Criminal Law - SC/ST Act – Recommendation for FIR – Jurisdiction of Commission – Order dated 05.01.2018 passed by Member of National Commission for Scheduled Castes recommending registration of FIR under SC/ST Act against DDA official (Karamvir Narwal) and restoring vendor’s permission challenged – Held: NCSC is empowered to recommend enquiry but cannot direct FIR registration – The impugned order is merely recommendatory and not binding – No mandatory direction for FIR found [Paras 33-36].

Street Vendors Act – Right to Vend – Respondent street vendor had valid permission which was later withdrawn by DDA – Subsequent Writ Petition quashed revocation order – Vendor allegedly harassed and caste-abused by DDA official – Held: Grievance essentially related to vending rights and withdrawal of permission – No evidence of specific incident of caste abuse noted – Omnibus allegations insufficient to justify FIR [Paras 32-34].

Writ Jurisdiction – Maintainability – Petition filed by DDA challenging recommendation of NCSC – Held: Petition maintainable to clarify that NCSC’s order was only advisory in nature – Police not bound to register FIR solely on Commission’s recommendation – Enquiry may be conducted in accordance with law [Paras 35-36].

Decision: Writ Petition disposed of – Clarified that impugned order of NCSC dated 05.01.2018 is recommendatory and not mandatory – No direction to register FIR – Police free to proceed with enquiry under law [Paras 36-37].

Family Law - Tribal Succession – Gender Equality – Burden of Proof – Scheduled Tribe (Gond) – Ancestral Property – Daughter’s Right to Inherit – Error in Law by Lower Courts – Appeal Allowed – Matter Remanded – Plaintiff, a daughter of deceased tribal father (Gond community), sought 1/5th share in ancestral house property – Trial Court and First Appellate Court rejected claim holding burden was on her to prove custom allowing daughters to inherit – Held: View contrary to law laid down by this Court in Babulal v. Resmabai and Supreme Court in Ram Charan v. Sukhram – When succession law is silent, burden lies on party asserting exclusion to prove custom – Lower Courts erred in shifting burden on plaintiff – Findings perverse and unsustainable in law – Matter remanded for fresh decision in accordance with principles of justice, equity, and Article 14 of Constitution [Paras 2, 21–26].

Customary Law – Proof of Exclusion – Article 14 – Scheduled Tribe – Constitutional Mandate – Plaintiff Proved Tribal Identity – No Custom Proven by Defendants – Lower Courts Misapplied Law – Plaintiff established she was daughter of deceased tribal father and belonged to Gond ST community – No contrary custom proven by defendants to justify exclusion – In absence of valid customary exclusion, denial of share to tribal women violates Article 14 – Held: Custom cannot be presumed – Must be pleaded and proved by party relying on it – Misapplication of burden of proof rendered concurrent findings unsustainable [Paras 21–24].

Appeal – Concurrent Findings Overturned – Legal Error – Matter Remanded – Though concurrent findings existed, both Courts fundamentally erred in applying incorrect legal principles – Denial of inheritance on basis of misapplied burden caused miscarriage of justice – Matter remanded to Trial Court with liberty to both parties to lead evidence and decision to be made afresh as per settled legal position [Paras 25–27].

Decision: Second Appeal allowed – Judgments of Trial Court and First Appellate Court quashed – Matter remanded to Trial Court for fresh decision after hearing both sides and applying correct legal principles.

Civil Law – Partition - Assigned Lands – Transfer Validity – Applicability of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 – Partition Suit – Adverse Possession – Limitation – Appeal Allowed – Sale of land in 1964 challenged by plaintiffs on ground it violated provisions of the 1977 Assigned Lands Act – Trial court held sale void under Section 3 of the Act – Held: As per G.O.Ms.No.1142 dated 18.06.1954 and G.O.Ms.No.575 dated 16.11.2018, lands assigned before 18.06.1954 are outside the scope of the 1977 Act – Sale deed executed in 1964 valid – Plaintiffs’ claim to title not proven – Suit for partition without seeking declaratory relief is not maintainable – Plaintiffs failed to implead legal representatives of deceased co-plaintiffs – Suit partly abated – Further, defendants had continuous possession for over 25 years – Plaintiffs’ claim barred by limitation and adverse possession established [Paras 19, 23-27, 28-32, 34].

Army Law – Disobedience of Lawful Command – Section 41(2) of the Army Act – Punishment of Severe Reprimand – Legality of Summary Trial – Judicial Review under Article 226 – Scope and Limitations – Petitioner, a Subedar in EME Corps, challenged disciplinary action and discharge alleging that Movement Order was never served and enquiry was held ex parte – Record revealed that Petitioner was ordered to report to HQ Technical Group, EME, Delhi Cantt., but refused to comply – Summary trial conducted under Army Rules 22–26 after due opportunity – Eight prosecution and eight defence witnesses examined – Petitioner cross-examined witnesses but refused to sign proceedings – Held: Proceedings conducted in accordance with Army Act and Rules – No violation of natural justice or procedural irregularity – High Court cannot reappreciate evidence under certiorari jurisdiction – Findings supported by rational evidence – Punishment of “Severe Reprimand” not disproportionate [Paras 25–31].

Army Law – Discharge from Service – Extension of Service – Effect of Punishment of Severe Reprimand – Annexure-I to Appendix “A” of Army HQ Letter dated 21.09.1998 – Held: Personnel punished under Section 41(1) or (2) of the Army Act ineligible for extension for three years – Discharge validly ordered on completion of terms of engagement – No infirmity in discharge order [Paras 13–14, 31].

Judicial Review – Certiorari – Limits of High Court Interference – Finding of Fact – Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan, 1963 SCC OnLine SC 24 – Union of India v. Major A. Hussain, (1998) 1 SCC 357 – Court not to act as appellate forum in military discipline matters – Review limited to jurisdictional errors, perversity, or procedural unfairness [Paras 19–21].

Service Law – Pension – Right to Pension – Deferred Wages – Direction to Facilitate Pension Processing – Court observed that though punishment and discharge are valid, pension cannot be denied – Directed respondents to furnish pension papers to petitioner within six weeks and process pension from date of superannuation within four months thereafter [Para 32].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Punishment and discharge upheld – Respondents directed to process and release pension upon completion of formalities by petitioner [Paras 32–33].

Arbitration – Appointment of Arbitrator – Second Round – Section 11 – Applicant sought appointment of Arbitrator after Award dated 06/06/2022 was set aside in its entirety by Section 34 Court – Though Section 37 Appeals are pending, Court held that under limited scope of Section 11, existence of arbitration agreement alone is to be examined – Held: Prima facie arbitration clause exists – Arbitrator appointed – Objections including res judicata and limitation to be raised before the Tribunal [Paras 5–7, 9].

Arbitration – Scope of Section 11 – Pending Section 37 Appeal – Not a Bar – Respondent opposed maintainability citing pendency of appeal and risk of conflicting decisions – Court relied on SC decisions in Gayatri Balasamy, SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning, and Cox and Kings v. SAP India – Held: Section 11 court must only consider existence of arbitration agreement – All other issues left to Arbitral Tribunal [Paras 6–7].

Arbitration – Res Judicata and Limitation – Arbitrability – Tribunal to Decide – Arguments of limitation and finality of earlier award rejected at Section 11 stage – Court held that Tribunal is the proper forum to decide all objections including maintainability, res judicata and arbitrability – Appointment not precluded [Paras 6–7].

Arbitration – Costs and Fees – Financial burden raised by Respondent – Held: Tribunal empowered to make orders on costs and fees – Arbitrator’s fee governed by Fourth Schedule and Bombay High Court (Fee Payable to Arbitrators) Rules, 2018 [Para 8].

Decision: Section 11 application allowed – Disputes referred to arbitration – Mr. Anish S. Karande appointed as Sole Arbitrator – All rights and contentions of parties kept open – Arbitration to be conducted in Mumbai [Paras 9–9(F)].

Mines and Minerals – Quarry Lease – Renewal – Delay – Interpretation of Expiry Date – Application for renewal of quarry lease rejected as being filed after expiry of lease term – Lease expired on 29.12.2013 (a Sunday) – Application filed on 30.12.2013 – Held: By operation of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, where the last day falls on a holiday, act done on the next working day is valid – Application held to be within time – Rejection order unsustainable [Paras 10, 15–17]

Service of Orders – Communication Requirement – Limitation for Revision – Revision petition under Rule 53(1) of 1994 Rules rejected as delayed by more than six years – Petitioner claimed order of rejection dated 18.01.2014 was never communicated and came to know only in 2019 through RTI – Held: No material to show rejection order was ever communicated – Limitation would run from date of communication – Matter remanded for reconsideration [Paras 18–19]

Quarry Lease – Penalty for Delayed Renewal – Acceptance of Application with Fee – Application filed with two demand drafts for renewal fee and security deposit – Prima facie shows compliance with payment requirement – Issue of absence of arrears clearance certificate not sufficient ground for rejection in absence of notice or opportunity – Revisional authority to re-examine [Para 20]

General Clauses Act – Applicability to Lease Renewals – Provisions of Section 10 applicable to statutory time limits for filing applications under mining rules – Sunday falling on last day of lease term entitled petitioner to file application on next working day – Similar approach adopted by High Court in Robo Silicon Ltd. case affirmed [Paras 12–13, 16]

Decision: Impugned order set aside – Matter remanded to Revisional Authority for reconsideration – Petition disposed of with liberty to parties to raise all contentions afresh [Paras 21–22]

Family Law – Transfer of Matrimonial Proceedings – Section 21-A, Hindu Marriage Act – Both husband and wife filed divorce petitions in different courts within Maharashtra – Husband’s petition filed first before Family Court, Bandra; wife’s later petition before Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan – Held: Section 21-A(2)(b) mandates that the later petition “shall” be transferred to the court where the earlier petition was presented – Statutory compulsion overrides discretionary transfer under Section 24 CPC – Wife’s convenience, though generally preferred, cannot prevail against specific legislative direction – Husband’s application allowed; wife’s dismissed [Paras 1–7, 9–10].

Interpretation – Special vs. General Law – Section 21-A of the Hindu Marriage Act (special provision) prevails over Section 24 of CPC (general procedural power) – Word “shall” in Section 21-A indicates mandatory transfer; word “may” in Section 24 CPC denotes discretion – Thus, proceedings governed by Section 21-A must follow statutory mandate [Para 6].

Case Law – Applicability – Supreme Court’s ruling in N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199, and Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay, (2001) 10 SCC 41, distinguishable as they did not concern Section 21-A – Guda Vijayalakshmi v. Guda Ramchandra Sekhara Sastry, (1981) 2 SCC 646, reaffirmed that Section 21-A is not exhaustive and CPC transfer powers continue to apply, but in intra-state cases statutory mandate under Section 21-A governs [Paras 8–8.3].

Convenience of Wife – Distance of 50 km between Kalyan and Bandra not unreasonable – Wife permitted to appear via video conferencing or physically with travel expenses paid by husband (₹2,500 per hearing) – Monetary inconvenience mitigated [Para 9–10.5].

Decision: MCA No. 124 of 2024 (wife’s application) dismissed – MCA No. 415 of 2024 (husband’s application) allowed – Wife’s HMP No. 2159/2022 before Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan to be transferred and tagged with Marriage Petition No. 3540/2022 pending before Family Court, Bandra – Both to be heard together – No continuation of interim relief granted [Paras 10–12].

Domestic Violence – Delay in Proceedings – Pendency of Case Since 2018 – Petitioner-wife filed complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act on 06.11.2018 – Despite service of notice on 28.05.2019, respondent failed to appear – Trial proceeded ex parte – Respondent appeared only in January 2021 – Interim maintenance of ₹15,000/month awarded but reduced to ₹10,000/month by revisional court – Maintenance never paid despite salary of ₹1.10 lakh/month – Total arrears of ₹4.55 lakh accrued – High Court observed inordinate delay and systemic apathy in enforcement of maintenance orders [Paras 2-6]

Non-Compliance with Judicial Directions – Supreme Court and High Court Precedents Ignored – Neither trial court nor revisional court directed respondent to file affidavit of assets and liabilities as mandated in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 and Parul Tyagi v. Gaurav Tyagi, 2023 SCC OnLine All 2684 – Prior directive in Rajesh Babu Saxena v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine All 2260 for recovery from salary also disregarded – Court expressed concern over indifference by trial courts to binding precedents, warning of loss of public confidence [Paras 7-8]

Judicial Accountability – Explanations Called from Magistrate and Revisional Court – Magistrate directed to furnish explanation for failure to seek affidavit of assets/liabilities – Revisional Court to explain basis for reducing maintenance from ₹15,000 to ₹10,000/month – Failure to provide satisfactory reasons may invite administrative action – Registrar (Compliance) directed to communicate order – Registrar General to collect responses before next hearing [Paras 8-9]

Decision: Magistrate and Revisional Court directed to submit explanations through Registrar General – Next hearing fixed for 14.10.2025 – Warning issued that evasive replies may attract administrative action.

Property Law – Injunction – Auction Sale – Challenge to possession – Appellants (legal heirs of original plaintiff) sought permanent injunction against Town Municipal Council (TMC) from interfering with their possession over suit properties – Plaintiffs originally filed suit for declaration of title, injunction and mutation of names in revenue records, but later restricted relief to permanent injunction – Trial court dismissed suit, holding that plaintiffs failed to prove possession – First appellate court concurred – High Court held that findings of both courts below were not perverse and were based on material evidence – Held: Once plaintiffs abandoned plea for declaration and failed to establish possession, suit for bare injunction was rightly dismissed [Paras 13, 15, 52, 57, 68, 86].

Civil Procedure – Abandonment of Relief – Plaintiffs initially sought declaration of title and permanent injunction, but restricted claim to injunction during trial – Held: Abandonment of prayer for declaration estopped plaintiffs from questioning validity of auction sale or claiming title – Suit thereafter becomes one for bare injunction – Courts cannot test title or validity of auction proceedings in such suit unless appropriate pleadings and relief are sought – [Paras 45, 51, 52, 77, 80].

Title and Possession – Hypothecation and Auction – Suit properties mortgaged to Excise Department in 1958 – Upon default, auction held in 1960 and confirmed in 1961 in favour of TMC – Plaintiffs failed to challenge auction – Sale was confirmed twice by Deputy Commissioner and reflected in revenue records – Court held that plaintiffs, who admitted mortgage and auction, cannot seek injunction without establishing legal possession – Possession presumed to follow title, especially in case of vacant land – [Paras 48, 66, 68, 78, 85].

Documentary Evidence – Revenue Records – Plaintiffs relied on revenue entries (RoRs), tax receipts, mutation records and correspondence to prove possession – Courts held entries in plaintiffs’ name were made illegally and set aside in revision – Revenue records (Ex.P31, P32) from 1979-87 reflected TMC’s name in possession columns – Subsequent entries in plaintiffs’ name were obtained fraudulently and without notice to TMC – Order of Special Deputy Commissioner setting aside plaintiff’s mutation was upheld – [Paras 70–76].

Administrative Law – Validity of Auction – Plaintiffs contended that auction violated mandatory procedures under Mysore Land Revenue Code and Rules – Court held: Without seeking declaratory relief and challenging sale proceedings, such contentions cannot be entertained in suit for injunction – Moreover, procedural irregularities, if any, do not vitiate title of auction purchaser when sale is otherwise confirmed – [Paras 18–20, 48, 86].

Doctrine of Acquiescence – Plaintiffs, through plaintiff no.1, participated in multiple litigations and never challenged the auction or its confirmation – Plaintiffs aware of auction since 1960s but took no steps to set aside sale – Court held: Plaintiffs acquiesced to auction and lost right to challenge – [Paras 62, 79, 81, 82].

Concurrent Findings – High Court’s Interference under Section 100 CPC – Held: Interference in second appeal only justified when findings are perverse or based on no evidence – Both courts below assessed pleadings, depositions, documentary evidence and gave reasoned findings – No perversity or error of law found – [Paras 47, 59, 68, 76].

Substantial Question of Law – Answered in Affirmative – Whether courts were justified in denying injunction when auction was not followed by delivery of possession but revenue entries and evidence showed TMC’s title and possession – Held: Plaintiffs failed to prove possession; auction and mutation in TMC’s name valid – Substantial question answered in favour of TMC – [Paras 46, 86].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Findings of trial and appellate court upheld – Plaintiffs failed to establish possession or maintainability of suit for bare injunction – Request for stay of order rejected – [Final Order].