Civil Law - Partition and Succession - Hindu Succession Act 1956 - Sections 6 and 8 - Intestate Succession - Appellants being the legally wedded wife and daughter of the deceased challenged the First Appellate Court judgment which reversed a trial court decree for partition and pension benefits - Deceased male Hindu was survived by a legally wedded wife and a daughter as well as a second wife with whom he maintained a 26 year long relationship and three children born of said union - A previous compromise decree resulted in the daughter relinquishing her 50 percent coparcenary share in ancestral properties in favour of her father - High Court found that the relinquishment converted the ancestral property into the self-acquired property of the father - Upon his intestate death in 2010 the properties became subject to the law of succession under Section 8 of the Act - Children from the second relationship being legitimate under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 were entitled to shares on par with the daughter from the first marriage - Held - Legally wedded wife and daughter along with three children from the second relationship are each entitled to 1/5th share in Items 1 to 7 of the suit schedule properties - Item 8 found to be the self-acquired property of the second wife mother - appeal partly allowed - [Paras 1-45].

Civil Law - Family Pension - Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules 1980 - Rule 6(a)(i) - Distribution between Widows - Entitlement of a second wife in a void marriage to family pension benefits - Deceased government employee lived with the first respondent for over two decades and nominated her in official service records - The first appellant had lived separately for 26 years and did not care for the deceased during his terminal illness - Court relied on precedents to balance equities between the legally wedded wife and the second wife in social justice matters - Held - Legally wedded wife and the second wife who was the nominee are entitled to receive the monthly family pension in equal shares of 50 percent each - [Paras 30-44].

Civil Law - Compromise Decree - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 11 - Res Judicata - Effect of a compromise decree where a daughter relinquishes coparcenary rights in ancestral property to her father - High Court analyzed whether such relinquishment debars subsequent claims after the father intestate death - Held - Relinquishment made the property the self-acquired property of the father and his death created a fresh cause of action for his heirs to claim shares via succession - [Paras 17-21].

Evidence Law - Long Cohabitation - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 114 - Presumption of Marriage - Deceased lived with the first respondent from 1984 until 2010 and fathered three children - Official records and pension nominations identified the respondent as the wife - Held - While the second marriage was void due to the subsistence of the first marriage the long cohabitation and service records justify the distribution of pensionary benefits to the second wife to balance equities - [Paras 40-43].

Decision: Second Appeal partly allowed – Appellants and children of the second relationship (Respondents 2 to 4) each granted 1/5th share in Items 1 to 7 of the suit schedule property – Family pension to be shared equally between the first Appellant and the first Respondent – Parties to bear their own costs.

Writ Law - Compassionate Appointment - Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules 1996 - Rule 2 - Married Daughter - Petitioner applied for compassionate appointment in 2014 after her father died in service as a Group-D employee - Application rejected via endorsement in 2021 on grounds that she was married at the time of death and her mother was a retired government servant - Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal dismissed the challenge despite acknowledging that married daughters are entitled to appointment - High Court observed Rule 2 was amended on 09.04.2021 by way of substitution to include married daughters in the definition of family - Court distinguished Bheemesh case as it dealt with insertion of words rather than substitution - Substitution implies the amended provision is read as if it existed in the statute book since inception - Held - Rejection of application on sole ground of marital status is unsustainable as substitutionary amendments relate back to the original Rules - Writ petition allowed - Tribunal order and endorsement quashed - [Paras 1-9].

Writ Law - Interpretation of Statutes - Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules 1996 - Rule 2 - Substitution vs Insertion - State contended the 2021 amendment was prospective - High Court held that when an amendment is made by way of substitution the amended provision must be read as if it was in the statute book from the day the said Rule came into force - Held - Petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the 2021 Amended Rules because the change from unmarried daughter to daughter was by way of substitution - [Paras 8-9].

Writ Law - Financial Condition - Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules 1996 - Rule 4(1)(b) - Dependency - Respondents rejected the claim stating the mother of the applicant is a retired government servant receiving pension - Court held that the receipt of pension by a mother does not automatically disqualify a child for compassionate appointment - Held - Respondents must examine the case specifically in terms of Rule 4(1)(b) and Rules 5 and 6 of the 1996 Rules to assess dependency and pass appropriate orders - [Para 7].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Order of the Tribunal dated 21.01.2022 and endorsement dated 12.03.2021 quashed – Respondents directed to reconsider the petitioner's case for compassionate appointment within three months.

Civil Law - Arbitration - Interim Protection - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Section 9 - Petitioner ONGC sought extension of a bank guarantee worth USD 14.82 million pending a challenge to an arbitral award dated September 30 2025 - The Arbitral Tribunal had rejected ONGC's claim for liquidated damages and directed the return of the guarantee to the respondent - Respondent Swiber was under liquidation in Singapore following orders by the Singapore High Court - ONGC filed a Section 34 challenge and a Section 36(3) application for stay of the award - The bank guarantee was due to expire on June 15 2026 - The Respondent resisted the petition citing non-disclosure of Consent Terms dated September 5 2016 which specifically provided that the bank guarantee would remain valid only for 120 days after the issuance of the arbitral award - The High Court observed that while an unsuccessful party in arbitration is not barred from seeking post-award interim protection under Section 9 the threshold for such relief is significantly higher - The Court found that the urgency projected by the petitioner was partly self-created as it was aware of the expiry date and the agreed 120-day limit but allowed considerable time to pass before filing the present petition - The Court further noted that the relief sought would effectively rewrite the Consent Terms which were consciously entered into by commercial entities - Held - Petitioner failed to establish the existence of rare and compelling circumstances required to justify extraordinary post-award protection - Petition dismissed - [Paras 1-77].

Civil Law - Arbitration - Maintainability of post-award Section 9 relief - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Section 9 - Unsuccessful party - The Supreme Court in Home Care Retail Marts (P) Ltd v Haresh N Sanghavi (2026) established that Sections 9 34 and 36 operate in distinct fields and the mere availability of remedies under Sections 34 or 36 does not prevent a party from invoking Section 9 - However the Court must exercise caution as findings in an award continue to operate unless set aside - An unsuccessful party must demonstrate exceptional circumstances where refusal of protection would result in an irreparable situation that cannot be corrected even if the challenge succeeds - Held - An arguable challenge to the award is not sufficient by itself to meet the higher threshold prescribed for an unsuccessful party seeking post-award relief - [Paras 42, 64-65].

Civil Law - Discretionary Relief - Suppression and Non-disclosure - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Section 9 - Petitioner failed to disclose in the present petition the Consent Terms recorded in 2016 that fixed an outer limit for the bank guarantee's continuation - The petitioner had relied on these very terms in its parallel application under Section 36(3) - Held - A litigant seeking discretionary relief must approach the Court with complete openness and disclose all material facts including those that may not support its own case - Failure to disclose the agreed 120-day post-award limit for the guarantee affected the assessment of overall equities and went against the petitioner - [Paras 30, 46-53].

Civil Law - Arbitration - International Commercial Arbitration - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Section 34 - Scope of challenge - The respondent was a company incorporated in Singapore rendering the proceedings an International Commercial Arbitration - In such arbitrations the ground of patent illegality is not available as a basis for setting aside the award - The legislative policy is to minimize judicial intervention - Held - The narrow scope of judicial interference available in relation to international commercial arbitral awards limits the extent to which the Court can grant interim protection based on a challenge to the merits of the award - [Paras 35, 62-63].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Prayer for continuation or extension of Bank Guarantee No. 811-02-0041188 rejected – Petitioner failed to satisfy the high threshold for post-award interim protection for an unsuccessful party.

Criminal Law - Medical Negligence - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 338 – Quashing - Petitioner doctor faced prosecution for causing grievous hurt by a rash or negligent act during a Caesarean delivery - Complainant alleged the infant suffered a scalp injury due to mismanagement - Investigation resulted in a charge sheet filed before the completion of the Medical Council inquiry - West Bengal Medical Council subsequently opined that the scalp injury occurred inadvertently and was properly managed with the baby being discharged in satisfactory condition - Court observed that the standard for criminal negligence of a medical professional requires a high degree of negligence or rashness - Negligence cannot be attributed if the doctor performs duties with reasonable skill and follows an accepted medical practice - Held - No prima facie case of rashness or negligence was established to endanger human life - continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process - proceedings quashed - [Paras 1-17].

Criminal Law - Quashing of Proceedings - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 482 - Guidelines for prosecuting medical professionals - Jacob Matthew versus State of Punjab followed - Private complaints against doctors should not be entertained unless supported by a credible opinion from another competent doctor - Investigating officers must obtain an independent medical opinion preferably from a government doctor before proceeding - In the present case the police submitted a charge sheet without considering the Medical Council's findings which exonerated the doctor - Held - The investigation was perfunctory as it failed to consider the statutory inquiry under the Bengal Medical Act 1914 - [Paras 11-15].

Criminal Law - Criminal Negligence vs Professional Negligence - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 338 - Difference between civil and criminal liability - Mens rea is an essential element for criminal negligence - A doctor is not liable for an error of judgment or for choosing one acceptable course of action over another - The fact that the complainant returned to the same doctor for a second delivery despite a previous minor injury incident manifest faith in the doctor - Held - To prosecute a professional for negligence it must be shown that they did something which no medical professional of ordinary senses and prudence would have done - [Paras 4-13].

Decision: CRR allowed – Proceedings in connection with C.G.R no. 1159 of 2016 arising out of Alipore Police Station case no. 82 of 2016 quashed – Petitioner discharged from bail bonds.

Civil Law - Permanent Injunction - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 100 - Interference with concurrent findings - Suit for permanent injunction filed by plaintiffs seeking to restrain defendants from interfering with peaceful possession of plaint schedule property - Plaintiff No 1 purchased property from defendant No 6 via registered sale deed and gifted a portion to plaintiff No 2 - Trial Court decreed the suit after examining oral and documentary evidence including revenue records - First Appellate Court dismissed the first appeal confirming the trial court decree - Defendant No 1 preferred second appeal claiming the property was coparcenary and the sale deed was nominal - High Court noted that the partition suit filed by defendant No 1 was already dismissed by lower courts - Physical possession of plaintiffs as on the date of suit was established and recognized by revenue authorities through pattadar passbooks and title deeds - Held - High Court cannot interfere with findings of fact arrived at by first appellate court unless they are erroneous or contrary to law - No substantial question of law involved - appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-20].

Civil Law - Second Appeal - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 100 - Power of High Court - The law is well settled that under Section 100 of CPC the High Court cannot interfere with findings of fact arrived at by the first appellate court which is the final court of facts - Exceptions exist only where findings are erroneous or contrary to mandatory provisions of law or based on inadmissible evidence - Held - High Court cannot substitute its opinion for that of the first appellate court unless the conclusions drawn are found to be perverse or based on no evidence - [Paras 14-19].

Civil Law - Injunction Simpliciter - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 100 - Possession - Suit for injunction simpliciter is concerned only with possession and the issue of title is not directly and substantially in issue - Finding of title cannot be recorded unless there are necessary pleadings and an appropriate issue regarding title - Plaintiffs established settled possession as on the date of suit through registered sale deeds and revenue entries - Defendants failed to produce evidence to prove that the sale deed was a nominal one or that the property was joint family property at the time of transaction - Held - Grant of permanent injunction restraining interference except under due process of law is legally sound - [Paras 16-18].

Decision: Second appeal dismissed – Concurrent findings of the lower courts affirmed – Each party to bear their own costs in the second appeal.

Criminal Law - Quashing of Proceedings - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Sections 397 401 and 482 - Petitioner a pharmaceutical company in Indore supplied goods to opposite party distributor in West Bengal - Dispute arose over outstanding payments of approximately 47 lakhs - Petitioner initiated Section 138 NI Act proceedings in Indore - Opposite party filed counter-complaint in Calcutta alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust after receiving summons - Magistrate took cognizance and issued process under Sections 406 420 120B IPC without conducting mandatory enquiry under Section 202 CrPC despite accused residing outside territorial jurisdiction - High Court observed the dispute was purely commercial involving breach of contract and quality of goods - Held - issuance of process was mechanical and dehors the settled law - allegations in the complaint even if taken at face value do not constitute a criminal offence - proceedings quashed to prevent abuse of process - [Paras 1-18].

Criminal Law - Mandatory Enquiry - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 202 - Specific Catchword - Mandatory enquiry for non-resident accused - Petitioner company based in Indore while complaint filed before Metropolitan Magistrate in Calcutta - Magistrate issued summons without conducting enquiry or investigation as mandated by the 2005 amendment to Section 202 - Purpose of the amendment is to prevent harassment of persons residing at far off places through false complaints - Use of the word shall in the provision makes it obligatory for the Magistrate to postpone issuance of process until enquiry is held - Held - failure to conduct mandatory enquiry for out-of-station accused vitiates the proceedings - [Paras 14-15].

Criminal Law - Cheating and Breach of Trust - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 405 406 and 420 - Distinction between civil breach of contract and criminal offence - Allegations involved delivery of inferior quality medicines and non-settlement of dues - Record established existing business relationship since 2019 and payment of 25 lakhs by complainant towards outstanding dues - No evidence of fraudulent or dishonest inducement at the inception of the transaction - Criminal breach of trust requires entrustment and dishonest misappropriation - Mere failure to keep a promise or breach of contract does not ipso facto constitute a criminal offence - Held - the dispute is civil in nature for which civil remedies lie - criminal prosecution cannot be used for recovery of money or as a counter-blast to legitimate legal proceedings - [Paras 11-13].

Decision: Revisional application allowed – Proceedings in Case No. CS/51484 of 2022 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate 10th Court Calcutta quashed.

Writ Law - Suspension of Sentence - Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Supervisory Jurisdiction - Petitioner was convicted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Sanand for land grabbing and forgery under Sections 465 467 468 471 and 120B IPC - The conviction was challenged before the Sessions Judge Ahmedabad Rural in a criminal appeal - Pending the appeal the petitioner sought suspension of sentence under Section 389 CrPC which was rejected - Petitioner invoked writ jurisdiction seeking certiorari against the rejection order - High Court analyzed the prosecution case involving the use of a forged Mamlatdar order to transfer restricted tenure agricultural land to 52 private companies - Evidence indicated no consideration was paid and documents were fabricated at the instance of the petitioner - Petitioner conduct including threatening witnesses and serious antecedents were noted - High Court observed that supervisory jurisdiction is limited and does not act as an appellate jurisdiction to re-appreciate evidence unless manifest error or gross failure of justice is shown - Held - No manifest error or perversity found in the orders of the courts below - Petition dismissed with directions to expedite the criminal appeal - [Paras 1-42].

Criminal Law - Forgery - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 465 467 468 471 and 120B - Making a False Document - Execution of sale deeds in favour of 52 companies on basis of a non-existent revenue order for tenure conversion - Trial Court found the petitioner was the maker of the forged document as he stood to gain directly from the false recital - Subsequent reliance upon forged sale deeds in amalgamation proceedings proved fraudulent intent - Held - Using a fictitious order with fraudulent intent to convey title constitutes forgery under Section 464 IPC - [Paras 24-29].

Writ Law - Certiorari - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Scope of Writ - Extraordinary jurisdiction for correcting errors of jurisdiction or manifest errors apparent on face of record - High Court acts in supervisory and not appellate capacity - Findings of fact reached by inferior tribunals upon appreciation of evidence cannot be challenged through certiorari - Held - Power to be exercised sparingly to correct gross failure of justice - [Paras 31-35].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Trial Court directed to ensure expeditious hearing and disposal of the appeal within six months – Observations made are prima facie and shall not influence the final merits of the appeal.

Civil Law - Property Title - Transfer of Property Act 1882 - Section 7 - Competency of vendor - Nemo dat quod non habet - Property originally purchased by Mallige Byrappa in 1944 - His son Ramaiah executed a sale deed in favor of Respondent 1 in 1979 during the father's lifetime - Ramaiah manipulated RTC records (Ex.P24) to insert his name prior to sale - Father challenged the sale in O.S. 81/1980 which was dismissed and confirmed up to Second Appeal - Father subsequently executed a registered Will in favor of his daughters - Daughters sold property to Appellants in 2006 - Appellants filed for declaration of title - Trial Court and First Appellate Court dismissed Appellants' suits on grounds of res judicata citing the earlier round of litigation - High Court reversed findings holding that Ramaiah had no title or authorization to sell under Section 7 of TP Act - Documentary evidence Ex.D3 showed son sold property in individual capacity and not as kartha - Manipulation of revenue records proved fraud - Held - Son could not convey better title than he possessed - Findings of lower courts on title and res judicata erroneous - Suits of appellants allowed - [Paras 1-93].

Civil Law - Fraud - Vitiation of Judicial Proceedings - Fraud and justice never dwell together - Finding of manipulation in RTC records (Ex.P24) to facilitate sale by son during father's lifetime - High Court noted that fraud unravels everything and avoids all judicial acts - Evidence showed conflict of interest where the advocate for the father's legal representatives in earlier proceedings identified the adversary and attested his power of attorney - Held - A judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the Court is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law - Principle of finality of litigation cannot be pressed to become an engine of fraud - [Paras 60-70, 80-87].

Civil Law - Res Judicata - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 11 - Exceptions - Erroneous decision on question of law and fraud - Respondents contended that earlier dismissal of father's suit operates as res judicata against subsequent purchasers - High Court held that an erroneous judgment on a question of law which sanctions an illegal act cannot operate as res judicata - Lack of competency of the son to sell father's property was a statutory prohibition under Section 7 of TP Act not given effect to in earlier proceedings - Held - Doctrine of res judicata not applicable where the previous decree is established to be a result of fraud or is per se illegal - [Paras 75-77, 85-88].

Civil Law - Succession - Registered Will - Indian Succession Act 1925 - Section 63 - Proof of Will - Father executed registered Will (Ex.P11) in favor of daughters during pendency of earlier suit - Will proved in inquiry under Order 22 Rule 5 CPC and by examining attesting witnesses - Lower courts erroneously held father had no title to bequeath due to the prior illegal sale by son - Held - Since son's sale was void father remained the owner until death - Will validly conveyed title to daughters who then sold to appellants - [Paras 71-74, 109-110].

Decision: All regular second appeals allowed - Judgments and decrees of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court in O.S.No.416/2007, 11/2015, 12/2015, 13/2015 and O.S.No.10/2015 set aside - Appellants in O.S.No.416/2007 declared owners of suit property - Relief of permanent injunction granted in favor of appellants.

Civil Law - Rejection of Plaint - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) - Limitation - Registered Partition Deed - Petitioners-defendants challenged the order of the LXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge rejecting their application I.A.No.III seeking rejection of the plaint in O.S.No.25803/2024 - The respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and separate possession in 2024 claiming shares in properties already divided via a registered partition deed dated 17-11-2004 - The predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs P.A. Babu was a signatory to the 2004 deed and received consideration in lieu of his share - Plaintiffs alleged the 2004 deed was fraudulent and they lacked knowledge until the defendants filed their written statement - The Trial Court rejected the application holding that limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and only plaint averments must be considered - The High Court observed that the registered partition deed had stood for 20 years and was never challenged by the executants who enjoyed the benefits - Held - Registration of a document constitutes constructive notice under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act - A suit filed after a lapse of 20 years seeking to reopen a concluded partition is ex-facie barred by limitation and lacks a valid cause of action - Clever drafting intended to create an illusion of a cause of action cannot be permitted to resurrect stale claims - Plaint rejected - [Paras 1-17].

Property Law - Constructive Notice - Transfer of Property Act 1882 - Section 3 - Registered Instrument - The plaintiffs claimed ignorance of the 2004 partition deed until 2024 - The Court relied on Suraj Lamp & Industries P Ltd v State of Haryana to reiterate that the object of registration is to provide notice to the public and safeguard titles - Held - The plaintiffs are deemed to have knowledge of the registered instrument from the date of its execution - The plea of ignorance after two decades is implausible and defies human conduct - [Paras 10-13].

Civil Law - Abuse of Process - Clever Drafting - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - The High Court emphasized that the judicial process cannot become a refuge for claims long extinguished by law - Referring to Ramisetty Venkatanna v Nasyam Jamal Saheb and Dahiben v Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali the Court noted its duty to nip bogus litigation in the bud - Held - Where a plaint uses artful pleading to conceal a barred action the Court must pierce the veil and reject the plaint at the inception - [Paras 10.1-16].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition allowed – Order dated 16-01-2025 in O.S.No.25803/2024 set aside – Application I.A.No.III under Order VII Rule 11 CPC allowed – Plaint stands rejected.