Hindu Succession Act – Right of Preemption – Undivided Joint Family Property – Plaintiffs, being sons of deceased Balkrushna, filed suit against purchasers asserting right of preemption under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act – Suit lands held to be undivided joint family property descended from common ancestor Keshav – Plaintiffs and vendors (defendants 6 to 9) held to be Class I heirs entitled to exercise preemptive right – Held: Preferential right under Section 22 available to Class I heirs only – Plaintiffs rightly declared entitled to exercise preemption over undivided share alienated to strangers [Paras 21–26]

Civil Procedure Code – Order XX Rule 14 – Deposit of Purchase Money – Courts below granted 90 days for deposit of purchase price – Objection taken that time was impermissibly extended – Held: There was no extension of time by appellate court – Stay to trial court decree was operative during pendency of appeal – Upon lifting of stay, plaintiffs given fresh 90-day period to deposit – No illegality in procedure adopted [Paras 30–32]

Transfer of Property Act – Section 44 – Purchaser of Undivided Share – No Partition Sought – Strangers to joint family who purchased undivided share did not sue for general partition or claim separate possession – Held: Purchasers cannot claim independent possession – Injunction restraining interference with plaintiffs’ possession upheld – Section 44 protection inapplicable [Para 33]

Civil Procedure Code – Declaration to Set Aside Sale Deeds – Not Mandatory – In suit for preemption under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, once sale consideration is paid within time, title automatically accrues to plaintiff – Held: No need to seek declaratory relief for setting aside sale deeds – Courts below rightly declined to grant such declaration [Paras 34–35]

Limitation – Delay in Exercising Preemption – Objection raised that plaintiffs were aware of sale transactions and did not assert right earlier – Held: No foundation in written statement for estoppel or waiver – No offer proved to have been made to plaintiffs before alienation – Objection rejected [Para 29]

Appeal by Plaintiffs – Claiming Lower Price and Fraud – Plaintiffs also challenged quantum of consideration and alleged fraud in alienation – Held: No evidence to establish fraud – Valuation held reasonable – Second Appeal No. 109 of 2014 dismissed [Paras 36–37]

Decision:

Second Appeal No. 1705 of 2005 (by purchasers) and Second Appeal No. 109 of 2014 (by plaintiffs) dismissed – Judgment and decree of lower appellate court dated 30.07.2005 confirmed – Plaintiffs directed to deposit purchase amount with 6% simple interest from 31.12.1992 within 90 days from date of judgment, if not deposited earlier.

Cooperative Societies – Personal Liability under Section 88 – Petitioners, former managers of Rupee Cooperative Bank, challenged concurrent findings of Authorized Officer and Appellate Authority holding them personally liable for financial losses – High Court held: Proceedings suffered from procedural irregularity, lack of individualized findings, and failure to establish causal link between officer’s acts and actual loss – Matter remanded for fresh inquiry [Paras 1–3, 115–120, 143–148].

Section 88 MCS Act – Scope and Preconditions – Registrar must rely on credible and tangible material originating from audit, inquiry, inspection, or liquidator report – Findings must demonstrate misfeasance, misapplication, breach of trust, or retention of funds causing actual loss – Held: Action cannot be based on assumptions or collective responsibility – Each officer's conduct must be separately assessed [Paras 27–31, 40–41, 54–55, 64–65].

Definition of Officer – Section 2(20), MCS Act – Only those holding positions with authority to direct or influence society’s affairs qualify – Clerical or routine staff excluded – Held: Label of "manager" insufficient unless evidence shows actual control or direction over financial decisions [Paras 42–48, 53–54].

Due Process – Rule 72 MCS Rules – Mandatory procedure includes notice with specific charges, opportunity to reply, framing of charges, evidence recording, and reasoned decision – High Court found proceedings deficient: no individualised charges, vague reasoning, no reference to petitioner-specific acts or their role in sanctioning loss-causing transactions [Paras 121–129].

Misfeasance or Breach of Trust – Test for Liability – Liability under Section 88 requires proof of dishonest intent, willful negligence, or culpable omission – Held: Routine processing of proposals without decision-making authority or fraudulent intent does not attract Section 88 liability [Paras 66–68].

Causal Link – Loss Attribution – Authority must establish how officer’s act or omission directly caused the loss – Mechanical findings like “participation in management” insufficient – Orders lacking computation, reasoning, and proportionality of loss per individual liable to be quashed [Paras 134–136, 139].

Appellate Authority – Failure to Apply Mind – Appellate order under Section 152 merely echoed conclusions of lower authority without fresh appreciation of evidence or procedural review – Held: Duty of independent scrutiny not discharged – Appellate order unsustainable [Paras 137–142].

Limitation – Section 88 Proceedings – Act of misconduct must fall within five years preceding audit/inquiry/inspection – Registrar must affirmatively record this before initiating proceedings – Purpose is to avoid stale claims and ensure timely accountability [Paras 72–80].

Remand – Fresh Inquiry Ordered – Both orders under challenge quashed – Directed fresh inquiry by Authorized Officer strictly in compliance with Rule 72 – To be completed preferably within six months [Paras 144–148].

Decision: Writ Petitions allowed – Orders dated 2 February 2016 (Authorized Officer) and 29 December 2021 (Appellate Authority) quashed – Matter remanded for de novo inquiry under Rule 72 – Interim applications disposed.

Civil Procedure – Preliminary Decree – Order XII Rule 6 – Judgment on Admission – Trial Court passed a preliminary decree for partition of moveable assets based on admissions made in the written statement – Appellants contended that the deceased had already distributed moveable assets by designating nominees and joint account holders – Held: Designation of nominees does not override the rights of legal heirs under succession law – Admissions in the pleadings clearly established that no testamentary disposition was made regarding moveable assets – No error found in Trial Court’s reliance on such admissions to grant a 1/4th share each to the four children of the deceased [Paras 27–30].

Partition Suit – Stay of Proceedings – Section 10 CPC – Applicability – Appellants sought stay of partition proceedings citing pendency of related probate cases and an earlier civil suit concerning the same properties – Held: Section 10 CPC applies only where the previously instituted suit is of a civil nature involving the same matter in issue – Probate proceedings are distinct in scope and do not adjudicate on title or ownership – Therefore, Section 10 not attracted to bar continuation of partition suit [Paras 31–35].

Inherent Powers – Section 151 CPC – Judicial Discretion to Stay Proceedings – Even if Section 10 CPC is inapplicable, the Court may exercise inherent powers under Section 151 CPC to stay proceedings in the interest of justice – Held: Since the outcome of pending probate proceedings and related litigation will directly impact the rights of parties in the partition suit, it would be appropriate to stay further proceedings – Trial Court erred in refusing to exercise this discretion [Paras 36–43].

Succession Law – Legal Effect of Nomination – Nominee Not Equivalent to Heir – Appellants’ claim that moveable assets were already distributed through nominations and joint holdings rejected – Held: Nominee holds property in trust for the benefit of legal heirs and does not acquire beneficial ownership – Nomination does not override succession rights – Legal heirs remain entitled unless excluded by a valid will – Supported by settled law including Sarbati Devi, Shakti Yezdani and other authorities [Paras 28–29].

Decision: RFA(OS) 43/2024 dismissed – Preliminary decree for partition of moveable assets upheld – FAO(OS) 89/2023 allowed – Proceedings in CS(OS) 3262/2012 stayed until final adjudication of Probate Case Nos. 5969/2016 and 5921/2016.

Civil Procedure – Execution of Decree – Civil Imprisonment – Order 21 Rule 37 CPC – Judgment-debtor ordered to be detained in civil prison for 3 months for non-payment of decretal amount of ₹7,06,177 – Petitioner argued non-compliance with Section 51 CPC and lack of opportunity to show cause – Held: Sufficient opportunity was provided; petitioner failed to furnish surety or substantiate alleged prior payment – No receipt produced despite Court enquiry – No civil appeal filed – Petitioner’s conduct reflects deliberate evasion of decree compliance – Detention order valid [Paras 1–7]

Constitution of India – Article 227 – Scope of Supervisory Jurisdiction – Challenge to execution order invoking supervisory powers of High Court – Held: No jurisdictional error or procedural infirmity shown – Executing Court’s discretion exercised in accordance with law after affording full opportunity – No ground to invoke supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 [Paras 6–9]

Execution – Payment Dispute – False Plea of Payment Without Proof – Petitioner claimed to have paid decretal amount earlier but failed to produce receipt or file appeal – Court found plea to be false and evasive – Such conduct not a ground to interfere with execution proceedings – Petition dismissed with costs [Paras 7–9]

Decision: Civil revision petition dismissed – Order of civil imprisonment upheld – No procedural irregularity or denial of opportunity found – Pending applications also disposed

Goods and Services Tax – Cancellation of Registration – Non-filing of Returns – GST registration of petitioner cancelled under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act due to failure to file returns for six months – Petitioners contended they were unaware of the online procedure and could not respond to the show cause notice – Registration cancelled ex parte without assigning reasons [Paras 2–3]

Revocation of Cancellation – Technical Barrier – Petitioners filed all pending GST returns up to March 2023 along with applicable dues and late fees – Application for revocation of cancellation could not be processed on GST portal due to expiry of 270-day timeline [Paras 4–5]

Rule 22(4) Proviso – Compliance – Petitioners willing to comply with Rule 22(4) proviso of CGST Rules by filing returns and clearing tax dues – Held: Proper officer may drop proceedings and restore GST registration if petitioners fulfil all requirements under Rule 22(4) proviso – Petitioners directed to approach concerned authority within 2 months – GST authority to consider and process restoration expeditiously [Paras 10, 12–13]

Limitation – Computation of Time – For the purpose of proceedings under Section 73(10), limitation to be computed from the date of this order, except for FY 2024–25 which will be governed by Section 44 of the CGST Act [Para 14]

Decision: Writ petition disposed of – Petitioners granted liberty to seek restoration of registration on compliance – No cost [Para 15]

Hindu Marriage Act – Divorce on Ground of Cruelty – Decree of Divorce – Permanent Alimony – Appeal Dismissed – Matrimonial Dispute – Allegations of Cruelty – Marriage between Appellant-Wife (Group 'A' Officer in Indian Railway Traffic Service) and Respondent-Husband (Advocate) solemnized on 25.01.2010 – Parties separated on 08.03.2011 – Husband filed for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Family Court decreed divorce on ground of cruelty – Wife filed appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 challenging the decree and seeking permanent alimony – High Court dismissed the appeal [Paras 1–2, 4, 10, 18–19, 90–92]

Mental Cruelty – Proven Use of Abusive and Derogatory Language – Husband relied on text messages sent from Appellant’s phone using language such as "bastard", "son of a bitch", suggesting illegitimacy, and calling Respondent’s mother a "prostitute" – Family Court found the messages proved and corroborated by Section 65B certificate – Explanation by Wife that messages were fabricated or sent by Respondent using her phone was rejected as an afterthought – Held: Use of such language caused grave mental cruelty and mental agony – Messages alone sufficient to constitute cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) HMA [Paras 5, 23–25, 54–57]

Conduct of Appellant – Pattern of Abusive and Hostile Behaviour – Additional incidents corroborated cruelty: slapping husband, refusal of conjugal relations, forcing his parents out of home, demeaning language during Durga Puja and in presence of Appellant’s parents – Family Court relied on uncontroverted testimony of Respondent – High Court held such behaviour established cruelty by cumulative effect, not isolated incidents [Paras 6–9, 58–59]

Counter-Allegations by Wife – Not Substantiated – Allegations of husband locking her inside home, coercion to misuse official position, caste-based comments, and emotional abuse found vague and uncorroborated – High Court held counter-allegations could not displace proved acts of cruelty by the Appellant – Mere assertion of cruelty by both sides does not negate cruelty established by one party [Paras 11–17, 20–27, 60–61]

Condonation – No Proof of Resumption of Cohabitation – Wife claimed parties resumed cohabitation between 2011 and 2013 – No documentary or material evidence produced – Family Court held that no intent of condonation was established – High Court affirmed that condonation requires conscious forgiveness and restoration of marital relations, which was absent in this case [Paras 17, 23, 62–63]

Frivolous Litigation – Not a Ground to Deny Divorce – Appellant alleged multiple false cases filed by Respondent and his mother – Some cases dismissed for non-prosecution – Family Court acknowledged some conduct of Respondent was undesirable – However, held that this could not justify wife’s cruelty – High Court upheld this reasoning, holding two wrongs do not negate cruelty proved by one spouse [Paras 15–16, 64–65]

Appellant’s Demand for Money – Conditional Consent to Divorce – Appellant stated willingness to accept divorce if paid Rs. 50 lakhs – This demand recorded in cross-examination and Family Court’s order sheet – High Court held this showed financial motivation behind opposition to divorce – Reiterated that spouse cannot resist divorce only for monetary gain without intention to continue matrimonial life [Paras 36–38, 75–79]

Permanent Alimony – No Entitlement Established – Appellant is a financially independent senior government officer with substantial income and benefits – No evidence of economic hardship, dependents, or medical condition – High Court held no justification for award under Section 25 of HMA – Permanent alimony is an equitable relief for genuine financial need, not enrichment or equalization of status [Paras 30, 80–88]

Admissibility of Evidence – Section 65B Compliance – Electronic evidence accompanied by certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act – Family Court noted and showed certificate to Appellant’s counsel during cross-examination – Section 14 of Family Courts Act allows liberal admissibility of relevant documents even without strict compliance with Evidence Act – High Court upheld Family Court’s approach [Paras 28–29, 68–73]

Irretrievable Breakdown – Parties lived together for barely one year – Separated for over 14 years – Series of litigations and failed reconciliations showed relationship was beyond repair – Marriage held to have irretrievably broken down – Divorce confirmed on that basis as well [Paras 30, 67]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) HMA upheld – No merit found in claims of condonation or entitlement to permanent alimony – Parties to bear their own costs [Paras 90–93]

Civil Law – Partition Suit – Ancestral Property – Appeal by grandchildren of original owner claiming 1/8th share in suit property on ground that it is ancestral – Trial Court dismissed suit finding that property was self-acquired by Krishnama Raju and succession governed by Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act – High Court upheld finding – Held: Property purchased in 1957 and owner died in 1983, making it self-acquired – No evidence of ancestral nucleus – Mere recital in sale agreement that property was ancestral is insufficient – Plaintiffs have no right by birth [Paras 13–15]

Specific Performance – Binding Nature of Decree – Suit property was subject of earlier specific performance decree in O.S. No. 69 of 2007 – Appeal in A.S. No. 12 of 2009 dismissed – Plaintiffs not parties to earlier suit – Held: Agreement of sale executed by wife and two daughters of deceased owner – Decree confirmed by High Court – Present plaintiffs (grandchildren) cannot challenge decree without establishing independent title – Attempt to reopen settled decree impermissible [Paras 9–10, 14, 17]

Succession Law – Applicability of Section 6 vs. Section 8 – Deceased left behind wife and two daughters, no male heir – Plaintiffs claimed right by birth – Held: Section 6 not applicable when no son survives – Property devolved on wife and daughters absolutely under Section 8 – No coparcenary interest arises – Suit rightly dismissed [Paras 13, 17]

Will – No Proof of Execution – Respondents referred to registered Will dated 21.04.1980 in favour of one daughter – However, Will not marked or proved – Held: In absence of proof, succession to be considered as intestate – But plaintiffs’ claim still fails as succession under Section 8 does not support birthright claim of grandchildren [Para 13]

Abuse of Process – Plaintiffs Set Up by Defendants – Trial Court found that plaintiffs were instigated by earlier unsuccessful defendants to stall execution of decree – All lived under same roof – Held: Suit a device to obstruct lawful execution – No merit in appeal [Para 18]

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Trial Court judgment upheld – No costs – CMP closed [Para 19]

Railway Accidents Claim – Untoward Incident – Bona Fide Passenger – Appellant injured after falling from overcrowded train due to sudden jerk – Tribunal rejected claim alleging self-inflicted injury and contributory negligence – High Court held that presence of valid journey ticket and contemporaneous medical and police records establish bona fide passengership and untoward incident – Rejection of claim was based on misdirection in law and contrary to evidentiary burden under Section 124A [Paras 2, 12, 15–17, 21–22]

Strict Liability – Compensation under Section 124A – Court reiterated that liability of Railways is strict and automatic upon proof of injury arising out of untoward incident during lawful travel – Exceptions to liability must be narrowly construed – No cogent evidence produced by Railways to attract any statutory exception – Tribunal’s finding overturned [Paras 13–14, 23–24]

Standard of Proof – Evidentiary Burden – Recovery of valid ticket and corroborative public documents like medical and police reports sufficient to establish claimant’s case – Burden then shifts to Railways to disprove claim – Reliance by Railways on speculative DRM inquiry and absence of Alarm Chain Pulling held insufficient – Appeal allowed and compensation awarded [Paras 19–22]

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Impugned order of Railway Claims Tribunal dated 06.01.2020 set aside – Appellant entitled to compensation of ₹8,00,000 with 6% interest from date of claim till payment – Amount to be deposited within three months before the Tribunal for disbursal [Paras 26–28]

Criminal Law – Quashing - Bank Loan Fraud – Diversion of Loan Funds – Further Investigation – Accused company (HCCPL) and its directors alleged to have diverted Rs.15 crore project loan from erstwhile SBT (now SBI) by selling mortgaged properties without bank's consent – CBI initially excluded bank officials from prosecution citing lack of mens rea – Special Judge rejected CBI’s request to drop PC Act charges and directed further investigation – Held: Special Judge rightly found material suggesting complicity or willful neglect on part of bank officials – Further investigation justified [Paras 4–6, 13, 15]

Criminal Procedure – Role of Public Servants – CBI’s report described conduct of bank officials as negligent but lacking dishonest intention – However, Special Judge found unexplained silence and procedural violations by officials in allowing the borrower to operate outside mandated norms like escrow account requirement – Held: Dereliction of duty without criminal intent insufficient basis to shield officials from further scrutiny – Deeper inquiry mandated [Paras 12–14, 17]

Corporate Loan Disbursement – Escrow Account – Lax Monitoring – Loan extended to HCCPL without opening escrow account – Flats sold without bank consent and sale proceeds routed through third-party banks – CBI failed to investigate critical lapses – Trial court rightly observed that institutional failures merited reinvestigation – Escrow account norms were industry standard and failure to enforce indicated serious oversight [Para 16]

Maintainability – Accused Lacking Locus to Challenge Investigation Against Co-accused – Petition filed by Managing Director of HCCPL (A1) to quash order for further investigation against bank officials – Court held that A1 had no standing to contest reliefs denied to others – Filing of petition seen as attempt to shield co-accused – Revealed apparent collusion between borrower and bank staff – Petition not maintainable [Paras 23–24]

Decision:

Petition dismissed – Special Court’s direction for further investigation upheld – Interim stay vacated – CBI directed to complete further investigation and submit report within two months [Para 25]