Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Appeal under Section 16 – Right of Appeal – Maintainability – Whether appeal under Section 16 is maintainable only by senior citizens or parents or also by any aggrieved person – Larger Bench of High Court constituted due to conflicting views among coordinate benches – Held: Appeal under Section 16 is maintainable only at the instance of a senior citizen or a parent – Appeal by any other aggrieved person (such as children or relatives) not maintainable [Paras A-1 to A-24, C-1, C-2]

Welfare Legislation – Beneficial Interpretation – Senior Citizens Act, 2007 enacted to provide effective provisions for maintenance and welfare of senior citizens and parents – Entire scheme, definitions, and procedural framework designed solely for benefit of senior citizens and parents – Object is to provide speedy, summary remedy to senior citizens without exposing them to prolonged litigation – Hence, restrictive interpretation of appellate rights justified [Paras A-2 to A-6, A-17, A-18]

Statutory Interpretation – Section 16(1) – Plain and Clear Language – Section 16(1) restricts right of appeal to “any senior citizen or a parent” – No ambiguity or scope for expansion to include “any aggrieved person” – Legislature consciously excluded children and relatives – Rule-making power under Section 32 does not authorize expansion of appellate rights – Any such inclusion would amount to judicial legislation [Paras A-10 to A-13, A-19, A-20, A-22]

Interpretive Doctrines – Doctrine of Casus Omissus – Inapplicability – No inadvertent omission by legislature in Section 16 – Omission of children or relatives from appellate provision is deliberate and intentional – Courts cannot supply words not found in statute – Reliance on Supreme Court decisions reaffirming that casus omissus cannot be judicially supplied unless omission is evident and defeats statute’s object [Paras P-12 to P-15, A-21]

Proviso to Section 16 – Scope – First proviso requiring continued payment of maintenance by children during appeal does not imply that children can file appeal – It only ensures continuity of support to senior citizen during pendency of appeal filed by them – Cannot be interpreted to extend appellate rights to children or relatives [Para A-13]

Availability of Alternate Remedy – No Violation of Natural Justice – Though appeal is not maintainable at the instance of children or relatives, they are not remediless – Remedy under Article 226 of Constitution always available to challenge Tribunal’s orders on jurisdictional or legal grounds – Hence, exclusion from appellate remedy does not violate principles of natural justice [Para A-24]

Constitutional Provisions – No Violation of Articles 14 or 21 – Restriction of appeal to senior citizens or parents does not offend equality clause under Article 14 – Classification is reasonable, based on intelligible differentia and rational nexus with object of statute – Protection of elderly is a constitutionally recognized goal under Articles 21, 41, 46 [Paras P-1 to P-5, A-6, A-17, A-18]

Doctrine of Harmonious Construction – Rejected in Present Case – Argument that proviso to Section 16 implies children can also appeal rejected – Harmonious construction cannot override clear legislative intent and express statutory language [Para A-13]

Reference to Larger Bench – Justification – Conflicting decisions by coordinate benches of same High Court – Larger Bench constituted to resolve interpretive inconsistency – Held: Previous view in Nitin Jaat (which allowed appeal by children) overruled – View taken in Anil Choupda and Dilip Marmat upheld [Paras F-3, F-13, F-14, C-1, C-2]

Comparative Statutory Schemes – Not Applicable – Reference to other social welfare legislations like Domestic Violence Act, Consumer Protection Act, RERA, etc., where appeal is allowed to both sides, held irrelevant – Senior Citizens Act is unique and designed to grant limited appellate remedy only to the beneficiary class [Paras S-7, S-8, A-16]

Legislative Amendment – Pending Amendment Not Applicable – Reliance placed on proposed 2019 Amendment Bill which seeks to include “children or relatives” in Section 16 – Held: Until amendment is passed, Court cannot read into statute what is consciously omitted – Pending amendment reinforces current exclusion [Paras P-16, A-15, A-21]

Decision: Reference answered in negative – Appeal under Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 maintainable only at the instance of senior citizen or a parent – Not maintainable at the instance of any other aggrieved person – Writ petition to be listed before Single Bench for adjudication [Paras C-1, C-2]

Civil Law – Partition Suit – Ancestral Property – Appeal by grandchildren of original owner claiming 1/8th share in suit property on ground that it is ancestral – Trial Court dismissed suit finding that property was self-acquired by Krishnama Raju and succession governed by Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act – High Court upheld finding – Held: Property purchased in 1957 and owner died in 1983, making it self-acquired – No evidence of ancestral nucleus – Mere recital in sale agreement that property was ancestral is insufficient – Plaintiffs have no right by birth [Paras 13–15]

Specific Performance – Binding Nature of Decree – Suit property was subject of earlier specific performance decree in O.S. No. 69 of 2007 – Appeal in A.S. No. 12 of 2009 dismissed – Plaintiffs not parties to earlier suit – Held: Agreement of sale executed by wife and two daughters of deceased owner – Decree confirmed by High Court – Present plaintiffs (grandchildren) cannot challenge decree without establishing independent title – Attempt to reopen settled decree impermissible [Paras 9–10, 14, 17]

Succession Law – Applicability of Section 6 vs. Section 8 – Deceased left behind wife and two daughters, no male heir – Plaintiffs claimed right by birth – Held: Section 6 not applicable when no son survives – Property devolved on wife and daughters absolutely under Section 8 – No coparcenary interest arises – Suit rightly dismissed [Paras 13, 17]

Will – No Proof of Execution – Respondents referred to registered Will dated 21.04.1980 in favour of one daughter – However, Will not marked or proved – Held: In absence of proof, succession to be considered as intestate – But plaintiffs’ claim still fails as succession under Section 8 does not support birthright claim of grandchildren [Para 13]

Abuse of Process – Plaintiffs Set Up by Defendants – Trial Court found that plaintiffs were instigated by earlier unsuccessful defendants to stall execution of decree – All lived under same roof – Held: Suit a device to obstruct lawful execution – No merit in appeal [Para 18]

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Trial Court judgment upheld – No costs – CMP closed [Para 19]

Criminal Law – Rape and POCSO – Acquittal – Appellant convicted under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act for having “physical relations” with the minor prosecutrix on pretext of marriage – Prosecution relied solely on oral testimony of victim without clarifying meaning or nature of “physical relations” – No supporting medical or forensic evidence available – Court held that vague expressions without proof of penetrative sexual assault are insufficient for conviction under Section 3/6 POCSO or Section 376 IPC – Held: Conviction unsustainable due to absence of foundational facts – Appellant acquitted [Paras 14–22, 25–27]

Delay in FIR – Unexplained delay of over one and a half years in filing complaint – Victim allegedly lost voice after consuming poison, but no medical evidence proving inability to speak was produced – IO’s claim based on personal observation and discharge slip not supported by records – Court held such unexplained delay impacts credibility of prosecution’s case [Para 13, 25]

Judicial Duty – Vagueness in Victim’s Testimony – Neither prosecution nor court clarified what “physical relations” meant in legal terms – Court emphasized its duty under Section 165 Evidence Act and Delhi High Court Rules to seek clarity when prosecution fails – Court’s failure to examine key aspects of testimony held to be a serious procedural lapse [Paras 23–24]

Presumption under Section 29 POCSO – Foundational facts not proved – Court reiterated that presumption of guilt under Section 29 arises only after prosecution establishes essential facts indicating penetrative sexual assault – Mere vague references insufficient to trigger presumption [Paras 17–18]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act set aside – Appellant acquitted – Directed to be released from custody forthwith if not wanted in any other case.

Civil Writ - Recruitment Process – Assistant District Attorney (ADA) – Screening Test – Legality of Syllabus – Petitioners challenged the screening test syllabus notified under Advertisement No. 18 of 2025 for ADA posts which excluded legal subjects – Court held that the post of ADA being legally specialized, excluding legal subjects from the screening stage was arbitrary and lacked rational nexus with the object of selection – Such exclusion renders the process legally unsustainable and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution [Paras 40-44, 56-66]

Equal Opportunity – Article 16(1) Violation – Petitioners argued that majority of candidates were being unfairly ousted at the first stage without testing legal acumen – Court held that elimination of more than 85% aspirants based on a test devoid of legal subject matter amounts to denial of equal opportunity in public employment – State cannot justify exclusion based on logistical convenience – Screening process must fairly reflect core qualifications [Paras 45-55]

Statutory Compliance – Article 320(3)(b) and HPSC Regulations – Court found that altering the recruitment methodology including syllabus without prior consultation with the Government and in violation of Clause 41 & 42 of the 1973 Regulations was contrary to constitutional and statutory mandates – The Commission’s autonomy cannot override the requirement for lawful consultation and adherence to recruitment norms [Paras 67-75]

Judicial Review – Scope in Recruitment Matters – While courts generally defer to recruiting agencies in academic matters, interference is warranted when the process is manifestly arbitrary, violates statutory norms, or contravenes constitutional guarantees – Present process failed to meet standards of legality, fairness, and rationality – Judicial intervention justified [Paras 32-39]

Decision: Writ petitions allowed – Screening Test syllabus and Advertisement No. 18 of 2025 quashed – Commission and State directed to revisit the recruitment process for ADA in line with constitutional and statutory requirements – Fresh process to be initiated, ensuring fairness and legal relevance [Paras 76-82]

Company Law – Misfeasance proceedings under Section 542 of Companies Act – Non-executive nominee directors’ application for deletion at threshold rejected – Interim freezing orders vacated – Matter to proceed to trial [Paras 29–41].

Company Law – Fraudulent Conduct – Section 542 of Companies Act, 1956 – Interim Relief Partially Granted – Non-executive nominee directors Srinivasan and Sreenivasulu sought to strike out their names from misfeasance proceedings, alleging lack of specific pleadings and no evidence of fraudulent participation – Held: Though pleadings lack specificity, presence in board meetings and fiduciary obligations as directors justify trial – Relief under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and Order I Rule 10 CPC declined [Paras 29–32, 38–39].

Nominee Directors – Fiduciary Liability – Directors Cannot Evade Corporate Responsibility – Court held that nominee directors, though non-executive, fall within ambit of persons "knowingly party" under Section 542 and cannot escape scrutiny solely on designation – Absence of express allegations insufficient for rejection at threshold [Paras 20–24, 36–38].

Pleadings in Fraud Cases – Order VI Rule 4 CPC – Liberal Approach for Official Liquidator Permitted – Court acknowledged limitations on Official Liquidator's access to internal records and granted permission to file additional affidavit with specific allegations before trial – Leave granted to applicants to reapply for deletion if no evidence is brought during trial [Paras 30–31, 39].

Interim Orders – Freezing of Assets – Interim Orders Vacated – Considering hardship to applicants and lack of prima facie evidence, the Court vacated prior ex parte orders freezing their bank/demat accounts and restraining them from dealing with movable/immovable assets – Balance of convenience not in favour of continuation [Para 40].

Final Decision – Applications Partly Allowed – Interim freezing orders vacated – Misfeasance proceedings to continue – Official Liquidator permitted to amend pleadings with specific charges; applicants allowed to reapply for deletion after evidence stage [Para 41].

Criminal Law – Quashing - Bank Loan Fraud – Diversion of Loan Funds – Further Investigation – Accused company (HCCPL) and its directors alleged to have diverted Rs.15 crore project loan from erstwhile SBT (now SBI) by selling mortgaged properties without bank's consent – CBI initially excluded bank officials from prosecution citing lack of mens rea – Special Judge rejected CBI’s request to drop PC Act charges and directed further investigation – Held: Special Judge rightly found material suggesting complicity or willful neglect on part of bank officials – Further investigation justified [Paras 4–6, 13, 15]

Criminal Procedure – Role of Public Servants – CBI’s report described conduct of bank officials as negligent but lacking dishonest intention – However, Special Judge found unexplained silence and procedural violations by officials in allowing the borrower to operate outside mandated norms like escrow account requirement – Held: Dereliction of duty without criminal intent insufficient basis to shield officials from further scrutiny – Deeper inquiry mandated [Paras 12–14, 17]

Corporate Loan Disbursement – Escrow Account – Lax Monitoring – Loan extended to HCCPL without opening escrow account – Flats sold without bank consent and sale proceeds routed through third-party banks – CBI failed to investigate critical lapses – Trial court rightly observed that institutional failures merited reinvestigation – Escrow account norms were industry standard and failure to enforce indicated serious oversight [Para 16]

Maintainability – Accused Lacking Locus to Challenge Investigation Against Co-accused – Petition filed by Managing Director of HCCPL (A1) to quash order for further investigation against bank officials – Court held that A1 had no standing to contest reliefs denied to others – Filing of petition seen as attempt to shield co-accused – Revealed apparent collusion between borrower and bank staff – Petition not maintainable [Paras 23–24]

Decision:

Petition dismissed – Special Court’s direction for further investigation upheld – Interim stay vacated – CBI directed to complete further investigation and submit report within two months [Para 25]

Motor Accident – Determination of Income – Presumptive Basis – Admissibility – Deceased was owner of loader vehicle and paying monthly EMI of ₹18,250 – Tribunal presumed additional earnings of ₹7,000/month to support his family of five dependents – Held: Tribunal justified in estimating income at ₹25,250/month in absence of documentary proof – Supported by SC ruling in Gurpreet Kaur v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1778 – No interference warranted [Paras 2, 4, 6–8]

Motor Accident – Future Prospects – Age-based Calculation – Tribunal awarded 40% future prospects though deceased was aged 36 – Under Rule 220-A of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, claimants were entitled to 50% – Held: Award of 40% is conservative; no scope for reduction – Appeal against adequacy of compensation not sustainable [Paras 3, 9–10]

Compensation – No Deduction Warranted – Tribunal’s Approach Reasonable – Appellant-insurer raised ground that compensation was excessive due to presumed income – Held: Income based on proven expenditure (EMI) and family responsibilities is a valid basis – Future prospects correctly applied – No illegality in award [Paras 4–10]

Decision: Appeal dismissed at admission stage – Tribunal’s award of ₹48,56,250/- with 7.5% interest affirmed – Statutory deposit to be remitted to Tribunal forthwith.

Family Law – Partition Suit – Legal Heirship Disputed – Respondent-plaintiff claimed share in ancestral property as son of Godari Beeraiah through second wife Banamma – Trial court decreed the suit based on declarations and oral evidence – Appellate court found no conclusive proof of legal marriage between Beeraiah and Banamma – Plaintiff failed to produce birth certificate, school records or examine his mother who was alive – Held: Plaintiff failed to establish status as legal heir – Trial court’s decree set aside [Paras 7, 19–31]

Evidence Act – Section 50 and 60 – Relationship by Conduct – Court reiterated that opinion expressed by conduct must be proved by direct evidence under Section 60 – Conduct must relate to person having special means of knowledge – Held: Mere declarations or documents based on self-declaration (Exs.A7–A17) do not constitute conclusive proof – Referred Dolgobinda Paricha v. Nimai Charan Misra [AIR 1959 SC 914] [Paras 15, 26]

Limitation – Partition Suit Barred – Plaintiff filed suit 13 years after death of alleged father without reasonable explanation for delay – No prior assertion of rights or legal notice issued – Held: Suit barred by limitation and indicates lack of bona fides [Paras 3.1, 30]

Documentary Evidence – Public Documents and Presumptions – Certified copies of voter lists, gas records, and employment documents (Exs.A7–A17) relied on by plaintiff were based on self-declared data – Held: Not sufficient to displace legal burden to prove relationship – Absence of school records, birth certificate, and pedigree registers noted – [Paras 16, 26]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Trial court decree set aside – Respondent-plaintiff’s suit for partition dismissed – No costs – Interim orders vacated – Miscellaneous applications closed [Paras 31–32]

SC/ST Act – Anticipatory Bail – Bar Under Section 18 – Prima Facie Case – Appellant sought pre-arrest bail in FIR alleging public insult of complainant belonging to Scheduled Caste by using caste-based slurs – Held: Prima facie, allegations attract Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST Act – Abuse was specific, caste-based, and made in public view while complainant was discharging official duties as Panchayat Member – Bar under Section 18 applicable – Anticipatory bail rightly denied [Paras 2, 7–9]

Criminal Procedure – Maintainability of Anticipatory Bail Under SC/ST Act – Legal Position Summarised – Court reiterates principles from Subhash Kashinath Mahajan and Prathvi Raj Chauhan – Anticipatory bail is maintainable under SC/ST Act only where complaint is prima facie false, malafide or no offence is made out – In present case, FIR discloses specific allegations supported by witnesses – Hence, no case for anticipatory bail [Paras 6–8]

Caste-based Abuse – Public Insult – Specific Utterances and Context – Alleged remarks (“Kutti-chudi-dhedni”) were caste-centric and publicly made, attracting ingredients of Section 3(1)(r) – Dispute regarding garbage dumping site is defence argument, not relevant at anticipatory bail stage – Role of appellant, nature of allegations and societal impact considered – Appeal dismissed [Paras 2, 7–9]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Anticipatory bail denied – Prima facie offence under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST Act made out – Bar under Section 18 attracted – Pending applications also disposed