[1] - INTERIM VEHICLE RELEASE

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 457, Sec. 451 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Sec. 63, Sec. 21, Sec. 36C, Sec. 60, Sec. 51, Sec. 52A - Interim Vehicle Release - Criminal Appeal filed against High Court judgment declining release of vehicle seized under NDPS Act - Appellant contended vehicle was used unknowingly by accused for drug trafficking and sought its release to prevent deterioration - Respondent opposed, citing NDPS Act provisions disfavoring interim release and potential misuse of vehicle - Court found no specific bar under NDPS Act for interim release and held provisions of Cr.P.C. applicable for such cases - Observed that keeping vehicles in police custody during trial causes depreciation, serving no purpose - Directed trial court to release vehicle with conditions ensuring availability during trial - Imposed restrictions on vehicle sale or transfer and required detailed documentation for identification - Appeal Allowed

Law Point : Seized vehicles under NDPS Act can be released on interim basis by invoking Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. when ownership or non-complicity of owner is evident, subject to conditions ensuring vehicle availability during trial.

Acts Referred:

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 457, Sec. 451
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Sec. 63, Sec. 21, Sec. 36C, Sec. 60, Sec. 51, Sec. 52A

[2] - MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Sec. 166 - Motor Accident Claim - Appeal by claimant seeking enhancement of compensation due to serious injuries resulting in 60% permanent disability caused by a road accident - Claims Tribunal initially granted compensation of Rs. 19,43,800/- with 7% interest - High Court partially allowed appeal enhancing compensation under loss of income to Rs. 27,21,600/- while maintaining 40% for future prospects and adopting Rs. 15,000/- as monthly income - Claimant contested insufficiency of amounts for therapies, future medical expenses, attendant charges, and non-pecuniary damages - Supreme Court observed High Court failed to consider inadequacies in other compensatory heads and acted against medical recommendations - Court enhanced total compensation to Rs. 48,00,000/- in line with claimant's application - Appeal Allowed

Law Point : Just compensation under Motor Vehicles Act requires thorough consideration of all compensatory heads, ensuring alignment with medical opinions, economic conditions, and long-term requirements of accident victims.

Acts Referred:

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Sec. 166

[3] - MURDER AND EVIDENCE

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 154 - Evidence Act, 1872 Sec. 27 - Murder and Evidence - Criminal appeal filed by accused challenging conviction under Sections 302 r/w 149 IPC and Section 5 of Explosive Substances Act - Incident arose from political clashes leading to mob attack and fatal injuries to two victims - Trial Court convicted all accused; High Court acquitted some while confirming conviction of others based on evidence including eyewitness accounts, medical reports, and weapon recoveries - Appellants argued material contradictions, faulty investigation, and interested testimonies - Court held minor contradictions do not discredit entire prosecution case - Doctrine 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' not applicable in Indian jurisprudence - Credible corroboration from evidence supported High Court findings - Conviction upheld - Appeal Dismissed

Law Point : Minor contradictions in testimonies and defects in investigation do not undermine a prosecution case if corroborated by credible evidence; doctrine of 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' not applicable in Indian criminal law.

Acts Referred:

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 154
Evidence Act, 1872 Sec. 27

[4] - BAIL CONDITIONS FOR FOREIGNERS

Foreigners Act, 1946 Sec. 14, Sec. 3, Sec. 2 - Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1992 Rule 3 - Bail Conditions for Foreigners - Criminal appeals concerning necessity to implead Civil Authority or Registration Officer in bail applications of foreigners - Appellant argued authorities under Foreigners Act, 1946 should be made parties in such cases - Court held authorities under Act lack locus to oppose bail applications unless allegation involves Sec. 14 of Act - Making authorities parties would delay decisions on bail - Directed State or prosecuting agency to inform Registration Officer upon granting bail to foreigner - Officer to notify concerned Civil Authority to enable steps under law - Clarified authorities' powers independent of court's bail discretion - Appeals Disposed

Law Point : Authorities under Foreigners Act are not mandatory parties to bail applications but must be notified post-grant of bail for appropriate action under law; such processes ensure balance without procedural delays.

Acts Referred:

Foreigners Act, 1946 Sec. 14, Sec. 3, Sec. 2
Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1992 Rule 3

[5] - CHEATING AND PROPERTY DISPUTE

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 415, Sec. 420 - Cheating and Property Dispute - Appeal against High Court order dismissing petition to quash FIR registered for offence under Section 420 IPC - FIR alleged appellant fraudulently sold undivided property without consent of co-owners - Appellant contended property sale represented legal share of vendors - Respondent filed FIR two years after initiating civil suits over property title and failed to disclose pending suits - Court held essential ingredients of cheating under Section 415 IPC not made out - Act primarily a civil dispute improperly given criminal dimension - FIR quashed against appellant and clarified non-adjudication on merits of civil suits - Appeal Allowed

Law Point : A civil dispute over property rights cannot be converted into a criminal offence unless clear elements of fraud or deception causing harm to property or reputation are established.

Acts Referred:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 415, Sec. 420

[7] - AWARD NOTICE DISPUTE

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Sec. 14, Sec. 30, Sec. 115 - Arbitration Act, 1940 Sec. 20, Sec. 17, Sec. 38 - Limitation Act, 1963 Art. 119 - Award Notice Dispute - Application under Arbitration Act Sec. 17 filed prematurely due to confusion regarding date of notice for award filing - Trial and High Court dismissed application deeming limitation period not expired - Supreme Court observed respondent's awareness of award from District Judge's order directing payment of arbitrator's fees - Held - Law does not mandate formal notice under Sec. 14(2) if party is already informed about award - Application filed after limitation expiry valid - Earlier decisions reversed - Directions issued for enforcement of award - Appeals Allowed

Law Point : Awareness of award from court proceedings suffices as notice under Sec. 14(2) of Arbitration Act; formal notice not mandatory if party is informed.

Acts Referred:

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Sec. 14, Sec. 30, Sec. 115
Arbitration Act, 1940 Sec. 20, Sec. 17, Sec. 38
Limitation Act, 1963 Art. 119

[9] - CIRP JURISDICTION

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 Sec. 29 - CIRP Jurisdiction - Corporate Insolvency Resolution Plan approved by CoC challenged by suspended director citing lack of notice and principles of natural justice - High Court quashed resolution plan through writ jurisdiction - Supreme Court criticized High Court for bypassing alternate remedies under IBC - Held - CIRP processes must adhere to statutory remedies and avoid jurisdictional overreach - Approved resolution plan upheld ensuring statutory compliance - Appeals against High Court's interference allowed - Appeals Allowed

Law Point : Corporate Insolvency processes should respect statutory remedies and avoid unnecessary judicial interference under writ jurisdiction unless procedural lapses violate natural justice.

Acts Referred:

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 Sec. 29

[10] - WITNESS CROSS-EXAMINATION

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Sec. 29A, Sec. 11, Sec. 18 - Witness Cross-Examination - Arbitration proceedings involved dispute over non-payment of advisory service fees under client agreement - Tribunal rejected claimant's request for additional cross-examination of opposing witness - High Court reversed Tribunal's decision granting further opportunity for cross-examination - Appeal questioned supervisory jurisdiction exercised by High Court under Article 227 - Held - Tribunal's decision within arbitral discretion and does not violate principles of natural justice - High Court overstepped its supervisory jurisdiction - Tribunal's order reinstated - Appeal Allowed

Law Point : Arbitral Tribunal's discretionary procedural decisions should not be interfered by courts unless principles of natural justice are breached.

Acts Referred:

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Sec. 29A, Sec. 11, Sec. 18

[11] - SUMMONING ADDITIONAL ACCUSED

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 149, Sec. 148, Sec. 147, Sec. 302, Sec. 307 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 319, Sec. 169 - Summoning Additional Accused - Special Leave Petition filed challenging orders of Trial Court and High Court summoning petitioners to face trial under Sec. 319 CrPC despite being exonerated in closure report - FIR named petitioners among other accused for offences including murder, but police investigation concluded lack of evidence against them - Trial Court relied on PW3's examination-in-chief where specific allegations were made against petitioners, invoking Sec. 319 CrPC - Supreme Court upheld High Court's decision affirming summons under Sec. 319 CrPC - Held courts have discretion to summon individuals based on evidence during trial even if excluded from charge-sheet, closure report notwithstanding - Petition Dismissed allowing petitioners to present defenses in Trial Court

Law Point : Sec. 319 CrPC empowers courts to summon individuals as accused based on evidence surfacing during trial irrespective of closure reports or non-inclusion in charge-sheets, ensuring fair trial processes.

Acts Referred:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 149, Sec. 148, Sec. 147, Sec. 302, Sec. 307
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 319, Sec. 169

[14] - FIR VALIDITY

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 186, Sec. 351, Sec. 353 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 482 - FIR Validity - Appellant challenged FIR alleging assault on officials conducting unauthorized hostel raid - Appellant contended procedural lapses as no public servant complaint filed - High Court upheld prima facie case citing evidence sufficiency - Supreme Court observed FIR compliant with statutory requirements - Procedural lapses not substantial to quash criminal proceedings - Appeal Dismissed

Law Point : FIR validity upheld if procedural non-compliance does not materially affect case merit or statutory requirements.

Acts Referred:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 186, Sec. 351, Sec. 353, Sec. 350
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 155, Sec. 185, Sec. 183, Sec. 482, Sec. 178, Sec. 195, Sec. 161, Sec. 156, Sec. 184, Sec. 173, Sec. 188, Sec. 182, Sec. 172, Sec. 175, Sec. 181, Sec. 179, Sec. 180, Sec. 176, Sec. 154, Sec. 187, Sec. 174, Sec. 177

[63] - VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT NOTICE

Income Tax Act, 1961 Sec. 148, Sec. 143, Sec. 148A, Sec. 149, Sec. 142, Sec. 151, Sec. 153C - Validity of Reassessment Notice - Writ petition filed to challenge reassessment notice under Section 148 of Income Tax Act issued based on information from Risk Management Strategy alleging undisclosed cash and credit card transactions - Petitioner contended reassessment proceedings lacked jurisdiction as return of income was filed and issues raised were examined during original assessment - Respondents argued information for reassessment surfaced post original scrutiny, and issues of unaccounted cash and credit card transactions were not earlier examined - Court observed petitioner failed to raise jurisdictional issues in objections and allowed liberty to raise same during appellate proceedings - Found reopening based on information prima facie valid and stated contentions on approval under Section 151 and applicability of Section 153C were unsupported by facts - Held reassessment proceedings were to continue as issues require factual investigation by Assessing Officer - Petition Dismissed

Law Point : Reassessment based on subsequent information alleging undisclosed transactions is valid if such information was unavailable during original scrutiny and issues require factual investigation by Assessing Officer.

Acts Referred:

Income Tax Act, 1961 Sec. 148, Sec. 143, Sec. 148A, Sec. 149, Sec. 142, Sec. 151, Sec. 153C

[64] - REQUISITION LAND ACQUISITION

Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 Sec. 41 - Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 Sec. 9A, Sec. 9, Sec. 5 - Requisition Land Acquisition - Writ petitions filed seeking restoration of lands requisitioned for public use beyond statutory period - Petitioners contended lands requisitioned in 1987 were neither acquired nor restored within prescribed 24-year period - Respondents argued that compensation was paid and possession obtained justified continuing use - Court held requisition cannot extend indefinitely and found no evidence of formal acquisition under statutory provisions - Declared continued requisition illegal and ultra vires - Granted respondents one year to complete acquisition or restore lands to petitioners - Directed adherence to legal process and payment of costs for delay - Petitions Allowed

Law Point : Land requisition for public purposes must be completed within statutory limits; continuation beyond such period without acquisition violates constitutional property rights and legal norms.

Acts Referred:

Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 Sec. 41
Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 Sec. 9A, Sec. 9, Sec. 5

[65] - JOINT FAMILY PROPERTY

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Sec. 9 - Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 Sec. 85, Sec. 32G, Sec. 32M, Sec. 2, Sec. 70 - Joint Family Property - Second appeal challenging concurrent findings decreeing partition and separate possession - Suit filed by plaintiffs for share in property claimed as joint family property originally held by Dashrath - Defendants contended exclusive ownership through Vitthal based on 32M certificate under Tenancy Act - Trial court found no evidence of exclusive tenancy rights of Vitthal; held property belonged to joint family - First appellate court affirmed, rejecting defendants' plea of exclusive tenancy - Found no suppression of material facts by plaintiffs and held civil court had jurisdiction as controversy involved rights of co-owners and not tenancy disputes - Appeal Dismissed confirming lower court judgments and decrees

Law Point : Controversies involving co-ownership rights and partition of joint family property fall within civil court jurisdiction; issuance of 32M certificate under Tenancy Act does not preclude co-owners' rights.

Acts Referred:

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Sec. 9
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 Sec. 85, Sec. 32G, Sec. 32M, Sec. 2, Sec. 70

[66] - NO CONFIDENCE MOTION

Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 Sec. 28, Sec. 43, Sec. 30, Sec. 35, Sec. 27, Sec. 3, Sec. 30A-IA, Sec. 30A-IB - No Confidence Motion - Immunity of two years against No Confidence Motion under Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act Sec. 35(3) - Issue arises regarding computation of immunity period for new Sarpanch elected to fill vacancy under Sec. 43 - Original Sarpanch elected and resigned - Petitioner elected as Sarpanch unopposed - Motion of no confidence moved against petitioner within two years of election - Contention that immunity period applies to individual Sarpanch rather than position examined - Opposing view contended immunity applies only from original election - Held - Immunity available from date individual assumes office ensuring stability in Panchayat governance - Motion of no confidence against petitioner invalidated - Petitions Allowed

Law Point : Immunity against No Confidence Motion under Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act applies to individual from date of assuming office rather than date of original election to position.

Acts Referred:

Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 Sec. 28, Sec. 43, Sec. 30, Sec. 35, Sec. 27, Sec. 3, Sec. 30A-IA, Sec. 30A-IB

[67] - EXPORT CREDIT ELIGIBILITY

General Clauses Act, 1897 Sec. 3 - Banking Regulation Act, 1949 Sec. 21, Sec. 35A - Export Credit Eligibility - Petition challenges interpretation of RBI Master Circular on export credit by Banking Ombudsman - Petitioner exporters denied subvention benefits for delayed submission of export documents despite exports effected within permissible period - Respondent Bank contended non-compliance with submission timeline invalidates export credit eligibility ab initio - Held - Delay in document submission without affecting actual exports within permissible period does not negate eligibility - Objective of economic policy to support exporters cannot be defeated by rigid interpretation - Benefits for completed exports restored while non-compliance on remaining claims upheld - Partly Allowed

Law Point : Delay in document submission without affecting actual exports should not negate export credit benefits if exports comply with stipulated timelines.

Acts Referred:

General Clauses Act, 1897 Sec. 3
Banking Regulation Act, 1949 Sec. 21, Sec. 35A

[68] - EXECUTION OF POSSESSION

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Or. 21R. 101, Or. 7R. 3, Sec. 115, Or. 21R. 35 - Execution of Possession - Revision challenges Executing Court's rejection of fresh possession warrant application - Petitioner sought recovery of property not described in suit - Respondent argued execution decree satisfied earlier and remaining property not part of litigation - Executing Court found decree fully satisfied and rejected application - Held - Fresh warrant cannot issue for property outside suit description - Revision Dismissed

Law Point : Property not included in suit description cannot be subject of execution proceedings beyond decree scope.

Acts Referred:

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Or. 21R. 101, Or. 7R. 3, Sec. 115, Or. 21R. 35

[69] - BAIL UNDER NDPS ACT

Constitution of India Art. 21 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Sec. 50, Sec. 52A, Sec. 52, Sec. 29, Sec. 20, Sec. 43, Sec. 37, Sec. 42, Sec. 8 - Bail Under NDPS Act - Bail application under NDPS Act for alleged possession of contraband exceeding commercial quantity - Applicant argued non-compliance with procedural safeguards under Secs. 42, 50, and 52A, discrepancies in prosecution evidence, and prolonged incarceration - Court noted absence of independent witnesses, unexplained delays in inventory preparation, and procedural lapses in seizure records - Found prima facie doubts regarding applicant's possession of contraband and insufficient corroborative evidence - Prolonged pre-trial detention violated Article 21 rights - Bail granted with conditions to ensure applicant's cooperation in trial - Bail Application Allowed

Law Point : Prolonged pre-trial detention coupled with procedural lapses and insufficient corroborative evidence can justify granting bail under NDPS Act despite statutory restrictions, safeguarding fundamental rights under Article 21.

Acts Referred:

Constitution of India Art. 21
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Sec. 50, Sec. 52A, Sec. 52, Sec. 29, Sec. 20, Sec. 43, Sec. 37, Sec. 42, Sec. 8

[70] - MARINE INSURANCE CLAIM

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Sec. 146, Or. 21R. 22, Sec. 151 - Marine Insurance Claim - Dispute arose over non-delivery of goods insured under marine policy - Applicant claimed compensation from carrier and insurer for consignment loss - Trial court held carrier liable but excluded insurer citing procedural lapses in joining party - Bombay High Court ordered insurer to satisfy decree considering evidence of risk coverage under policy - Equitable considerations applied in execution of judgment - Application Allowed

Law Point : Marine insurers liable under policy coverage even if not initially joined in suit if risk terms verified; procedural lapses overcome for equitable relief.

Acts Referred:

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Sec. 146, Or. 21R. 22, Or. 1R. 10, Or. 21R. 16, Sec. 151

[71] - ILLEGAL STRUCTURE DISPUTES

Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 Sec. 314 - Contempt of Courts (Bombay High Court) Rules, 1994 Rule 9 - Illegal Structure Disputes - Petition concerns unauthorized structures erected on public roads near petitioner society - Contempt proceedings linked to prior High Court orders directing removal of structures - Petitioners alleged complicity of authorities with slumlords in delaying compliance - Respondents claimed structures protected under slum rehabilitation policy - High Court observed discrepancies in claims of protection and lack of evidence supporting legitimacy - Held - Authorities directed to proceed with demolition ensuring compliance with municipal and state laws - Contempt proceedings concluded with directions to ensure timely removal of illegal encroachments - Petition Allowed

Law Point : Unauthorized encroachments on public roads must be removed by authorities unless substantiated claims of legal protection are provided with evidence.

Acts Referred:

Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 Sec. 314
Contempt of Courts (Bombay High Court) Rules, 1994 Rule 9

[72] - TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

Trade Marks Act, 1999 Sec. 28, Sec. 134, Sec. 30, Sec. 17, Sec. 29, Sec. 2 - Trademark Infringement - Plaintiff alleged defendants infringed registered trademark "TIKHALAL" by using similar mark "SHYAM TIKHALAL" - Interim relief sought to restrain defendants - Plaintiff presented extensive evidence of prior use, goodwill, and registration of mark - Defendants claimed independent creation and historical use - High Court observed prima facie similarity between marks likely to cause confusion - Balance of convenience favored plaintiff - Injunction granted restraining defendants from using "TIKHALAL" or similar marks pending trial - Interim Relief Granted

Law Point : Trademark infringement claims require assessment of prior use, similarity, and likelihood of consumer confusion for granting interim relief.

Acts Referred:

Trade Marks Act, 1999 Sec. 28, Sec. 134, Sec. 30, Sec. 17, Sec. 29, Sec. 2

[73] - CRIMINAL DISCHARGE

Evidence Act, 1872 Sec. 30, Sec. 26, Sec. 27 - Criminal Discharge - Revision filed by applicant accused challenging lower court's rejection of discharge application - Accused involved in a brutal assault leading to multiple deaths during Mumbai riots - Confessional statements of co-accused named applicant, but no direct evidence or weapon recovery linked to applicant - Trial court initially declined discharge, while revisional court granted stay on trial proceedings - Court observed absence of substantial incriminating evidence to warrant charge continuation - Held, discharge application to be reconsidered based on lack of direct involvement and evidence - Revision Allowed

Law Point : Absence of direct evidence or substantial role in a crime may justify discharge of an accused in criminal proceedings.

Acts Referred:

Evidence Act, 1872 Sec. 30, Sec. 26, Sec. 27

[74] - PROPERTY PARTITION

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Or. 23R. 1, Or. 7R. 14, Or. 2R. 2, Or. 7R. 11, Sec. 99, Sec. 11 - Limitation Act, 1963 Art. 59, Art. 58 - Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 Sec. 6 - Property Partition - Civil revision petition filed by defendants challenging trial court's decision on property partition dispute - Petition concerns claim by appellant to partition properties inherited through his deceased father - Respondents argued legal infirmities in earlier partition deeds and delayed filing - Court observed technical issues with filing and procedural lapses affecting case progression - Held, petitioners entitled to pursue claims after addressing defects and delays per procedural guidelines - Directions issued for reconsideration of partition deed - Revision Allowed

Law Point : Disputes over property partition should account for procedural formalities, especially when claims are affected by prior filing delays or technical lapses.

Acts Referred:

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Or. 23R. 1, Or. 7R. 14, Or. 2R. 2, Or. 7R. 11, Sec. 99, Sec. 11
Limitation Act, 1963 Art. 59, Art. 58
Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 Sec. 6

[75] - SALE DEED VALIDITY

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Or. 7R. 11 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Sec. 43 - Sale Deed Validity - Revision filed against trial court rejection of application to dismiss suit challenging sale deed validity - Plaintiffs claimed rights over suit property based on prior agreements while defendants relied on separate sale deeds - Trial court held that disputed issues required trial adjudication - High Court observed complexities in overlapping claims over property necessitate evidence assessment - Application for suit dismissal denied emphasizing detailed scrutiny of ownership claims - Revision Dismissed

Law Point : Dismissal of suits involving overlapping property claims is unwarranted without trial-based evaluation of ownership and transactional validity.

Acts Referred:

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Or. 7R. 11
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Sec. 43

[76] - DELAY CONDONATION

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Or. 8R. 6A, Or. 8R. 10 - Delay Condonation - Commercial suit concerned condonation of delay in filing written statements to counterclaims - Petitioners challenged delay condonation beyond statutory limit citing strict timelines under Commercial Courts Act - Court noted unavoidable circumstances delayed responses, balancing procedural rigidity with justice - Held, condonation granted subject to costs imposed to compensate opposing party - Condonation Allowed

Law Point : Delays in procedural compliance in commercial suits may be condoned if justified by unavoidable circumstances, balancing justice and procedural mandates.

Acts Referred:

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Or. 8R. 6A, Or. 8R. 10, Or. 8R. 6G, Or. 8R. 1

[77] - EXECUTOR REMOVAL

Indian Succession Act, 1925 Sec. 247, Sec. 301 - Executor Removal - Probate petition filed for removal of executor from will administration citing breach of fiduciary obligations - Appellant alleged suppression of property and breach of trust by respondent - High Court noted executor's conflicting claims on property adversely affected beneficiaries - Held, removal justified due to fiduciary violations, appointing alternative executor ensuring estate administration aligns with will's intent - Application Allowed

Law Point : Executors may be removed for breaching fiduciary duties or acting contrary to testator's intent, ensuring estate management aligns with legal obligations.

Acts Referred:

Indian Succession Act, 1925 Sec. 247, Sec. 301

Although every care has been taken to avoid errors or omissions, this publication is being sold on the condition and understanding that information given in this Magazine is merely for reference and must not be taken as having authority of or binding in any way on the Authors, Editors, Publishers and sellers who do not owe any responsibility for any damage or loss to any person, a purchaser of this publication or nor, for the result of any action taken on the basis of this work. The publishers shall be highly obliged if mistakes are brought to their notice for carrying out corrections.

---