected [Paras 20–22, 26–28]

Decision: Applications under Section 482 CrPC dismissed – Summoning orders upheld – Allegations disclose commission of cognizable offences – Sufficient prima facie material available – Trial required to adjudicate facts – No costs imposed.

Income Tax – Assessment under Section 153D – Mechanical Approval – Validity – Revenue challenged ITAT order which quashed assessments for AY 2007–08 on ground that approval under Section 153D was granted mechanically by Additional CIT through a single omnibus letter covering 246 assessments – Tribunal held approval lacked application of mind and violated legislative intent requiring due consideration of seized materials – Following Pr. CIT (Central-2) v. M/s MDLR Hotels Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.593/2023 (Del) and Pr. CIT (Central-2) v. M/s King Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.754/2024 (Del) – Held: Approval given in bulk without reference to individual records or seized material defeats purpose of Section 153D – Such “rubber-stamp” or blanket approval unsustainable [Paras 3–5].

Administrative Approval – Requirement of Satisfaction – Court reaffirmed that statutory satisfaction under Sections 151 and 153D must reflect due application of mind – Merely appending “Yes” or issuing a common sanction letter to multiple assessments cannot be deemed valid approval – Citing Pr. CIT-7 v. Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1685; N.C. Cables Ltd.; and Central India Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. ITO [Paras 4, 15–21].

Judicial Precedent – Binding Effect – Court followed coordinate bench rulings in MDLR Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and King Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., arising from identical ITAT order dated 08.02.2023 and involving same issue of Section 153D approval – Held: No new substantial question of law arises – Appeal covered by settled precedent [Paras 4–6].

Decision – Delay in refiling (812 days) condoned – Appeal dismissed – No substantial question of law arises – Issue concerning interplay of Section 144A and Search & Seizure Manual, 2007 kept open for future consideration [Paras 1, 6–7].

Insurance Law – Life Insurance – Suppression of Material Facts – Section 45 Insurance Act – Appellant’s husband obtained life insurance and died within six months of issuance – Claim repudiated by LIC alleging non-disclosure of diabetes, hypertension, and chronic renal failure – Trial Court decreed suit holding LIC failed to prove suppression – Appellate Court reversed, holding insured guilty of concealment – Held: Contract of life insurance governed by principle of uberrima fides – LIC must prove with cogent evidence that insured knowingly suppressed material facts – LIC failed to examine its own medical officer or investigating officer and relied only on post-policy hospital records – Such evidence insufficient to meet burden under Section 45 – Repudiation unsustainable – Appeal allowed – Trial court decree restored [Paras 23–26].

Evidence – Adverse Inference – Section 114(g) – LIC withheld best evidence including authorised doctor who examined insured at proposal stage – Held: Adverse inference arises – Non-production of crucial witnesses and records undermines insurer's defence of concealment – Court may presume withheld evidence would be unfavourable to LIC [Para 23].

Contract Law – Fraud and Misrepresentation – Burden of Proof – Mere presence of illness or post-policy hospital admission not sufficient to infer fraud at the time of proposal – Insurer must prove insured's knowledge of illness and wilful suppression at the time of entering contract – No direct evidence led by LIC to prove intention or knowledge of falsehood – Held: Contract not vitiated by fraud – Decree for insured’s nominee maintained [Paras 25–26].

Appellate Review – Misapplication of Law – Appellate Court reversed trial court findings relying solely on post-policy medical records and inferences – Held: Findings based on conjecture and not legally sustainable – Misapplication of evidentiary burden under Section 45 – Trial court's view held to be reasonable and based on proper appreciation of evidence [Paras 25–26].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of District Judge dated 2.11.1995 set aside – Judgment and decree of Trial Court dated 4.8.1994 restored – Plaintiff entitled to recover ₹50,000 under life insurance policy with 12% interest and consequential benefits – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 27–28].

Civil Law – Partnership Property – Validity of Transfer – Appeal challenging dismissal of suit seeking possession, mesne profits, and cancellation of documents relating to partnership property – Plaintiffs claimed that Defendant No.1 transferred the sole immovable asset of the partnership firm (suit property) to Defendant No.2 without Plaintiff No.2’s consent, in contravention of Clause 9 of the Partnership Deed and Section 19(2)(g) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 – Trial court held that Plaintiff No.2 had knowledge and gave post-facto consent, based on documentary evidence – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1, 17, 22, 39, 47] –

Consent and Knowledge – Partner’s Consent Inferred from Conduct and Records – Plaintiffs alleged that subject transaction dated 03.07.2000 was without Plaintiff No.2’s consent – Court found that Plaintiff No.2 signed Balance Sheets for FY ending 31.03.2000 and 31.03.2001, which reflected sale of the partnership’s only immovable asset – Plaintiff No.2 failed to depose in court or plead that she signed documents in good faith or without reading – Adverse inference drawn against Plaintiff No.2 for not entering the witness box – Consent inferred from signatures and subsequent Retirement Deed dated 30.06.2002 acknowledging accounts and final settlement – Held: Consent of Plaintiff No.2 established [Paras 16(iii)-(iv), 26–33] –

Partnership Law – Section 19(2)(g) of Indian Partnership Act – Scope and Application – Appellants argued that transfer was void as it contravened Section 19(2)(g) and Clause 9 of the Partnership Deed – Court held that Section 19(2)(g) restricts a partner’s implied authority to transfer immovable property but does not prohibit such transfer if consent is established – Post-facto consent through conduct and documents permissible – Clause 9 merely declares such unauthorized action “null and void” without specifying requirement of prior consent – Hence, transaction valid due to established consent [Paras 23–25, 35] –

Retirement and Settlement – Final Settlement Documents Confirm Consent – MOU dated 18.06.2002 and Retirement-cum-Partnership Deed dated 30.06.2002 clearly recorded full and final settlement of Defendant No.1’s share – These were signed after Plaintiffs allegedly came to know of the transaction – No challenge to these documents – Court concluded accounts were settled with knowledge of subject transaction – Supports inference of consent [Paras 14, 33–34] –

Burden of Proof – Plaintiffs Failed to Discharge Burden – Plaintiffs neither pleaded nor led evidence to prove that Balance Sheets were signed blindly or without reading – Plaintiff No.2’s failure to testify was fatal to their case – Held: Best evidence was withheld, resulting in adverse inference [Paras 28–32] –

Construction Claim – Lack of Documentary Evidence – Plaintiffs claimed that a 3.5 storey building was constructed after purchasing the property – No documentary proof regarding source or expenditure for such construction – Only self-serving oral statements of PW-2 – Held: Claim not proved in absence of cogent evidence [Paras 40–42] –

Dormant Partner – Irrelevance of Dormancy – Issue of Plaintiff No.2 being a dormant partner held to be irrelevant once consent was established – Whether active or dormant, Plaintiff No.2’s signatures and conduct indicated knowledge and acceptance of transaction – Hence, dormancy had no effect on outcome [Paras 43–44] –

Reliefs – Rejected in Absence of Proof – Plaintiffs sought possession, cancellation, and mesne profits – All denied due to failure to prove lack of consent and authority – Suit rightly dismissed by Single Judge – No ground for appellate interference [Paras 6, 45–47] –

Decision: Appeal Dismissed – Impugned Judgment upheld – Plaintiffs failed to prove absence of consent or authority – No relief granted – Parties to bear own costs [Para 47].

Civil Procedure – Second Appeal – Concurrent Findings – Plaintiff sought injunction to restrain defendants from encroaching upon a street claimed as common passage – Trial Court decreed suit based on documentary evidence, witness testimony, and admissions – Appellate Court affirmed, finding no ownership documents from defendants and holding the passage to be common – Held: No substantial question of law arises – Findings are neither perverse nor contrary to law – Second appeal dismissed [Paras 4–8].

Evidence – Site Plan and Admission – Plaintiff relied on multiple site plans including Ex.P1 and Ex.P9 depicting common passage – Defendant’s own admission that plaintiff’s house opens onto disputed passage and that waste water from adjacent property drains there – Defendants failed to produce title documents – Draftsman’s plan (Ex.D1) unreliable due to omission and lack of impartial inspection – Findings of common passage upheld [Paras 5–6].

Injunction – Encroachment on Common Property – Courts below restrained defendants from interfering with plaintiff’s use of a shared passage – Courts found long-standing use and no proof of exclusive ownership by defendants – Concurrent decree for injunction held proper [Paras 4–6].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal dismissed – No substantial question of law found – Findings of lower courts upheld – No interference warranted [Para 8].

Transfer of Matrimonial Proceedings – Convenience of Wife – Two divorce petitions filed by husband in Nimbahera under Sections 10 and 13 of Hindu Marriage Act – Wife sought transfer to Udaipur citing financial dependency, custody of minor child, and pendency of multiple related proceedings in Udaipur – Court held that comparative hardship was greater for wife and transfer would not prejudice husband who was travelling from Mumbai in any case – Transfer to Udaipur allowed [Paras 3–5, 11, 14]

Allegations of Bias – Judicial Impartiality – Husband alleged that the Family Court Judge at Udaipur was biased and influenced by wife’s family connections – Court found allegations to be vague, unsupported and lacking evidentiary backing – Held: Transfer cannot be granted on generalised assertions – Presiding officers must be protected from unfounded bias claims [Para 12]

Expeditious Disposal – Supreme Court Directions – Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 3171/2025 stayed order of interim maintenance and directed expeditious disposal of all matters between parties – Court held that having cases in different districts would hinder timely adjudication – Transfer to single forum (Udaipur) facilitates compliance with Supreme Court mandate [Paras 10, 13, 15]

Comparative Hardship – Travel Burden and Financial Dependence – Wife living in Udaipur with minor son without independent income – Husband posted in Mumbai and already travelling to both forums – Udaipur better equipped in terms of infrastructure and medical care – Held: Greater hardship for wife justifies consolidation at Udaipur [Para 11]

Decision: S.B. Civil Transfer Applications No. 309/2024 and 174/2025 allowed – Divorce petitions (Case Nos. 129/2024 and 104/2024) pending at Family Court, Nimbahera transferred to Family Court No.2, Udaipur – S.B. Civil Transfer Application No. 75/2025 filed by husband dismissed – Family Court, Udaipur directed to expedite hearings as per Supreme Court’s order dated 28.07.2025 – No order as to costs [Paras 14–16]