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.

Civil Procedure – Impleadment of Party – Necessary Party – Privity of Contract – Tenants of Kamla Bhuvan filed writ petition seeking direction to comply with Regulation 33(7)(A) of DCPR-2034 for redevelopment – Sought impleadment of M/s. BS Lifespace as respondent on the ground that the new developer had actively participated in redevelopment activities and had received consent-cum-declarations from 62 tenants – Landlords (Respondent Nos. 3 to 5) opposed impleadment, stating no contract existed with the new developer – Held: Petitioners have no right to implead a party having no privity of contract with the landlords; impleadment would only enlarge and complicate the issues – Application dismissed with costs [Paras 4–8].

Abuse of Process of Court – Pressure Tactic – Coercion – No binding contract between M/s. BS Lifespace and existing landlords – Application found to be a back-door entry by the proposed respondent through the guise of an impleadment application – Court observed that the application was prima facie moved and financed by the proposed respondent to crystalize an unenforceable right against the landlords and original developers – Held: Courts cannot be used as tools to coerce or pressurize parties; such abuse of process cannot be countenanced – Application dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,00,000/- payable to Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa's Advocate Academy and Research Center within two weeks [Paras 5–8].

Tenants' Rights – Redevelopment – Settled Law – Court noted that rights of tenants in redevelopment matters are well-settled and elucidated in Chandralok People Welfare Association v. State of Maharashtra and Anandrao G. Pawar v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai – However, impleadment of a party with no contractual nexus with the landlord cannot be permitted under the guise of protecting tenant interests [Para 4.2].

Decision: Interim Application dismissed – Costs of Rs. 5,00,000/- imposed, payable to BCMG's Advocate Academy and Research Center – Writ Petition listed for compliance on 15/06/2026.

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.

Negotiable Instruments Act — Section 138 — Dishonour of Cheque — Joint Account Holder — Liability — Only Drawer/Signatory Can Be Prosecuted — Cheques were issued from a joint bank account maintained by the applicant and co-accused Rahul Thind, but were signed solely by Rahul Thind — The trial court summoned both on a complaint under Section 138 NI Act — Held: To constitute an offence under Section 138, the cheque must have been drawn by the accused on an account maintained by him — It is only the drawer/signatory of the cheque who can be prosecuted — A joint account holder who has not signed the dishonoured cheque cannot be held liable under Section 138 NI Act — No specific role was attributed to the applicant except that she was jointly and severally liable to repay the loan, which is insufficient to attract liability under Section 138 — Summoning order against applicant quashed [Paras 9–21].

Negotiable Instruments Act — Section 141 — Vicarious Liability — Applicable Only to Companies — Not to Individuals — The complainant sought to rope in the applicant as a joint account holder by invoking Section 141 NI Act — Held: Section 141 creates vicarious liability only where the offence under Section 138 is committed by a company, firm, or other association of individuals — Two private individuals cannot constitute an association of individuals for the purpose of Section 141 — Section 141 has no application to individual joint account holders — Proceedings against the applicant on this basis are an abuse of process of Court [Paras 19–21].

Section 482 CrPC — Quashing — Scope — Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC are wide but must be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, in cases where allowing proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of Court or the ends of justice so require — Where on the face of the complaint no prima facie case is made out against the accused, quashing is warranted — Held: Proceedings against applicant Madhu Singh quashed; trial against co-accused Rahul Thind to continue [Paras 14, 21–25].

Decision: Application allowed — Proceedings in Complaint Case No. 958 of 2006/New No. 1776 of 2024 under Section 138 NI Act, insofar as they relate to applicant Madhu Singh, quashed — Proceedings against co-accused Rahul Thind to continue.

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.

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.

National Security – Espionage – Bail – UAPA – Official Secrets Act – Second Bail Application – Suppression of Earlier Dismissal – Appeal Dismissed – Appellant, a sailor posted at Naval Dockyard Mumbai, was arrested on 19.12.2019 and has been in judicial custody for over six years – He is alleged to have communicated confidential information relating to movements and locations of Indian Navy ships and submarines to "Ashi Rajput @ Harish Rajput," a Pakistani intelligence agent, via WhatsApp and Facebook – FSL examination of mobile phone revealed deletion of conversations – Appellant received Rs. 4,501/- in his SBI account in consideration of sharing official secrets – Charged under Sections 120-B, 121-A, 201 IPC, Sections 17 and 18 UAPA, and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Official Secrets Act – Earlier bail application dismissed by Special Judge on 10.06.2022 and Criminal Appeal No. 399 of 2022 dismissed by this Court on 03.04.2023 on merits – Factum of dismissal of earlier application suppressed in present appeal – Trial commenced and witnesses being examined – Held: Appeal dismissed; order of Special Judge confirmed; trial directed to be expedited [Paras 2-6, 15-19].

Second Bail Application – No Change in Circumstances – Suppression of Material Facts – Appellant's earlier bail application in Criminal Appeal No. 399 of 2022 was dismissed by this Court on merits on 03.04.2023 – The present appeal is, in effect, a second bail application – Appellant intentionally suppressed the factum of dismissal of the earlier bail application – In the absence of any change in circumstances, this Court is not inclined to re-examine the matter on merits – Mere filing of a fresh application without disclosing the fate of the earlier one is itself a ground to decline relief [Paras 9, 16].

Parity with Co-Accused – Not Available – Guilty Plea Distinguished – Accused Nos. 5, 17 and 18 pleaded guilty and were sentenced to five years nine months and six years of imprisonment respectively and have been released – Appellant cannot claim parity as he has not pleaded guilty – Additionally, NIA is taking steps to initiate further action even against those accused – Parity argument in bail matters cannot be founded solely on sentence awarded to co-accused who admitted guilt [Para 17].

Bail – National Security Offences – Section 43-D(5) UAPA – Constitutional Courts – Prolonged Incarceration – Principles – Section 43-D(5) UAPA does not oust the power of constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution – Statutory restrictions and constitutional jurisdiction can be harmonised – Rigour of Section 43-D(5) may melt down where trial is unlikely to be completed within a reasonable time and incarceration has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence – However, where the allegations pertain to national security and espionage, and trial is in progress, the threshold of constitutional impermissibility cannot be said to have been crossed – Held: Gravity of allegations relating to national security outweighs the period of incarceration in the present facts [Paras 10-18].

Decision: Criminal Appeal dismissed – Order dated 06.10.2025 of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam confirmed – Special Judge directed to expedite trial and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible – Pending miscellaneous petitions closed.