Public Trust – Change Reports – Sequential Change Reports – Cascading Effect – Multiple writ petitions arising from rejection of sequential change reports under Section 22 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act – Acceptance or rejection of one change report having direct bearing on subsequent change reports – Held: If the foundational change report is invalid, all consequential change reports necessarily fail [Paras 2–3, 27–31].

Permanent / Hereditary Trustee – Interpretation of Trust Deed – Trust instrument provided for appointment of one permanent trustee from the family of the settler (Param Pujya Shri Kshirsagar Maharaj) under Clause 10 – Clause 14 providing retirement of 1/3rd trustees every three years not applicable to permanent trustee – Permanent trustee’s tenure not limited by rotation clause – Held: Appointment of Milind Govind Kshirsagar was permanent and continuous [Paras 10–14].

Power of Removal of Trustee – Trust Instrument – Clause 11 of trust deed enumerates contingencies for reduction of trusteeship but does not confer power on remaining trustees to remove a trustee – Mere power of appointment does not imply power of removal – Held: Remaining trustees have no authority under trust deed to remove even a defaulting trustee [Paras 14–15].

Removal of Trustee – Statutory Scheme – Maharashtra Public Trusts Act – Removal, suspension or dismissal of a trustee can only be effected by Charity Commissioner / Joint Charity Commissioner under Section 41D – Assistant Charity Commissioner has no power to direct trustees to remove a trustee – Trustees cannot usurp statutory powers vested exclusively in Charity Commissioner [Paras 15–17].

Inspector’s Inquiry Report – Scope and Effect – Inquiry report under Sections 37–41B can at best form basis for further statutory action – Report cannot be acted upon by trustees to remove trustee – Proper course is submission of report to Charity Commissioner for action under Section 41D [Paras 17–18].

Natural Justice – Removal Resolution – Validity – No specific agenda for removal mentioned in notice of meeting dated 05.03.2003 – Removal resolution sprung without prior notice – Reporting trustee himself contradicted trust’s case – Affidavits of other trustees lacking credibility – Held: Meeting dated 13.03.2003 was orchestrated and removal was vitiated [Paras 19–24].

Change Report No.557/2003 – Removal of Milind Kshirsagar – Removal of permanent trustee by trustees held illegal – Concurrent findings of Assistant Charity Commissioner and Joint Charity Commissioner upheld – Writ Petition No.9544 of 2025 dismissed [Paras 24].

Appointment in Absence of Vacancy – Invalid – Since permanent trustee was never lawfully removed, no vacancy arose – Appointment of Sudhir Kshirsagar and other trustees invalid ab initio – Consent of appointee not proved – Subsequent change reports rightly rejected [Paras 25–28].

Procedural Irregularities – Meetings and Appointments – Failure to comply with notice period, quorum requirements and proof of consent – Inconsistent minutes and affidavits not tested by cross-examination – Concurrent factual findings not perverse – Writ court will not interfere [Paras 28–29].

Scope of Writ Jurisdiction – Concurrent Findings – High Court will not reappreciate evidence where findings of Charity Authorities are based on material and are not perverse – All writ petitions challenging rejection of change reports dismissed [Paras 29–30].

Trust Administration – Structural Deadlock – Judicial Intervention – Continuous rejection of change reports resulted in governance vacuum – No general body of voters – Trustees holding office without lawful basis – Court invoked powers to protect trust and its objects [Paras 31–33].

Directions under Section 50A – Reconstitution of Trust – Assistant Charity Commissioner directed to amend trust constitution by inducting devotees/worshippers as members – Provision for enrollment of members – Trustees to be elected with fixed terms – Permanent trustee from settler’s family to be retained as per settler’s intention – Timeline of 18 months prescribed for implementation [Paras 33].

Decision: All Writ Petitions dismissed – Rule discharged – Directions issued for amendment of trust constitution under Section 50A – Civil Application disposed of.

Insurance Law – Jewellers Comprehensive Protection Policy – Theft vs. Entrustment – Customers known to insured placed prior order for gold chains – Jewellery voluntarily handed over to customers for inspection – Customers dishonestly replaced gold chains with artificial ones and left premises – Held: Initial voluntary handing over constituted “entrustment” – Subsequent dishonest replacement amounted to misappropriation by entrusted customers – Loss squarely covered by exclusion Clause 11(c) – Insurer not liable to indemnify [Paras 14–23].

Insurance Policy Interpretation – General Exclusion Clause – Clause 11(c) – Theft by Customer – Scope – Exclusion applies where insured property is entrusted to customer and loss arises therefrom – Trust-based transfer of possession for inspection sufficient to constitute entrustment – Distinction between stranger theft and customer entrustment emphasized [Paras 15–21].

Criminal Law Concepts Applied to Insurance Contracts – Sections 378 and 405 IPC – Theft and Criminal Breach of Trust – Where possession initially transferred with consent and trust, dishonest misappropriation constitutes breach of trust – Such loss excluded under insurance policy where entrustment clause applies [Paras 13, 17–19].

Consumer Protection – Deficiency of Service – Erroneous Allowance of Claim by Consumer Commission – Commission failed to appreciate applicability of exclusion clause – Held: Repudiation by insurer justified – Allowance of claim amounted to legal error [Paras 5, 21–24].

Precedent – National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ishar Das Madan Lal – Distinguished – In that case offender was a stranger and no entrustment existed – In present case customers were known and jewellery was entrusted voluntarily – Ratio not applicable [Paras 22].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and order dated 24.11.2023 passed by J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission set aside – Insurance claim held not payable – Amount deposited by insurer to be refunded.

Civil Law – Rejection of plaint – Bar under special statute – Respondent/plaintiff filed civil suit challenging SARFAESI proceedings and seeking declaratory and injunctive reliefs, primarily on the basis that the deceased borrower (plaintiff’s husband) had availed insurance – Defendant/petitioner financial institution filed application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint on ground of bar under Section 34 SARFAESI Act – Trial Court rejected the application – Held: Civil Court jurisdiction is barred when the grievance pertains to measures “taken or to be taken” under SARFAESI – Suit directed against loan recovery steps and post-loan default actions including notice under Section 13(2) – Insurance issue forms part of defence to SARFAESI and not a standalone cause of action – Trial Court erred in not rejecting plaint [Paras 1–2, 27–33].

SARFAESI Act – Section 34 – Civil Court jurisdiction – Bar – Allegations of fraud or deception – Held: Mere allegation of fraud without clear pleading of fraudulent creation of security interest is insufficient to override statutory bar – Civil suits disguising SARFAESI defences cannot be permitted to proceed – Jurisdiction of Debts Recovery Tribunal is exclusive for grievances against measures under Section 13(4) [Paras 23–26, 30–32].

Civil Procedure – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Scope – Rejection of plaint based on pleadings – Court must examine only plaint and documents filed therewith – Frivolous, illusory or cleverly drafted claims which are barred by law must be rejected – Held: Present suit an abuse of process as it seeks to circumvent DRT’s jurisdiction [Paras 17–19, 31].

Relief – Temporary protection – Although suit rejected, Court granted four-week status quo to enable plaintiff/respondent to seek remedy before DRT – Clarified that DRT shall consider interim relief independently [Paras 34–35].

Decision: Revision Petition allowed – Order of Trial Court set aside – Suit held barred under Section 34 of SARFAESI Act – Plaint rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC – Status quo to continue for four weeks to permit plaintiff to seek DRT remedy.

Criminal Law – Bail – NDPS Act – Commercial Quantity – Petitioners (A2, A6, A7) sought bail in a case involving 200 kg of ganja – Prosecution relied on confessional statements of co-accused and antecedents of A2 and A6 – A7 had no criminal record – Held: Given commercial quantity and habitual nature of offence, rigour of Section 37 NDPS Act attracted – Bail rightly denied [Paras 4, 5, 19, 20, 23].

Arrest and Remand – Communication of Grounds – Petitioners claimed violation of Article 22(1) and Section 47 of BNSS due to non-furnishing of grounds of arrest – Court held arrest memos and remand reports reflected communication – Petitioners legally represented and applied for bail promptly – No demonstrable prejudice – No merit in plea [Paras 10, 13, 14, 21].

Admissibility – Confessional Statements of Co-Accused – Petitioners argued that reliance on co-accused’s confession was barred under Tofan Singh – Court found statements corroborated by seizure and chemical analysis – Prima facie case made out – Bail declined [Paras 4, 5, 22].

Procedural Lapse – Sampling and Forensic Reliability – Petitioners alleged improper sampling and seizure protocols – Court held such grounds require trial scrutiny – Not a ground to override bar under Section 37 NDPS Act [Para 7].

Constitutional Safeguards – Delay in Production – Alleged delay in producing petitioners before Magistrate found unsubstantiated – Arrest and remand held lawful [Para 6].

Judicial Discretion – Societal Impact of Narcotics Offences – Court reiterated that trafficking of commercial quantity poses serious societal threats – Petitioners failed to show they are not guilty or would not reoffend – Bail justifiably denied [Paras 19, 20, 23].

Decision: Criminal Petitions dismissed – Bail rejected – Petitioners failed to meet statutory conditions under Section 37 NDPS Act – No violation of arrest procedure shown – Custody lawful.

Labour Law – Regularization / Permanency – Municipal Corporation Employees – Safai Karmacharis engaged as substitutes/daily wagers for long periods sought permanency on completion of 240 days of service per calendar year under Clause 4(C) of Model Standing Orders – Industrial Court granted declaration of unfair labour practice and directed proposal for permanency – Held: Claim of regularization not maintainable in absence of sanctioned vacant posts and appointments made dehors statutory recruitment procedure [Paras 21, 37–41].

Model Standing Orders – Clause 4(C) – Applicability to Municipal Corporations – Mere completion of 240 days’ service does not confer right of permanency – Applicability of MSO subject to appointment being against duly sanctioned post and in accordance with Municipal law – Division Bench precedents binding – Industrial Court erred in mechanically applying Clause 4(C) [Paras 30–35].

Unfair Labour Practice – Items 6 & 9, Schedule IV – Continuation of workers as daily wagers cannot per se amount to unfair labour practice when no sanctioned posts exist – Failure to regularize employees not appointed against sanctioned posts does not constitute unfair labour practice – Declaration by Industrial Court unsustainable [Paras 38–40].

Public Employment – Creation of Posts – Judicial Limits – Creation or sanction of posts lies exclusively within executive domain – Courts and Industrial/Labour Courts lack jurisdiction to direct creation of posts or mandate regularization policy – Reliance placed on Umadevi, MSRTC v. Casteribe, Ilmo Devi, CEO, ZP Thane [Paras 11–13, 26–29].

Conflicting Supreme Court Precedents – Principle of Precedence – Judgments emphasizing “perennial nature of work” relied upon by workmen contrasted with earlier binding precedents requiring existence of sanctioned posts – Correctness of ONGC v. PCLU doubted and referred to larger Bench – Held: Earlier consistent line of authority requiring sanctioned posts must prevail [Paras 24–27].

Government Policy – Supernumerary Posts – State Government created 4407 supernumerary posts and regularized services of Safai Karmacharis on completion of 20 years – Appointment orders issued excluding benefit of past service – Held: Policy decision cannot be interfered with by Industrial Court; workers not entitled to invoke MSO 4(C) to seek earlier regularization [Paras 39–40].

Individual Complaints – Maintainability – Individual complaints under MRTU & PULP Act maintainable in absence of recognized union – However, relief depends on substantive entitlement, which was lacking in present case [Paras 8–9].

Decision: Writ Petitions allowed – Impugned judgments and orders dated 30.09.2024, 01.10.2024 and 10.10.2024 passed by Industrial Court, Nagpur in Complaint ULP Nos. 413 of 2015 and connected matters quashed and set aside – Complaints dismissed – Writ Petition Nos. 4967 of 2023 and 4968 of 2023 dismissed – No entitlement to permanency on completion of 240 days in absence of sanctioned posts.

Hindu Law – Composite Family – Proof of – Mere living together and joint cultivation insufficient – Absence of express agreement or conduct incompatible with individual identity – Plaintiff's failure to prove composite family or that properties were purchased from composite family funds – Trial Court's finding of composite family based on mere cohabitation held perverse – High Court reversed the finding [Paras 29, 31, 32, 34, 40].

Property Law – Sale Deed – Validity and Title – Registered sale deed of 1906 for Rs.440/- held valid and not nominal – Plaintiff's contention of nominality and lack of solvency of vendee rejected as baseless for 1906 – Unchallenged old registered sale deeds (over 50 years) confer absolute right and title – Possession and revenue records supporting defendant's ownership – High Court upheld the validity of the sale deeds and defendant's title [Paras 14, 15, 21, 26, 37, 38, 39, 41].

Evidence Act – Agreement to Partition (Ex.X-1) – Admissibility and Conclusiveness – Mere admission of signature on an agreement to partition properties in future is not conclusive proof of title – Such an agreement, without mentioning specific properties or survey numbers, is unknown to law and does not accrue rights – Admission of parties does not confer title in immovable property without a registered document – Ex.X-1 held not binding on defendants [Paras 26, 28, 30, 39, 40, 41].

Civil Procedure Code – Partition Suit – Entitlement to Relief – Plaintiff's failure to prove composite family, nominality of sale deeds, or purchase from composite family funds – Defendant's established title and exclusive possession through registered sale deeds and revenue records – Plaintiff not a coparcener or joint owner – High Court concluded plaintiff not entitled to partition [Paras 22, 23, 26, 38, 41, 42].

Civil Procedure Code – Permanent Injunction Suit – Entitlement to Relief – Defendant (plaintiff in injunction suit) proved settled and exclusive possession of plaint schedule properties through registered sale deeds and payment of Cist – Entitled to permanent injunction against interference – High Court decreed the suit for permanent injunction [Paras 42, 43].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Suit for partition dismissed – Suit for permanent injunction decreed – Paras 44, 45.

Property Law – Title Dispute – Competing Sale Deeds – Void-Ab-Initio Document – Where a vendor does not possess valid title, the sale deed executed by them is Void-Ab-Initio and does not create any right, title, or interest in favour of the transferee – Appellant's vendors (Nelluri Ramaiah and Siva Naga Parvathi) had no title as the real owners (Nelluri Atchamma and Kolasani Veeraiah) were alive and had purchased the property earlier under a registered sale deed (Ex.B-5) – The appellant's sale deed (Ex.B-1/Ex.B-7) is therefore void and creates no title – The plaintiff in O.S.No.12 of 2006, having purchased from the real owners, proved his title – Lower courts' findings confirmed – Appeals dismissed [Paras 19, 21, 27, 31].

Hindu Succession Act – Section 15(2) – Devolution of Property of Female Hindu – New Plea in Second Appeal – A plea regarding the applicability of Section 15(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, concerning devolution of property of a female Hindu dying issueless, cannot be raised for the first time in a second appeal without prior pleadings or substantial question of law framed – The vendor's (Jonnalagadda Koteswara Rao) right to convey property inherited from his wife (Jonnalagadda Aadilakshmi) was undisputed until the second appeal stage – The Apex Court's ruling in Arunachala Gounder (Dead) by Legal Representatives Vs. Ponnuswamy and others (2022) clarifies that Section 15(2) applies only if the female Hindu dies without leaving any direct heirs – In the absence of such pleading, the High Court cannot consider this new contention – Plea rejected [Paras 24, 25].

Civil Procedure Code – First Appeal – Order XLI Rule 31 CPC – Framing of Points for Determination – The First Appellate Court is mandated to frame points for determination and dispose of the appeal afresh, reflecting conscious application of mind and reasoned findings on all issues – However, if the First Appellate Court provides reasons for its judgment, there is no illegality or irregularity – In the present case, the First Appellate Court gave reasons and dismissed the appeals, which is in accordance with law – Appellant's contention regarding non-compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC rejected – Appeals dismissed [Paras 28, 29, 35].

Specific Relief – Permanent Injunction – Maintainability without Declaration of Title – Where the plaintiff's title is strongly disputed and under a cloud, a suit for permanent injunction simpliciter is not maintainable – The plaintiff must seek a comprehensive relief of declaration of title in addition to injunction – Appellant's title was disputed due to her vendors lacking real ownership, making her suit for injunction simpliciter (O.S.No.126 of 2004) not maintainable – The Apex Court's ruling in T.V.Ramakrishna Reddy Vs. M.Mallappa and Another (2022) supports this position – Lower courts' dismissal of the injunction suit confirmed – Appeals dismissed [Paras 32, 33].

Civil Procedure Code – Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – Scope of Interference – The High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts unless findings are erroneous, contrary to law, based on inadmissible evidence, or without evidence – The present case does not fall within these exceptions – The High Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises for determination – Appeals dismissed [Paras 15, 34, 35].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Common judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court confirmed – Each party to bear their own costs in the second appeals – Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed [Para 36].

Motor Accident Compensation – Fatal Accident – Negligence – Eyewitness Testimony – Claimants' deceased (ex-serviceman aged 45) died in motorcycle accident caused by rash driving of insured truck – Eyewitness (PW-3) testimony unshaken in cross-examination and FIR corroborated by chargesheet – Tribunal’s finding of rash and negligent driving upheld – No contributory negligence made out – Held: No error in Tribunal's findings on negligence [Paras 12–17].

Compensation – Future Prospects – Fixed Salary – Tribunal awarded 25% enhancement of income based on age bracket 40–50 years as per Pranay Sethi – Deceased was aged 45 years 9 months – Held: Tribunal correctly applied 25% future prospects – No interference warranted [Paras 18–20].

Dependency – Deduction of Personal Expenses – Tribunal treated wife and three children (including 21-year-old student daughter) as dependents – Applied 1/4th deduction – Insurance Co. contended that daughter was major and not dependent – Held: No evidence that daughter was earning; Tribunal rightly treated all as dependents – 1/4th deduction justified [Paras 21–23].

Multiplier – Age Consideration – Tribunal applied multiplier of 14 for deceased aged 45 years 9 months – Insurance Co. argued multiplier should be 13 – Held: Multiplier of 13 applies only after age 46 – Tribunal’s adoption of multiplier of 14 correct [Paras 24–26].

Non-Pecuniary Compensation – Love and Affection – Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,00,000 under this head – Held: Separate compensation for love and affection is not permissible under Pranay Sethi and Satinder Kaur – Rs. 2,00,000 award on this head set aside [Paras 27–29, 34].

Insurance Benefits – Employer-Provided Insurance – Insurance Company sought deduction of Rs. 7,50,000 paid to family under employer’s insurance – Held: Such contractual insurance benefits not deductible from compensation as per Helen Rebello and Sebastiani Lakra – Claimant’s entitlement to just compensation stands unaffected – Deduction disallowed [Paras 30–33].

Apportionment and Disbursement – Tribunal’s direction of apportionment and tranche-wise disbursement upheld – Court directed full release of remaining compensation, as fixed deposits had matured – Directions issued for disbursal with interest – Statutory deposit to be refunded to Insurance Co. [Paras 36–39].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Award reduced from ₹23,54,000 to ₹21,54,000 by disallowing ₹2,00,000 towards loss of love and affection – Remaining award upheld – Balance amount directed to be disbursed as per original apportionment – Statutory deposit to be refunded.

Goods and Services Tax – Appeal – Condonation of Delay – Petitioner filed appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act with a delay of six days beyond the statutory limit of 120 days – Appellate Authority rightly held it lacked jurisdiction to condone delay beyond prescribed period – High Court upheld finding that even discretionary extension is limited to 30 days beyond initial 3-month period [Paras 7–8.1]

Constitutional Law – Article 226 – Exercise of Writ Jurisdiction – Petitioner invoked writ jurisdiction seeking direction to condone delay rejected by appellate authority – High Court held powers under Article 226 cannot override express statutory bar on limitation – Reference made to Supreme Court’s ruling in Glaxo Smith Kline and ONGC cases – Legislative intent behind limitation provisions must be respected [Paras 9–14]

Alternative Remedy – Maintainability – Challenge to Order-in-Original not entertained – Court held petitioner had already availed statutory appellate remedy and cannot seek to reopen matter through writ petition in absence of jurisdictional error or violation of natural justice – No exceptional circumstances shown to justify bypassing of statutory mechanism [Para 16]

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Delay of six days in filing appeal under Section 107 of CGST Act held uncondonable – Appellate Authority order upheld – Challenge to Order-in-Original not entertained in view of alternative remedy already pursued – No costs awarded [Para 17]