Local Self-Government – Removal of Elected Municipal President – Section 48(2-A), U.P. Municipality Act, 1916 – Meaning of “such inquiry as it may consider necessary” – Full-fledged inquiry mandatory – Petitioner, elected President of Nagar Palika Parishad, removed on allegations of corruption, favouritism in tenders and misuse of municipal funds – Removal order based on preliminary inquiry reports and show-cause proceedings – No formal charge-sheet framed – No Inquiry Officer appointed – No oral evidence recorded – No opportunity of cross-examination afforded – Preliminary inquiry reports relied upon without associating petitioner – Held: Once charges are denied and explanation is found unsatisfactory, State Government is mandatorily required to conduct a full-fledged inquiry before removal of an elected representative – Removal without such inquiry violates Section 48(2-A) and principles of natural justice – Impugned order quashed with liberty to conduct fresh inquiry in accordance with law [Paras 11–23].

Elected Representative – Higher Constitutional Pedestal – Comparison with Government Servant – Elected President of Municipality stands on a higher footing than a government servant – If even a temporary government employee cannot be removed without full-fledged inquiry, removal of an elected representative without such inquiry is impermissible – Removal curtails statutory right of office-bearer and democratic right of constituency – Strict adherence to statutory procedure essential [Paras 13, 20].

Inquiry – Preliminary vs. Regular Inquiry – Evidentiary Value – Preliminary inquiry meant only to form prima facie opinion – Evidence recorded therein cannot be relied upon for final punishment – Reliance on preliminary reports without examination of witnesses in presence of delinquent and without cross-examination is illegal – Documents do not prove themselves and must be proved through competent witnesses [Paras 15, 16, 21].

Natural Justice – Supply of Inquiry Material – Right to Defence – Non-supply of relied-upon material including inquiry reports and comments vitiates proceedings – Right to receive inquiry report is part of reasonable opportunity of defence – Prejudice need not be separately proved where mandatory procedural safeguards are breached [Paras 15, 21].

Administrative Law – Quasi-Judicial Power – Recording of Reasons – Order of removal must record clear reasons based on legally admissible evidence – Mere reference to allegations and replies without discussion of evidence reflects non-application of mind – Quasi-judicial orders affecting elected office must demonstrate fairness, objectivity and strict compliance with law [Paras 21–22].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Order dated 29.10.2025 removing petitioner from office quashed – Respondents directed to conduct a full-fledged inquiry strictly in accordance with Section 48(2-A) of the Act, 1916 and principles of natural justice – Consequential relief granted [Para 23–24].

Criminal Law – Section 482 CrPC – Quashing of Proceedings – Mechanical Cognizance on Protest Complaint – Magistrate took cognizance of offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 r/w 34 IPC on a protest complaint after police filed refer report finding allegations false – Order merely recorded “prima facie case made out” without reasons – No discussion of evidence recorded under Section 200 CrPC – No reasons for disagreeing with police refer report – Held: Such casual and mechanical order reflects non-application of mind and vitiates cognizance – Proceedings liable to be quashed to prevent abuse of process [Paras 5–6].

Protest Complaint – Duty of Magistrate – When a refer report is filed, Magistrate must apply independent judicial mind, evaluate materials, record reasons for differing from investigation findings and indicate sufficient grounds to proceed – Failure to do so renders order unsustainable [Paras 6, 8].

Forgery of Will – Mere Clerical Error Not Sufficient – Allegation of forgery based solely on misdescription of name of one attesting witness in Will deed – Investigation revealed it to be a typographical error with same person having signed – Magistrate ignored investigation findings without justification – Criminal prosecution held unjustified [Paras 8–9].

Public Servant – Sub-Registrar – Acts Done in Official Capacity – Section 197 CrPC – Fourth accused was Sub-Registrar who registered Will deed in discharge of statutory duty – No allegation of independent role in conspiracy or forgery except official act of registration – Magistrate failed to consider requirement of prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC – Proceedings against public servant without sanction held impermissible [Paras 7–8].

Abuse of Process of Law – Ends of Justice – Continuation of criminal proceedings against private parties and public servant despite false refer report and absence of prima facie material amounts to abuse of process – Inherent jurisdiction rightly invoked to secure ends of justice [Para 9].

Decision: Criminal Miscellaneous Cases allowed – Proceedings in C.C. No. 93 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Piravom, against Accused Nos. 1 to 4 quashed – Impugned order taking cognizance set aside.

Domestic Violence Act – Section 2(f) – “Relationship in the Nature of Marriage” – Live-in Relationship with Married Man – Not Maintainable – Petitioner claimed reliefs under PWDVA alleging marriage and long-standing cohabitation with Respondent No.1 during subsistence of his first marriage – Evidence of joint property purchase, financial arrangements, IVF treatment, and birth of child relied upon – Sessions Court reversed reliefs granted by JMFC – Held: Relationship between an unmarried woman and a married man, entered into with knowledge of subsisting marriage, does not qualify as a “relationship in the nature of marriage” – Such relationship lacks legal sanctity and falls outside ambit of Section 2(f) PWDVA [Paras 24–28].

Live-in Relationship – Supreme Court Guidelines – Indra Sarma and D. Velusamy Applied – Court reiterated that all live-in relationships are not relationships in the nature of marriage – Essential conditions include parties being legally eligible to marry – Respondent No.1, being married, failed to satisfy mandatory condition of legal eligibility – Ratio of Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma and D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal squarely applicable [Paras 22–27].

Knowledge of Existing Marriage – Effect – Petitioner admitted awareness of Respondent No.1’s marital status at inception of relationship – Even if induced by misrepresentation, such relationship cannot be elevated to marriage-like status under PWDVA – Relationship akin to concubinage or extra-marital affair, for which Act does not presently provide protection [Paras 25–26].

Joint Property, Financial Control, Childbirth – Not Conclusive – Factors such as joint ownership of property, handling of bank accounts, sexual relationship, IVF treatment, or birth of child, though relevant, are insufficient by themselves to establish relationship in the nature of marriage when core legal requirements are absent – Social projection as husband and wife and legal capacity to marry remain determinative [Paras 25–27].

PWDVA – Beneficial Legislation – Limits of Interpretation – While PWDVA is a beneficial statute intended to protect women from abuse, courts cannot extend its scope beyond statutory definition – Expansion of protection to relationships knowingly entered with married persons requires legislative intervention and not judicial enlargement [Paras 26–28].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Limited Interference – Sessions Court correctly applied settled law and reversed trial court’s findings – No perversity or jurisdictional error found warranting interference under Article 227 – Concurrent appreciation of law upheld [Para 28].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Judgment and Order dated 26.07.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune upheld – Petitioner held not entitled to reliefs under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Transfer of Property – Settlement Deed – Unilateral Cancellation – Invalidity – Registered settlement deed executed by the settlor in favour of grandson – Subsequent unilateral cancellation deed executed by settlor without consent of settlee – Held, once settlement deed is executed and registered, vesting rights in favour of settlee, it cannot be unilaterally cancelled unless a specific right of revocation is reserved in the deed or conditions are violated – Cancellation deed held void and inoperative [Paras 7–9].

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 122 – Acceptance of Gift – Delivery of Possession – Not Sine Qua Non – Acceptance of settlement deed can be inferred from conduct of parties – Possession of original title deed with plaintiff and registration of settlement deed sufficient to establish acceptance – Settlement deed held duly acted upon during lifetime of executant [Paras 9].

Fraud, Coercion and Undue Influence – Burden of Proof – Mere allegation by settlor that deed was executed without knowledge or under pressure insufficient – No plea or proof of fraud or coercion raised contemporaneously in cancellation deed or subsequent settlement deed – Failure to establish grounds for invalidating the original settlement deed [Paras 4, 9].

Subsequent Settlement and Mortgage Deeds – Validity – Once original settlement deed stood valid and irrevocable, settlor ceased to have any right, title or interest in property – Subsequent settlement deed executed in favour of daughters and mortgage deed executed thereafter declared null and void [Paras 7–9].

Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – Concurrent findings of fact by Trial Court and First Appellate Court – No perversity or substantial question of law made out – High Court declined to interfere with concurrent judgments [Paras 9–10].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Judgments and decrees of Trial Court and First Appellate Court upheld – Unilateral cancellation of settlement deed declared void – Subsequent settlement and mortgage deeds held invalid – No costs – Connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Motor Vehicles Act – Section 163A – Maintainability of Claim – Income Limit under Second Schedule – Tribunal dismissed claim holding annual income of deceased exceeded ₹40,000/- by including daily fooding allowance – High Court held that allowance paid exclusively for personal benefit of employee cannot be treated as contribution to family – Fooding allowance of ₹150 per day excluded from income computation – Annual income restricted to ₹39,600/- – Claim under Section 163A held maintainable [Paras 11, 15–17].

Compensation – Meaning of Income – Allowances – Distinction between Personal Benefit and Family Contribution – Reliance placed on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indira Srivastava – Only those components of remuneration which would have formed part of family contribution can be included – Allowances meant exclusively for individual use cannot be added – Tribunal’s contrary view set aside [Paras 14–17].

Precedent – Deepal Girishbhai Soni – Applicability Explained – Earlier judgments relied upon by Tribunal distinguishable on facts – Issue of exclusion of allowances not examined in those cases – Income computation requires nuanced analysis based on nature of allowance [Paras 11, 16].

Insurance Policy – Employee Coverage – Comprehensive Package Policy – Policy produced before High Court showed coverage of employees of owner up to specified number – Deceased was helper of insured vehicle – Insurer liable to indemnify owner and pay compensation – Tribunal’s finding to contrary rejected [Paras 20–21].

Beneficial Legislation – Appellate Court Powers – Tribunal did not adjudicate other issues after rejecting claim on maintainability – High Court proceeded to determine liability and quantum to avoid multiplicity of proceedings – Motor Vehicles Act being beneficial legislation, prolonged litigation avoided [Para 19].

Quantum of Compensation – Assessment by High Court – Monthly income assessed at ₹3,300/- – Annual income ₹39,600/- – One-third deducted towards personal expenses – Compensation computed at ₹4,75,200/- plus general damages of ₹9,500/- – Total compensation ₹4,84,700/- with 6% interest from date of application [Para 22].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Award of Tribunal set aside – Claim under Section 163A held maintainable – Compensation of ₹4,84,700/- with interest awarded – Insurance Company directed to pay amount within three months – Tribunal to apportion compensation among claimants – No costs [Paras 22–23].

Family Law - Custody and Visitation – Paramount Consideration – Welfare of Child – Visitation rights of father modified by Family Court reducing frequency of physical meetings and introducing regulated video calls – Held: In matters of custody and visitation, welfare of the minor child is the paramount consideration overriding rights and convenience of parents – Courts must ensure physical safety, emotional well-being and psychological stability of the child [Paras 11, 15–18].

Interim Visitation – Power to Modify – Change in Circumstances – Family Court modified earlier consensual interim visitation arrangement dated 14.11.2024 based on subsequent incidents including alleged altercations, registration of FIR and complaints under PWDV Act – Held: Interim visitation arrangements are always subject to modification if subsequent events demonstrate potential impact on child’s welfare – No vested right accrues to either parent [Paras 14–16].

Discretionary Jurisdiction – Limited Appellate Interference – Family Court exercised discretionary jurisdiction after considering relevant material – Appellate court cannot substitute its own view unless order is perverse, arbitrary or contrary to welfare of child – Mere reduction in visitation frequency does not amount to denial of parental contact [Paras 20–21].

Balancing Parental Contact with Child’s Safety and Stability – Modified arrangement permitted physical meetings twice a month at neutral public place and video calls twice a month – Held: Arrangement strikes balance between father’s right to meaningful contact and need to protect child from instability arising from inter se parental disputes – Modification protective rather than punitive [Paras 17–18].

Ongoing Parental Conflict – Impact on Child – Record reflected multiple litigations and acrimonious disputes between parties – Courts duty-bound to insulate child from parental conflict as far as possible – Stability, routine and academic needs of school-going child must be prioritised over frequent short-duration meetings [Paras 19–20].

Allegations Pending Investigation – No Final Adjudication Required at Interim Stage – While allegations against father disputed, Family Court not required to conclusively determine truth at interim stage – Existence of surrounding circumstances sufficient to warrant cautious approach in regulating visitation [Paras 16–18].

Visitation Rights – Not Absolute – Subject to Regulation – Right of a parent to visitation is not absolute and can be reasonably regulated in interest of child’s welfare – Interim arrangements remain open to future modification upon demonstrable change in circumstances [Paras 20–23].

Counselling and Mediation – Observations – Court emphasised shared parental responsibility to foster healthy environment for child – Family Court may explore counselling or mediation to evolve harmonious co-parenting framework [Para 24].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Impugned order dated 15.12.2025 upheld – Modified interim visitation arrangement to continue until further orders – Observations confined to interim visitation and not to affect merits of pending proceedings [Paras 21–25].

Civil Law – Possession – Proof of Title – Registered Documents Prevail – Plaintiff proved ownership of suit property through perpetual lease deed dated 11.05.1971 and conveyance deed converting property into freehold – Municipal records, occupancy certificate, tax documents and statutory notices stood exclusively in plaintiff’s name – Defendants failed to produce any title document evidencing ownership or co-ownership – Held: Registered title documents constitute unimpeachable evidence of ownership and cannot be displaced by oral assertions [Paras 20–21].

Joint Hindu Family – Joint Family Property – Burden of Proof – Mere existence of family relationship or joint business does not create presumption of joint family property – Defendants failed to establish existence of joint family nucleus sufficient to acquire suit property – Partnership deed relied upon by defendants showed plaintiff had independent source of income even prior to partnership – Held: In absence of proof of joint family nucleus, property cannot be treated as joint family property [Paras 22–23].

Oral Family Settlement – Proof and Implementation – Failure to Establish – Defendants pleaded oral family settlements of 1970 and 1979 granting them rights over first and second floors – No contemporaneous document, memorandum, mutation, or consistent conduct produced to prove existence or implementation of settlement – No suit or proceedings filed for enforcement for over three decades – Held: Bald plea of oral family settlement without cogent evidence cannot defeat registered title [Paras 24–25].

Construction of Property – Alleged Contribution by Defendants – Insufficient Evidence – Apart from isolated cement purchase receipt, no construction bills, labour records, bank statements or sanctioned plans in defendants’ name produced – Municipal and utility records stood solely in plaintiff’s name – Held: Mere supervision, occupation or participation in construction does not confer ownership in absence of proof of financial contribution [Paras 26–27].

Benami Transactions – Section 4 – Bar on Defence – Defendants’ plea that plaintiff held property in fiduciary capacity for benefit of family rejected – No specific pleadings or evidence establishing fiduciary relationship or trust – Exception to Section 4 of Benami Act cannot be invoked through vague assertions – Defence based on benami ownership barred by statute [Paras 29–31].

Licence – Permissive Possession – No Adverse Possession – Defendants admitted permissive occupation of suit property – Licence revoked by legal notice dated 26.10.2006 – Suit for possession filed within limitation – Held: Permissive possession cannot mature into adverse possession without clear hostile assertion against true owner [Paras 32–33].

Mesne Profits – Assessment – Discretion of Court – Learned Single Judge awarded mesne profits at ₹30,000 per month considering relationship of parties and absence of rebuttal on rate – Appellate Court found no perversity or legal infirmity in exercise of discretion – Claim for enhancement rejected [Paras 15.2, 17.17, 19].

Appellate Interference – Findings of Fact – Limited Scope – Findings of ownership, rejection of family settlement and benami defence based on proper appreciation of evidence – No perversity or misapplication of law demonstrated – Appellate Court declined to re-appreciate evidence merely because another view possible [Paras 19–21, 35].

Decision – RFA (OS) Nos. 5/2017 and 10/2017 dismissed – RFA (OS) No. 6/2017 seeking enhancement of mesne profits also dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 28.11.2016 affirmed – Plaintiff entitled to possession and mesne profits as decreed [Conclusion].

Taxation Law - Income Tax – Penalty – Immunity under Section 270AA – Mandatory Nature – Assessee applied for immunity from penalty under Section 270AA after issuance of notice under Section 270A – Rectification under Section 154 allowed subsequently resulting in nil tax demand – Held: Section 270AA(3) is couched in mandatory terms – Once statutory conditions are satisfied, Assessing Officer is bound to grant immunity – Discretion does not survive where conditions stand fulfilled [Paras 14, 17–19].

Section 270AA – Conditions for Immunity – Compliance by Assessee – Application filed in prescribed Form 68 within statutory time – No appeal filed against assessment order – Penalty proceedings not initiated under Section 270A(9) – Rectification leading to nil demand satisfies condition of payment of tax and interest – Application could not be rejected mechanically without examining compliance with statutory requirements [Paras 15–17].

Administrative Law – Requirement of Reasons – Speaking Order – Order rejecting immunity merely stated that conditions were not fulfilled without specifying which condition was violated – Absence of reasons amounts to non-application of mind – Reasons are live links between material on record and conclusion – Non-speaking order held unsustainable in law [Paras 20–21].

Natural Justice – Opportunity of Hearing – Proviso to Section 270AA(4) – Though notice of hearing issued, final order did not deal with submissions made in immunity application – Mere grant of opportunity insufficient without meaningful consideration – Rejection without addressing contentions violates principles of natural justice [Paras 20–21].

Rectification of Assessment – Effect on Penalty Proceedings – Scrutiny assessment originally resulted in substantial demand – Rectification under Section 154 reduced demand to nil – Subsequent dropping of penalty proceedings reinforces assessee’s claim for immunity – Penalty proceedings lose substratum once assessed income itself stands rectified [Paras 10, 14].

Jurisdictional Error – Passing of Order by Transferred Officer – Contention raised that Assessing Officer had been transferred prior to passing of impugned order – Though not finally adjudicated, issue highlights procedural infirmity surrounding decision-making process [Para 9].

Precedent – Requirement of Reasoned Rejection of Immunity – Reliance placed on Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) Pte. Ltd. v. ACIT – Orders declining immunity must disclose reasons and application of mind – Principle affirmed [Paras 11, 22].

Decision – Writ petition allowed – Order dated 27.05.2025 rejecting application under Section 270AA set aside – Assessing Officer directed to reconsider application afresh in accordance with law after granting opportunity of hearing – No costs [Paras 23–24].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheque – Section 138 – Pre-cognizance Stage – Section 223 BNSS – Magistrate directed issuance of notice to accused before taking cognizance – Held impermissible in complaints under Section 138 N.I. Act, which is a special enactment – No requirement of issuing notice or summons to accused prior to taking cognizance [Paras 5–10].

Criminal Procedure – BNSS, 2023 – Section 223 – Interpretation of First Proviso – Opportunity of Hearing to Accused – Supreme Court clarified that proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS does not mandate pre-cognizance notice in cheque dishonour cases – Trial Court erred in applying proviso mechanically at pre-cognizance stage [Paras 6–10].

Precedent – Binding Nature – Supreme Court Decision – Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar – Law declared that issuance of notice to accused prior to cognizance is not required in N.I. Act cases – Held: Trial Court order contrary to binding precedent suffers from legal infirmity [Paras 8–10].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Motion Stage Disposal – Pure Question of Law – In view of settled legal position, criminal revision taken up and decided at motion stage – Issuance of notice to private respondents dispensed with [Paras 11].

Remand – Cognizance and Issuance of Process – Trial Court directed to reconsider matter afresh in accordance with law and Supreme Court ruling – Impugned order quashed to the extent of issuing pre-cognizance notice [Paras 10, 12–14].

Decision: Criminal revision allowed – Impugned order dated 25.09.2025 quashed to the extent it directed issuance of notice to accused at pre-cognizance stage – Trial Court directed to take fresh decision on cognizance and issuance of process in accordance with law.