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.

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.

Civil Law - Compromise Decree – Corporate authority – Alleged transfer of control under Share Purchase Agreement – Fraud on Court pleaded after decade-long delay – Prior execution findings negating fraud and collusion – Compromise lawful and binding – Recall rightly refused – Appeal dismissed [Paras 16–50].

Company Law – Corporate Control – Share Purchase Agreement – Mere execution of SPA does not effect transfer of management or control – Statutory compliances under Companies Act and actual assumption of management essential – Absence of Form 32 filings, failure to convene meetings or take charge negates plea of transfer of control – “Alter ego” doctrine applied – Persons in de facto and de jure control bind the company [Paras 17–26].

Civil Procedure – Compromise Decree – Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC – Authority to compromise – Where statutory records and conduct show continuance of existing management, compromise entered by such management valid and binding – Subsequent claim of lack of authority by alleged transferee not accepted in absence of statutory recognition [Paras 25–29].

Fraud on Court – High threshold – Allegations of fraud must be clear, specific and supported by cogent evidence – Subsequent police report or speculative assertions regarding consideration insufficient to vitiate judicially recorded compromise – Earlier execution court findings rejecting plea of fraud and collusion carry significant weight [Paras 30–35, 43–44].

Execution Proceedings – Obstructionist claims – Failure to prove possession, mortgage or charge – Absence of books of account, balance sheets or statutory compliance under Companies Act and Transfer of Property Act – Obstructionist deriving claim from judgment debtor must “go with” judgment debtor – Compromise decree not undermined on such basis [Paras 35–42].

Delay and Acquiescence – Recall of compromise decree – Knowledge of decree and participation in execution proceedings through related entity – Recall application filed more than a decade later – Long acquiescence and repeated failed challenges undermine bona fides – Recall barred by limitation and conduct [Paras 45–49].

Appellate Interference – Scope – Where Single Judge has considered statutory records, prior adjudications and applied settled principles on fraud and corporate authority, no perversity or illegality warranting interference found [Paras 44–50].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order dated 17.03.2025 upheld – Compromise decree dated 28.03.2003 held lawful and binding – All pending applications dismissed [Paras 49–50].

Criminal Law - NIA Act – Section 21 – Appeal against order framing charge – Maintainability – Held: order framing charge is interlocutory for purposes of appeal under NIA Act – appeals dismissed as not maintainable – remedy lies under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS [Paras 1–20].

Criminal Procedure – National Investigation Agency Act – Section 21 – Appeal – Scope – Expression “judgment, sentence or order, not being an interlocutory order” – Interpreted in light of scheme and object of NIA Act – Held: “order” refers to final orders capable of appellate scrutiny on facts and law – Not intermediate orders such as framing of charge [Paras 15–18].

Charge – Framing of – Nature of order – Though treated as “intermediate order” for purposes of revision under Section 397 CrPC, such classification not applicable while interpreting appellate provision under Section 21 NIA Act – Order framing charge does not finally determine rights and proceedings continue till conviction or acquittal – Hence interlocutory for appeal under NIA Act [Paras 11–12, 16–18].

Statutory Interpretation – Purposeful interpretation – NIA Act enacted to ensure expeditious investigation and trial of scheduled offences affecting national security – Bar on revisions and limited appellate remedy intended to avoid delay – Permitting appeals against charge-framing orders would defeat legislative intent [Paras 13–16].

Appeal vs. Revision – Distinction – Jurisprudence on “intermediate orders” developed in context of revisional jurisdiction under CrPC (Amar Nath; Madhu Limaye) – Same concept cannot be bodily imported into appellate jurisdiction providing appeal “on facts and law” – At stage of charge, factual adjudication impermissible [Paras 8–12, 16].

Remedy of Accused – Availability – Though appeal under Section 21 NIA Act not maintainable, accused not remediless – Inherent jurisdiction of High Court under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS remains available to challenge framing of charge on limited grounds of abuse of process, lack of jurisdiction or manifest injustice [Paras 16–18].

Precedent – V.C. Shukla v. State – Constitution Bench – Order framing charge held interlocutory under Special Courts Act – Principles applied while interpreting Section 21 NIA Act – Appeal against charge-framing order not envisaged [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Appeals dismissed on ground of maintainability – All pending applications disposed of [Paras 19–20].

Arbitration – Appeal under Section 37 – Maintainability – Ad-interim injunction – Appellants challenged an ad-interim order passed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 directing parties to maintain status quo ante – Office raised objection on maintainability under Section 37(1)(b) as petition was still pending – Held: Order amounts to granting an interim measure under Section 9 – Covered under Section 37(1)(b) – Appeal maintainable [Paras 5, 6, 11, 17–18, 25, 31–32].

Commercial Courts Act – Section 13(1) – Scope of Appeal – Commercial Court's interim order under Section 9 of Arbitration Act can be appealed if it falls under Section 37(1)(b) or Order 43 CPC – Held: Section 13 does not create independent right of appeal but facilitates appeal where it lies under Section 37 or Order 43 – Ad-interim injunction appealable if extraordinary circumstance shown [Paras 15, 28–30].

Interim Injunction – Appeal against Ad-Interim Order – Principles – Court referred to Innovative Pharma Surgicals and A. Venkatasubbaiah Naidu cases – Held: Appeal against ad-interim injunction maintainable in extraordinary circumstances such as delay or inaction in hearing vacation application – Interim order having serious consequences cannot be treated as non-appealable merely due to its interim nature [Paras 21–24].

Divergence from Other High Courts – Meghalaya High Court view in NTPC v. Meghalaya Power Distribution Ltd. that ad-interim orders are non-appealable under Section 37(1)(b) was not accepted – Andhra Pradesh High Court held ad-interim injunctions falling within the scope of Section 9 are appealable under Section 37 [Paras 26–28].

Civil Procedure – Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC – Ad-interim injunction granted under Order 39 is appealable – Same principle applies to ad-interim orders under Section 9 of Arbitration Act – Harmonious construction with Section 104 CPC and Section 37 Arbitration Act warranted [Paras 20, 24].

Decision: Office objection overruled – Appeal held maintainable under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC – Matter directed to be numbered – Appeal to be posted for further hearing on 30/12/2025.

Criminal Law – Dowry Death – Appeal Against Acquittal – Deceased wife allegedly harassed for dowry and committed suicide by fire – Trial Court acquitted husband and in-laws under Section 304B IPC citing contradictions between witness statements and dying declaration – High Court held that dying declaration lacked any mention of dowry harassment – Close relatives and neighbours did not support prosecution – No perversity or illegality found in trial court’s reasoning – Appeal dismissed [Paras 3, 17, 24, 27-30, 34]

Dying Declaration – Evidentiary Value – Deceased suffered 95% burns but gave dying declaration recorded by Magistrate – Declaration lacked material allegation of dowry demand – Witnesses gave inconsistent versions – Court held that declaration cannot be sole basis for conviction when not corroborated – Suspicion cannot replace proof in criminal law – Trial Court justified in treating it as inconclusive [Paras 17-20, 25-27]

Criminal Procedure – Section 164 Cr.P.C. Statements – Statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. during investigation are not substantive evidence – Cannot be used as sole basis for conviction – Only usable for corroboration or contradiction – Court rightly held that reliance on such statements without oath-bound testimony in court was impermissible [Paras 21, 24]

Appeal Against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Principles reaffirmed that appellate court must not interfere with acquittal unless findings are perverse or unreasonable – Presumption of innocence strengthened by acquittal – No compelling evidence warranting reversal – Trial Court’s view found to be reasonable and based on full appreciation of record – Appeal dismissed [Paras 12-14, 29-34]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order of acquittal passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Srikakulam in Sessions Case No. 38 of 2006 confirmed.

Tenancy Law - Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Ownership Requirement under Section 14(1)(e) – Proof of Better Title Sufficient – Landlady sought eviction on ground of bona fide requirement – ARC dismissed petition on ground that ownership and landlord-tenant relationship were not proved – Held: Landlady produced registered sale deed and rent receipts proving better title than tenant – ARC exceeded jurisdiction by venturing into detailed title examination contrary to settled law – Eviction petition cannot be defeated merely because landlady is not absolute owner – Revision allowed and eviction ordered [Paras 1–6, 10–11].

Eviction – Bona Fide Requirement – Discretion of Landlady – ARC failed to consider landlady’s residential need – Landlady sought more space for herself and her growing family – Held: It is landlady who is best judge of her requirement – Tenant failed to rebut claim with any credible evidence – Bald denials not sufficient – No evidence of alternative suitable accommodation – ARC erred in not considering material on record [Paras 12–13].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Limited Interference – When Justified – Though revisional court cannot substitute its view as appellate court, it can interfere where trial court acts beyond jurisdiction or misapplies settled law – Held: ARC’s finding based on ownership was contrary to binding precedents – Interference warranted to correct miscarriage of justice [Paras 14–15].

Decision: Petition allowed – Judgment of ARC dated 31.01.2019 set aside – Eviction order passed – Tenant granted six months to vacate premises in terms of Section 14(7) DRC Act [Para 16].

Professional Misconduct – Chartered Accountant – Disciplinary Proceedings – Reference to High Court – Reference made by Council of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India seeking action under Section 21(6) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 – Allegations based on SEBI investigation relating to manipulation of public issue of Bharthari Financial Services Ltd. – Disciplinary Committee after detailed enquiry held respondent guilty of “other misconduct” – Council accepted findings and recommended removal of name – Held: Due process duly followed and findings well supported by evidence [Paras 1, 4, 11, 14–17].

Professional Misconduct – Other Misconduct – Ante-dated Stock-Invests – Irregular Allotment of Shares – Respondent, Chairman and Whole Time Director of BFSL, conspired with another Chartered Accountant in arranging finance and obtaining ante-dated stock-invests after closure of public issue – Despite withdrawal of applications, shares allotted and certificates issued without receipt of funds – Acts held detrimental to general investing public – Constitutes “other misconduct” under Section 22 read with Section 21 of the Act [Paras 5, 11, 18].

Professional Ethics – Role of Chartered Accountants – Integrity and Fiduciary Responsibility – Chartered Accountants expected to maintain highest standards of integrity as custodians of financial markets – Manipulation of public issues and connivance with promoters strikes at root of market probity – Conduct of respondent held unbecoming of a Chartered Accountant [Paras 18–19].

Disciplinary Jurisdiction – Effect of SEBI and SAT Findings – Findings of SEBI under Section 11B and affirmation by Securities Appellate Tribunal relied upon by Disciplinary Committee – Non-challenge to SAT order by respondent reinforces culpability – Parallel disciplinary proceedings under the Chartered Accountants Act sustainable [Paras 8, 11].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Non-Contest by Delinquent Member – Despite service of notice and opportunity, respondent failed to contest reference before High Court – Allegations remained unrebutted – Court entitled to proceed on basis of record and disciplinary findings [Paras 10, 14].

Penalty – Suspension from Membership – Costs – In exercise of powers under Section 21(6) of the Act, respondent directed to be suspended from membership of ICAI for one year – Restrained from rendering services as a Chartered Accountant during suspension – Costs of Rs.10,000/- imposed on respondent payable to petitioner [Paras 20–21].

Decision: Reference accepted – Respondent suspended from membership of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India for a period of one year – Restrained from rendering services as a Chartered Accountant – Costs imposed – Reference disposed of accordingly.

Matrimonial Law - Maintenance pendente lite – Section 24 HMA – Non-earning wife residing at parental home – Absence of ITRs and expense bills – Effect of Rajnesh guidelines – Prior MoU cannot override statutory right – Interim maintenance upheld – Appeal dismissed [Paras 16–25].

Maintenance – Pendente Lite – Section 24 HMA – Nature and object – Proceedings are summary in nature – Intended to provide immediate financial support to dependent spouse during pendency of matrimonial litigation – Court to take a prima facie view on available material and husband’s admitted income – Hyper-technical insistence on documents cannot defeat substantive right of maintenance [Paras 16–17, 24].

Maintenance – Guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha – Scope and applicability – Requirement of income affidavits and ITRs aimed at transparency and preventing concealment of income – Non-earning spouse or spouse with income below taxable limit not mandatorily required to file ITRs – Absence of ITRs, in such cases, corroborates claim of nil income rather than disproving it – Family Court not bound to insist on impossible compliance [Paras 16(i), 23].

Maintenance – Assessment of wife’s independent income – Bank transactions and savings – Isolated transaction and existence of mutual fund investments insufficient to infer steady or sufficient income – Financial assistance or transactions with family members natural when wife resides at parental home after separation – No proof of gainful employment or regular income placed on record – Maintenance cannot be denied on conjectures [Paras 18–20].

Maintenance – Prior settlement / MoU – Effect – Agreement entered years prior to litigation cannot override statutory right under Section 24 HMA – Maintenance pendente lite depends on present needs of wife and child and husband’s capacity to pay – Alleged MoU does not bar court from awarding interim maintenance, particularly when wife alleges coercion and circumstances have changed [Para 21].

Maintenance for child – Supervision over utilisation – Request for joint bank account – Held, issues relating to guardianship, custody or supervision fall outside scope of appeal against order granting maintenance pendente lite – Appellate court not required to introduce custodial oversight while determining quantum of interim maintenance [Para 22].

Appellate interference – Interim maintenance orders – Scope – Unless order is shown to be illegal, perverse or arbitrary, appellate court will not interfere – Family Court’s assessment based on husband’s admitted income and needs of wife and child found reasonable – No perversity or illegality established [Paras 23–25].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Interim maintenance order upheld – All interim orders vacated – Appellant directed to clear arrears within one month – Pending applications closed [Paras 25–26].