Eviction Under Senior Citizens Act – Necessity of Maintenance Claim – Non-maintainability Without Section 23(1) Basis – The appellant, mother of the writ petitioners, sought eviction of her sons and their families under the Senior Citizens Act, claiming the property was her deceased husband's self-acquired asset – The Tribunal ordered eviction without examining competing property claims or fulfilling the conditions under Section 23(1) of the Act – Held: Eviction is permissible only as an incident of maintenance or protection of senior citizens under Section 23(1), and not otherwise – Decision of the Single Judge setting aside the eviction order upheld [Paras 21-22].

Partition Suit and Ownership Dispute – Pre-existing Civil Proceedings Impact on Eviction Claims – The property in dispute was already part of a pending partition suit filed by the writ petitioners – The Tribunal's decision ignored the pendency of civil proceedings and the principle that property disputes must be resolved in civil courts, not under the Senior Citizens Act – Held: Tribunal's order of eviction legally untenable, and competing claims must be adjudicated in the partition suit [Paras 16, 22-23].

Harmonization of Senior Citizens Act and Domestic Violence Act – Limited Scope of Eviction – Citing S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, eviction orders under the Senior Citizens Act must balance the rights under the Domestic Violence Act or other competing claims – In the absence of maintenance claims or valid grounds under Section 23(1), eviction is impermissible [Paras 21, 23].

Delay in Filing Appeal – Procedural Condonation – Delay of 17 days in filing the appeal due to the time taken for uploading the judgment condoned in the interest of justice [Paras 3-4].

Decision: The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed, affirming the Single Judge's order that quashed the eviction direction issued under the Senior Citizens Act. The property dispute is to be resolved in the pending partition suit.
 

Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR – Prima Facie Case – The petitioner sought to quash the FIR alleging offences under Sections 316(2), 318(4), and 61(2) of the BNS Act, 2023, on the ground that no investor had complained, and the allegations were based on assumptions – Held: The FIR discloses cognizable offences, and the allegations of fraudulent inducement and unsustainable business practices require thorough investigation. The court refused to interfere at this stage [Paras 18-24].

Economic Offences – Public Interest – Economic offences like Ponzi schemes have wide-reaching implications for public interest and require cautious judicial scrutiny. The petitioner’s business model involving rotation of funds and extraordinary returns raises suspicion of a bubble-like Ponzi scheme – Held: The court must be cautious while dealing with cases of economic offences that may affect a large section of society [Paras 24-26].

Preliminary Inquiry Not Mandatory – The petitioner argued that no preliminary inquiry was conducted as required under the principles laid down in Lalita Kumari – Held: When prima facie allegations of cognizable offences exist, police authorities are not bound to conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR [Para 25].

Cheating and Criminal Breach of Trust – Intention and Entrustment – The petitioner contended that cheating and criminal breach of trust cannot coexist and that there was no fraudulent inducement or dishonest intention – Held: The allegations of rotating funds to provide monthly returns to investors by luring them with extraordinary benefits prima facie indicate fraudulent intention and breach of trust [Paras 23-24].

Dismissal of Petition – Investigation Required – The allegations in the FIR, including unsustainable business models, deceitful inducement, and breach of trust, require detailed investigation to uncover the nature and extent of the alleged fraudulent activities – Held: The writ petition seeking quashing of the FIR was dismissed [Paras 26-28].

Family Pension – Legal Entitlement of Spouse – Employee Cannot Unilaterally Deny – Pension Not Part of Estate – The deceased employee had applied for voluntary retirement in 2003 and later removed the name of his wife and daughter from service records—He had also submitted a declaration stating he had divorced his wife—Upon his death, the respondent-wife claimed family pension, which was granted by the Central Administrative Tribunal—The Kerala High Court upheld the Tribunal’s ruling, relying on Jodh Singh v. Union of India (1980) 4 SCC 306 and Violet Issaac v. Union of India (1991) 1 SCC 725, holding that family pension is a statutory benefit that arises upon the employee’s death and is not a disposable asset of the deceased—[Paras 9-15].

Succession and Nomination – No Right to Exclude Legal Beneficiary – Family Pension is Not a Testamentary Asset – The petitioners argued that the deceased had specifically removed the respondent-wife from pensionary benefits and had nominated other individuals instead—The Court rejected this argument, reaffirming that family pension is distinct from other retiral benefits like provident fund or gratuity—An employee cannot nominate a third party or exclude a legal heir from receiving family pension, as it is governed by statutory rules—[Paras 16-18].

Interest on Delayed Payment of Family Pension – Justified Compensation for Undue Delay – The Tribunal had ordered the government to pay family pension along with interest—The government opposed the grant of interest, arguing that there was no intentional delay—The High Court upheld the interest component, observing that the respondent-wife was wrongfully deprived of her rightful pension due to the deceased employee’s unilateral actions—[Paras 19-20].

Decision: The Kerala High Court dismissed the petition filed by the Union of India and upheld the Tribunal’s order. The Court held that family pension is a statutory entitlement that cannot be denied based on an employee’s unilateral declaration. The exclusion of the wife from service records is invalid, as pension eligibility arises upon the employee’s death and is determined by statutory rules. The respondent-wife is entitled to receive family pension along with interest, as ordered by the Tribunal. The petitioners are directed to comply with the order, failing which further legal action may be taken.

Criminal Law – Quashing - Food Safety Standards – Non-Accredited Laboratory Report – Prosecution Quashed – The petitioners, including Nestle India Limited and its officers, challenged a criminal complaint regarding the sale of "Maggi Instant Noodles with Tastemaker" – The Court found that the food samples were tested at the Referral Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad, which was not accredited by the National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL) at the relevant time – Held: Since food testing under the FSS Act must be conducted in NABL-accredited laboratories, the prosecution was legally unsustainable and was quashed [Paras 14-16].

Procedural Non-Compliance – Violation of Section 43 FSS Act – The Court observed that Section 43 of the FSS Act mandates that food testing must be done in laboratories recognized by the Food Authority – The Referral Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad, had not received NABL accreditation when it conducted the tests – Held: The test results lacked legal validity, and the prosecution could not rely on them to establish violations [Paras 17-19].

Initial Food Analysis Report Contradicting Referral Lab Report – Unjustified Reliance on Second Report – The first test conducted by the State Public Health Laboratory, Pune, found the product to be compliant with food safety standards – However, without justifying its dissatisfaction, the Food Safety Officer referred the sample for reanalysis – Held: Selective reliance on an unaccredited laboratory’s adverse report while disregarding the initial favorable report was legally untenable [Paras 20-21].

Right to Fair Trial – Prosecution Cannot Be Based on Unreliable Evidence – The Court reiterated that a criminal prosecution must be based on legally admissible and credible evidence – Since the referral lab’s report lacked procedural validity, continuing prosecution would violate principles of fair trial and due process – Held: Prosecution quashed to prevent abuse of legal process [Paras 21-22].

Criminal Application Allowed – The complaint against Nestle India Limited and its officers in Summary Criminal Case No. 5325/2016 was quashed – The Court directed that no further action be taken based on the impugned food test report [Para 22].

Family Law – Permanent Alimony – Assessment of Husband's Financial Capacity – The husband challenged the trial court's award of ₹10 lakhs to the wife and ₹5 lakhs to the minor daughter as permanent alimony, while the wife sought enhancement of the amount – Evidence established that the husband had adequate financial means, including agricultural land, a petrol pump, and business income – Held: Husband is liable to pay the awarded alimony – Appeal by the husband dismissed, and no enhancement granted to the wife as no infirmity was found in the trial court's judgment.

Husband's Financial Status – Evidence Supporting Adequate Means – The trial court relied on documentary evidence, including LIC policies, partnership deeds, and land ownership records, to conclude that the husband had sufficient financial resources – Held: The husband's bare denial without contradictory evidence is insufficient – The family court’s finding of adequate means is affirmed.

Wife's Dependency and Custody of Minor Child – The wife, living with her mother and caring for the minor daughter, was found to be unemployed and dependent – Husband’s assertion that the wife ran a coaching center and owned a four-wheeler was unsupported by evidence – Held: Permanent alimony awarded to wife and daughter upheld as reasonable and just.

Procedural Fairness – No Fresh Opportunity to Lead Evidence – Husband’s failure to lead evidence during the trial cannot justify granting another opportunity at the appellate stage – Held: Family court proceedings were fair, and the trial court's decision was based on cogent evidence – No procedural infirmity found.

Decision: Both appeals dismissed – The husband's appeal challenging the family court’s order fails, and the wife’s appeal for enhancement of alimony is also rejected – Permanent alimony of ₹10 lakhs to the wife and ₹5 lakhs to the minor daughter upheld as reasonable.
 

Bail - Money Laundering – Double Jeopardy – Applicant contended that he cannot be prosecuted in India after conviction in the United States—Held: Prosecution in India is permissible if the offences are distinct—Foreign conviction does not create an absolute bar on domestic prosecution—Bail denied [Paras 7, 20].

Money Laundering – Admissibility of Foreign Conviction – US authorities prosecuted the applicant for laundering proceeds from drug trafficking—He surrendered Bitcoin holdings in a plea agreement—Held: Indian courts may recognize foreign convictions but are not bound by them—Effect of foreign conviction must be determined based on case-specific factors—Prosecution in India stands independently [Paras 16-21].

Confessional Statements – Section 50 of PMLA – Applicant alleged coercion in recording his statement under Section 50—Held: Such statements are not substantive evidence unless corroborated—Merely retracting a statement does not invalidate it—Evidentiary value to be determined at trial—Bail denied [Paras 8, 22].

Possession of Proceeds of Crime – Burden of Proof under Section 23 of PMLA – Applicant argued that he is not in possession of unaccounted Bitcoin—Held: PMLA presumes that unexplained foreign transactions related to illicit activities are proceeds of crime—Burden is on the applicant to prove otherwise—Bail denied [Paras 24-25].

Jurisdiction of Indian Courts – Cryptocurrency and Money Laundering – Applicant transferred Bitcoin proceeds from his illegal activities—Held: Cryptocurrency transactions fall under territorial jurisdiction where the owner is domiciled—Indian authorities have jurisdiction if Bitcoin holdings are linked to the applicant—Bail denied [Para 11].

Bail Considerations – Section 45 of PMLA – Severity of Allegations – Applicant accused of laundering proceeds from international drug trade—Held: Bail to be denied if reasonable grounds exist for believing in prima facie guilt—Given the gravity of charges and potential risk of tampering with evidence, bail rejected [Paras 9-10, 26].

Decision: Bail application rejected—Applicant’s prosecution in India deemed valid despite foreign conviction—Indian authorities directed to continue investigation into unaccounted Bitcoin holdings—Case to proceed to trial.
 

Employment Law – Back Wages – Gainful Employment Not Proved – Full Back Wages Granted – Respondent was suspended and dismissed from service on allegations of misconduct. The Co-operative Arbitration Court found the suspension and dismissal to be illegal, awarding full back wages for the period of suspension and dismissal. Appellants failed to prove that the respondent was gainfully employed during the said period. Held: A workman whose termination is found to be illegal is ordinarily entitled to full back wages unless the employer proves gainful employment during the period of dismissal – Award upheld; writ appeal dismissed [Paras 10-14].

Burden of Proof – Employer's Duty to Prove Gainful Employment – Respondent submitted evidence before the Arbitration Court affirming lack of employment during the period of suspension-dismissal. Appellants, despite being provided opportunities, failed to produce evidence to prove gainful employment. Held: The burden lies on the employer to establish that the dismissed employee was gainfully employed during the period of absence – No such evidence presented; award upheld [Paras 13-14].

Reinstatement with Back Wages – Precedents Applied – Citing Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Employees [(1979) 2 SCC 80] and Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya [(2013) 10 SCC 324], the Court held that reinstatement is ordinarily accompanied by full back wages unless the employer proves otherwise. The employer’s failure to substantiate claims of gainful employment entitles the employee to full back wages [Paras 10-11].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Limited Scope of Interference – High Court reiterated that the scope of appellate interference in writ matters is confined to jurisdictional errors or patent legal infirmities. Finding none in the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the writ appeal was dismissed [Paras 15-16].

Decision – Writ appeal dismissed – Award of Co-operative Arbitration Court granting full back wages and other monetary benefits upheld – Appellants failed to establish gainful employment of the respondent during the suspension-dismissal period [Paras 14-16].

Civil Law - Trust Property – Reversionary Rights of the Trust – Section 19(b) of the Shri Ganpati Panchayat Sansthan Act, 1940 – Land granted by the Sansthan to Sangli State for running a public hospital – Public hospital shifted to an alternate location – Held: The Sansthan retained ownership of the land, and upon cessation of the public purpose, the land must revert to the Sansthan under Section 19(b) – Directions issued to the State to return the land or acquire it in accordance with law [Paras 13-16].

Pre-Constitutional Enactments – Continuance of Existing Laws – Article 372 of the Constitution – Shri Ganpati Panchayat Sansthan Act, 1940, recognized as “law in force” – Held: The rights of the Sansthan under Section 19(b) are enforceable under Article 372, as the Act remains valid and binding [Paras 10-11].

Land Appropriation – Purpose of Appropriation Ceasing – Interpretation of Section 19(b) – Appropriation for a specific public purpose does not divest the grantor of ownership rights – Held: Once the original purpose ceases, the land reverts to the grantor unless acquired under law – Municipality or State cannot claim perpetual appropriation without formal acquisition [Paras 12-14].

Civil Procedure – Maintainability of Writ Petition – Alternative Remedy – State argued that the petitioner could seek compensation or approach a civil court – Held: Availability of compensation or an alternative remedy does not bar the Sansthan’s right to seek reversion under Section 19(b) – Relief granted [Paras 6, 16].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Land from City Survey Nos. 4, 5, 5/1 to 5/18 directed to be returned to the Sansthan within three months – State permitted to acquire the land if required for a public purpose – Alternate accommodation to be arranged for hospital staff occupying part of the land [Paras 16-17].

Criminal Law - Dying Declaration – Reliability and Fit Mental Condition – The conviction was based solely on the dying declaration recorded by a medical officer and Dehati Nalishi, both allegedly made by the deceased. However, there was no certification of the deceased’s mental fitness by a medical professional, and prosecution witnesses stated the deceased was not in a condition to make a statement – Held: The dying declaration was unreliable, and the lack of corroboration further weakened its evidentiary value [Paras 14-18].

Contradictions in Prosecution Evidence – Location and Time of Incident – The dying declaration (Ex. P/10) and Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P/12) provided conflicting accounts regarding the location of the incident and time of occurrence – Held: The inconsistencies created serious doubts about the veracity of the prosecution’s case and rendered the evidence unreliable [Paras 17-18].

Plea of Alibi – Proof Through Evidence – The appellant claimed he was in Guna at the time of the incident and presented call records, tower locations, and testimonies of witnesses to prove his presence elsewhere – Held: The defence proved the plea of alibi to the court’s satisfaction, and the trial court erred in discarding this evidence without cogent reasons [Paras 24-27].

Credibility of Defence Witnesses – Equal Weight to Defence Evidence – Defence witnesses, including public servants, corroborated the appellant’s alibi. Their testimony could not be discarded without valid reasons – Held: Defence evidence should be given equal treatment and weight as that of the prosecution if free from infirmities [Paras 28-29].

Conviction and Sentence – Doubts About Guilt – The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the trial court erred in holding the appellant guilty without credible evidence – Held: The appellant was entitled to the benefit of the doubt, and the conviction and sentence were set aside [Paras 29-30].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 449 IPC set aside. The appellant is directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case [Paras 30-32].