Civil Law – Execution of Ex Parte Decree – Stay of Execution – Petitioner/Judgment Debtor challenged execution of decree passed ex parte on 11.07.2024 – Application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the decree filed on 04.03.2025 remained pending – Respondent/decree holder failed to file reply despite multiple opportunities but pressed for execution – Held: Proceeding with execution without adjudicating the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC would cause irreparable prejudice – Execution to remain stayed until disposal of said application [Paras 1–11]

Order IX Rule 13 CPC – Purpose – Execution Stayed – Court emphasised that pending adjudication of application to set aside ex parte decree, execution of such decree should ordinarily be withheld – Otherwise, application under Order IX Rule 13 would be rendered infructuous and cause injustice – Stay of execution warranted to balance equity and prevent misuse of process [Paras 5–10]

Judicial Coordination – Same Court to Hear Application and Execution – Court directed District and Sessions Judge to ensure that application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and connected execution petition be heard by the same Presiding Officer – Held: Judicial consistency and administrative convenience require matters arising from same decree to be tried together [Para 12]

Decision: Execution of ex parte decree stayed until disposal of application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC – District and Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, directed to ensure that both proceedings are handled by the same Court – Application under Order IX Rule 13 to be decided within six months.

Transfer of Matrimonial Proceedings – Convenience of Wife – Two divorce petitions filed by husband in Nimbahera under Sections 10 and 13 of Hindu Marriage Act – Wife sought transfer to Udaipur citing financial dependency, custody of minor child, and pendency of multiple related proceedings in Udaipur – Court held that comparative hardship was greater for wife and transfer would not prejudice husband who was travelling from Mumbai in any case – Transfer to Udaipur allowed [Paras 3–5, 11, 14]

Allegations of Bias – Judicial Impartiality – Husband alleged that the Family Court Judge at Udaipur was biased and influenced by wife’s family connections – Court found allegations to be vague, unsupported and lacking evidentiary backing – Held: Transfer cannot be granted on generalised assertions – Presiding officers must be protected from unfounded bias claims [Para 12]

Expeditious Disposal – Supreme Court Directions – Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 3171/2025 stayed order of interim maintenance and directed expeditious disposal of all matters between parties – Court held that having cases in different districts would hinder timely adjudication – Transfer to single forum (Udaipur) facilitates compliance with Supreme Court mandate [Paras 10, 13, 15]

Comparative Hardship – Travel Burden and Financial Dependence – Wife living in Udaipur with minor son without independent income – Husband posted in Mumbai and already travelling to both forums – Udaipur better equipped in terms of infrastructure and medical care – Held: Greater hardship for wife justifies consolidation at Udaipur [Para 11]

Decision: S.B. Civil Transfer Applications No. 309/2024 and 174/2025 allowed – Divorce petitions (Case Nos. 129/2024 and 104/2024) pending at Family Court, Nimbahera transferred to Family Court No.2, Udaipur – S.B. Civil Transfer Application No. 75/2025 filed by husband dismissed – Family Court, Udaipur directed to expedite hearings as per Supreme Court’s order dated 28.07.2025 – No order as to costs [Paras 14–16]

Income Tax – Assessment under Section 153D – Mechanical Approval – Validity – Revenue challenged ITAT order which quashed assessments for AY 2007–08 on ground that approval under Section 153D was granted mechanically by Additional CIT through a single omnibus letter covering 246 assessments – Tribunal held approval lacked application of mind and violated legislative intent requiring due consideration of seized materials – Following Pr. CIT (Central-2) v. M/s MDLR Hotels Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.593/2023 (Del) and Pr. CIT (Central-2) v. M/s King Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.754/2024 (Del) – Held: Approval given in bulk without reference to individual records or seized material defeats purpose of Section 153D – Such “rubber-stamp” or blanket approval unsustainable [Paras 3–5].

Administrative Approval – Requirement of Satisfaction – Court reaffirmed that statutory satisfaction under Sections 151 and 153D must reflect due application of mind – Merely appending “Yes” or issuing a common sanction letter to multiple assessments cannot be deemed valid approval – Citing Pr. CIT-7 v. Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1685; N.C. Cables Ltd.; and Central India Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. ITO [Paras 4, 15–21].

Judicial Precedent – Binding Effect – Court followed coordinate bench rulings in MDLR Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and King Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., arising from identical ITAT order dated 08.02.2023 and involving same issue of Section 153D approval – Held: No new substantial question of law arises – Appeal covered by settled precedent [Paras 4–6].

Decision – Delay in refiling (812 days) condoned – Appeal dismissed – No substantial question of law arises – Issue concerning interplay of Section 144A and Search & Seizure Manual, 2007 kept open for future consideration [Paras 1, 6–7].

Insurance Law – Motor Accident – Personal Accident Cover – Deceased had purchased the insured vehicle and applied for ownership transfer on the same day – Fatal accident occurred before the registration certificate was formally updated – Insurer repudiated the claim citing absence of policy endorsement and privity of contract – Insurance Ombudsman upheld the repudiation – Held: Registration certificate is not conclusive of ownership – Doctrine of relation back applies – Once application for transfer is allowed, ownership is deemed to relate back to the date of application – Absence of endorsement within 14 days does not invalidate claim where accident occurs within that window – Performance of such formality made impossible by death cannot be insisted upon [Paras 5–9, 18–21]

Insurance Law – Section 157 MV Act – Deemed Transfer – Personal Accident Cover – Court held that statutory fiction under Section 157 extends to personal accident cover which is now a statutory, non-derogable component of every motor insurance policy – IRDAI regulations mandate PAC as a compulsory and non-optional benefit – Therefore, PAC travels with the policy and attaches to the transferee with effect from date of ownership transfer – Technical objections on delay or non-endorsement cannot defeat statutory rights [Paras 10–17]

Contract Law – Privity of Contract – Personal Nature of Insurance – Argument that PAC is personal to the original insured and nomination bars claim by transferee's legal heirs rejected – Once ownership transfers and premium is paid, insurable interest passes to transferee – No breach of policy shown – Insurer cannot deny benefit on procedural grounds when substantive rights have vested [Paras 19–21]

Decision:

Writ Petition Allowed – Repudiation letter (Ext.P4) and Ombudsman Award (Ext.P7) quashed – Insurer directed to honour the insurance claim and release compensation within one month.

Motor Accident Claim – Fatal Accident – Final-Year Medical Student – Future Prospects – Assessment of Deemed Income – Enhanced Compensation Awarded – Deceased was a final-year MBBS student killed in a bus accident – Tribunal awarded compensation of ₹54,80,000 on notional income of ₹35,000 per month with 50% future prospects and multiplier M-17 – MSRTC challenged inclusion of future prospects and interest thereon – Claimants sought enhancement of income to ₹56,000 and correction of multiplier to M-18 based on age of 24 – Held: Deceased had strong earning potential, and future prospects must be applied even to notional income – Future prospects at 40% applicable – Income reasonably fixed at ₹50,000 per month – Correct age was 24, hence multiplier of 18 applicable – Tribunal erred in relying on post-mortem report for age despite presence of SSC and Aadhaar on record – Just compensation enhanced to ₹76,70,000 with 6% interest from date of petition [Paras 5.1–6.3].

Future Prospects – Applicability to Non-Earning Individuals – No Discrimination Permissible – Reiterated that future prospects apply not only to salaried or self-employed but also to non-earning individuals with proven earning potential – Reliance on Kavita Nagar v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Kirti v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. – Held: Classification limiting future prospects to earning persons is flawed – Students, homemakers, and others with potential are entitled to this component under the standardisation principle [Paras 5.1.5, 5.4.5].

Interest – Future Prospects – Interest Applicable – Rejected MSRTC’s contention that interest cannot be levied on future prospects – Held: Once future prospects form part of assessed income, entire award including that component must carry interest – Supported by Oriental Insurance Co. v. Niru @ Niharika [Paras 5.2.3].

Age Determination – SSC Certificate vs. Post-Mortem Report – Correct Age Must Prevail – Tribunal erred in relying solely on post-mortem report showing approximate age of 27 years – SSC certificate and Aadhaar showed exact age of 24 years – In social-benefit legislation, tribunals must proactively ensure just compensation, even by seeking proof – Multiplier of M-18 applicable [Paras 5.3.7].

Deemed Income – Final-Year Student – Medical Graduate – Assessment Based on Education and Future Earning Potential – Courts must consider education, course pursued, and academic record in assessing future income of a student – Income of ₹50,000 per month held just and reasonable – Reliance on Sharad Singh v. H.D. Narang, Kirti v. Oriental Insurance Co., and Ashvinbhai Modi v. Ramkaran Sharma [Paras 5.4.5, 6.2].

Decision: MSRTC’s First Appeal dismissed – Tribunal’s award enhanced from ₹54,80,000 to ₹76,70,000 in Cross Objection – Enhanced amount to carry 6% interest from 02.04.2015 – Claimants allowed to withdraw enhanced amount upon deposit.

Tenancy – Eviction – Bona Fide Requirement – Greater Hardship – Landlord's Requirement Upheld – Section 16(1)(g) Maharashtra Rent Control Act – Landlord pleaded bona fide requirement of tenanted room for personal residential use due to growing family and marriage of son – Defendants had purchased alternate house in Bhusawal and were not residing in suit premises – Courts below held that landlord’s need was genuine and tenants would not suffer greater hardship – Held: Findings of fact by Trial Court and First Appellate Court based on evidence – No jurisdictional error or perversity – Revision dismissed [Paras 4.5–4.13, 8.2–8.9].

Civil Procedure – Revisional Jurisdiction – Interference with Findings of Fact – Limited Scope – Challenge raised to concurrent factual findings including hardship and bona fide requirement – Held: Revisional Court cannot interfere unless findings are perverse or suffer from jurisdictional error – No perversity or illegality found in concurrent findings – Revision not maintainable [Paras 8.1, 8.10, 9].

Eviction – Comparative Hardship – Test and Burden – Tenants failed to produce evidence of search for alternative accommodation or establish greater hardship – Ownership of alternate accommodation established – Even if hardship is equal, decree of eviction is justified – Plaintiff’s growing family and son’s marriage proved [Paras 8.5–8.7, 8.9].

Modification of Findings – Appellate Court Jurisdiction – Effect on Eviction Decree – First Appellate Court modified findings on two issues (Issue Nos. 3 and 5) but did not disturb core finding of landlord's bona fide requirement – Held: Modification was permissible and did not affect outcome – Grounds under Section 16(1) are not mutually exclusive – Decree of eviction stands [Paras 8.11–8.13].

Landlord is Best Judge of Need – Judicial Endorsement – High Court reiterated settled principle that landlord is best judge of his need – Convenience or opinion of tenant not determinative – Cited precedents affirming liberal interpretation of bona fide requirement to include family needs [Paras 8.6, 8.7].

Decision: Civil Revision Application dismissed – Decree of eviction under Section 16(1)(g) upheld – Petitioners directed to vacate premises within three months.

Motor Accident Claims – Delay in FIR – Rejection of Claims – Set Aside – Appellants, husband and wife, injured in motorbike accident, filed claims which were dismissed by Tribunal for delay in lodging FIR – Medical records (Exhibits P7 and P10) substantiated road traffic accident – Held: Delay alone not sufficient ground to disbelieve accident – Mental agony, treatment needs, and absence of fabrication sufficient justification for delay [Paras 2–6, 8–9].

Evidence – Weight of Medical Certificates – Wound certificates clearly recorded cause as road traffic accident – Tribunal erred in ignoring such documentary evidence – Hospital’s failure to report accident should not prejudice claimants – Court emphasized evidentiary value of injury documentation in absence of prompt police report [Paras 6–7].

Principles of Law – FIR Delay Not Fatal – FIR delay in genuine accident cases cannot override material evidence – Reiterated Supreme Court precedent (Ravi v. Badrinarayan, 2011 ACJ 911) – Emphasized that lodging delay does not per se imply fabrication or false claim – Tribunal's conclusion reversed as legally unsustainable [Paras 4, 7, 8].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Order of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belgaum in MVC No.1710/2013 and MVC No.1798/2013 dated 10.09.2014 set aside – Tribunal directed to restore cases, consider evidence afresh, and decide on merits.

^{Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Fiduciary and Moral Obligation – Maintenance of Dependents – Widow of deceased government employee appointed as LDC under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment Rules, 1996, based on an affidavit undertaking to maintain her aged in-laws—subsequently abandoned them and began living separately—Petitioner, father of the deceased, sought deduction of 50% of her salary—Held: Compassionate appointment is not a vested right but an act of State benevolence intended for the entire family unit of the deceased, not an individual benefit—Respondent No.4 having derived employment solely on her solemn undertaking to support the petitioner cannot resile from that obligation—Her conduct amounts to breach of trust and frustration of the object of the 1996 Rules—Department directed to deduct ₹20,000/month from her salary for petitioner’s maintenance [Paras 9–15, 20–22].}

^{Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel – Enforcement of Undertakings in Welfare Schemes – Affidavit by respondent No.4 stating she would maintain her in-laws and not remarry formed the foundation of the compassionate appointment—Having accepted employment on that representation, she is estopped from disowning the obligation—Principle of promissory estoppel applies with full force even in administrative benevolence—Held: Respondent No.4’s repudiation of the undertaking constitutes moral and legal breach; authorities must ensure continued maintenance of the petitioner [Paras 12, 15, 21–22].}

^{Administrative Law – Object of Compassionate Scheme – Equity and Public Policy – Compassionate appointment is not a mode of regular employment but a social welfare measure to prevent destitution—Benefit extended to one dependent is in representative capacity for the entire family—Authorities failed to appreciate that the appointment was first offered to the petitioner and later transferred to his daughter-in-law in trust—State’s parens patriae role obliges it to ensure fairness and protection of all dependents—Court can issue equitable directions under Article 226 to uphold the humanitarian purpose of the scheme [Paras 13, 16–19].}

^{Remarriage – Effect on Compassionate Obligation – Though remarriage of respondent No.4 is a matter of personal liberty, her remarriage and abandonment of the deceased’s parents after obtaining employment on compassionate grounds underscores violation of her solemn undertaking and negates the moral basis of her appointment [Paras 12, 14, 21].}

^{Decision: Writ petition partly allowed – Respondent-department directed to deduct ₹20,000 per month from respondent No.4’s salary and deposit the same in the petitioner’s bank account from 01.11.2025 onwards towards his maintenance—To continue during petitioner’s lifetime or until modified by competent authority—Writ petition disposed of with observations [Para 22–23].}

Criminal Law – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Fraudulent Loan Disbursement – Complaint case based on FIR alleging misappropriation of ₹8 lakhs through fraudulent withdrawal by bank officials, including Branch Manager, Loan Manager, Deputy Manager, Head Cashier and Peon – Applicants sought quashing of proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, claiming lack of direct role and clean chit in police final reports – Court held: Detailed and specific allegations made by complainant under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC supported by witnesses – Final reports have no bearing once complaint is registered and cognizance is taken [Paras 5–7, 25–27, 29]

Banking Fraud – Role of Bank Officials – Complainant alleged he was misled into opening an account and made to sign blank documents – Loan of ₹8 lakhs sanctioned without proper signatures and withdrawn in violation of bank norms through loose cheque exceeding ₹25,000 limit – RTI replies and documentary annexures reveal absence of due process and support fraud allegations – Involvement of sanctioning and disbursing authorities, including Ayushi Mishra, Rajesh Kumar and Brijesh Kumar @ Brijesh Kumar Kashyap, prima facie evident [Paras 17–18, 26–27]

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 CrPC – Scope – Summoning Order – Court reiterates settled law that at quashing stage, evidence cannot be evaluated – Magistrate’s summoning order based on specific statements under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC and supported by documents and witnesses – Held: Magistrate applied mind to material and exercised discretion properly – No interference warranted at pre-trial stage [Paras 14, 26–29]

Complaint Proceedings – Relevance of Final Report – Twice police submitted final reports giving clean chit – Complainant filed protest petition, converted into complaint case – Court holds: Once complaint is registered and Magistrate takes cognizance after examining complainant and witnesses, findings of police investigation lose relevance – Statements under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC form basis for summoning [Paras 7, 23–24]

Forgery and Economic Offence – Prima Facie Case – Allegations involve forging documents, unauthorized withdrawal, and misuse of public trust in banking system – Supreme Court precedents cited (Dharambeer Kumar Singh, Aryan Singh, Parbatbhai Aahir) emphasise that economic offences with social impact warrant trial – Court finds material sufficient to proceed – Quashing rejected [Paras 20–22, 26–28]

Decision: Applications under Section 482 CrPC dismissed – Summoning orders upheld – Allegations disclose commission of cognizable offences – Sufficient prima facie material available – Trial required to adjudicate facts – No costs imposed.