Constitutional Law – Promissory Estoppel – Legitimate Expectation – COVID-19 Lockdown – Chief Minister's Press Conference Assurance – Enforceability – Division Bench held that the Chief Minister's statement of 29.03.2020, assuring that the State would pay rent of migrant tenants unable to pay due to poverty during lockdown, was not enforceable by mandamus as it was never reduced to writing in any Office Memorandum, Notification, Circular, Rule, Regulation or other instrument having the force of law – Two distinct assurances identified: (i) proscription on landlords compelling migrant tenants to vacate, backed by DDMA Order No. 122-A (enforceable); (ii) State undertaking to pay migrants' rent (not enforceable, unsupported by any legal instrument) – Statement of Chief Minister made "in the heat of the moment" without prior assessment of financial implications – Held: A mere oral statement by the Chief Minister in a press conference, however eminent the source, does not constitute an enforceable "promise" in law; no mandamus can issue to compel performance of a duty not grounded in law – Directions of Single Judge modified accordingly [Paras 42–48, 61–72, 81–82].

Promissory Estoppel – Government Statements – Speech vs. Policy Decision – Distinction between pre-election and post-election statements of a politician recognised – However, even a statement by an elected Chief Minister on a public platform cannot be enforced by mandamus unless translated into a formal written instrument of State – Statement made in a press conference without any executive instruction, Rule, Regulation or other document having the force of law cannot constitute a "promise" for the purpose of promissory estoppel – Principle that promissory estoppel does not operate at the level of Government policy reiterated – Union of India v. Ganesh Rice Mills and State of Karnataka v. K.K. Mohandas applied; State of Punjab v. Nestle India Ltd. distinguished – Held: Even if citizens believed the statement to be legally binding, such belief cannot authorise the Court to issue mandamus in the absence of a legal duty [Paras 35–38, 46–72].

Legitimate Expectation – Doctrine – Scope and Limitations – Doctrine of legitimate expectation does not create a legal right; it creates at best an expectation that the State will act consistently, transparently and predictably – Doctrine can be invoked to ensure compliance with natural justice before the authority resiles from an established promise or practice, but cannot independently found a claim for substantive relief – Sivananda C.T. v. High Court of Kerala (Constitution Bench) followed: claimant must establish (i) legitimacy of the expectation and (ii) that denial violated Article 14 – Since no legally enforceable promise was held out in the first instance, doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot be invoked to bind the State to the press conference statement – Followed in State of U.P. v. Bhawana Mishra, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 37 [Paras 73–76].

Mandamus – Writ – Conditions for Issuance – A writ of mandamus can issue only to compel performance of a legal duty; it cannot be issued to direct the State to frame a policy – Asif Hameed v. State of J & K applied – DDMA Order No. 122-A proscribed landlords from evicting or collecting rent from migrant tenants during lockdown and was never challenged; landlords accordingly held disentitled from recovering rent for the lockdown period – However, no mandamus could issue directing the State to bear or reimburse such rent in the absence of any official instrument to that effect – State at liberty to take a policy decision on the matter voluntarily [Paras 53, 62, 71, 78–81].

Issue Estoppel – Maintainability – Division Bench of this Court in Gaurav Jain v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 652, referred to; maintainability of writ not re-agitated by State before Division Bench – Single Judge's finding on maintainability affirmed [Paras 10, 20].

Decision: Appeal disposed of – Directions of Single Judge modified – Prayer for mandamus directing State to implement the Chief Minister's press conference assurance of 29.03.2020 rejected – DDMA Order No. 122-A upheld: landlords disentitled from recovering rent from migrant tenants for the lockdown period – State at liberty to take a voluntary policy decision regarding the Chief Minister's rent assurance if it so deems appropriate – No orders as to costs.

Criminal Law - Matrimonial Cruelty – Section 498A IPC – Dowry Demand – Conviction Upheld – Petitioner No. 1, who married PW1 on 09.01.2000, along with his parents (Petitioners 2 and 3), subjected PW1 to physical and mental cruelty demanding more dowry, assaulted her while pregnant on 26.06.2000, and expelled her from the matrimonial home – Trial Court convicted all three petitioners under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment till the rising of the Court with fines; Appellate Court confirmed – In revision, High Court found no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings – Held: Concurrent findings of guilt under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC affirmed; revision petition dismissed [Paras 2, 3, 8].

Evidence – Credibility of Prosecutrix – Embellishments and Contradictions – Amicus Curiae and petitioners' counsel contended that the Trial Court had acknowledged embellishments, omissions, and contradictions in PW1's testimony, and had decided the matter on probabilities – Held: A casual remark in para 14 of the Trial Court judgment referring to "probabilising" PW1's version did not mean the case was decided on probabilities; minor embellishments and contradictions usual in matrimonial cruelty cases do not by themselves vitiate the prosecution case – Evidence of PW1 corroborated by PW2, PW3 (eye-witnesses to expulsion), and PW4 (father of complainant) [Paras 6, 7].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope – Concurrent Findings – Sentence – High Court reiterated that in exercise of revisional powers it is not permissible to unsettle concurrent findings of the courts below unless there is a manifest illegality or grave injustice – Sentence of imprisonment till rising of Court and fine (Rs. 50,000/- on Petitioner 1; Rs. 10,000/- each on Petitioners 2 and 3, with fine directed to be paid as compensation to PW1) held to be extremely lenient given that Section 498A IPC provides for imprisonment up to three years – No modification warranted [Para 8].

Amicus Curiae – Third Petitioner Deceased – Notice to Petitioners 1 and 2 duly served but they remained unrepresented – Notice to Petitioner 3 returned with endorsement "addressee is no more" – Adv. Ms. Nanda Surendran appointed as Amicus Curiae; original counsel also heard – Court placed on record its appreciation for the assistance rendered by the Amicus Curiae [Para 4, 5].

Decision: Criminal revision petition dismissed – Concurrent verdicts of conviction and sentence under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC confirmed.

Personal Liberty – Live-In Relationship – Police Protection – Right to Life – Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution – Petitioners, both married to different individuals and having children with their respective spouses, entered into a live-in relationship at Hyderabad on 25.02.2026 out of their own free will – Petitioner no. 1 alleged harassment and torture by her husband since 2016 – Family members and husband of petitioner no. 1, along with local police officials, allegedly intimidated and threatened the petitioners, causing them to relocate to Delhi – Petitioners executed a Memorandum of Understanding inter se on 11.03.2026 and sent representations to authorities which remained unacted upon – Held: Both petitioners being Indian national citizens and consenting adults are entitled to the protection of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution – Marital status or nature of relationship (whether married or in a live-in relationship) is not a germane factor when the Court is dealing with protection of life and personal liberty – Petition allowed; petitioners directed to be free to contact the SHO and Beat Constable/Duty Officer of PS Lodhi Colony, Delhi for assistance and protection as and when required [Paras 3–11].

Writ of Mandamus – Police Protection – Consenting Adults – Scope – A writ of mandamus or appropriate direction for police protection may be issued by a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, in favour of consenting adults whose right to life and personal liberty is under threat – The validity or enforceability of a Memorandum of Understanding executed between the petitioners inter se is not required to be gone into for the purposes of granting such protection – Delhi Police directed to extend adequate assistance and protection to the petitioners in accordance with law – In the event of change of residence to another police station's jurisdiction, petitioners directed to share their details with the SHO of the concerned PS within three days of shifting [Paras 9–12].

Decision: Petition allowed – Petitioners entitled to police protection in accordance with law – SHO and Beat Constable/Duty Officer of PS Lodhi Colony, Delhi directed to provide adequate assistance and protection as and when required – In case of change of residence, petitioners to apprise the SHO of the concerned PS within three days.

Real Estate Law – RERA – Locus Standi of Regulatory Authority – Person Aggrieved – Section 58, RERA 2016 – Preliminary objection raised that M.P. RERA, being an adjudicatory authority, cannot maintain appeals under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 against orders of the Appellate Tribunal setting aside its decisions – Authority contended it discharges three distinct functions — administrative, regulatory and adjudicatory — and is covered within the inclusive definition of "person" under Section 2(zg) of the Act – Held: A quasi-judicial authority acting as an adjudicator is not an "aggrieved party" and lacks locus standi to challenge an appellate order setting aside its adjudicatory decision – However, where authority acts in a distinct statutory or regulatory capacity, it can maintain an appeal – Appeals held maintainable [Paras 3–4, 21–22].

RERA – Distinction Between Adjudicatory and Regulatory Functions – Locus to Appeal – The Act, 2016 confers three types of functions on the Authority — administrative, regulatory and adjudicatory — as mapped across its provisions – When exercising adjudicatory powers, the Authority decides disputes between parties and cannot maintain an appeal to defend its own decision – When exercising regulatory powers, the Authority has a vital interest in protecting public interest and can be impleaded and can maintain an appeal – A quasi-judicial authority must not be impleaded in an appeal against an order issued solely in exercise of its adjudicatory function but must be impleaded where the order was issued in exercise of its regulatory role [Paras 14, 19, 21].

Person Aggrieved – Meaning and Scope – Expression "aggrieved person" is an elastic and elusive concept that cannot be confined to the bounds of a rigid definition – Its scope depends on the content and intent of the statute, specific circumstances of the case, and the nature and extent of prejudice suffered – Expression does not include a person suffering from a psychological or imaginary injury – A person aggrieved must be one whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardised – Once the Authority was impleaded as a respondent before the Appellate Tribunal by the respondents themselves, it became an "aggrieved party" upon an adverse order being passed [Paras 16–18, 20].

Doctrine of Judicial Discipline – Quasi-Judicial Authority – Limits of Appellate Challenge – Judicial discipline ordinarily requires that an adjudicatory authority cannot challenge the order passed by the higher authority setting aside its decision – Legislature has not conferred upon the Authority under the Act, 2016 any specific power to defend its order before a higher forum in its adjudicatory capacity – Ratio decidendi and not the mere outcome of cited judgments is binding – Distinctions between regulatory and adjudicatory roles must be carefully maintained to avoid undermining judicial discipline and creating absurdity [Paras 6–7, 10].

Decision: All four miscellaneous second appeals (MSA Nos. 76/2025, 87/2025, 90/2025 and 09/2026) filed by M.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority held maintainable – Matter listed for hearing on admission on 21.04.2026 [Paras 22–23].

Framing of Charge — Speaking Order — Application of Judicial Mind — Sections 250 and 251 BNSS — Remand — The petitioner/accused was charged under Sections 351(3) and 351(1) of the BNS by the Additional Sessions Judge, Berasia on the allegation that he threatened the victim to maintain contact with him and to reveal the victim's relationship with the co-accused if she refused — The petitioner challenged the charge-framing order in criminal revision contending that no allegation of death threat was made in the FIR and the Trial Court failed to disclose the material basis for framing the charge under Section 351(3) BNS — Held: The impugned order is non-speaking and does not indicate the material on which the court formed its prima facie satisfaction — The order framing charge under Section 351(3) BNS is unsustainable as no allegation of threat to cause death appears in the FIR, and the Trial Court failed to mention the document from which such inference was drawn — Impugned order set aside — Matter remanded to the Trial Court for fresh consideration [Paras 6-9, 23-26].

Standard at Stage of Framing Charge — Sections 250 and 251 BNSS — No Material Difference from Sections 227 and 228 CrPC — At the stage of framing charges, the Trial Court must apply its judicial mind to the material on record and sift it for the limited purpose of ascertaining whether a prima facie case is made out — The court is not required to write a detailed or elaborate order, but the order must reflect judicial satisfaction based on material available on record — A mechanical or non-speaking order which merely reproduces statutory sections or records bare assertions without indicating the material considered is impermissible — Held: Framing of a charge must be preceded by at least a brief indication of the material or document which satisfies the court of the existence of the essential ingredients of the alleged offence [Paras 10-23].

Revisional Jurisdiction — Limitation — Where the subordinate court has failed to record necessary findings or has omitted to apply judicial mind, the revisional court cannot undertake independent appreciation of evidence or substitute its own conclusions — The proper course in such circumstances is to remand the matter to the Trial Court for recording findings afresh [Para 24].

Direction for Circulation — The Principal Registrar (J) directed to place a copy of the order before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for circulation among all judicial officers across Madhya Pradesh through the respective Principal District and Sessions Judges, so as to avoid recurrence of such errors [Para 28].

Decision: Criminal revision allowed — Impugned order dated 28.01.2026 set aside — Matter remanded to the Court below for passing a fresh reasoned order in accordance with the settled legal position — Pending applications, if any, stand closed.

Compassionate Appointment — Adopted Child — Validity of Unregistered Adoption Deed — Clause 2.5 of Compassionate Appointment Policy dated 29.09.2014 — Petitioner adopted by deceased government servant (Superior Field Worker, Malaria Department) and his wife in 2010 — Adoption deed executed on 15.06.2020 during lifetime of deceased, duly stamped, notarized and signed by necessary parties — Deceased died on 29.04.2021 — Application for compassionate appointment rejected by Respondent No. 4 on the ground that the registered adoption deed dated 23.10.2021 was executed after the employee's death and that no succession certificate was produced — High Court held: Registration is not a mandatory pre-condition for validity of adoption under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 — Adoption fulfilling substantive requirements of Sections 6 to 11 of the Act is legally valid irrespective of non-registration — Clause 2.5 uses the phrase "legally adopted" and does not stipulate a registered deed — Rejection order quashed — Respondents directed to grant compassionate appointment within sixty days — Writ petition allowed [Paras 3–5, 30, 36, 40–41].

Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 — Validity of Adoption — Registration not Mandatory — Sections 5, 6, 7, 10 and 11 — Statute places primacy on capacity of parties, consent of spouse, and the actual physical act of giving and taking the child with requisite intent — Nowhere in Chapter II does the Act prescribe registration of an adoption deed as a mandatory statutory pre-condition for validity — Section 16 of the Act creates only a rebuttable presumption in favour of a registered document and is a rule of evidence; it does not render an unregistered yet factually compliant adoption void or illegal — Deed of adoption not one of the documents mandatorily requiring registration under Section 17(1) of the Registration Act — Held: An adoption satisfying the conditions of Sections 6 to 11 is valid in law even in the absence of a registered deed [Paras 21–30].

Effect of Adoption — Section 12 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 — Adopted child deemed to be child of adoptive parent for all purposes from the date of adoption — All ties with the birth family severed and replaced by those in the adoptive family — Legal fiction created is absolute and complete — Adopted child acquires same legal status, rights and privileges as a biological child — Provisos to Section 12 merely restrict marriage within birth family and protect previously vested properties but do not dilute the parent-child relationship — Respondent's insistence on succession certificate or registered deed as mandatory pre-condition for compassionate appointment held to be addition of requirements not existing in law or policy [Paras 31–32, 36].

Compassionate Appointment — Governing Principles — Compassionate appointment is an exception to general recruitment procedure designed to enable family of deceased employee to overcome sudden financial crisis — It is not a vested right exercisable at any time in future — Must be provided immediately to redeem family in distress — Improper to keep such cases pending for years — In determining financial crisis, all relevant aspects including income, liabilities, terminal benefits, age and dependency of family members must be considered [Para 38].

Rejection Order — Arbitrary Exercise of Power — Respondent No. 4 acted mechanically and misdirected itself in law by insisting on registered adoption deed or succession certificate — Reliance on Jitendra Kumar Sen v. State of M.P. (W.P. No. 3156/2020) held misplaced as that case dealt with adoption initiated after death of employee, whereas present adoption was complete and documented in 2020 prior to employee's death in April 2021 — Held: Impugned order suffers from the vice of arbitrary exercise of administrative power based on flawed understanding of adoption laws [Paras 36–37, 39].

Decision: Writ petition allowed — Impugned order dated 10.12.2021 passed by Respondent No. 4 quashed and set aside — Respondents directed to treat adoption as valid and occurring during lifetime of deceased employee — Respondents directed to reconsider application for compassionate appointment in accordance with the 2014 Policy and pass appropriate orders granting appointment and consequential benefits within sixty days from receipt of certified copy of this order — No order as to costs.

Writ Jurisdiction – Clean Hands – Suppression of Material Facts – Petitioner sought mandamus directing demolition of constructions by Respondents 3 and 4 alleged to be encroachments on his property covered by sale deed – In course of proceedings, Thandaper account of petitioner's father in respect of the suit property stood cancelled by revenue authorities – Petitioner had not disclosed the cancellation of the Thandaper account and was found to be involved in other alleged land-grabbing activities in Devikulam Taluk – Held: Petitioner did not approach the Court with clean hands and had not disclosed full facts; equitable relief sought in writ petition not granted [Paras 15, 16].

Government Scheme – Constructions on Puramboke Land – Allotment under Life Mission and IAY PMRY Schemes – Respondents 3 and 4 constructed residential houses under the IAY PMRY Scheme and Life Mission Scheme on puramboke land to which no patta had been issued – Assignment applications of Respondent No. 3 pending with revenue authorities – Buildings below 1000 sq. ft. exempted from building permit requirement – Held: Whether houses can be allotted under Government schemes on puramboke lands is a matter requiring enquiry by the competent authorities; encroachments by petitioner as well as Respondents 3 and 4 on Government lands to be enquired into by District Collector [Paras 13, 14, 16].

District Collector – Duty to Enquire – Encroachment on Government Land – Court, upon finding that the encroachments committed by the petitioner as well as Respondents 3 and 4 on Government lands had not been adequately investigated, directed the District Collector, Idukki, to conduct a detailed enquiry regarding such encroachments and take appropriate decision in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing, within three months from the date of receipt of the judgment [Para 16].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of – District Collector, Idukki, directed to conduct a detailed enquiry into encroachments, if any, committed by the petitioner as well as Respondents 3 and 4 on Government lands and take appropriate decision in accordance with law after hearing all parties, within three months from the date of receipt of the judgment [Para 16].

Motor Accident Claim — Negligence — Death of Pillion Rider — Appeal by Insurer Dismissed — The deceased, aged 38 years, working as Principal of Sri Chaitanya E-Techno School, Madhira, was travelling as pillion rider on a motorcycle when the offending lorry came from behind in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle, resulting in the instantaneous death of the deceased on 15.03.2012 — Crime No. 190 of 2012 was registered under Section 304-A IPC against the driver of the lorry — The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 30,05,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum, holding all respondents jointly and severally liable — Insurer challenged the award primarily contending that the accident occurred due to sole negligence of the deceased — Held: The insurer failed to examine the driver before the Tribunal and raised no challenge to the charge sheet before the competent Court — The absence of cross-examination of PW3 left the evidence of the deceased's salary of Rs. 30,000/- per month unrebutted — No illegality or infirmity found in the Tribunal's order [Paras 3, 10-11, 15-17].

Quantum of Compensation — Multiplier Method — Loss of Dependency — The Tribunal deducted 20% towards income tax and professional tax, arriving at net salary of Rs. 24,000/- per month, and further deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses, computing net annual contribution to the family at Rs. 1,92,000/- — Applying multiplier of 15 as per Sarla Verma, loss of dependency was assessed at Rs. 28,80,000/- — Rs. 1,00,000/- awarded towards loss of consortium to the widow as per Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh — Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral and transportation expenses — Total compensation: Rs. 30,05,000/- — Held: The Tribunal was legally correct in its approach and the award calls for no interference [Paras 13-14, 17].

Cross Objection — Enhancement — Dismissed as Infructuous — The claimants filed Cross Objection No. 42 of 2024 seeking enhancement of compensation — Since the main appeal by the insurer was dismissed upholding the Tribunal's award, no further order was called for on the Cross Objection and the same was dismissed [Paras 19-20].

Decision: M.A.C.M.A. No. 2037 of 2016 dismissed — Award of the Tribunal dated 30.12.2015 in M.V.O.P. No. 241 of 2013 upheld — Cross Objection No. 42 of 2024 dismissed as infructuous — No order as to costs — Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed.

Testamentary Proceedings – Condonation of Delay – Application Barred by Limitation – Caveator filed Caveat on 21.07.2018 and filed affidavit in support on 14.12.2018, being 133 days after the prescribed period under Rule 402 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules – Application for condonation of delay filed only on 08.11.2022, approximately four years after the delayed filing of the affidavit, without any explanation for such delay and without seeking condonation of the four-year delay in filing the application itself – Held: Under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, limitation for filing the application commenced upon the delayed filing of the affidavit; in the absence of explanation and prayer for condonation of the four-year delay, the application itself is barred by limitation and deserves to be dismissed – Law aids the diligent and not those who demonstrate negligence and inaction [Paras 7, 8, 9, 10, 11].

Caveatable Interest – Creditor of Deceased Insolvent – No Caveatable Interest – Caveator claimed to be legal heir of decree-holding creditor of the deceased undischarged insolvent, asserting that the deceased's estate vested in the Official Assignee and that the Will was a forged and fabricated document to defeat the creditors' interests – Held: A Caveator must have an interest in the estate derived from the deceased by succession or otherwise; any person questioning the existence of title in respect of the estate or the capacity of the testator to dispose of property by Will is a stranger to probate proceedings – Where Caveator disputes the very existence of the estate by reason of insolvency, he does not have Caveatable interest – Caveat dismissed [Paras 36, 37, 38].

Caveatable Interest – Test – Probate Court Limited to Validity of Will – Grant of Probate does not affect Creditor's Rights in Insolvency Proceedings – The test for Caveatable interest is whether the grant of probate would prejudice the Caveator's right by defeating some line of succession asserted by him – The Probate Court does not venture into disputes of title, existence of estate, or administration of estate – The Caveator's proof of debt lodged with the Official Assignee will be adjudicated and satisfied in insolvency proceedings irrespective of whether probate is granted or refused – Held: Grant or refusal of probate has zero impact on the Caveator's right to receive payment upon adjudication of his claim by the Official Assignee; Caveator's interest, at best, is contingent; opposition to grant on ground of creditor's claim is an alien issue in probate proceedings [Paras 39, 40, 43, 44].

Undischarged Insolvent – Probate of Will – Maintainability – Surplus as Estate of Deceased – Sections 76, 70 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 and Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Upon order of adjudication, the property of the insolvent vests in the Official Assignee; however, the surplus remaining after payment of debts and expenses under Section 76 of the Insolvency Act constitutes the estate of the insolvent, which may come into the hands of the executor – Held: There is no embargo under the Succession Act from seeking probate of the Will of an undischarged insolvent; Section 276 requires statement of assets likely to come into the petitioner's hands and the surplus under Section 76 satisfies this requirement; testamentary proceedings for probate of Will of a deceased undischarged insolvent are maintainable and the grant of probate will not impact administration of estate under the Insolvency Act [Paras 33, 34, 35, 45].

Insolvency Act and Succession Act – Separate Spheres – No Repugnancy – The Insolvency Act governs the realization and application of the estate of an insolvent for satisfaction of debts; the Succession Act governs the validity and effect of testamentary disposition – Both operate in different fields; testamentary jurisdiction is limited to the authenticity and validity of the Will and does not delve into title, administration of estate, or payment of debts – Grant of probate does not override or interfere with the vesting of property in the Official Assignee under the Insolvency Act – Held: The two legislations are not in conflict; testamentary petition is maintainable alongside continuation of insolvency proceedings [Para 45].

Decision: Interim Application No. 2807 of 2024 for condonation of delay dismissed as barred by limitation – Interim Application No. 2156 of 2023 allowed – Caveat (L) No. 191 of 2018 rejected for want of Caveatable interest [Para 46].