Civil Law -  Injunction Suit – Co-sharers in Joint Land – No Obstruction or Illegal Construction Proved – Appeal Dismissed – Plaintiff, a co-sharer, filed suit for injunction alleging defendants were raising construction on valuable land near main road during pending partition proceedings – Trial Court and First Appellate Court found construction was completed long before plaintiff’s purchase in 2019 and that defendants had bought specific khasra numbers through registered sale deeds – No proof of obstruction or fresh construction adduced – Held: Plaintiff failed to show unlawful interference or right to injunction – No substantial question of law arises – Second appeal dismissed [Paras 2–11].

Injunction Suit – Joint Property – Relief Not Maintainable – Possession of Specific Khasra Numbers by Co-sharers – Admitted Construction Prior to Plaintiff’s Purchase – Held: Plaintiff, who bought land after construction was completed, cannot seek injunction on vague allegations – Lower courts correctly held plaintiff had not approached court with clean hands – Injunction rightly denied [Paras 7–9].

Evidence – No Proof of Obstruction – Plaintiff Failed to Prove Passage Was Blocked – Plaintiff did not plead or prove that any path was being obstructed by construction – Admitted during arguments that construction existed prior to his purchase – Held: No factual basis for injunction claim – Concurrent findings upheld [Paras 7, 10].

Limitation of Appeal – No Substantial Question of Law – Concurrent Findings on Facts – Both courts found that defendants held registered title to specific plots and had raised construction much before plaintiff’s purchase – Held: No legal error or perversity in findings – No question of law arises under Section 100 CPC – Appeal dismissed [Para 11].

Matrimonial Law - Confidentiality in Matrimonial Proceedings – Section 22 of HMA – Scope of “Publication” – Appeal Dismissed – The appellant-husband alleged that the respondent-wife, her brother, and her employer disclosed confidential details of matrimonial litigation and custody disputes to third parties, violating Section 22 – Family Court found disclosures were made in the course of defending against legal proceedings initiated by the appellant and not printed or published in the public domain – Held: Section 22 aims to prevent public dissemination of matrimonial details; bona fide references in legal or administrative proceedings do not constitute prohibited publication – No breach made out [Paras 3-4, 10-14].

Right to Privacy vs. Right to Fair Trial – Disclosures made to authorities, employer, and in POCSO complaint – Court held such references were relevant for defence and not intended for public circulation – Section 22 cannot be used as a shield to suppress material facts in related proceedings [Paras 12, 14].

Burden of Proof – Failure to Establish Public Dissemination – Appellant unable to show any instance of printing or public circulation of matrimonial details – Allegations insufficient to attract statutory bar under Section 22 [Paras 13-14].

Decision – No ground to interfere with Family Court’s order – Appeal dismissed – Observations not to affect merits of pending matrimonial case [Paras 15-17].

Family Law - Child Visitation Rights – Welfare of Minor Paramount – Civil Revision Allowed – Petitioner/father’s plea for visitation to 10-year-old son was dismissed by Trial Court—During mediation, child initially distressed but later conversed with father for over 20 minutes on neutral topics—Mediator recommended supervised visitation to avoid distress—High Court held delay or pendency stage of divorce case irrelevant; love and bonding with both parents vital unless shown contrary to welfare—Order of dismissal set aside—Father permitted supervised visitation twice a month for three months under clinical psychologist’s supervision, with report to be submitted thereafter [Paras 12-22].

Parens Patriae Jurisdiction – Court reiterated that in custody/visitation matters there is no straitjacket formula; welfare of minor overrides disputes between parents—Child’s reactions, maturity, and circumstances to be assessed on case-specific basis [Paras 12-17].

Supervised Visitation – Detailed Directions – Visitation fixed on 2nd and 4th Sundays, 10 a.m. to 12 p.m., at Phoenix Mall, Chennai, under supervision of Ms. Madhumitha, Clinical Psychologist—Father to pay ₹6,000 per visit towards supervision charges—Arrangement limited to three months, with liberty to seek further orders under Section 26 HMA post-divorce proceedings [Paras 21-23].

Decision – Civil Revision Petition allowed; Trial Court order set aside; visitation rights granted on specified terms; divorce proceedings to be concluded within four months [Paras 21-24].

Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail – Corruption by Police Officials – Application Dismissed – Accused Head Constable alleged to have demanded ₹1,00,000/- (settled at ₹60,000/-) from complainant under threat of false implication – ₹20,000/- allegedly received earlier, and balance ₹40,000/- received by co-accused HC Manoj during trap, who fled with money – Call records, CCTV footage, and witness statements link accused to arrangement – Held: No exceptional circumstances shown to justify pre-arrest bail in corruption case; anticipatory bail in such offences to be granted only in rare cases – Seriousness of allegations, evasion of arrest, and destruction of evidence disentitle relief [Paras 8-15].

Scope of Anticipatory Bail – Distinction from Regular Bail – Court reiterated SC rulings in Srikant Upadhyay (2024 SCC OnLine SC 282) and Devinder Kumar Bansal (2025 SCC OnLine SC 488) – Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy; not a rule; to be denied where custodial interrogation is necessary, investigation may be hampered, or societal interest demands deterrence against corruption [Paras 5-7].

Corruption in Police – Societal Impact – Court observed that corruption by law enforcement erodes public trust, warrants “absolute intolerance”, and requires cautious judicial approach to avoid perception of leniency – Offences often involve novel methods by experienced offenders, requiring courts to “read between the lines” [Paras 8.1-8.3].

Decision – Anticipatory bail refused; petition dismissed; interim protections earlier granted vacated [Para 15].

Cheque Bounce - Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Legally Enforceable Debt – Cash Transaction Above ₹20,000 – Conviction Set Aside – The accused was convicted for issuing a dishonoured cheque for ₹9,00,000 allegedly towards discharge of a debt – The defence contended that the debt was created through a cash transaction in violation of Section 269SS of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 – Held: Such cash transactions above ₹20,000 without explanation under Section 273B of the Act cannot be treated as legally enforceable debts – Section 139 NI Act presumption stands rebutted when the transaction violates statutory norms and is unaccounted – Conviction under Section 138 of NI Act is not sustainable – Accused acquitted [Paras 1, 3, 27-30, 35].

Income-Tax Act – Sections 269SS, 271D – Impact on Criminal Proceedings – Legal Sanction Denied – The Court held that accepting large cash transactions in violation of Section 269SS, without any valid explanation under Section 273B, renders the underlying debt illegal – Observed that criminal courts should not legalise transactions that are statutorily discouraged in order to uphold fiscal discipline and promote digital economy – Disregarded contrary view taken by Division Bench of Bombay High Court – Held: Debt created in contravention of Income-Tax law is not legally enforceable under Section 138 of NI Act [Paras 17-24, 26-27].

Presumption Under NI Act – Section 139 – Rebuttal Through Preponderance of Probabilities – Complainant Failed to Prove Legally Enforceable Debt – Reiterated the law that presumption under Section 139 includes legally enforceable debt, but can be rebutted by raising a probable defence – In the present case, complainant admitted non-disclosure of cash in tax returns and gave no valid explanation – Held: Accused successfully rebutted presumption – No legally enforceable debt existed [Paras 12-16, 29-30].

Judicial Discipline – Per Incuriam Decision Overruled – Earlier Ruling in Sugunan v. Thulaseedharan Declared Per Incuriam – The Court held that the earlier view that violation of tax law does not affect enforceability under NI Act failed to consider binding precedents of Supreme Court – Expressly overruled such view as being inconsistent with Rangappa v. Sri Mohan – Directed prospective application of the current ruling to avoid reopening of concluded trials [Paras 30-34].

Civil Law -  Dismissal of Injunction Suit – Title Disputed – Amendment for Declaration Rejected – Appeal Dismissed – Plaintiff’s suit for permanent injunction over vacant land was dismissed by trial and first appellate courts on the ground that the documents relied upon were fabricated and did not establish clear title – Plaintiff’s application to amend plaint at appellate stage to include declaration was held barred by limitation – Lower courts incidentally adjudicated title due to nature of property and available pleadings – Held: No error in lower courts’ findings; second appeal dismissed as no substantial question of law arose [Paras 1, 36, 59, 83].

Suit for Injunction – Adjudication of Title – Vacant Land – Title Disputed – Held Permissible – Plaintiff claimed right based on Ex-A1 sale deed; defendant asserted superior title via Ex-B5 and associated documents – In case of vacant sites, de jure possession follows title – Where pleadings and implied issues exist, and title question is straightforward, courts may decide title incidentally in injunction suit – Held: Lower courts rightly adjudicated title based on pleadings and evidence [Paras 29–31, 42–59].

Plaintiff’s Title – Fabricated Documents – No Proof of Source – Vendor Not Examined – Adverse Inference Drawn – Plaintiff failed to establish vendor's link to admitted owner Chellammai – Ex-A1 and Ex-A10 contradicted by earlier sale deeds – Neither vendor nor power agent examined; instead, unrelated witness produced – Held: Plaintiff failed to discharge burden under Section 101 of Evidence Act; documents held to be fabricated [Paras 50–57].

Relief of Declaration – Amendment Sought at Appellate Stage – Barred by Limitation – Not Maintainable – Application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC made after 8 years of written statement denying title – Limitation under Article 58 expired – Doctrine of relation back inapplicable where claim is time-barred – Held: Lower appellate court rightly rejected amendment; allowing it would prejudice defendant and restart litigation [Paras 64–75].

Additional Evidence – Application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC – Dismissed – No Procedural Error – Lower appellate court considered additional evidence request alongside main appeal – Found documents unnecessary and not meeting criteria under Rule 27 – Held: Approach proper; no error in dismissal of application [Paras 79–81].

Decision: Second Appeal – No Substantial Question of Law – Concurrent Findings – Lower courts found defendant in possession and with clear title – Plaintiff’s documents inconsistent and unreliable – Amendment barred – Held: All substantial questions of law answered against appellant; second appeal dismissed with costs [Paras 82–83].

Service Law – Withholding of Gratuity – Rule 2.2(b), 2.2(c) & 9.14 Punjab CSR – Criminal Case Unrelated to Official Duty – Petition Allowed – Petitioner retired in 2004, gratuity withheld due to criminal proceedings—convicted in 2013 but acquitted by High Court in 2018—State’s appeal pending in Supreme Court—Court held Rule 2.2(b) applies only to grave misconduct/negligence during service and related to official duties—four-year limitation in proviso to Rule 2.2(b) indicates departmental nexus—Offences unrelated to official duties fall outside its scope—Since employee was acquitted and later deceased, pendency of State’s appeal lost significance—Directed release of gratuity with 7.5% interest from filing of petition, failing which additional 2.5% interest from date of retirement to payment [Paras 8–18].

Civil Writ – Urban Planning & Civic Governance – Unauthorized Occupation Without OC – Massive municipal inaction – Public Safety Concerns – In a batch of petitions concerning a partly redeveloped building at Dadar, the Court found that 12 commercial shops and 2 first-floor premises were being illegally occupied for over a decade without an Occupation Certificate, while 110 residential tenants were deprived of their rightful premises for more than 15 years. The Court recorded serious dereliction and collusion by municipal officers, absence of statutory action under MMC Act/MRTP Act/Fire Safety law, and sham prosecutions leading to acquittals. It condemned the “blame game” between departments, misuse of litigation to perpetuate illegality, and waste of public resources. Emphasising constitutional governance, public accountability, and urgent systemic reforms, the Court appointed a two-member Special Committee (former Justice G.S. Patel & Senior Advocate Naushad Engineer) with four senior municipal officers to recommend measures within four months to curb such illegalities, reduce litigation, and strengthen enforcement. All lawful municipal actions in the case permitted to proceed [Paras 1–39].

Urban Planning – Unauthorized Occupation – Sections 353A & 471 MMC Act – MRTP Act – Failure to Act – Despite knowing no OC was issued, municipal officers allowed illegal commercial use of ground floor for over 12 years; notices issued only after Court intervention – Prosecution under MMC Act failed due to hearsay evidence; acquittal used by occupants as shield – Held: deliberate inaction and complicity by officers aided illegality; such lawlessness undermines rule of law [Paras 7–15, 25–28].

Municipal Governance – Accountability & Litigation Burden – Court criticised culture of inaction, blame-shifting, and generation of unwarranted litigation at public expense – Directed Municipal Commissioner to define roles/duties of officers, maintain ward-wise data on illegal structures, implement technology for transparency, and introspect on litigation costs – Special Committee constituted for systemic reforms [Paras 19, 30–37].

Public Safety – Fire Safety Act, 2006 – Section 8 – Illegal Occupation – Court noted Chief Fire Officer’s duty to act against commercial premises occupied without OC or fire clearance; directed to take lawful sealing action where required [Para 24].

Decision: Special Committee constituted to recommend systemic reforms and enforcement measures within four months; Municipal Commissioner to nominate four senior officers to assist; all lawful actions against illegal occupants permitted; MHADA to take steps for redevelopment, structural audit, and provision of transit accommodation to eligible tenants.

Anticipatory Bail – Misappropriation of Cooperative Society Funds – Sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13(1) r/w 13(2) PC Act – Bail Refused – Petitioner, former Secretary of Kollam Cooperative Building Society, alleged to have collected deposits from third parties, issued forged receipts and certificates, and misappropriated ₹43,35,000/- – Issued 12 forged cheques by faking President’s signature – Annexure A11 letter to Chief Minister contained partial admission of involvement – Prosecution pointed out pending similar complaints and need for custodial interrogation to trace misappropriated funds – Held: Serious nature of offences, magnitude of amount, and possibility of influencing witnesses warranted denial of anticipatory bail [Paras 3, 9, 11, 16-18].

Medical Grounds for Bail – Disc Bulge Complaint – Not a Ground for Pre-Arrest Bail – Petitioner cited orthopaedic issues and MRI findings from 2022 as reason for leniency – Court held ailments were neither recent nor incapacitating, as petitioner worked in the society till May 2025 – Health grounds insufficient for anticipatory bail [Para 12].

Custodial Interrogation – Necessity in Economic Offences – Court emphasised that offences involving large-scale financial misappropriation in cooperative institutions require effective custodial questioning to trace funds and ensure successful prosecution – Anticipatory bail in such cases would impede investigation [Paras 16-18].

Decision:

Anticipatory bail application dismissed – Petitioner directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer forthwith – On failure to do so, IO authorised to arrest as per law [Final Para].