A. Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956—Section 8—Permission to alienate minor's immovable property—Development Agreement—Held: While considering an application under Section 8, the Court acts in its parens patriae jurisdiction and must determine whether the proposed transaction is necessary or for the evident advantage of the minor. Where an undivided share in jointly held undeveloped land is proposed to be exchanged under a development agreement for a constructed residential unit together with monetary consideration, such arrangement may constitute a tangible and beneficial asset for the minor. Rejection of permission on hyper-technical grounds without assessing the comparative advantage to the minor is unsustainable. (Paras 14–16, 17–18). B. Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956&mdash...

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985—Section 37—Commercial Quantity—Grant of Bail—Twin Conditions Mandatory—Held: In cases involving recovery of commercial quantity of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, compliance with the twin conditions prescribed under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act is mandatory. Before granting bail, the Court must record satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Failure to consider these statutory requirements renders the order granting bail legally unsustainable. (Paras 14–18). B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985—Section 37—Commercial Quantity—Criminal Antecedents and Likelihood of ...

A. Constitution of India, 1950—Articles 14 and 15(1)—Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016—Clause 2(p)—Definition of “Family”—Exclusion of Married Daughters—Constitutional Validity—Held: Exclusion of married daughters from the definition of “family” under Clause 2(p) of the 2016 Order is unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution. The classification based solely on marital status fails the test of reasonable classification and is manifestly arbitrary. Dependency or entitlement to compassionate allotment cannot be conclusively determined on the basis of marriage alone, as dependency is essentially a question of fact. The exclusion perpetuates gender stereotypes and results in impermis...

A. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Sections 33 and 34(3)—Limitation for Filing Application to Set Aside Arbitral Award—Commencement of Limitation—Held: Where a request under Section 33 of the Act has been formally made and entertained by the Arbitral Tribunal, the limitation prescribed under Section 34(3) for filing an application to set aside the arbitral award commences only from the date on which such request is disposed of by the Tribunal. The provision does not distinguish between applications that are ultimately allowed, dismissed, or found to be untenable. Once the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 33 is invoked, parties are entitled to compute limitation from the date of disposal of such proceedings. (Paras 13–15, 18). B. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Section...

A. Hindu Succession Act, 1956—Sections 8, 10 and 19—Succession to Separate Property of Male Hindu Dying Intestate—Tenants-in-Common and Not Joint Tenants—Held: On the death of a male Hindu intestate, his separate property devolves upon the Class I heirs in accordance with Sections 8 and 10 of the Hindu Succession Act. By virtue of Section 19, such heirs take the property as tenants-in-common and not as joint tenants, each acquiring a definite and identifiable share. The doctrine of survivorship has no application to such succession, and each heir’s share devolves upon his or her own heirs. Property inherited under Section 8 is held in an individual capacity and does not assume the character of joint family or coparcenary property. (Paras 6–8). B. Hindu Law—Karta—Legal Necessity—Powe...

A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 437 and 439—Bail in Murder and Criminal Conspiracy Cases—Principles Governing Grant of Bail—Held: Though “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” remains a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence, it is not an absolute rule. In cases involving grave offences such as murder and criminal conspiracy punishable with death or imprisonment for life, the Court must balance the liberty of the accused against factors such as the existence of a prima facie case, gravity of the offence, nature of evidence, possibility of witness intimidation, likelihood of tampering with evidence, antecedents, age, health and the progress of trial. Where prima facie material indicates overt acts, conspiracy and shared intention, bail may justifiably be refused. (Paras 31–33)...

A. Service Law—Pensionary Benefits—Temporary Status Casual Labourers—Entitlement to Pension—Held: Casual labourers who were conferred temporary status under the applicable Scheme and completed the prescribed period of continuous service are entitled to the benefits available to temporary Group ‘D’ employees, including pensionary benefits, notwithstanding the absence of formal regularisation. Pension is a continuing right and a recurring cause of action, and its denial cannot be justified merely on the ground of delay in approaching the Court or on account of administrative inaction in regularising the employee. (Paras 34, 35, 41, 76–79). B. Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965—Rule 10(1-B)—Temporary Government Servants—Superannuation Pension and Family Pensio...

A. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023—Sections 109(1), 127(2), 191(2), 308(5), 351(3) and 352—Quashing of FIR—Delay in Lodging FIR—Held: Mere delay in lodging a First Information Report, without any other attendant circumstances rendering the prosecution case inherently improbable or absurd, cannot by itself constitute a valid ground for quashing the FIR. Delay is only one of the factors to be considered during appreciation of evidence at trial and not a standalone basis for terminating criminal proceedings at the threshold. The High Court erred in quashing the FIR solely on the ground of a delay of 24 days in its registration. (Paras 9, 11, 12, 13). B. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023—Quashing of FIR—Duty of High Court to Examine Nature of Allegations—Held: While exercising jurisdiction to ...

A. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023—Sections 65, 74, 115, 351 and 352 and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012—Sections 3 and 4—Rape and Sexual Abuse Allegations—Quashing of Proceedings—Held: Allegations against the father and uncle of the prosecutrix alleging rape and sexual assault were vague, omnibus and unsupported by specific factual particulars, dates, circumstances or corroborative material. In the backdrop of prolonged matrimonial discord and multiple litigations between the parties, the complaint appeared to be a counterblast to ongoing disputes. Mere bald allegations, without prima facie material satisfying the ingredients of the offences, cannot justify continuation of criminal prosecution. Proceedings quashed. (Paras 7.1 to 7.7, 8.2). B. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023—Section...

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872—Sections 133 and 114 Illustration (b)—Approver's Testimony—Evidentiary Value and Corroboration—Held: Testimony of an approver is admissible and conviction is not illegal merely because it is based on uncorroborated approver evidence. Corroboration is a rule of prudence and not an inflexible rule of law. Where the approver's testimony is credible, inculpatory, inspires confidence, and stands corroborated by surrounding circumstances in material particulars, it can safely form the basis of conviction. Mere fact that the approver did not inflict the fatal blows does not render his testimony self-exculpatory or unreliable. (Paras 23–39). B. Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 120A, 120B and 302—Criminal Conspiracy to Commit Murder—Liability of Co-conspirator&...