Custody of Minor Children – Paramount Consideration – Welfare Principle (Paras 20–22) In matters of child custody, welfare of the child is the paramount consideration. However, welfare is not to be construed in isolation; it must be evaluated in light of surrounding factors including conduct of parents, financial stability, education, comfort, and overall development. The High Court erred in holding that conduct and other surrounding factors are irrelevant.

A. Custody of Minor Children – Paramount Consideration – Welfare Principle

(Paras 20–22)

In matters of child custody, welfare of the child is the paramount consideration. However, welfare is not to be construed in isolation; it must be evaluated in light of surrounding factors including conduct of parents, financial stability, education, comfort, and overall development.

The High Court erred in holding that conduct and other surrounding factors are irrelevant.

---

B. Guardianship and Wards Act, 1890 – Section 25 – Relevant Factors in Custody Determination

(Paras 11, 22–24)

While deciding custody under Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, courts must consider:

• Conduct of the parties,

• Compliance with court undertakings,

• Existing foreign custody orders,

• Stability of education,

• Emotional comfort and inclination of minors.

Ignoring these material factors vitiates the custody determination.

---

C. Removal of Children from Foreign Jurisdiction – Impact on Custody

(Paras 23–25)

Unilateral removal of minor children:

• From foreign jurisdiction,

• Without consent of guardian,

• Without court permission,

• By procuring duplicate/fresh passports,

is a material factor adversely affecting custody determination.

The High Court failed to evaluate the legal impact of such conduct.

---

D. Effect of Foreign Custody Order – Revocation of Custody

(Paras 9, 25)

Where a foreign court revokes custody granted earlier and grants custody to the other parent, such order is a relevant and crucial circumstance in domestic custody proceedings and cannot be ignored.

---

E. Contempt for Breach of Undertaking – Relevance in Custody

(Paras 10, 26–27)

A parent found guilty of contempt for breaching an undertaking to court in relation to children’s return commits a material act impacting custodial suitability.

The High Court failed to account for the final contempt finding.

---

F. Preference of Children – Evidentiary Value

(Paras 21, 29–31)

While child preference is not decisive, it is a relevant factor.

Where:

• Children consistently express desire to accompany one parent,

• Mediation report corroborates such preference,

• Emotional comfort with that parent is observed,

such material must be considered cumulatively.

---

G. Remand – Failure to Consider Material Evidence

(Paras 31–33)

Where High Court fails to consider:

• Foreign court orders,

• Contempt findings,

• Mediation report,

• Conduct of parties,

the custody order is unsustainable and requires remand.

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS

---

1. Matrimonial Background

• Marriage: 28.07.2015 (Srinagar).

• Residence: Qatar.

• Two minor sons born in Qatar (2017 & 2019).

Divorce granted by Qatar Court (29.03.2022):

• Custody → Mother.

• Guardianship → Father.

• Passports → Father.

• Personal documents → Mother.

---

2. Removal of Children

Mother:

• Left Qatar with children (Aug 2022).

• Without consent of guardian (father).

• Without original passports.

• Without Qatar court permission.

• During academic session.

This removal triggered:

• Habeas Corpus in J&K High Court.

• Undertaking before Division Bench to return by 02.01.2023.

• Violation of undertaking.

---

3. Subsequent Developments

(a) Qatar Court Order (31.10.2023)

• Custody revoked from mother.

• Granted to father.

(b) Contempt Proceedings (06.08.2024)

• Mother held guilty.

• Fine imposed.

• LPA restored.

(c) Family Court (02.01.2025)

• Custody granted to father.

(d) High Court (08.09.2025)

• Reversed Family Court.

• Restored custody to mother.

• Held welfare alone decisive.

---

ANALYSIS OF LAW

---

I. Welfare Principle – Scope and Limits

The Supreme Court clarified:

Welfare is paramount — but welfare is not abstract.

Welfare includes:

• Stability,

• Legal compliance,

• Moral conduct of parents,

• Educational continuity,

• Respect for court orders,

• Emotional environment.

The High Court erred in treating:

• Conduct,

• Financial stability,

• Foreign custody order,

• Contempt finding,

as irrelevant.

---

II. Impact of Unilateral Removal

The Court implicitly applied principles from international child custody jurisprudence:

A parent cannot:

• Violate jurisdictional custody framework,

• Remove child mid-session,

• Breach undertaking,

• Benefit from wrongdoing.

The High Court failed to assess whether such conduct reflects adversely on custodial suitability.

---

III. Foreign Custody Order – Relevance

Though not treated as automatically binding, the Qatar order:

• Revoked mother's custody.

• Granted custody to father.

• Recorded misconduct.

This was a crucial fact ignored by the High Court.

The Supreme Court emphasized that foreign judicial findings affecting custody cannot be brushed aside.

---

IV. Contempt Finding – Legal Effect

The mother:

• Gave undertaking to return.

• Violated undertaking.

• Was convicted for contempt.

• Showed no remorse.

The Court held:

Such conduct is a material factor in assessing parental responsibility and trustworthiness.

The High Court ignored its evidentiary weight.

---

V. Children’s Preference

Evidence included:

• Family Court findings.

• Mediation report.

• Children expressing desire to go with father.

• Comfort in English-speaking environment.

• Difficulty adapting locally.

The Supreme Court held:

While not decisive, child preference is relevant and cannot be disregarded entirely.

---

VI. Error of the High Court

The High Court:

• Narrowed welfare principle improperly.

• Ignored foreign order.

• Ignored contempt conviction.

• Ignored mediation findings.

• Overlooked removal misconduct.

Thus, the judgment suffered from non-consideration of material evidence.

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

1. In custody matters, welfare is paramount, but welfare must be assessed holistically, including conduct of parties, educational continuity, legal compliance, and emotional comfort.

2. Unilateral removal of children from foreign jurisdiction without guardian consent or court permission is a material factor in custody determination.

3. A foreign custody revocation order and a domestic contempt finding are relevant and must be considered in custody adjudication.

4. Failure to consider material circumstances renders a custody determination legally unsustainable.

5. Preference of minors, though not conclusive, is a relevant factor requiring due weight.

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 7 – Real Estate Allottees – Threshold Requirement – Date of Reckoning (Paras 7–9, 21) For purposes of the second proviso to Section 7(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the threshold of 100 allottees or 10% (whichever is less) must be satisfied as on the date of filing of the application, not on the date of admission or hearing. Subsequent settlements or withdrawals do not dilute maintainability.

A. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 7 – Real Estate Allottees – Threshold Requirement – Date of Reckoning

(Paras 7–9, 21)

For purposes of the second proviso to Section 7(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the threshold of 100 allottees or 10% (whichever is less) must be satisfied as on the date of filing of the application, not on the date of admission or hearing. Subsequent settlements or withdrawals do not dilute maintainability.

Relied on: Manish Kumar v. Union of India.

---

B. NCLT Rules – Refiling After Defect Cure – Amendment Permissible Prior to Registration

(Paras 22–24)

Under Rule 28 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016:

• A petition returned for defects may be rectified or amended.

• Registration occurs only after curing defects.

• Amendments made prior to registration are valid and do not amount to abuse of process.

Relied on: Surendra Trading Company v. Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Co. Ltd..

---

C. Joint Insolvency Proceedings – Group Corporate Insolvency – Real Estate Projects

(Paras 11, 16–18, 26–27)

Where two corporate entities are intrinsically linked in development, marketing and implementation of a single real estate project, a joint Section 7 petition is maintainable.

Group insolvency is justified to:

• Protect allottees,

• Maximize asset value,

• Prevent fragmentation of resolution.

Relied on:

• Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. v. Sachet Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

• Mamatha v. AMB Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd.

---

D. Real Estate Projects – Completion Certificate – Occupancy – Delivery of Possession

(Paras 28–33, 35–36)

Possession cannot be said to be legally delivered where:

• Final completion certificate is absent,

• Tripartite sublease deeds are not executed,

• Occupancy certificate under applicable building regulations is not issued,

• Construction is incomplete on factual inspection.

Part-completion certificates and notional possession letters do not establish completion.

---

E. Financial Debt and Default – Allottees – Established

(Paras 7, 10, 37)

Payments made by allottees for allotted units constitute financial debt under Section 7 IBC. Failure to hand over legally valid possession amounts to default.

---

F. Offer to Settle After Reservation of Judgment – No Interference

(Paras 2, 20, 38)

An offer to deposit money after reservation of judgment, based on incorrect premise of reduced number of creditors, does not warrant interference.

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS

1. The Project Structure

The project “Grand Venezia Commercial Tower” comprised:

• Mall (up to 3rd floor)

• Commercial office spaces (3rd–15th floors)

• Hotel block

Land leased by UPSIDA to Bhasin Ltd (2006).

Grand Venezia Ltd:

• Granted exclusive marketing rights (2009)

• Later purchased units (2016)

• Shared directors with Bhasin Ltd.

Thus, structural and operational integration was evident.

---

2. Allegations by Allottees

141 individuals filed Section 7 petition alleging:

• No final completion certificate,

• No occupancy certificate,

• No tripartite sublease deeds,

• Assured returns stopped since 2014,

• No lawful possession delivered.

NCLT found:

• 103 units represented,

• Threshold satisfied,

• Debt and default established.

---

3. Corporate Debtors’ Defence

They contended:

• Project completed,

• Part-completion certificate issued,

• Some possession letters issued,

• Settlements with certain allottees.

However:

• No documentary proof of settlements prior to filing.

• Observer’s Report (2025) revealed incomplete construction.

• UPSIDA confirmed no occupancy certificate and no tripartite deeds.

---

4. Ground Reality (Observer’s Report)

The Court examined:

• Floors 9–15: No construction.

• Floors 3–8: Bare-shell, no amenities.

• No fire safety installations.

• No occupancy compliance.

This demolished the completion claim.

---

ANALYSIS OF LAW

I. Section 7 Threshold – Date of Filing

The Court reaffirmed:

Threshold compliance is determined on the filing date.

Subsequent:

• Withdrawals,

• Settlements,

• Refunds,

do not affect maintainability.

This ensures:

• Certainty,

• Stability in insolvency process,

• Prevention of manipulation post-filing.

---

II. Refiling and Amendment Under NCLT Rules

Critical clarification:

A petition returned for defects is not “registered.”

Until registration:

• Amendments permissible,

• Party substitution allowed,

• No abuse of process.

This preserves procedural flexibility.

---

III. Group Insolvency in Real Estate

The Court endorsed evolving doctrine of group insolvency:

Where:

• Interlinked management,

• Integrated development,

• Shared obligations,

• Single economic project,

joint CIRP is justified.

The Court adopted a substance-over-form approach.

Corporate separateness cannot defeat economic reality.

---

IV. What Constitutes “Completion”?

The Court drew distinction between:

• Structural construction,
  vs.

• Legal completion.

Legal completion requires:

1. Completion certificate.

2. Occupancy certificate.

3. Compliance with building regulations.

4. Execution of required tripartite deeds.

Without these:

Possession letters are legally meaningless.

---

V. Financial Debt and Default

Allottees’ payments = financial debt.

Failure to deliver lawful possession = default.

IBC remedy triggered.

---

VI. Late Settlement Offer

The offer of ₹15.62 crores was rejected because:

• Based on flawed assumption of reduced creditors.

• Filed after reservation of judgment.

• CIRP already validly admitted.

IBC is not a post-admission negotiation forum.

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

The controlling principles emerging from this decision are:

1. In real estate insolvency cases, the Section 7 threshold must be satisfied on the date of filing, and subsequent settlements do not defeat maintainability.

2. Amendments to a petition returned for defects are permissible prior to its registration under Rule 28 of the NCLT Rules.

3. A joint insolvency petition is maintainable against multiple corporate entities where they are intrinsically linked in the execution and implementation of a single real estate project.

4. Part-completion certificates and notional possession letters do not constitute legal delivery of possession in absence of occupancy certification and mandatory sublease execution.

5. Failure to deliver legally compliant possession constitutes default under Section 7 of the IBC.

---

Bail – NDPS Act – Commercial Quantity – Long Incarceration – Parity – Section 37 rigours – Relaxation – Granted (Paras 2–4) Where the accused is charged under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 22(c), 23, 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 involving commercial quantity, but has undergone incarceration for over four years and an identically placed co-accused has been granted bail, the Court may grant bail notwithstanding the statutory rigours of Section 37, particularly where trial has not concluded.

A. Bail – NDPS Act – Commercial Quantity – Long Incarceration – Parity – Section 37 rigours – Relaxation – Granted
(Paras 2–4)

Where the accused is charged under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 22(c), 23, 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 involving commercial quantity, but has undergone incarceration for over four years and an identically placed co-accused has been granted bail, the Court may grant bail notwithstanding the statutory rigours of Section 37, particularly where trial has not concluded.

---

B. Bail – Parity Principle – Co-accused granted bail – Similar factual matrix – Relief extended
(Para 3)

When a co-accused, travelling on the same flight and similarly situated, has been granted bail by the Supreme Court, denial of bail to another identically placed accused would offend parity.

---

C. Bail – Long pre-trial detention – Constitutional concern – Article 21 implications
(Paras 2–4)

Incarceration exceeding four years without conclusion of trial constitutes a relevant constitutional factor for grant of bail even in stringent statutory regimes.

---

D. Criminal Trial – Right to Legal Representation – Duty of Trial Court – Mandatory Recording – Directions Issued
(Paras 5–7)

Trial Courts must:

1. Inform accused of right to legal representation.

2. Inform accused of entitlement to legal aid if unable to afford counsel.

3. Record in writing:

   • Offer made,

   • Response of accused,

   • Action taken.

This requirement must be complied with before commencement of examination of witnesses.

---

E. Observations – Limited to Bail – No Expression on Merits
(Para 4)

Observations in the order are confined to bail determination and shall not influence trial.

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS

1. Nature of Prosecution

The appellant was prosecuted under:

• Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act)

• Customs Act, 1962

The quantity allegedly seized was above commercial quantity.

This triggered Section 37 NDPS restrictions.

---

2. Custodial Duration

The Court specifically recorded:

Custody of 4 years, 1 month, 28 days.

This was the central factual pivot.

The Court did not enter into:

• Evidentiary scrutiny,

• Section 37 twin conditions analysis,

• Prima facie innocence assessment.

Instead, it relied on incarceration length + parity.

---

3. Parity Factor

A co-accused:

• Travelled on same flight.

• Faced identical allegations.

• Granted bail by Supreme Court earlier.

This parity was treated as determinative.

---

4. Legal Aid Issue

The appellant initially:

• Did not cross-examine witnesses.

Later:

• Engaged counsel.

• Application for recall allowed.

This exposed a systemic issue:

Trial courts failing to ensure accused are informed of right to counsel before recording evidence.

This triggered nationwide procedural directions.

---

ANALYSIS OF LAW

I. Section 37 NDPS Act – Statutory Rigour

Section 37 requires:

1. Public Prosecutor opportunity to oppose bail.

2. Court must be satisfied:

   • Reasonable grounds to believe accused not guilty.

   • Not likely to commit offence while on bail.

The order does not expressly analyse these twin conditions.

Instead, it invokes:

• Article 21 proportionality.

• Long incarceration doctrine.

• Parity jurisprudence.

Thus, constitutional considerations override statutory rigidity.

---

II. Long Incarceration Jurisprudence

Though not elaborated in the order, the reasoning aligns with established principle:

Unduly long pre-trial detention converts presumption of innocence into punishment.

The Court implicitly balances:

• Societal interest (NDPS strictness)
  vs.

• Individual liberty (Article 21).

Four-year custody was treated as excessive.

---

III. Parity Principle

Parity is a settled bail principle:

If:

• Role identical,

• Evidence similar,

• Allegations indistinguishable,

then denial becomes discriminatory.

The Court found parity applicable.

---

IV. Procedural Safeguards – Right to Counsel

The Court moved beyond bail and addressed:

• Failure to cross-examine due to lack of counsel.

• Judicial obligation to inform accused of legal aid.

The directions:

• Are mandatory.

• Require written recording.

• To be communicated to all Chief Justices.

This creates binding administrative protocol.

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

The operative ratio of the judgment may be formulated as follows:

1. In NDPS cases involving commercial quantity, prolonged incarceration exceeding four years without conclusion of trial is a constitutionally relevant factor justifying grant of bail.

2. Where an identically placed co-accused has been granted bail, parity demands similar relief unless distinguishing factors exist.

3. Trial Courts are under a mandatory obligation to:

   • Inform accused of right to counsel,

   • Inform about legal aid entitlement,

   • Record compliance before recording evidence.

The ratio lies in the intersection of:

• Article 21,

• Parity doctrine,

• Procedural fairness in criminal trials.

---

OBITER OBSERVATIONS

The direction to all High Courts to issue instructions regarding recording of legal aid offer constitutes an institutional procedural mandate.

While arising from bail proceedings, it has systemic application.

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Co-operative Societies – Membership – Belated paym...

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Co-operative Societies – Membership – Belated paym...: advocatemmmohan Co-operative Societies – Membership – Belated payment of contribution – AGM resolution admitting member never revoked – Occu...

Co-operative Societies – Membership – Belated payment of contribution – AGM resolution admitting member never revoked – Occupant continuing in possession – Membership cannot be defeated solely on delay – Paras 41–45

Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 – Sections 23, 152, 154 – Statutory remedies exhausted – Revisional authority competent – Paras 23–24, 44

Writ Jurisdiction – Interference with revisional order – High Court erred in quashing membership despite subsisting AGM resolution – Paras 44–46

Equitable Relief – Recognition of membership subject to liberty to claim enhanced interest – Para 47

Subsequent Transfer – Validity of transfer dependent on valid membership – Ratification by General Body – Paras 43, 45

---

FACTUAL BACKDROP

The dispute concerns Flat No. 7, Malboro House Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai, formed by erstwhile tenants after liquidation of the landlord company.

The original occupant, Shri Narendra Patel, predecessor of the appellants, was:

• A long-standing tenant.

• Offered membership subject to payment of ₹5,00,000.

• Resolved to be admitted by AGM resolution dated 11.08.2005 upon payment.

• However, payment was not made at that time.

Years later:

• Legal heirs deposited ₹5,00,000 with 9% interest.

• Divisional Joint Registrar directed admission as members.

• High Court set aside that order and directed fresh consideration in Special General Meeting.

• Flat was thereafter sold to M/s. Capital Mind Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd.

• AGM dated 30.09.2025 ratified membership and transfer.

---

CORE ISSUE

Whether successors of an original tenant could be denied membership of a co-operative housing society solely on the ground of delayed payment, despite:

1. A subsisting AGM resolution admitting the predecessor, and

2. Continued undisputed occupation of the flat?

---

SUPREME COURT’S ANALYSIS

I. Occupation Never Disputed

The Court noted:

• No eviction proceedings were initiated for decades.

• Occupation of Flat No.7 was never treated as illegal.

• Society’s offer of membership (1995) was never withdrawn.

Thus, the occupant’s status remained recognised.

---

II. AGM Resolution of 2005 Was Never Revoked

The Court emphasized:

• AGM dated 11.08.2005 resolved to admit Shri Narendra Patel upon payment.

• This resolution was never rescinded or challenged.

• Therefore, entitlement remained alive.

A subsisting resolution cannot be ignored merely due to delay in payment.

---

III. Revisional Authority Acted Within Jurisdiction

The appellants:

• Applied before Authorised Officer.

• Filed appeal under Section 23(2).

• Filed revision under Section 154.

Thus, statutory remedies were properly invoked.

The High Court’s view that the Joint Registrar lacked jurisdiction was held erroneous.

---

IV. Avoiding Anomalous Situation

Denial of membership would create:

• Continued occupation without membership,

• Institutional friction,

• Perpetual dispute.

The Court held such anomaly must be avoided.

---

V. AGM Ratification (30.09.2025)

The Society:

• Reaffirmed 2005 resolution,

• Recognised membership of legal heirs,

• Approved transfer to purchaser,

• Admitted purchaser as member.

This ratification was unchallenged.

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

Where:

• An AGM resolution admitting a member remains subsisting,

• The occupant’s possession is undisputed,

• Statutory remedies are exhausted,

• Payment (though delayed) is ultimately made,

Membership cannot be defeated solely on account of delay.

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Police aid may be granted to enforce an ad-interim...

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Police aid may be granted to enforce an ad-interim...: advocatemmmohan Constitution of India – Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Interference with order refusing police aid – Permissible w...