Matrimonial Law - Recovery of Istridhan – Evidence Upheld – Claim Justified – Wife sought recovery of 30 sovereigns of gold, ₹50,000/- as Acharam, and ₹1,00,000/- as pocket money, alleging misappropriation by the husband – Family Court accepted testimony of PWs 1 and 2 as credible and consistent – Held: The husband's vague approximation regarding the wife’s gold could not refute her claim – Family background of the wife further supported her claim – Recovery of gold and money decreed by the Family Court upheld [Paras 7–9].

Past Maintenance – Reasonable Quantum – Decree Affirmed – Family Court awarded ₹3,500/- per month as past maintenance from February 2008 – Held: Evidence established that the husband had ceased providing financial support since December 2010, except for ₹1,000/- – The maintenance amount was reasonable, given the husband’s admitted expenses, including those for his second wife – No interference warranted with the award of maintenance [Para 10].

Value of Scooter – Claim Unsupported – Decree Set Aside – Wife claimed ₹45,000/- as the value of a scooter purchased on a bank loan, alleging she had repaid the installments – Held: The wife’s own pleadings stated she had no independent income, undermining her claim of loan repayment – Family Court overlooked this inconsistency – Decree for ₹45,000/- towards the scooter's value set aside [Para 11].

Maintenance and Recovery Claims – Evidence Assessment Over Decades – Considering the marriage occurred in 1978 and the case was filed in 2011, after over 33 years, the Family Court appropriately relied on credible testimony and financial evidence to assess the claims – Partial modification made regarding the scooter value, with the rest of the decree affirmed [Paras 6–11].

Decision: The Family Court's decree granting recovery of 30 sovereigns of gold, ₹50,000/- (Acharam), ₹1,00,000/- (pocket money), and past maintenance at ₹3,500/- per month from February 2008 is affirmed. The decree granting ₹45,000/- for the scooter's value is set aside, reducing the amount awarded to the wife by this amount. Total amount decreed to the wife is reduced by ₹45,000/- from ₹8,21,000/-, as granted by the Family Court. Appeal is partly allowed. Decree and judgment of the Family Court are affirmed in all other respects. No costs awarded.
 

Civil Procedure – Interim Injunction – Construction of Lift – Appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC – Appellant sought to restrain respondent from constructing a lift alleging violation of NOC conditions, encroachment, privacy invasion, and structural instability – Trial court dismissed the application, allowing construction subject to statutory compliance – Held: No illegality or infirmity in trial court's order – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-22].

Installation of Lift – Compliance with NOC – Lift construction aligned with sanctioned plan – Privacy and ventilation concerns addressed – Lift opening in common area did not affect privacy significantly – Structural Stability Certificate mandated post-completion – Balance of convenience favored permitting construction due to advanced stage of work – No violation of conditions found in MCD’s inspection [Paras 10-20].

Structural Stability – RCC vs. Steel Material – Use of RCC and brick work instead of proposed steel structure found compliant with BIS standards – MCD clarified no adverse impact on structural stability – Photographs and joint inspection confirmed adequate gap between lift and building structure – No violation of Clause 4(a)(ii) of MCD Order dated 07.07.2022 [Paras 13-17].

Lift Access to Terrace – Compliance with Clause-14 – Lift terminated at third floor, not terrace – Assistant Engineer of MCD confirmed compliance – No breach of NOC conditions [Para 18].

Shifting of Essential Services – Clause-15 of NOC – Non-obtaining of RWA permission for shifting services noted – MCD report silent on essential services being shifted – Issue left open for determination at trial stage [Para 19].

Balance of Convenience – Over 75% construction completed – Stopping work would cause greater harm to residents and structure stability – Trial court correctly balanced public interest with individual grievances – Reliance placed on Deepak Sharma Vs. DDA and Meera Jain Vs. Sundari Devi Garg [Paras 20-21].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No violation of NOC or statutory norms found – Objections may be raised at trial stage – No costs [Paras 22-24].
 

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Eviction of Son-in-law – Definition of Children – The appellant, being the son-in-law of respondent No.3, challenged the eviction order passed under Section 23 of the Act of 2007, arguing that he does not fall under the definition of “children” or “relative” as per Sections 2(a) and 2(g) – The Court held that the definition of "children" is not exhaustive, and if the property was given to the daughter, the son-in-law, after the daughter’s death, is duty-bound to maintain the senior citizen – Held: The appellant is liable for eviction under the Act of 2007 [Paras 3, 8].

Senior Citizen's Right to Evict – Section 23 of the Act of 2007 – Permissive Occupation – The appellant claimed adverse possession, citing financial contributions towards the house – The Court held that adverse possession cannot be claimed against a senior citizen where possession was originally permissive – Further, no document proving ownership or contribution was produced – Held: The appellant has no legal right over the property and must vacate [Paras 4, 6, 12].

Section 23 of the Act of 2007 – Interpretation of “Transfer of Property” – The Court clarified that "transfer of property" under Section 23 of the Act of 2007 is not limited to formal transfers under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – It includes permissive or gratuitous transfers, which can be revoked if the senior citizen demonstrates need – Held: Since the appellant was given accommodation only as a permissive occupant, he has no vested right to continue residing in the property [Paras 9-10].

Conciliation under the Act of 2007 – Procedural Irregularity Not a Ground for Interference – The appellant contended that the Tribunal failed to conduct conciliation proceedings before passing the eviction order – The Court held that the appellant never requested conciliation before the SDM and instead opted to contest the case – Held: Failure to conduct conciliation does not vitiate the eviction order [Para 7].

Right to Property vs. Senior Citizen’s Welfare – Balancing Interests – The Court emphasized that a senior citizen’s right to peaceful possession and financial security prevails over claims of permissive occupants – Held: Eviction justified as the senior citizen requires the property for his livelihood and care for his ailing wife [Paras 11-12].

Dismissal of Writ Appeal – Direction for Immediate Eviction – The Court dismissed the appeal and directed the appellant to vacate the premises within 30 days – Held: Failure to vacate will result in police-assisted eviction under the supervision of the concerned SHO [Para 13].
 

Taxation Law - Goods Seizure and Tax Evasion – Applicability of Section 130 TNGST Act – Prima Facie Case Against Petitioner – The petitioner challenged the confiscation of gold ornaments under Section 130 of the TNGST Act, arguing that the goods were transported solely for exhibition purposes and not for sale – The respondent alleged that the petitioner attempted to evade tax by misusing provisions allowing goods movement without invoices – The Court found multiple discrepancies in the petitioner’s documentation, including the absence of receiver signatures, incorrect weight records, and lack of evidence proving the goods were exclusively for exhibition – Held: The authorities had a prima facie case for invoking Section 130, and the confiscation notice was justified [Paras 8-12].

E-Way Bill and Delivery Challan Compliance – Procedural Irregularities – The petitioner contended that Rule 138(4) of the CGST Rules exempted the requirement of an e-way bill for exhibition-related transport – The respondent countered that the delivery challans lacked proper descriptions, including itemized details of the gold ornaments – The Court observed that mismatches in recorded weights and unverified recipient details indicated potential tax evasion – Held: Absence of critical documentation created suspicion, warranting confiscation proceedings [Paras 10-13].

Mala Fide Allegation Against Authorities – No Evidence to Substantiate – The petitioner argued that the tax authorities acted with mala fide intent in seizing the goods – The Court held that procedural lapses on the petitioner’s part, including unexplained route diversions and missing documentation, weakened its claim – Held: No evidence of mala fide action by authorities; case must proceed based on material evidence [Paras 14-16].

Interplay Between Sections 129 and 130 of the TNGST Act – Independent Operation – The petitioner argued that Section 129, dealing with seizure and detention, should override Section 130, which deals with confiscation – The Court clarified that Section 129 applies to temporary detention, whereas Section 130 is an independent provision that can be invoked where evasion is suspected – Held: The authorities correctly invoked Section 130, and the petitioner must respond to the show cause notice [Paras 18-19].

Writ Petition Dismissed – Petitioner Directed to File Reply – The Court refused to interfere at the pre-adjudication stage and directed the petitioner to submit a detailed reply to the tax authorities – Held: Petitioner must present its defense through due process; writ petition dismissed [Paras 20-21].
 

Criminal Writ – Maintainability of Writ for Registration of FIR – Availability of Alternative Remedies – Petitioner sought directions for registering an FIR against judicial officers and advocates, alleging collusion in land grabbing – Held: Writ petitions or petitions under Section 482 CrPC for FIR registration should not be entertained when statutory remedies under Sections 154(3), 156(3), and 200 CrPC are available – High Court referred to Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) AIR SC 907, reiterating that alternative remedies must be exhausted before invoking writ jurisdiction [Paras 5-6].

Scandalous Allegations Against Judicial Officers – Contemptuous Conduct – Warning Issued – Petitioner made unsubstantiated allegations against judicial officers, Bar Council members, and private respondents, claiming corruption and judicial bias – Held: Vague and baseless allegations against judicial officers undermine public trust in the judiciary and amount to an attempt to intimidate judges – While the Court refrained from initiating contempt proceedings, the petitioner was warned against filing frivolous petitions in the future [Paras 7-10].

Judicial Independence vs. Litigant's Right to Fair Trial – Protection of Judicial Officers from Malicious Accusations – Court observed that an increasing trend of disgruntled litigants leveling false allegations against judges threatens judicial independence – Held: No litigant can be permitted to browbeat the Court or tarnish the reputation of judicial officers merely because they failed to secure a favorable order – Dignity of the Court must be upheld [Paras 11-12].

Petition Dismissed with Costs – Fine Imposed – Court dismissed the petition as frivolous and motivated, imposing ₹25,000/- as costs to be deposited in PGI Poor Patient Welfare Fund, Chandigarh – Failure to pay the fine within two months would result in recovery as arrears of land revenue [Paras 13-14].
 

Civil Writ - War Hero Benefits – Eligibility for Employment under Policy Dated 19.08.1999 – Rejection Based on Mode of Discharge – Arbitrary Action by State – Petitioner No.1, an Indian Army soldier injured in an IED blast during Operation Rakshak, was discharged in a low medical category upon completion of service tenure – State denied benefits to Petitioner No.2 (his son), citing mode of discharge (completion of tenure rather than medical invalidation) as a disqualifying factor – Held: Rigid application of discharge criteria contradicts the intent of the policy, which aims to support battle casualties and their families irrespective of mode of release from service [Paras 2-5].

Battle Casualty Certification – Recognition of Military Service-Related Disability – Binding on State Authorities – Petitioner’s 80% permanent disability was certified as attributable to military service, and a Battle Casualty Certificate was issued – Held: State cannot disregard formal military classification of battle casualties to deny benefits – Judicial precedents support entitlement even when service tenure is completed without forced invalidation [Paras 6-7].

Denial of Benefits – Violation of Fairness and Equity – Judicial Interpretation of Ex-Servicemen Status – The State’s refusal was based on a technical distinction between medical boarding out and normal discharge, despite the petitioner’s undisputed battle casualty status – Held: Such an interpretation is unjust and contradicts binding precedents, including Sansar Chand Atri v. State of Punjab, (2002) 4 SCC 154, which affirms that nomenclature of discharge cannot arbitrarily exclude ex-servicemen from benefits [Paras 8-9].

Final Decision – Petition Allowed – Directions to Consider Appointment – The Court set aside the rejection order dated 04.09.2018 and directed the State to consider Petitioner No.2 for appointment under the policy within three months – Held: Legislative intent must be harmoniously construed with fairness to prevent arbitrary exclusions [Para 11].
 

Land Acquisition – Market Value – Re-determination – The Reference Court enhanced compensation for acquired land at Rs.250 per sq. ft., but the High Court reduced it to Rs.200 per sq. ft. – The Court noted that the Reference Court erroneously relied on post-notification market values and failed to base its determination on contemporaneous evidence of 2007 when the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued – The High Court applied the principle of uniformity, relying on judgments involving similarly situated lands acquired under the same notification [Paras 8-9, 12(i)].

Compensation for Trees – Error in Non-Award for Remaining Trees – The Reference Court had failed to grant compensation for 157 teak and 18 coconut trees despite mahazar (Ex.P23) identifying these as standing on the acquired land – The High Court awarded compensation of Rs.4,59,459/- for the omitted trees, based on rates determined by the Reference Court for similar trees – The Court upheld the enhanced compensation for all other structures, trees, and fixtures [Paras 10-11, 12(ii)].

Post-Notification Evidence – Inapplicability – Market value evidence for 2018 (Ex.P49) was excluded, as the valuation for acquired land must align with the notification year (2007) – Evidence of later valuation cannot determine the land’s value at the relevant time [Para 9].

Judicial Review – Scope of Reference Court’s Findings – The High Court found errors in the Reference Court’s determination of market value based on incorrect interpretation of evidence and admission by witnesses – The Court exercised its appellate jurisdiction to reassess compensation in line with legal precedents and contemporaneous evidence [Paras 7-9].

Decision: Appeal Partly Allowed: Market value of land re-determined at Rs.200 per sq. ft., along with interest and statutory benefits.
Cross-Objection Partly Allowed: Additional compensation of Rs.4,59,459/- awarded for omitted trees, with all statutory benefits.
Final Order: The enhanced compensation for trees, structures, and fixtures as awarded by the Reference Court was upheld.
 

Criminal Procedure – Further Investigation – Quashing of Order – Revision Application – Petitioner sought quashing of order dated 23.03.2021, rejecting further investigation in a case registered under Sections 363/365/366/372/34 IPC – Trial Court found no error in the investigation and held the case fit for trial – Petitioner argued for further investigation to address deficiencies – Court rejected the prayer, holding that the investigation was thorough, fair, and unbiased, with no visible deficiency [Paras 1-18].

Judicial Discretion – Scope of Further Investigation – The Court reiterated that further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC is discretionary and can only be exercised in exceptional circumstances to rectify material deficiencies – Cited precedents clarified that such powers should not be used arbitrarily, especially where investigations are complete, and no new facts or evidence warrant further action [Paras 7-15].

Findings on Investigation – Thorough and Just – Case diary and evidence demonstrated that the investigation was unbiased, complete, and based on all relevant facts – Trial Court retains the authority to address issues during the trial, including framing or altering charges under Section 216 CrPC if needed [Paras 16-18].

Decision: Revisional application dismissed – No irregularity in the impugned order rejecting further investigation – Trial Court directed to proceed expeditiously, with liberty to consider relevant issues during the trial – Urgent certified copy of the judgment to be supplied to the Trial Court for compliance [Paras 19-27].

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Acquittal – Injuries by Firearm – Trial court acquitted respondents Nos. 2 to 6 of charges under Sections 307/149, 147, 148, 324/149 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act – Prosecution proved that Respondent No. 2 (Dilip Singh) fired with a double-barrel gun causing simple injuries to the informant and his son – Medical evidence confirmed multiple metallic pellet-like shadows in X-rays of injured – Trial court erred in dismissing the charge under Section 324 IPC – Held: Respondent No. 2 convicted under Section 324 IPC for causing hurt using a dangerous weapon – Respondents Nos. 3 to 6 convicted under Section 324/149 IPC for being members of an unlawful assembly with a common intent to commit the offence [Paras 36-40].

Witness Testimony – Consistency of Injured Witnesses – PW-4 (Mahendra Singh) and PW-3 (Rakesh Kumar) deposed consistently about the firing by Respondent No. 2 and their injuries – PW-1 (independent witness) and PW-2 (informant’s son) corroborated the occurrence – Defense failed to discredit witnesses’ testimony during cross-examination – Trial court overlooked reliable and corroborated oral evidence – Held: Testimonies of injured witnesses and corroborative accounts of other witnesses prove the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 22-27, 35].

Medical Evidence – Injury Reports and X-rays – PW-5 (Doctor at PHC Bakhtiyarpur) and PW-8 (Doctor at PMCH) confirmed simple lacerated injuries and presence of metallic foreign bodies – PW-8 proved radiological findings of pellets in soft tissues – Absence of pellet extraction or seizure not sufficient to negate firearm injuries – Trial court's dismissal of medical evidence deemed perverse – Held: Injuries consistent with firearm use as alleged by prosecution [Paras 30-34].

Unlawful Assembly – Liability under Section 149 IPC – Respondents Nos. 3 to 6 were armed and present during the occurrence – Prosecution established their participation in the unlawful assembly with a common object to commit the offence – Held: Conviction of Respondents Nos. 3 to 6 under Section 324/149 IPC upheld [Paras 36-39].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction of Respondent No. 2 under Section 324 IPC – Conviction of Respondents Nos. 3 to 6 under Section 324/149 IPC – Respondents Nos. 2 to 6 taken into custody – Sentence under Sections 148 and 323/149 IPC remains undisturbed [Paras 37-39].