Family Law – Property Dispute Between Father and Son – Ownership and Possession – Father filed suit seeking mandatory injunction against son to vacate portion of self-acquired residential house – Son claimed house was joint family property and he was a coparcener – Trial Court and First Appellate Court held that property was purchased by father and his brother from their personal income and was not HUF property – Defendant failed to produce any evidence of coparcenary or ownership – Held: Son residing in father’s house as a permissive occupant cannot claim legal right to remain in possession – Father has absolute right to revoke permission and seek possession [Paras 5.4, 5.5, 6, 14, 15].

Civil Procedure – Suit for Mandatory Injunction – Maintainability – Son argued that suit should have been for possession and not mandatory injunction – Held: When defendant is in permissive possession without legal title and plaintiff remains in joint possession, suit for mandatory injunction is maintainable – No bar in seeking injunction to recover possession from permissive occupier [Paras 19, 20, 23].

Licensee vs. Permissive Possession – Meaning and Scope – Use of term "licensee" in plaint not fatal – Courts held son was not a licensee in strict legal sense but a permissive occupant – Gratuitous permission by parent creates no vested right – Suit maintainable even in absence of formal licensor-licensee relationship – Distinguished permissive possession from contractual license [Paras 8–12].

Second Appeal – No Substantial Question of Law – Concurrent findings of fact by both courts below based on proper appreciation of evidence – Defendant failed to establish any legal right or raise a question of law – Held: No ground for interference under Section 100 CPC – Appeal devoid of merit [Paras 14, 17, 18].

Exemplary Costs – Abuse of Process – Prolonged litigation by son against father despite lack of legal claim – Court deprecated the conduct and imposed exemplary cost of Rs.1,00,000/- on appellant – Observed such litigation erodes family trust and burdens judiciary [Para 24, 25].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of lower courts affirmed – Exemplary costs of Rs.1,00,000/- imposed on appellant to be paid to respondent.

Family Law – Visitation Rights – Natural Father and Grandparents – Petition under Section 151 CPC seeking visitation rights to meet infant son rejected by Family Court citing pending criminal cases and apprehension of harm – High Court finds rejection based on unsubstantiated fears – Allegations were from January 2024 with no material showing ongoing threat – Petitioner shown to be pursuing legal remedies and not attempting illegal access – Held: Visitation rights are crucial for child’s emotional development and cannot be denied merely on speculative grounds [Paras 1, 7, 10–10.3, 13, 20].

Visitation Rights – Welfare of Child – Paramount Consideration – Citing Supreme Court decision in Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan, (2020) 3 SCC 67, and its own ruling in Sanjay Sharma v. Dolly @ Sakhi Sharma, 2025 SCC OnLine Ori 3736 – High Court affirms that child has a right to love and care of both parents – Denial of access found contrary to legal principles – Held: Supervised visitation ordered twice a month at High Court Mediation Centre, Cuttack – Structured visitation and virtual interaction schedule fixed until child turns five [Paras 11–12, 13, 18–22].

Contact Rights – Virtual Interaction – WhatsApp/Video Call – Court allows bi-monthly physical visitation and additional video calls on 2nd and 4th weekends and holidays – Father directed to provide a new Android phone with valid SIM to enable such contact – Grandparents also allowed to participate in virtual interactions – Cooperation from both parties mandated to preserve child’s welfare [Paras 22, Clauses XIII–XVI].

Custody and Guardianship – Role of Grandparents – Recognition of Grandparent Visitation – Referring to definitions from Black’s Law Dictionary and Indian legal principles – Court holds that affectionate relationship with grandparents benefits the child’s psychological development – Grandparents granted access during supervised visits and video calls – Denial without adverse evidence found unwarranted [Paras 14–17, 19].

Decision: Impugned order dated 20.03.2025 passed by the Family Court, Cuttack set aside – Writ petition allowed – Detailed visitation rights and contact schedule framed for father and grandparents – Arrangement to continue until the child attains five years – Liberty granted to seek stepped-up visitation thereafter [Paras 21–23].

Service Law – Inter se Seniority – Assistant Commandants in SSB – Seniority lists issued in 2020 challenged by promotees, LDCE appointees, and direct recruits – Issue revolves around whether seniority should be fixed under Rule 5(2) (order of selection) or Rule 5(3)(iv) (date of continuous appointment) of the 2010 Recruitment Rules – Court holds that 2003 Rules stood fully superseded by 2010 Rules and were not applicable [Paras 25.1, 30(i)]

Statutory Interpretation – Supersession Clause – 2012 Recruitment Rules did not wholly supersede the 2010 Rules – Seniority clause (Rule 5) of 2010 Rules continued to apply – Use of phrase “method of recruitment” in preamble not wide enough to include provisions on seniority – 2010 Rules governed the issue of seniority post-2012 [Paras 25.5–25.9, 30(ii)–(iii)]

Seniority – Interpretation of “Order of Selection” – Rule 5(2) of 2010 Rules refers to “order of selection” but Rules do not define the term – Court holds that in absence of internal guidance, reliance on DOPT OM dated 24 June 1978 impermissible – OM held inapplicable as no recruitment roster exists in SSB – Seniority cannot be based on DOPT OM [Paras 28.1–28.4, 30(iv)–(v)]

Seniority – Applicable Rule – Where Rule 5(2) cannot be applied due to lack of definitional clarity, fallback is Rule 5(3)(iv) which mandates fixation of seniority based on date of continuous appointment – Held: Inter se seniority among all ACs (direct recruits, promotees, LDCE) must be determined under Rule 5(3)(iv) [Paras 27.4–27.5, 29.1–30(vi)]

Administrative Instructions – DOPT OMs & Parmar Case – Court rejects applicability of DOPT OMs dated 7 February 1986, 3 July 1986, 4 March 2014, and 13 August 2021, as well as Parmar judgment – Held: These are executive instructions and cannot override statutory rules – Not applicable where Rules exist [Paras 25.10, 30(vii)]

Seniority List – Validity – Final seniority lists dated 21 and 23 September 2020 quashed – Draft seniority list dated 5 June 2018 correctly applied Rule 5(3)(iv) for ACs appointed 2003–2012 – Court directs SSB to redraw seniority for all ACs including 2013–2016 appointees as per Rule 5(3)(iv) [Paras 29.2–29.3, 30(viii)]

Decision: Writ petitions allowed – Final seniority lists dated 21/09/2020 and 23/09/2020 quashed – SSB directed to reissue seniority lists applying Rule 5(3)(iv) of 2010 Recruitment Rules for all Assistant Commandants, irrespective of mode of recruitment or year of appointment – No costs.

Criminal Law – Permission to Travel Abroad – Right to Personal Liberty under Article 21 – Parameters for Judicial Discretion – Petitioner, facing trial for offences under Sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471, 474, 120-B, 380, and 34 IPC, sought permission to travel abroad for business purposes – Earlier permissions granted in 2023 and 2024 were duly complied with – Trial Court rejected latest application fearing abscondence – Held: Right to travel abroad is an integral facet of personal liberty under Article 21 – Restriction thereon must satisfy procedure established by law which is just, fair and reasonable – Courts must balance liberty of the accused with the administration of justice, ensuring presence during trial [Paras 7–10, 13].

Flight Risk – Interpretation of “Likely to Abscond” – Predictive Standard – The term “likely” must denote a reasonable or palpable probability, not a speculative possibility – Courts cannot deny liberty based on conjectural fears – Determination of flight risk must rest on tangible and cogent material [Para 11].

Judicial Discretion – Principles for Grant of Permission to Travel Abroad – Courts must consider gravity of allegations, antecedents, bona fides of travel, and safeguards ensuring return – No rigid formula can be laid down – Discretion must be exercised with fairness, equity, and good conscience [Paras 12–13].

Procedural Justice – Hypertechnical Approach Decried – Petitioner’s earlier itinerary had lapsed; remitting matter to trial court would serve no purpose – Procedural rules are handmaidens of justice, not its mistress – High Court permitted travel directly to avoid multiplicity of proceedings [Para 14].

Decision – Petition allowed – Petitioner permitted to travel abroad as per itinerary (15.10.2025–03.12.2025) subject to conditions imposed by trial court including furnishing of ₹10 lakh bank guarantee – Guarantee liable to forfeiture in case of non-return or violation of conditions [Para 15].

Banking Law – Guarantee and Mortgage by Power Agent – Co-extensive Liability – Power of Attorney – Respondent No. 7 executed General Power of Attorney in favour of wife authorising her to mortgage, guarantee and receive consideration – Power agent executed mortgage in favour of Axis Bank to secure loan granted to borrowers (Respondents 1–6) – Upon default, DRT decreed recovery only against borrowers, holding mortgage by power agent as invalid – DRAT confirmed order citing lesser culpability of guarantor and lapses on part of bank – Held: Both Tribunals misread the power of attorney and erred in interpreting its recitals – Power agent had express authority to mortgage, guarantee and bind principal – Findings of DRT and DRAT contrary to Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act which provides for co-extensive liability of guarantor – Power of attorney was not disputed, and its express language authorised the act – Guarantor bound by execution through duly authorised agent – Orders of DRT and DRAT set aside – Claim against guarantor restored [Paras 13–27].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition allowed – Orders of DRT and DRAT insofar as they dismiss the bank’s claim against the seventh respondent (guarantor) set aside – Axis Bank’s claim against the guarantor allowed – No order as to costs.

Income Tax – Faceless Assessment Scheme – Reassessment – Petitioners challenged the jurisdiction of Jurisdictional Assessing Officers (JAOs) in issuing notices under Sections 148A(b), 148A(d), and 148 of the Income Tax Act after introduction of the “E-Assessment Scheme of Income Escaping Assessment, 2022” – Held: Section 151A mandates faceless mechanism for reassessment procedures – Notifications and statutory scheme leave no discretion to the Department – JAOs lack jurisdiction to issue such notices post 29.03.2022 – Impugned notices issued outside the scheme are void [Paras 3–7(E)]

Jurisdiction – Interpretation of Section 151A and Notification – High Court followed binding precedents including Bombay High Court’s decisions in Prakash Pandurang Patil v. ITO and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT – Supreme Court’s dismissal of SLP confirms finality of interpretation – Held: There is no concurrent jurisdiction between JAO and FAO – All reassessment-related notices must be through automated allocation under the faceless scheme [Paras 7(A)–7(D)]

Constitutional Law – Article 226 – Exercise of Writ Jurisdiction – Court reiterated that issuance of reassessment notices contrary to statutory scheme causes prejudice per se – No further proof of prejudice is required to invalidate notices issued by authorities lacking jurisdiction – Right to lawful assessment is protected under law [Para 7(A), 7(F)]

Decision: All writ petitions allowed – Notices and orders issued under Sections 148A(b), 148A(d), and 148 of the Income Tax Act set aside – Jurisdictional Assessing Officers had no authority to issue notices post-2022 Scheme – Consequential proceedings and orders, if any, also quashed – No order as to costs.

Preventive Detention – Drug Offender – Validity of Detention under Section 3(2) of the Telangana PD Act – Detention Upheld – Detenu booked in three NDPS cases involving seizure of ganja (2.165 kg, 1.53 kg, and 20.5 kg respectively) – Court held that repeated involvement in narcotics peddling justifies invocation of preventive detention – Held: Preventive detention is not punitive but precautionary – Satisfied that detenu’s activities threaten public order and health, particularly among youth [Paras 1–4, 39–41, 45–47]

Preventive Detention – Subjective Satisfaction – Judicial Review – Scope Limited – Court reiterated that detention order based on subjective satisfaction of the authority can be interfered with only if arbitrary, lacking evidence, or vitiated by procedural irregularities – Held: No such infirmity found – Advisory Board affirmed detention after hearing detenu and family – Constitutional safeguards under Article 22 and statutory timelines under the Act complied with [Paras 36, 38, 48–50]

Preventive Detention – Conditional Bail – Detention Despite Bail Justified – Detenu had been granted conditional bail in some cases but continued in custody – Court held that preventive detention is not barred merely because detenu is on bail or under judicial custody – Past conduct and possibility of future offences justify detention [Paras 12–14, 30–31, 42–43]

Criminal Law – Confessional Statements by Co-accused – Not Sole Basis – Petitioner argued that detenu implicated only through confessions of others – Court held that seizure of contraband and involvement across multiple cases indicates pattern of illegal conduct – Not a case of single isolated offence [Paras 4, 15, 18–19]

Public Health and Order – Preventive Detention as Tool to Address Drug Menace – Reaffirmed that narcotic trade poses direct threat to public health and societal order – Detention serves not only to restrain but also to enable reform – Emphasised State’s constitutional duty under Articles 21 and 47 to protect citizens’ health [Paras 40–41, 46–47]

Decision:

Writ Petition dismissed – Detention of Smt. Aruna Bai @ Anguri Bai under order dated 10.03.2025 upheld – Advisory Board’s confirmation and Government approval orders dated 15.03.2025 and 15.04.2025 found valid – No costs awarded.

NDPS Act – Bail – Sections 8, 21, 29 NDPS Act - Commercial Quantity – Procedural Lapses – Bail Granted – Petitioner arrested on 21.04.2023 for alleged possession of 50 bottles of Myberry (Codeine Phosphate) – Co-accused arrested based on petitioner's disclosure – Final report filed on 17.07.2023 – Trial delayed with less than half of 21 witnesses examined – Held: Petitioner in custody for over 2.5 years with no prior criminal history – Material contradictions in prosecution evidence – Mandatory procedural safeguards under NDPS Act found breached – Bail granted on conditions [Paras 1–9, 20]

Criminal Law – Reasonable Grounds under Section 37 NDPS Act – Interpretation – Court clarified that “reasonable grounds” for believing guilt under Section 37 require more than suspicion but less than proof – Held: No cogent evidence to support prima facie guilt of petitioner – Co-accused already granted bail – Petitioner stands on parity – No apprehension of tampering with evidence or absconding [Paras 9–10]

Bail Jurisprudence – Constitutional Safeguards – Liberty vs. Public Interest – Citing Sanjay Chandra v. CBI and Siddharam Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra – Court reiterated that bail is the rule, jail the exception – Long incarceration without trial amounts to pre-trial punishment – Denial of bail not justified solely by seriousness of charge in absence of risk of misuse of liberty [Paras 14–19]

Discretion in Grant of Bail – Judicial Principles – Court must consider gravity of offence, likelihood of conviction, potential for interference with justice, and balance individual liberty with societal interest – No blanket rule – Each bail decision must be context-specific and factually grounded [Paras 12–13, 18]

Decision:

Bail granted – Petitioner to be released upon furnishing personal bond of ₹1,00,000 and two sureties of ₹50,000 each from relatives – Subject to compliance with conditions: (a) regular appearance at trial, (b) no tampering with evidence or witnesses, (c) no travel outside UT of J&K without court’s permission, (d) no repetition of offence – Trial court empowered to proceed under Sections 491 and 492 BNSS in case of breach of conditions.

Criminal Law – Cruelty – Section 498-A IPC – Conviction Set Aside – Allegations by wife of physical torture, dowry demand, and attempted strangulation by husband – Delay of one month in lodging complaint not explained contemporaneously – Complainant failed to mention serious allegations like throttling and paternity denial in FIR – Introduced new accusations only during trial – Held: Prosecution failed to establish case beyond reasonable doubt – Serious inconsistencies in dates, medical evidence, and testimonies created doubt as to veracity of prosecution story – Conviction under Section 498-A IPC set aside [Paras 5, 10-12, 22-23, 25]

Criminal Trial – Appreciation of Evidence – FIR and Medical Evidence Contradictions – FIR alleged head injury from iron rod and bleeding, but medical report did not confirm injury – Doctor admitted she could not confirm source of bleeding or strangulation – Carbon copy of injury report had inconsistent date – Held: Medical evidence failed to corroborate prosecution version – Serious doubt cast on occurrence and severity of assault [Paras 11, 22]

Delay in FIR – Unexplained Inordinate Delay – FIR lodged nearly one month after incident dated 15.02.2010 – Explanation of illness raised only during trial without corroboration – No supporting medical records or witness testimony to justify delay – Held: Inordinate delay unexplained and undermines prosecution case [Paras 9, 24]

Misuse of Section 498-A – Matrimonial Disputes – Multiple Cases Filed by Complainant – All resulted in acquittals – Complaint in present case also contained vague and exaggerated allegations – Held: In light of Supreme Court's caution against misuse of Section 498-A in Dara Laxmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, and Achin Kumar Gupta v. State of Haryana, prosecution version required strict scrutiny – No clear prima facie case made out against appellant [Paras 24]

Burden of Proof – Failure to Prove Charges Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Inconsistencies in prosecution witnesses’ testimonies, contradictions with documentary evidence, failure to produce Panchayat records or resolution, and no evidence of prior incidents of cruelty – Held: Prosecution failed to discharge burden – Benefit of doubt must go to accused [Paras 18-21, 23, 25]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 498-A IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Connected applications disposed of – Urgent certified copy to be issued on compliance with formalities.