Application for Amendment of Relief – Sought at End of Trial – Request to modify relief from declaration of a document as void to cancellation of the document – Consideration of legal implications and due diligence by the plaintiff – Plaintiff’s limited knowledge of legal terms and reliance on legal advice [Para 6].

Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. – Limitations on Amendment Post-Trial Commencement – Question of due diligence – Court's observation that plaintiff’s limitations and reliance on legal counsel justify the amendment – Lack of new facts or deviation from original stance in the suit [Paras 4-7].

Implications of Amendment – No Change in Factual Matrix – Solely a modification in legal nomenclature of relief – No addition of new pleas – Original challenge to the validity of the document remains intact [Paras 6-7].

Objection on Grounds of Limitation – Dismissed by Court – Challenge against the document raised within the prescribed period – Modification in nature of relief not affected by limitation [Para 8].

Decision - Original Petition dismissed – Amendment allowed as per the impugned order of the learned Sub Judge [Para 8].

Marriage and Divorce - Appeal challenging Family Court's decision on property ownership - Facts surrounding the purchase of disputed Juhu Flat and tenancy of Cuffe Parade Flat - Family Court's dismissal of Mrs. Rajeshri V. Mahesh's judicial separation petition and decree of divorce in favor of Respondent, based on grounds under Sections 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Circumstances leading to breakdown of marriage considered. [Paras 1-2]

Property Ownership Dispute - Contest over the ownership of Flat No. 404, Marina Apartments, Juhu Tara Road, Mumbai – Respondent’s claim of sole ownership based on exclusive financial contribution upheld – Original Appellant’s (Mrs. Rajeshri V. Mahesh) name added for convenience without monetary contribution, negating her claim for 50% share. [Paras 6, 8, 30-31, 33, 36]

Benami Transaction Act Non-Applicability - Arguments regarding the applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 rejected – No evidence to establish that the Juhu Flat was purchased for the benefit of the Original Appellant, Mrs. Rajeshri V. Mahesh. [Paras 22-24, 30-32, 34-36]

Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act - Original Appellant’s claim under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, for full ownership due to presumed limited ownership, rejected – Section 14 found inapplicable as the Original Appellant neither had a limited ownership nor contributed financially to the Juhu Flat. [Paras 37-49]

Limitation Act Defense - Defense based on the Limitation Act, 1963, upheld – Limitation Act does not bar defenses in legal proceedings, despite the expiry of statutory limitation period for filing a suit or appeal. [Paras 51-54]

Interim Order Extension - Post-judgment interim order preventing the creation of third-party rights in the Juhu Flat extended for four weeks, providing the Appellant time to appeal to the Supreme Court. [Paras 59-60]

Decision: The appeal is dismissed. The High Court upholds the Family Court's decision on the sole ownership of the Juhu Flat favoring the Respondent, Mahesh Vennalakanti. An interim order regarding the Juhu Flat is extended for four weeks. No order as to costs. [Paras 56, 60]

Motor Vehicle Accident Compensation – Enhancement and Recovery - Appeals – by claimants and by Insurance Company  heard together due to their interconnected nature, dealing with compensation for a motor vehicle accident resulting in death. [Paras 1, 2]

Background: Accident involving deceased Mangilal, claim filed by wife and daughter for compensation of Rs. 33,25,000. Tribunal awarded Rs. 4,87,000 with 7.5% interest per annum, directing insurance company to pay and recover from vehicle owner and driver. [Paras 3-7]

Issues and Findings: Appeal by claimants sought enhanced compensation, particularly under loss of spousal and parental consortium, while insurance company contested liability based on alleged policy breach (driver's invalid license). High Court awarded additional Rs. 80,000 considering consortium losses, upheld Tribunal's direction for insurance company to pay and recover amount. [Paras 12-17]

Legal Principles Applied: Reliance on Apex Court judgments – Tribunal's power to direct insurance companies to pay claimants and recover from vehicle owner/driver, even in cases of policy breach by insured. [Paras 15-20]

Order: Appeal allowed with enhanced compensation; Appeal by insurance company dismissed. Insurance company directed to pay enhanced amount within 60 days, with 6% interest from claim filing date. [Paras 17, 18]

NDPS - Compliance with Section 42 NDPS Act – Challenge to Conviction – Conviction for Offense under Section 21(b) read with Section 31 NDPS Act Upheld – Evidence and Procedure Examined – Compliance with Section 42 and 50 NDPS Act Established – Appellant Previously Convicted under NDPS Act – Held, no merit in appeal; conviction and sentence confirmed. [Paras 1-18]

Section 42 NDPS Act – Compliance – Analysis – Examination of compliance with Section 42 NDPS Act in light of Supreme Court precedents – Held, recording of information received under Section 42(1) and sending a copy to the immediate superior is mandatory – Compliance in present case proved as per Exhibit PW11/A – Communication termed as ‘Ruqa’ deemed sufficient for compliance – Conviction upheld on this basis. [Paras 14-18]

Search and Seizure under NDPS Act – Legal Procedure – Held, as per mandate of Section 50 NDPS Act, the search of the appellant was conducted in presence of Gazetted Officer as desired by appellant – FSL report and prior conviction under NDPS Act duly proved – Appellant’s guilt established beyond reasonable doubt. [Para 18]

Decision – Conviction and Sentence Upheld – Appeal Dismissed – Court finds no merit in the appeal based on the examination of compliance with Sections 42 and 50 of NDPS Act and other evidence on record – Conviction and sentence of appellant for offense under Section 21(b) read with Section 31 of the NDPS Act confirmed. [Para 18]

Jurisdiction of Family Courts – Suit for Possession/Injunction – Contested issue of Family Court's jurisdiction over suits for possession or injunction filed by in-laws claiming property ownership and involving daughter-in-law – Family Courts Act, 1984, Sections 7(1)(d), 8 – Civil Procedure Code, Section 9 – Held, such disputes incidentally indicating matrimonial relationships do not fall exclusively under Family Court jurisdiction – Ownership rights to immovable property considered independently of matrimonial relationship – Jurisdiction of Civil Courts not barred. [Paras 44(a), 35-36]

Family Courts Act – Scope and Interpretation – Clarification on 'circumstances arising out of marital relationship' under Section 7(1)(d) of Family Courts Act – Focus on direct connection between cause of action and marital relationship – Circumstances must be integral to marital relationship for Family Court's jurisdiction – Mere existence of a matrimonial relationship between parties not sufficient. [Paras 44(a), 37]

Joinder of Parties – Effect on Jurisdiction – Role of husband's joinder in determining jurisdiction of Family Courts – Held, impleadment or non-impleadment of husband/defendant's son not determinative of Family Court's jurisdiction – Focus on cause of action's foundation on marital relationship. [Paras 44(b), 42]

Decision: Family Court's jurisdiction not applicable to property ownership disputes between in-laws and daughter-in-law where cause of action independent of marital relationship – Civil Courts retain jurisdiction – Suit for possession/injunction by in-laws against daughter-in-law to be tried in Civil Court – Jurisdiction determined by intrinsic connection of dispute with marital relationship. [Paras 44-45]

Quashing of NBW Sought by Petitioner – Alleged involvement in bribery to influence a CBI case – Petitioner's repeated absence and failure to comply with court directives – Non-Bailable Warrants (NBW) issued – Petitioner’s application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of NBW and related proceedings [Paras 1, 9-14, 20-38].

Quashing of Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) – Dismissal of Application – Petitioner, accused in Prevention of Corruption Act case, failed to appear physically despite repeated court orders – Trial Court issued Non-Bailable Warrant – High Court finds no illegality or infirmity in Trial Court's order – Petitioner’s previous non-compliance with court's direction and non-appearance before the Investigating Officer noted – Bail application dismissed. [Paras 32-37]

Non-Appearance of Accused – Impact on Judicial Process – Repeated non-appearance of accused before Trial Court and failure to comply with summons – NBW issued as a coercive measure due to consistent avoidance of court proceedings – Court’s discretion in issuing NBW considered a balance between personal liberty and societal interest. [Paras 33-36]

Judicial Discretion in Issuing Non-Bailable Warrants – Examined – Court exercised discretion judiciously after multiple opportunities given to the accused to appear – NBW seen as necessary due to persistent non-compliance and evasion from the legal process. [Paras 34, 36]

Decision – Dismissal of the application seeking quashing of NBW – Upheld issuance of NBW against petitioner – Observations not to affect merits of the case [Paras 37-39].

Regular Second Appeal – Dismissal – Challenge to Judgments and Decrees of Trial Court and First Appellate Court in suit for declaration and joint possession – Suit dismissed by both courts – Appellant's plea of fraud in obtaining initial judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 1105 of 1990 and subsequent mutations – No merit found by High Court – Concurrent findings of lower courts upheld. [Para 1, 7]

Judgment and Decree Obtained by Fraud – Allegation Rejected – High Court finds no evidence to displace judgments and decrees dated 07.11.1990 in Civil Suit No. 1105 of 1990 and 03.03.2003 in Civil Suit No. 145 of 2001 – Allegation of impersonation of defendant in earlier suit and obtaining decree by fraud not substantiated – Earlier civil suits involving same matter compromised and judgment upheld. [Para 7]

Lack of Substantial Question of Law – Appeal Dismissed – No substantial question of law arising in the case – Regular Second Appeal dismissed. [Para 8]

Decision – Appeal lacking merit dismissed – Regular Second Appeal No. 3653 of 2018 resolved in favor of respondents. [Para 8]

Appeal Against Tribunal Award – The New India Assurance Company Limited challenges the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal, regarding compensation for the death of Ajay in a road accident involving a motorcycle and a tractor [Para 1].

Factual Background – On 23.06.2020, Ajay and Parveen met with an accident caused by a tractor, resulting in Ajay’s death and the initiation of FIR No.171 under Sections 279, 304-A, 337 IPC at Police Station Madhuban, Karnal [Paras 2, 3].

Tribunal’s Compensation Assessment – Tribunal assesses deceased’s income based on Deputy Commissioner rates, leading to a total compensation of Rs. 35,49,112 [Para 3].

Insurance Company’s Appeal – The appellant contends contributory negligence and argues for income assessment based on minimum wages, not DC rates [Para 5].

Rejection of Contributory Negligence Argument – Court notes the argument was not raised before the Tribunal, and hence, rejects it [Para 7].

Income Assessment Based on DC Rates Justified – Court upholds the use of Deputy Commissioner rates over minimum wages for income assessment, referring to the case National Insurance Company Limited vs. Meena Devi & Ors. And other precedents [Paras 7-12].

Dismissal of Appeal – Considering the circumstances, including the young age of the widow and minor children, the Court finds the Tribunal’s award just and appropriate, dismissing the appeal [Para 13].

Background – Suit for Declaration and Permanent Injunction – Family Settlement: The appellant, defendant in a suit filed for declaration and permanent injunction by the respondent-plaintiff, claimed joint ownership of family properties based on an unregistered family settlement dated 10.10.2011 [Paras 1-2].

Trial Court Decision – Partial Decree – Possession Protected: Trial Court partly decreed the suit, protecting the respondent-plaintiff's possession over specific properties while recognizing the joint nature of the properties due to the unregistered settlement [Para 4].

Appellate Court’s Ruling – Dismissal of Appeal and Cross-Objections: First Appellate Court dismissed both the appeal by the appellants and cross-objections by the respondent-plaintiff, upholding Trial Court's decision [Para 4].

High Court Findings – Unregistered Family Settlement – Implication on Ownership: High Court noted the family settlement required registration under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. Its unregistered status implied that the properties remained joint, negating claims to exclusive ownership [Para 7].

Admitted Possession – Protection Upheld: Since the appellants admitted the respondent-plaintiff's possession over certain properties, the Courts' protection of such possession was justified. The appellants failed to establish their exclusive possession [Para 8].

Conclusion – Dismissal of Second Appeal: High Court found no merit in the appeal, no substantial question of law arose, leading to dismissal of the second appeal [Para 9].

Referred Cases: Not mentioned in provided text.