Matrimonial Law – Visitation Rights – Minor Children – Section 26 Hindu Marriage Act – Welfare of Child – Paramount Consideration – Husband filed application for visitation rights to meet two daughters aged 10 and 5 years and a son aged 3 years during pendency of divorce proceedings – Trial court rejected application based on interaction with the elder child – Impugned order granted liberty to petitioner to file fresh application after six months – Held: Serious matrimonial disputes cannot lead to deprivation of love and affection of both parents; welfare of child is of paramount consideration – Court must ensure child is not under influence of a parent before acting on the child's opinion – Revision petition disposed of with modification [Paras 9–11].

Interim Order – Telephonic/Video Contact – Restoration – Direction dated 11.09.2025 permitting petitioner/father to interact with children telephonically/by video call once a week was not complied with by respondent/wife – High Court found no justification for vacating the said interim order – Held: Interim order dated 11.09.2025 shall remain in force pending disposal of any fresh application for visitation rights that may be filed by petitioner [Para 10].

Fresh Application – Liberty – Trial Court Directions – Petitioner at liberty to file fresh application for visitation rights as per impugned order – Trial court directed to dispose of any such application on its own merits without being influenced by observations in the impugned order, within two months from date of filing, as expeditiously as possible [Para 11].

Decision: Revision petition disposed of with modification – Interim order dated 11.09.2025 to remain in force – Liberty to petitioner to file fresh application for visitation rights – No costs – All pending applications closed.

Juvenile Justice – Child in Conflict with Law – Bail – Section 12(1) Proviso – CCL tried as adult – Standard of Consideration – CCL/applicant, being tried as an adult in FIR No. 11/2024 (PS Badarpur) under Section 302/34 IPC for alleged murder of Gaurav @ Paggal by inflicting multiple stab injuries along with two other CCLs and two adult accused – Decision to try as adult not challenged – At the time of alleged offence, CCL was already on bail in FIR No. 489/2023 (PS Sarita Vihar) under Section 302/397/34 IPC – Also involved in FIR No. 542/2022 (PS Badarpur) under Section 394/34 IPC – Eye witness and CCTV footage available – Public witnesses yet to be examined – Held: In cases of CCL under proviso to Section 12(1) of the JJ Act, the court must consider whether release is likely to bring the CCL into association with any known criminal, or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or defeat the ends of justice – Manner of offence, seriousness of charge and antecedents, while not exclusively determinative, are relevant to the statutory inquiry – Present murder alleged while CCL was on bail in another murder case — five assailants involved in the present case — risk of association with known criminals not vague or speculative — apprehension that release would lead to witness intimidation well-founded — over-liberal approach not warranted merely because the applicant is a child being treated as adult — Court cannot be oblivious to the harsh reality that juveniles are increasingly used by organised criminal syndicates — bail refused [Paras 2–9].

Decision: Bail application dismissed – CCL not entitled to regular bail at this stage – Copy of order to be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for immediate conveyance to the CCL.

Criminal Law – Section 332 IPC – Voluntarily Causing Hurt to Public Servant – Section 504 IPC – Intentional Insult – Appellant Devanand entered the cabin of the informant (Dr. Pankaj Jawale, Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Osmanabad, belonging to Mahar caste) on 15.05.2007 and questioned him regarding non-issuance of a death certificate, hurled abuses questioning his competence and the absence of police protection, and assaulted him on the right side of his face and nose causing bleeding — Appellant Sunil @ Pintu and co-accused Anna Rochkari thereafter entered and participated in abusing and assaulting the informant — Accused by force compelled the informant to sign a death certificate, a job work bill and two blank cheques — Informant's evidence corroborated by medical evidence of P.W.9 Dr. Mustafa Palla who found bleeding from the right nostril and abrasion on the dorsum of right hand with injury age within 24 hours — Most other witnesses turned hostile or did not support the prosecution — Trial court acquitted all accused under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Atrocities Act and Section 506 read with Section 34 IPC but convicted under Sections 332 and 504 IPC — Held: Essential ingredients of Section 332 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt to a public servant discharging lawful duty with intent to obstruct) and Section 504 IPC (intentional insult and provocation) proved beyond reasonable doubt from the consistent oral evidence of the informant and corroborating medical evidence — Conviction and sentence upheld — Prosecution case proved even though eye witnesses did not support, as quality of evidence of informant and treating doctor sufficient [Paras 9–15, 18].

Sentence – Quantum – Hearing on Sentence – Procedural Irregularity – Appellant Devanand argued that he was not heard on the point of quantum of sentence as he was away for a marriage ceremony and returned after recess — Trial court in its sentencing observations made erroneous reference to other pending cases against him which resulted in acquittal due to hostile witnesses — Held: Such erroneous observations are not a ground for acquittal or reduction of sentence as the basis of conviction is the reliable oral and medical evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.9 and not the antecedents — No evidence that appellant was present in court after recess — One year's simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 332 IPC and three months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 504 IPC awarded to Devanand is just and proper — Fine of Rs. 15,000/- in default simple imprisonment for six months awarded to Sunil @ Pintu under Section 332 IPC is also just and proper — No interference warranted [Paras 14–17].

Decision: Both criminal appeals dismissed – Conviction and sentence of Devanand s/o Sahebrao Rochkari under Sections 332 and 504 IPC and of Sunil @ Pintu s/o Sambhaji Rochkari under Section 332 IPC upheld – Bail bonds and sureties of both appellants discharged from liability – Conviction warrant to be issued against appellant Devanand s/o Sahebrao Rochkari.

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 41 Rule 33 - Appellate Power - Scope of Relief - Relief beyond pleadings - First Appellate Court granted 1/18th share and joint possession to plaintiff despite no suit for partition being filed and no such specific relief being sought in pleadings - Held - Appellate court traveled beyond the scope of the suit and foundational pleadings - Power under Order 41 Rule 33 cannot be exercised to grant relief not found in pleadings or to determine shares in absence of a partition suit and necessary co-sharers - [Paras 53-62]

Specific Relief Act 1963 - Section 34 - Declaration of Title - Burden of Proof - Strength of Plaintiff Case - Plaintiff sought declaration of title based on 1990 sale deed but failed to prove the genealogy of the recorded tenant or the factum of previous partition - Held - In a suit for declaration of title and possession the plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own title - Weakness in the case set up by defendants or lacunae in defendant title is not a ground to grant relief to the plaintiff - [Paras 65-71 84]

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 114 - Presumption of Genuineness - Registered Documents - Plaintiff witness PW3 identified the signatures and execution of the defendant 1961 sale deed Exhibit C - Plaintiff alleged the vendor and purchaser were fictitious persons - Held - Testimony of plaintiff own witness falsified the allegation of fictitious execution - There is a legal presumption that a registered document is validly executed and the onus is on the person challenging it to rebut the presumption - [Paras 78-81]

Chotanagpur Tenancy Act 1908 - Section 84 - Record of Rights - Title vs Possession - 1964 Survey Settlement Khatian - Held - Revenue records do not confer title and do not have presumptive value on title - They only enable the person in whose favour mutation is recorded to pay land revenue - Finding of the appellate court that vendor title was doubtful based solely on revenue entries is perverse and unsustainable - [Paras 74-76 85]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court set aside – Dismissal of the suit by the Trial Court restored.

Criminal Law – Murder – Section 302/149 IPC – Unlawful Assembly – Common Object – Six accused appellants armed with rifles, axes, spears and knives arrived at the residence of deceased Pushpraj alias Pushpendra on the night of 01.07.2007 at 10:00 PM, threatened him for pursuing a case against appellant Krishna Pal, dragged him out and mercilessly assaulted him with the blunt sides of deadly weapons – Deceased died within seven hours of sustaining injuries due to shock and haemorrhage – Post-mortem revealed fractures of both humerus bones, left elbow joint, right tibia, 5th and 6th ribs, torn right lung, right pleura and trachea filled with clotted blood – Trial court convicted all six accused under Section 302/149, Section 323/149, Section 148 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and sentenced them to life imprisonment – Conviction and sentence upheld on appeal – Held: Prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through consistent and credible testimony of two injured eyewitnesses P.W.1 (informant-brother of deceased) and P.W.2 (widow of deceased) — injuries corroborated by medical and FSL evidence — accused arrived in a premeditated manner with common object of murdering deceased to send a message to the village — all members of unlawful assembly liable [Paras 38–54, 67–72].

Evidence – Appreciation of Oral Evidence – Injured Witnesses – P.W.1 and P.W.2 extensively cross-examined on multiple dates spread over several months — minor discrepancies bound to arise but do not shake the core of the prosecution story — date, time, place and manner of incident remained consistent throughout — evidence of injured witness entitled to great weight and should not be discarded without cogent and compelling reasons — no major contradictions or inconsistencies established — prosecution case proved from testimony of two injured witnesses whose presence at the scene of occurrence is guaranteed by their own injuries [Paras 35–47, 52–54, 63–65].

Evidence – Non-Examination of Witnesses – Adverse Inference – Injured Bitti Bai (mother of deceased), Ashok and Jagdish (brothers of deceased) not examined as prosecution witnesses — plea raised that material witnesses withheld and adverse inference should be drawn — Held: Law requires quality and not quantity of witnesses — prosecution not bound to examine all cited witnesses — conviction can rest on solitary reliable witness — adverse inference under Section 114 of the Evidence Act can be drawn only in extraordinary circumstances where material witness deliberately withheld — non-examination of other injured or eyewitnesses not fatal when two injured witnesses have been extensively cross-examined and found credible — question answered accordingly [Paras 55–65].

Criminal Law – Murder vs. Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder – Section 300 vs. Section 304 IPC – Appellants argued conviction liable to be converted to Section 304 IPC as there was no sharp cut or punctured wound on the body of the deceased despite accused being armed with sharp weapons — Held: Deceased and other injured were assaulted with the blunt sides of rifles, axes and spears, not the sharp edges — such manner of attack consistent with prosecution case — accused mercilessly fractured multiple bones and caused injuries sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death — premeditated arrival with deadly weapons negates sudden quarrel or grave provocation — no single blow — all five exceptions to Section 300 IPC inapplicable — case falls squarely within Clause thirdly of Section 300 IPC — not a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder [Paras 66–70].

Decision: All five criminal appeals dismissed — Judgment and sentence dated 11.03.2011 of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Jhansi affirmed — Appellant Krishan Pal alias Lala to serve remaining sentence — Appellants Rishi Pal, Raghunath alias Batauli, Ranjeet, Bahadur and Udham Singh alias Matauli on bail directed to surrender forthwith before the Court concerned — Coercive action to be taken on failure to surrender — Pending applications including bail applications disposed of.

Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 – Principal Employer – Joint and Several Liability – Employer-Employee Relationship – Deceased Maroti Misal, aged 28 years, working as jeep driver for transporting blasting material, died in a massive explosion at the explosive godown at Gat No. 54, Mathani, Tq. Khamgaon, Buldhana on 27.04.2019 during the course of employment – Respondent No. 1 denied employer-employee relationship and claimed that deceased was employee of Respondent No. 2 – Respondent No. 2 in his written statement denied relationship with Respondent No. 1 but in cross-examination admitted that his own role was as Manager/Supervisor under Respondent No. 1 and also admitted that deceased was working under him – Police statement of Respondent No. 2 also confirmed his role as Manager under Respondent No. 1 – Trial court solely relied on Respondent No. 2's oral evidence to hold him the direct employer and exonerated Respondent No. 1 without framing proper issue on employer-employee relationship or applying tests of control and supervision – Held: Explosive godown owned and controlled by Respondent No. 1 – Respondent No. 2 was his Manager/Supervisor – Deceased was employed in godown under command of Respondent No. 1 – Employer-employee relationship between deceased and Respondent No. 1 established – Term "employer" under the Employees' Compensation Act includes not only the immediate employer but also the principal employer who has ultimate control and supervision over the establishment – Both Respondents jointly and severally liable – Trial court's finding exonerating Respondent No. 1 perverse for ignoring material evidence and admissions — Findings set aside to that extent [Paras 19–31].

Employees' Compensation Act – Beneficial Legislation – Liberal Interpretation – Proof of Employment – The Employees' Compensation Act is a welfare legislation enacted to protect workers and their families and must be interpreted liberally in favour of claimants – Absence of documentary evidence such as appointment letters, salary slips or wage registers is not fatal to compensation claims – Employer-employee relationship can be established on the basis of surrounding circumstances, nature of work and probabilities – Once accident occurs during the course of employment and there is a connection between the work and the accident, liability of employer arises immediately – Technical or inconsistent defences cannot defeat genuine compensation claims under a welfare statute – Courts entitled to draw adverse inference against employers who take contradictory stands and fail to produce crucial documents such as licence, safety compliance records and wage registers [Paras 20–24, 30].

Evidence – Perverse Finding – Adverse Inference – Trial court's finding of exoneration of Respondent No. 1 not supported by material evidence on record – Commissioner failed to consider admissions and contradictory statements of Respondent No. 2, police statement establishing his role as Manager, and failed to draw adverse inference for non-production of relevant documents – No proper issue framed on employer-employee relationship with Respondent No. 1 – A finding is perverse when based on no evidence, when relevant material is ignored, or when conclusions are drawn contrary to the record – Such perversity warrants appellate interference [Paras 27–31].

Compensation – Computation – Statutory Formula – Compensation of Rs. 8,47,160/- with 12% interest per annum from date of accident (27.04.2019) and 50% penalty of Rs. 4,23,580/- under Section 4A of the Act confirmed as just and proper – Respondents 1 and 2 directed to jointly and severally deposit entire compensation amount within 8 weeks before the Commissioner [Para 32].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and Award dated 25.07.2023 in WCA No. 8/2019 quashed and set aside to the extent of exonerating Respondent No. 1 – Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 held jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the appellants – Compensation confirmed – Respondents directed to deposit entire compensation within 8 weeks before the Commissioner under the Employees' Compensation Act and Labour Court, Buldhana – No order as to costs.

Land Acquisition – Requisition Without Subsequent Acquisition – West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 – Petitioner's land (RS Plot Nos. 452, 453, 527, 513 and 513/3862 totalling 29 decimals, Mouza Bural, PS Sabong, Paschim Medinipur) requisitioned under Section 3(1) of the 1948 Act in LA Case No. 255 of 1975–76 – Possession delivered to Requiring Body on 22.02.1978 – No notification under Section 4(1a) of the 1948 Act ever published – No award passed – No compensation paid – Held: In the absence of issuance of notice under Section 4(1a) of the 1948 Act, vesting under Section 4(2) never occurred – 1948 Act, being a temporary statute, expired by efflux of time on 31.03.1997 – With the expiry of the statute, requisition also came to an end – No notice under Section 9(3A) or Section 9(3B) of the 1894 Act was ever served during the lifetime of the 1894 Act – After repeal of the 1894 Act with effect from 01.01.2014, no further notice under Section 9(3A) could be issued – State possessing land forcibly and without authority of law – Petitioner entitled to fair compensation under the 2013 Act [Paras 37–59, 71–73].

Constitutional Law – Article 300A – Right to Property – Deprivation Without Authority of Law – No person can be deprived of property save by authority of law – Utilisation of private land for a permanent public purpose without initiating valid acquisition proceedings and without payment of compensation is violative of Article 300A – State, as a welfare State governed by rule of law, cannot arrogate to itself a status beyond what is provided by the Constitution – State cannot claim adverse possession over land of its own citizens – Held: Petitioner entitled to be compensated for deprivation of property without legal sanction [Paras 15, 57, 59, 73].

Delay and Laches – Land Acquisition – Distinction from Service Jurisprudence – State objected to maintainability of writ petition on ground of inordinate delay, possession having been taken in 1978–79 – Held: Doctrine of delay and laches cannot be invoked to defeat a land loser's claim for compensation where possession was taken without due process of law – Cause of action in such cases is continuous – Where the State deprives a citizen of property without sanction of law, shocks the judicial conscience, and no third-party interest is involved, delay cannot be a bar – Decisions in U.P. Jal Nigam and Rabindra Nath Bose, being cases of service jurisprudence, distinguished and held inapplicable – Discretion exercised in favour of petitioner to promote substantial justice [Paras 14–35].

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Applicability – Section 24 – State contended that the 2013 Act cannot apply retrospectively to acquisition initiated and possession taken under the 1948 Act and not the 1894 Act – Held: Section 24 of the 2013 Act is a saving section and saves acquisition proceedings from lapsing only to the extent indicated therein – Since no acquisition proceeding under the 1894 Act was ever initiated and no notice under Section 9(3A) was served during the lifetime of the 1894 Act, the only recourse available is initiation of acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act – Respondent authorities directed to initiate and complete acquisition proceedings including payment of compensation within four months [Paras 61–74].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Respondent authorities directed to initiate proceedings for acquisition of petitioner's land under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and to complete entire proceedings including payment of compensation within four months from receipt of a server copy of this order.

Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ Jurisdiction - Land Tenure Conversion - Premium rates - Delay in administrative decision - Petitioners sought conversion of land from new to old tenure based on application dated 07-10-2002 - Authorities delayed final approval for over 13 years despite the District Valuation Committee fixing rates in 2003 and 2007 - Held - State cannot keep applications for premium pending indefinitely - Delay of 13 years is entirely attributable to the respondent authorities - Petitioners cannot be compelled to pay premium at current higher Jantri rates due to such administrative procedural impropriety - [Paras 2-12, 29-31]

Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 - Section 43 - Restricted Tenure - Conversion to Old Tenure - Premium Calculation - Crucial date for determination - Supreme Court in Gohil Jesangbhai case held that the Collector must decide premium applications as far as possible within 90 days - In the present case the Collector forwarded proposals in 2004 and 2007 but Revenue Department sat tight - Held - Ratio in Gohil Jesangbhai is squarely applicable - Collector is expected to take a decision within 90 days - Since the decision on the 2007 proposal was delayed without justification the petitioners are entitled to pay premium at the rate of Rs 14,500 per sq mtr as decided in 2007 - [Paras 14-15, 22, 30-31]

Indian Contract Act 1872 - Section 202 - Agency coupled with interest - Death of Principal - Preliminary objection raised by State that petition was filed by a dead person as one petitioner passed away in 2005 - Petition filed through Power of Attorney (POA) holder - Held - Agency coupled with interest does not terminate by the death of the principal where agent has an interest in the property - Irrevocable POA continues to operate - Preliminary objection rejected - [Paras 13, 13.1]

Decision: Petition partly allowed - Order dated 22-01-2020 quashed and set aside - Respondents directed to accept premium at the rate of Rs 14,500 per sq mtr as decided in 2007 - Differential amount already deposited by petitioners to be refunded within 8 weeks - Rule made absolute.

Limitation Act 1963 - Articles 54 58 and 59 - Limitation - Rejection of Plaint - Suit filed in 2017 to set aside a registered sale deed of 2010 based on an agreement to sale from 1984 - Held - Registration of a document provides constructive notice under Section 3 of TPA - Limitation for challenging an instrument is three years from the date of knowledge - Plaintiffs deemed to have knowledge from the date of registration - Suit filed seven years after registration and thirty-three years after the agreement is barred by limitation - [Paras 40 45 49 56-57]

Transfer of Property Act 1882 - Section 53A - Part Performance - Nature of Right - Shield and not a sword - Appellants claimed ownership rights based on possession and part performance - Held - Section 53A operates only as a defense to resist dispossession and cannot be invoked as a basis to assert ownership or seek affirmative relief like declaration of title or specific performance - Plea for protection of possession is untenable once the primary claim for specific performance is barred by limitation - [Paras 43 48-49]

Specific Relief Act 1963 - Section 34 - Declaration of Title - Omission of further relief - Plaintiffs sought declaration of ownership without seeking specific performance of the underlying agreement - Held - Section 34 prohibits the Court from making a declaration where the plaintiff being able to seek further relief omits to do so - Title does not pass by a mere agreement to sale - In the absence of a prayer for specific performance the suit for mere declaration of ownership is not maintainable and hit by the proviso to Section 34 - [Paras 28 40-42 46-47]

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - Rejection of Plaint - Clever Drafting - Limitation - Held - A plaint which is ex-facie barred by limitation cannot be saved by clever drafting to create an illusionary cause of action - Where the averments in the plaint are artificial and intended to bypass the law of limitation the Court must exercise power under Order VII Rule 11 to nip the litigation in the bud - Trial Court correctly rejected the plaint - [Paras 43-45 58]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC affirmed – No order as to costs.