Civil Law - Religious Institution – Dispute over Succession of Mataadhipathi – Custom and Qualification Central – Matter Referred to Civil Court - Multiple sons of the deceased Peetadhipathi claimed succession based on competing unregistered wills and nominations – Held: Questions of fact and conflicting documents cannot be resolved in writ – Proper forum is Civil Court [Paras 5, 19].

Succession Procedure – Section 54 of Endowments Act – Nomination Requires Timely Intimation and Recognition – Lapse Fatal - Though petitioners claimed nomination by the deceased Peetadhipathi, failure to submit documents within 90 days under Section 54(1) rendered nomination incomplete – Dharmika Parishad rightly treated vacancy under Section 54(2) [Paras 9-13].

Temporary Administration – Appointment of Fit Person – Valid Pending Final Decision – Not Arbitrary - Appointment of Assistant Commissioner as fit person for day-to-day affairs upheld as interim measure to avoid administrative disruption – Held: Reasonable and legal, subject to further developments [Paras 13-15].

Customary Succession – Sons Entitled if Qualified – To be Evaluated by Dharmika Parishad – Court Orders Evaluation - Since Mutt’s custom allows sons to succeed, court directed all claimants to approach Dharmika Parishad to assess their eligibility under Section 53(2) – Nomination to be made accordingly, subject to civil court outcome [Paras 17-21].

Decision – Appeals Partly Allowed – Modified Direction – Succession Dispute to Be Decided by Civil Court – Until then, Qualified Son May Be Nominated - Court modified Single Judge’s order, directed evaluation of claimants’ eligibility by Dharmika Parishad, while maintaining right to civil litigation on succession [Paras 20-21].

Civil Law - Family Settlement – Coparcenary Rights – Exclusion of Major Coparcener – Injunction Justified - Plaintiff, a major coparcener in the Biswanath Ganeriwala HUF (BHUF), was excluded from the 2008 Deed of Partition and 2009 Deed of Declaration, purportedly on false representation of minority – Court held prima facie case of fraud and misrepresentation made out – Injunction restraining reliance on disputed deeds upheld [Paras 7, 22, 47, 60-61].

Territorial Jurisdiction – Suit to Invalidate Deeds – Section 20 CPC Applicable – Trial Court Empowered - Relief claimed centered on declaration and cancellation of deeds, not property rights directly – Most defendants resided within trial court’s jurisdiction – Held: Suit maintainable under Section 20 CPC; trial court had territorial jurisdiction [Paras 19-21, 30-34, 40].

Limitation – Date of Knowledge of Deed – Mixed Question of Law and Fact – Suit Not Time-Barred - Plaintiff asserted knowledge of impugned deeds in December 2023 – Court found this plausible; earlier letter misidentifying himself as signatory showed lack of actual knowledge – Suit filed in 2024 held within limitation [Paras 41-44].

Suppression – Material Fact – No Fraud or Concealment Proved – No Estoppel - Non-disclosure of prior letter immaterial – No evidence that deeds were acted upon or suppression influenced court – Held: No suppression of material facts [Paras 45-47].

Title to Property – Sale Certificate in Court Auction – Deed of Indenture Post Sale Invalid - Mumbai property was purchased by BHUF in court auction – Sale certificate conclusive of BHUF’s title – Later Indenture by Sanchaita to appellant ineffective, as transferor no longer held title – Subsequent deeds and declarations excluding plaintiff were prima facie invalid [Paras 49-57, 63-64].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Temporary Injunction Affirmed - Appellate court found no error in trial court’s decision – Injunction rightly granted based on strong prima facie case and balance of convenience – Appeal and connected application dismissed [Paras 65-69].

Criminal Law - Corruption Allegation – Demand and Acceptance – Sole Witness Not Wholly Reliable – Conviction Set Aside - Prosecution case hinged on solitary testimony of complainant (PW1), who had a chequered criminal history and inconsistencies in his account of bribe demands – Held: His evidence lacked corroboration, was not wholly reliable, and recovery of tainted money not from A1 – Conviction reversed [Paras 17-29].

Recovery of Tainted Money – Mere Possession by A2 Insufficient – Knowledge and Intent Not Proven - A2, a petition writer, was found with tainted notes but gave plausible explanation that money was handed over without his knowledge of its purpose – No evidence linking A2 to A1’s alleged demand – Held: No case made out under Section 12 of the Act – Acquittal justified [Paras 30-31].

Prosecution Case – Inconsistencies and Lack of Credibility – Entire Narrative Collapsed - Alleged bribe demands on festival or improbable dates contradicted by official duty registers – PW1’s inconsistent statements and prior disputes with A1 suggested motive for false implication – Court found prosecution story not proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 25-29].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Acquittal Ordered - Trial court’s conviction of both appellants under the Prevention of Corruption Act held unsustainable – Convictions and sentences set aside – Appellants acquitted and fine amounts directed to be refunded [Para 32].
 

NDPS Act – Bail under Section 483 BNSS – Disclosure Statement – Bail Denied – Petitioner not named in FIR, implication based on disclosure statement of co-accused – No recovery effected from petitioner – Petitioner allegedly managed drug money laundering firm – Allegations of concealment of heroin in tomato ketchup and juice bottles – Evidence includes call records, financial transactions and involvement in trade-based money laundering – Held: Despite lack of recovery, material prima facie indicates managerial role in a transnational drug syndicate – Gravity of offence and risk of absconding outweigh plea for bail – Bail denied [Paras 2-23].

NDPS Act – Speedy Trial – Direction for Expedited Proceedings – Twice Weekly Hearing Ordered – Considering voluminous evidence (8596 pages, 142 witnesses), trial to proceed twice a week – Both prosecution and defence directed to cooperate – Aim is to balance right to speedy trial with national security concerns [Paras 24-25].

Service Law – Abandonment of Service vs Termination – Reinstatement Order Set Aside – Bank employee overstayed ex-India leave and thereafter absented without explanation – Labour Court ordered reinstatement citing lack of enquiry – High Court held: conduct established abandonment of service, not termination – No enquiry required – Reinstatement order contrary to law, set aside [Paras 4–7, 13–21]. 

Disciplinary Enquiry – Not Mandatory for Abandonment – Settled Law – Bank not obligated to conduct enquiry for prolonged absence – Cited Supreme Court rulings in Vijay S. Sathaye v. Indian Airlines Ltd. and State of M.P. v. B.S. Bhadoriya – Absence for extended periods deemed voluntary abandonment – Labour Court’s contrary finding held perverse [Paras 15–20]. 

Back Wages – No Relief When Reinstatement Invalid – Workman’s writ for back wages dismissed – High Court held that since reinstatement itself was unsustainable, claim for consequential benefits like back wages also fails [Paras 11, 22]. 

Intention to Abandon – Evident from Conduct – Notices Ignored – Workman received multiple notices to rejoin but failed to respond – Court concluded there was no intention to resume service – Going abroad without approval also indicative of disinterest in duties [Paras 4–6, 13–14, 20]. 

Decision – Writ by Bank Allowed – Writ by Workman Dismissed – Labour Court’s award dated 03.02.1999 set aside – Reinstatement quashed – No back wages granted – Petitioner Bank’s writ allowed; Workman’s writ dismissed [Paras 21–22]. 

Nominee Under Insurance Act – Beneficial Nominee vs. Heir – Nominee Not Absolute Owner – Writ Dismissed – Court held that nomination under Section 39(7) of the Insurance Act, though termed “beneficial”, does not override statutory rights of heirs under Hindu Succession Act – Held: Succession law is a specific statute on devolution of property; Insurance Act is general – Hence, nomination only ensures payment to nominee but not title to proceeds in exclusion of legal heirs [Paras 25–35].

Conflicting Judicial Opinions – Divergent Views Among High Courts – Harmonious Construction Adopted – Allahabad High Court noted conflicting rulings from Delhi, AP, Madras (favoring beneficial nominee) vs. Karnataka and MP (favoring succession) – Applied principle of generalia specialibus non derogant to hold that specific law of succession prevails – Reaffirmed that mere nomination does not exclude lawful heirs [Paras 16–20, 26–35].

Comparison with Banking Regulation Act – Section 39 Insurance Act is Pari Materia with Section 45-ZA – Only Collection Right Conferred – Court compared interpretation of similar nomination provision under Banking Regulation Act – Relied on SC ruling in Ram Chander Talwar to conclude that nominee under insurance policy holds proceeds in trust and not as absolute owner [Paras 10–13, 35(i)].

Supreme Court Precedent – Shakti Yezdani Followed – Nominee Does Not Override Succession Law – SC’s ruling in Shakti Yezdani v. Jayanand Salgaonkar applied – Nomination facilitates transmission but does not create a third mode of succession – Legal heirs can claim title despite nomination [Paras 21–22, 35(ii)].

Interpretation – Special Law Over General – Hindu Succession Act Prevails Over Insurance Act – Held – Succession rights being governed by specific personal law must prevail – Insurance Act is not a succession statute; its purpose is regulatory and administrative – Nomination cannot extinguish heirship rights [Paras 26–35].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Revision Court’s Order Affirmed – Insurance proceeds to be invested in fixed deposit in minor heir’s name – Certificate under Article 134-A granted for appeal to Supreme Court due to public importance and conflicting precedents [Paras 36–38].

Criminal Law - Possession of Muddamal – Income Tax Proceedings vs. Criminal Jurisdiction – I-T Department Authorized to Retain Seized Cash – The department sought custody of ₹35,28,000 seized in a theft case, invoking Section 132A(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act – Trial court initially directed fixed deposit in complainant’s name, but later denied department’s application – Held: Income Tax Department entitled to custody and to deposit the cash in PD Account for proceedings under tax law [Paras 1-3, 10, 15].

Jurisdiction – Power of Magistrate under CrPC vs. Powers under Income Tax Act – Distinguished – The court clarified that the powers under Section 132A override general CrPC provisions on muddamal – Income Tax authority has jurisdiction to requisition unaccounted assets under statutory mandate; Magistrate cannot override this by directing deposit in complainant’s name [Paras 10-12].

Unexplained Cash – Prima Facie Grounds for Requisition – The complainant failed to explain the source of ₹35,28,000 satisfactorily during Income Tax inquiry, triggering legal requisition – Held: Department has legitimate basis to retain and investigate under the Income Tax Act [Paras 3.7, 13].

Final Decision – Magistrate's Orders Quashed – Petitioner Permitted to Act Under Income Tax Law – High Court quashed both lower court orders and allowed the department to take possession of the cash and deposit it in PD Account within four weeks, with procedural safeguards like panchnama and videography [Para 15].
 

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Conviction - Forgery and Cheating – Real Estate Investment Fraud – Conviction Sustained – Petitioner, acting as Director of AVR Green Homes Pvt. Ltd., misrepresented land ownership and induced investment of over ₹3.88 crores – Evidence included undertakings, RTGS records, and depositions – Conviction under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, and 120B IPC upheld – Trial and Appellate Courts found fraudulent inducement and non-return of funds [Paras 5-14, 58-61].

Enhancement of Sentence – Jurisdictional Limit Exceeded – Sentence Reduced – Appellate Court enhanced sentence under Section 467 IPC from 7 to 10 years – Held: Appellate Court exceeded jurisdiction as trial was before Magistrate whose sentencing power is limited to 7 years – Enhancement set aside for being ultra vires Section 386 read with Section 29 CrPC [Paras 54-67].

Compensation under Section 357(3) CrPC – Legally Valid – No Fine Imposed – Petition Dismissed – Informant had filed appeal for compensation which Trial Court had omitted – Appellate Court lawfully substituted fine with compensation of ₹61,47,800 – Held: Denial of compensation also constitutes “inadequate compensation” under Section 372 proviso – Power to impose compensation under Section 357(3) upheld [Paras 22-52].

Revisional Scope – No Reappreciation of Evidence – Conviction Uninterfered – High Court declined to reassess factual findings of lower courts – Emphasized limited scope of revisional jurisdiction to correct jurisdictional error or manifest miscarriage of justice [Paras 59-60].

Decision – Partly Allowed – Conviction under IPC provisions sustained – Sentence under Section 467 IPC restored to 7 years – Order of compensation under Section 357(3) CrPC affirmed – Revisions partly allowed [Para 75].
 

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Serious Sexual Offences – Petition Dismissed – Petitioner sought quashing of FIR registered under Sections 354, 354-A, 451, 506, 376, and 511 IPC alleging false implication – FIR based on prosecutrix's complaint and corroborated by her Section 164 CrPC statement alleging attempted rape and physical assault – Court held that material on record disclosed prima facie case – FIR and chargesheet not liable to be quashed at pre-trial stage [Paras 1-4, 11-13, 22].

Inherent Powers – Section 482 CrPC – Caution in Exercise – Principles Reiterated – Citing Supreme Court precedents, Court emphasized that Section 482 powers are exceptional and should not be used to assess sufficiency of evidence or short-circuit criminal trials – Allegations were not so absurd or improbable to justify quashing – No procedural abuse shown [Paras 5-10, 13-21].

Victim Statement – Section 164 CrPC – Considered Credible at Prima Facie Stage – Prosecutrix’s detailed allegations of assault, attempted rape, and threats held sufficient to sustain continuation of prosecution – Court declined to assess credibility or merits at this stage [Paras 3, 22].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – High Court declined to quash proceedings under Section 482 CrPC – Held that trial must proceed in view of nature of allegations and supporting statements – No abuse of process demonstrated [Paras 22-23].