Senior Citizens’ Rights – Eviction of Permissive Occupants – Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Son-in-law of the deceased daughter sought to claim residence in the house owned by his father-in-law – Contended that he contributed towards construction and had adverse possession – Held: The appellant was a permissive occupant with no legal right over the property – Senior citizens have the right to reclaim possession for their welfare [Paras 2-6].

Interpretation of "Children" and "Relative" Under the Act of 2007 – Appellant argued that he should not be covered under the definition of "Children" or "Relative" under Sections 2(a) and 2(g) – High Court held that the definitions are not exhaustive and if the house was given to the deceased daughter and the appellant was living there by virtue of marriage, he could be considered under the broader meaning of the term – Held: The appellant had a moral duty to maintain the senior citizen but no legal right to occupy the property [Paras 7-9].

No Adverse Possession Established – Bank Transactions Do Not Confer Ownership Rights – Appellant claimed to have transferred ₹1,00,000 to respondent No.3’s account as proof of investment in the property – Court held that mere bank transactions do not establish ownership or adverse possession – No agreement or title document submitted to prove that the property was purchased on his behalf [Paras 6-8].

Power of Tribunal to Order Eviction Under Section 23 of the Act of 2007 – The Tribunal can declare property transfers void if they adversely affect the senior citizen – Court relied on Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2 and held that the Tribunal has the power to order eviction if it ensures the protection and welfare of the senior citizen – Held: Retired senior citizens without regular pension must be allowed to reclaim possession for financial security and peaceful living [Paras 10-12].

Judicial Precedent – Applicability of Supreme Court Rulings – Appellant relied on Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1684, arguing that absence of a condition for maintenance in a transfer deed prevents cancellation – Held: The reliance was misplaced as no transfer deed existed in the present case – Tribunal’s eviction order upheld [Paras 10-11].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Eviction order upheld – Appellant directed to vacate the premises within 30 days, failing which the SHO concerned is directed to enforce eviction and hand over possession to respondent No.3.
 

Civil Writ - Village Panchayats – No-Confidence Motion – Protection Under Proviso (4) to Section 35(2) – Whether Applicable to Sarpanch as a Post or to an Individual – Petitioner challenged the no-confidence motion initiated within two years of her election as Sarpanch, arguing that the statutory protection is personal and applies to all Sarpanches irrespective of their sequence in office – Respondents argued that immunity applies to the post and not the individual, and the term "date of election" refers to the election of the first Sarpanch of the term – Held: The immunity provided under Proviso (4) is specific to the individual Sarpanch elected during the tenure of the Village Panchayat and not limited to the first Sarpanch – Motion quashed [Paras 7-16].

Statutory Interpretation – Literal Rule vs. Purposive Interpretation – Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act – Court relied on the literal and plain meaning of Proviso (4) to Section 35(2), emphasizing that the phrase "date of election of Sarpanch" applies to each elected Sarpanch and not exclusively to the first Sarpanch of the Panchayat term – Held: Literal interpretation aligns with the statute’s objective of ensuring stable governance and smooth functioning of Village Panchayats – Judgment in Charushila Bira Shriram disapproved [Paras 8-16].

Governance and Stability – Protection from No-Confidence Motions – Purpose of the two-year protection under Proviso (4) to Section 35(2) is to ensure administrative stability and effective governance – Recognizing the immunity as person-specific reinforces this objective and avoids disrupting governance due to frequent changes in leadership – Court affirmed this reasoning to quash the impugned notice [Paras 15-16].

Decision: The writ petition was allowed. The impugned notice dated 11/12/2024 convening the no-confidence motion was quashed. Rule made absolute. No order as to costs [Paras 17-19].

Matrimonial Law - Wife’s Maintenance – Temporary Employment – Entitlement to Maintenance – The Family Court denied maintenance to the wife on the ground that she was employed on a temporary basis as a Data Entry Operator and earned ₹21,175/- per month – Held: Temporary employment and meagre earnings do not disentitle a wife from claiming maintenance under Section 125 CrPC – The wife is entitled to live at the same standard as in the matrimonial home – Maintenance is a measure of social justice, and insufficient income cannot bar her claim – Finding of the Family Court set aside – Matter remitted to Family Court to determine quantum of maintenance [Paras 7–12, 18].

Elder Daughter’s Maintenance – Right Under Section 20(1) of HAMA – Maintenance for the elder daughter was denied as she had attained majority – Held: Under Section 20(1) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, an unmarried daughter, even after attaining majority, is entitled to maintenance until her marriage – No such plea was raised before the Family Court – Elder daughter may file a separate application for maintenance under Section 20(1) of HAMA – Finding of the Family Court under Section 125 CrPC upheld, but liberty granted to pursue claim under HAMA [Paras 13–16].

Life Insurance Policies – Direction to Hand Over Certificates Upheld – The Family Court directed the husband to hand over life insurance certificates (Exts. B2 to B4) standing in the name of the wife and elder daughter – Held: Certificates are in their name, and they are entitled to possession – No interference warranted with the Family Court’s direction [Para 17].

Husband’s Income and Duty to Maintain – Presumption of Capability to Earn – Husband claimed unemployment and inadequate income, citing LIC pension of ₹27,000/- – Held: An able-bodied husband is presumed capable of earning to maintain his family – Evidence showed husband previously worked in Merchant Navy and was earning high salaries – Onus to prove inability to maintain wife not discharged by the husband – Maintenance liability upheld [Paras 10, 11].
Decision: Wife’s maintenance: The finding of the Family Court that the wife is not entitled to maintenance is set aside. The Family Court shall determine the quantum of maintenance afresh.
Elder daughter’s maintenance: The finding of the Family Court that the elder daughter is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is upheld. However, the elder daughter is granted liberty to file a fresh application for maintenance under Section 20(1) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.
The direction of the Family Court to hand over life insurance policy certificates (Exts. B2 to B4) to the wife and elder daughter is upheld.
The maintenance case is remitted to the Family Court to determine the quantum of maintenance for the wife. The parties shall appear before the Family Court on 18/02/2025. The Family Court is directed to dispose of the case within three months from the date of appearance of the parties.
 

Criminal Procedure – Maintainability of Petition Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for Registration of FIR – Petitioner sought registration of an FIR against judicial officers and advocates, alleging public property grabbing and corruption – Held: High Court should not entertain such petitions when alternate statutory remedies are available – The petitioner must first approach the police authorities under Sections 154(3) and 36 Cr.P.C. and if unsatisfied, can approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Direct invocation of Section 482 Cr.P.C. is impermissible [Paras 6-8].

Contempt of Court – Baseless Allegations Against Judicial Officers – Petitioner made scandalous and unfounded allegations against judicial officers, claiming cases were decided in favor of certain parties due to corruption – Court held that no litigant can be allowed to browbeat the judiciary – Making such reckless allegations undermines judicial integrity and amounts to contempt – Held: Petitioner warned against filing such petitions in the future [Paras 9-10].

Judicial Discipline – Role of High Court in Protecting Judicial Officers from Baseless Attacks – Court cited Ajay Kumar Pandey v. Unknown, (1998) AIR SC 3299 – Held that judiciary must be protected from frivolous attacks to maintain public trust in the rule of law – Threats or false complaints against judges in response to unfavorable orders amount to interference in the administration of justice [Paras 9-10].

Abuse of Process of Law – Frivolous and Sensational Allegations Without Evidence – Petitioner alleged that advocates and judicial officers colluded to grab land and manipulate cases, but failed to provide any specific details or evidence – Court held that such sensationalized accusations were aimed at scandalizing the judiciary – Imposed costs of ₹25,000/- as a deterrent against misuse of judicial process [Paras 8-10].

Criminal Law – Suo Motu Contempt Powers of the High Court – Petitioner’s conduct warranted contempt proceedings, but the Court exercised judicial restraint – Held: Petitioner warned to conduct himself as a responsible legal professional – Future violations may lead to contempt action [Para 10].

Decision: Petition dismissed with costs of ₹25,000/- – Costs to be deposited in PGI Poor Patient Welfare Fund, Chandigarh within two months – Failure to deposit may lead to recovery as arrears of land revenue – Court warned petitioner against filing frivolous petitions in the future.
 

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Second FIR for the Same Incident – The petitioner contended that two FIRs were lodged for the same incident dated 29.04.2017, the first being C.R. No. I-25/2017, and the second being the impugned FIR No. II-3002/2018 – Held: As per settled legal principles, there cannot be a second FIR for the same incident unless it is a counter-complaint – The impugned FIR is liable to be quashed [Paras 9-10].

Effect of Acquittal in Earlier Case – Subsequent FIR for Same Incident – The trial in connection with the first FIR had already concluded, resulting in an acquittal – Held: Once the trial has concluded, a subsequent FIR with identical allegations for the same incident is impermissible and amounts to an abuse of process – Impugned FIR quashed [Paras 6, 10].

Principle Laid Down in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala – The Supreme Court has held that once an FIR is registered and investigation is conducted, a second FIR for the same incident is not maintainable – Held: The case is squarely covered by T.T. Antony (2001) 6 SCC 181, which mandates that there cannot be a fresh FIR or investigation for the same cognizable offence after an earlier FIR and investigation – Impugned FIR quashed [Paras 7, 11].

Scope of Inherent Powers under Section 482 CrPC – High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process where the complaint is manifestly frivolous or vexatious – Held: Continuing investigation under the impugned FIR would be an abuse of process, and thus, the FIR deserves to be quashed [Paras 12].

Decision: The petition is allowed. The FIR No. II-3002/2018 registered at Thangadh Police Station, Surendranagar, is quashed, and all consequential proceedings are terminated. The court holds that the second FIR is impermissible in law and an abuse of process, particularly in light of the acquittal in the first case. Rule is made absolute.
 

Criminal Writ – Maintainability of Writ for Registration of FIR – Availability of Alternative Remedies – Petitioner sought directions for registering an FIR against judicial officers and advocates, alleging collusion in land grabbing – Held: Writ petitions or petitions under Section 482 CrPC for FIR registration should not be entertained when statutory remedies under Sections 154(3), 156(3), and 200 CrPC are available – High Court referred to Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) AIR SC 907, reiterating that alternative remedies must be exhausted before invoking writ jurisdiction [Paras 5-6].

Scandalous Allegations Against Judicial Officers – Contemptuous Conduct – Warning Issued – Petitioner made unsubstantiated allegations against judicial officers, Bar Council members, and private respondents, claiming corruption and judicial bias – Held: Vague and baseless allegations against judicial officers undermine public trust in the judiciary and amount to an attempt to intimidate judges – While the Court refrained from initiating contempt proceedings, the petitioner was warned against filing frivolous petitions in the future [Paras 7-10].

Judicial Independence vs. Litigant's Right to Fair Trial – Protection of Judicial Officers from Malicious Accusations – Court observed that an increasing trend of disgruntled litigants leveling false allegations against judges threatens judicial independence – Held: No litigant can be permitted to browbeat the Court or tarnish the reputation of judicial officers merely because they failed to secure a favorable order – Dignity of the Court must be upheld [Paras 11-12].

Petition Dismissed with Costs – Fine Imposed – Court dismissed the petition as frivolous and motivated, imposing ₹25,000/- as costs to be deposited in PGI Poor Patient Welfare Fund, Chandigarh – Failure to pay the fine within two months would result in recovery as arrears of land revenue [Paras 13-14].
 

Civil Writ - War Hero Benefits – Eligibility for Employment under Policy Dated 19.08.1999 – Rejection Based on Mode of Discharge – Arbitrary Action by State – Petitioner No.1, an Indian Army soldier injured in an IED blast during Operation Rakshak, was discharged in a low medical category upon completion of service tenure – State denied benefits to Petitioner No.2 (his son), citing mode of discharge (completion of tenure rather than medical invalidation) as a disqualifying factor – Held: Rigid application of discharge criteria contradicts the intent of the policy, which aims to support battle casualties and their families irrespective of mode of release from service [Paras 2-5].

Battle Casualty Certification – Recognition of Military Service-Related Disability – Binding on State Authorities – Petitioner’s 80% permanent disability was certified as attributable to military service, and a Battle Casualty Certificate was issued – Held: State cannot disregard formal military classification of battle casualties to deny benefits – Judicial precedents support entitlement even when service tenure is completed without forced invalidation [Paras 6-7].

Denial of Benefits – Violation of Fairness and Equity – Judicial Interpretation of Ex-Servicemen Status – The State’s refusal was based on a technical distinction between medical boarding out and normal discharge, despite the petitioner’s undisputed battle casualty status – Held: Such an interpretation is unjust and contradicts binding precedents, including Sansar Chand Atri v. State of Punjab, (2002) 4 SCC 154, which affirms that nomenclature of discharge cannot arbitrarily exclude ex-servicemen from benefits [Paras 8-9].

Final Decision – Petition Allowed – Directions to Consider Appointment – The Court set aside the rejection order dated 04.09.2018 and directed the State to consider Petitioner No.2 for appointment under the policy within three months – Held: Legislative intent must be harmoniously construed with fairness to prevent arbitrary exclusions [Para 11].
 

Taxation Law - Goods Seizure and Tax Evasion – Applicability of Section 130 TNGST Act – Prima Facie Case Against Petitioner – The petitioner challenged the confiscation of gold ornaments under Section 130 of the TNGST Act, arguing that the goods were transported solely for exhibition purposes and not for sale – The respondent alleged that the petitioner attempted to evade tax by misusing provisions allowing goods movement without invoices – The Court found multiple discrepancies in the petitioner’s documentation, including the absence of receiver signatures, incorrect weight records, and lack of evidence proving the goods were exclusively for exhibition – Held: The authorities had a prima facie case for invoking Section 130, and the confiscation notice was justified [Paras 8-12].

E-Way Bill and Delivery Challan Compliance – Procedural Irregularities – The petitioner contended that Rule 138(4) of the CGST Rules exempted the requirement of an e-way bill for exhibition-related transport – The respondent countered that the delivery challans lacked proper descriptions, including itemized details of the gold ornaments – The Court observed that mismatches in recorded weights and unverified recipient details indicated potential tax evasion – Held: Absence of critical documentation created suspicion, warranting confiscation proceedings [Paras 10-13].

Mala Fide Allegation Against Authorities – No Evidence to Substantiate – The petitioner argued that the tax authorities acted with mala fide intent in seizing the goods – The Court held that procedural lapses on the petitioner’s part, including unexplained route diversions and missing documentation, weakened its claim – Held: No evidence of mala fide action by authorities; case must proceed based on material evidence [Paras 14-16].

Interplay Between Sections 129 and 130 of the TNGST Act – Independent Operation – The petitioner argued that Section 129, dealing with seizure and detention, should override Section 130, which deals with confiscation – The Court clarified that Section 129 applies to temporary detention, whereas Section 130 is an independent provision that can be invoked where evasion is suspected – Held: The authorities correctly invoked Section 130, and the petitioner must respond to the show cause notice [Paras 18-19].

Writ Petition Dismissed – Petitioner Directed to File Reply – The Court refused to interfere at the pre-adjudication stage and directed the petitioner to submit a detailed reply to the tax authorities – Held: Petitioner must present its defense through due process; writ petition dismissed [Paras 20-21].
 

Criminal Procedure – Further Investigation – Quashing of Order – Revision Application – Petitioner sought quashing of order dated 23.03.2021, rejecting further investigation in a case registered under Sections 363/365/366/372/34 IPC – Trial Court found no error in the investigation and held the case fit for trial – Petitioner argued for further investigation to address deficiencies – Court rejected the prayer, holding that the investigation was thorough, fair, and unbiased, with no visible deficiency [Paras 1-18].

Judicial Discretion – Scope of Further Investigation – The Court reiterated that further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC is discretionary and can only be exercised in exceptional circumstances to rectify material deficiencies – Cited precedents clarified that such powers should not be used arbitrarily, especially where investigations are complete, and no new facts or evidence warrant further action [Paras 7-15].

Findings on Investigation – Thorough and Just – Case diary and evidence demonstrated that the investigation was unbiased, complete, and based on all relevant facts – Trial Court retains the authority to address issues during the trial, including framing or altering charges under Section 216 CrPC if needed [Paras 16-18].

Decision: Revisional application dismissed – No irregularity in the impugned order rejecting further investigation – Trial Court directed to proceed expeditiously, with liberty to consider relevant issues during the trial – Urgent certified copy of the judgment to be supplied to the Trial Court for compliance [Paras 19-27].