Constitution of India – High Court Administration – Territorial Allocation of Business – Rule 3A Appellate Side Rules – Dispute arose in Kolhapur; Appeal decided in Pune; Writ filed in Mumbai – Rule 3A mandates matters "arising in" Kolhapur district "shall" be heard at Kolhapur Circuit Bench – Held: Rule 3A is mandatory – The Chief Justice is the Master of the Roster – Litigants cannot choose the Bench – Petition must be heard at Kolhapur – [Paras 14, 15, 24].

Constitution of India – Article 227 – Situs of Dispute – Petitioner argued doctrine of merger (Appellate order at Pune) gave jurisdiction to Mumbai/Pune – Held: For internal allocation of work within the same High Court, the situs of the original authority/cause of action (Kolhapur) determines the Bench – Doctrine of merger does not override administrative rules of allocation – [Paras 18, 19, 20].

Judicial Discipline – Master of Roster – Held: Judges sitting at Principal Seat cannot assume jurisdiction over matters assigned to Circuit Benches by the Chief Justice via Rules/Roster – [Para 23].

Decision: Petition to be transmitted to the Circuit Bench at Kolhapur for disposal.

Criminal Law – Murder – Appeal against Conviction – Life Imprisonment – Appellants convicted under Section 302/34 IPC for causing death of deceased Kallu by lathi and danda – During pendency of appeal three appellants died and appeal abated against them – Appeal considered only in respect of surviving appellant Bakuni – Held: Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 1-3, 28].

Evidence Act – Sole Eye-Witness – Related / Interested Witness – Conduct of Witness – P.W.1 Batuni, brother of deceased, claimed to be eye-witness to assault but fled from spot and stayed entire night away without informing police or making any effort to ascertain fate of deceased – Presence at place of occurrence found doubtful – His conduct held unnatural – Testimony not trustworthy for sustaining conviction [Paras 21, 23-24].

Criminal Trial – Last Seen Theory – Failure of Proof – Prosecution case that witness saw only initial assault and not the actual murder – No reliable evidence to establish that appellants were last seen with deceased prior to his death – Held: Last seen circumstance not proved [Paras 21, 27].

Evidence Appreciation – Non-examination of Material Witness – Heera, alleged independent eye-witness present with informant and deceased, not examined by prosecution – No explanation offered – When sole eye-witness unreliable, non-examination of independent witness assumes significance – Adverse inference drawn against prosecution [Paras 25].

Motive – Weak and Inconsistent Evidence – Prosecution alleged old enmity relating to murder of appellants’ father as motive – Informant himself stated that relations were cordial and matrimonial alliance existed between families – No immediate or proximate cause shown – Held: Motive not proved and extremely weak [Paras 26].

Medical and Ocular Evidence – Corroboration – Medical evidence proved homicidal death but did not conclusively link appellant with commission of crime – Ocular version unreliable – Benefit of doubt extended to accused [Paras 22, 27-28].

Precedent – Appreciation of Evidence – Supreme Court decision in Hem Raj v. State of Haryana, (2005) 10 SCC 614 applied – When presence of eye-witness doubtful, non-examination of independent witnesses becomes fatal to prosecution case [Para 25].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and order dated 21.03.1990 passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad in Sessions Trial No. 308 of 1986 set aside – Surviving appellant Bakuni acquitted of offence under Section 302/34 IPC – Directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.

Eviction Suit – Licence vs. Lease – Agreements styled as Leave and Licence – Trial Court dismissed suits holding no cause of action on ground that defendants had no exclusive possession – Held: Absence of exclusive possession is an essential ingredient of licence and not proof of plaintiff’s possession – Trial Court’s reasoning perverse and contrary to settled principles – Impugned judgments set aside [Paras 36–40].

First Appeal – Powers of Appellate Court – Order XLI Rules 24 and 33 CPC – Suits dismissed ex parte on erroneous preliminary reasoning – Evidence on record sufficient – Remand would revive lost defence and prolong litigation – Held: First appellate court, being last court of facts, justified in deciding suits on merits without remand [Paras 41–47].

Order XXII Rule 10 CPC – Transferee pendente lite – Locus Standi – Purchaser of suit property in liquidation sale substituted as appellant – Validity of title not set aside by any competent forum – Article 137 Limitation Act inapplicable – Right to prosecute appeal is continuous – Held: Substituted appellant has locus standi to continue and prosecute appeals [Paras 48–54].

Jurisdiction – City Civil Court vs. Presidency Small Cause Court – Section 19(d), Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 – Small Cause Court barred from entertaining regular suits for recovery of immovable property – Proceedings under Sections 41–43 of 1882 Act are summary and optional – Held: Regular eviction suits against licensees maintainable before City Civil Court – Jurisdictional objection rejected [Paras 55–75].

Leave and Licence – Determination of Jural Relationship – Clauses denying tenancy rights – No exclusive possession – Licensor’s right of entry and control retained – Common amenities and sub-metered electricity – Clause expressly excluding tenancy decisive – Held: Relationship between parties is licensor-licensee and not landlord-tenant [Paras 76–94].

Rent Control Proceedings – Effect – Orders under Sections 27 and 36 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 – Held: Rent Controller is not a civil court – Such orders are not conclusive on status of parties – Civil court’s determination prevails [Para 95].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgments and decrees of dismissal set aside – Decrees of eviction granted in favour of the appellant in both suits – Respondents granted 90 days’ time to hand over vacant and peaceful possession – No order as to costs – Interim orders vacated.

Family Law – Divorce – Mental Cruelty – Suppression of medical condition – Divorce Decree Upheld – Respondent/husband alleged that appellant/wife suppressed her infertility prior to marriage and behaved cruelly with his family – Medical reports suggested difficulty in conception, not permanent infertility – Wife allegedly mocked husband’s responsibilities and refused domestic cooperation – Trial court found conduct amounted to mental cruelty – High Court upheld decree of divorce – Held: Continued cruelty and concealment of significant facts justified grant of divorce under Section 13(1)(a) HMA [Paras 2–4, 10–12].

Family Law – Medical Condition – Infertility Allegation – No Certificate by Appellant – Appellant/wife claimed she became capable of conception post-medication but failed to produce any supporting medical certificate – Admission in cross-examination that she had not substantiated her claim of fertility recovery – Held: Appellant failed to rebut allegations effectively or produce documentary evidence to refute claim of reproductive issues [Paras 10–11].

Family Law – Separation – Long-Term Estrangement – No cohabitation since 2016 – Both parties admitted to living separately for over 9 years – Attempts at reconciliation not established – Court took long separation into account while affirming irretrievable breakdown of marriage [Paras 11–12].

Family Law – Permanent Alimony – One-Time Settlement – High Court exercised equitable discretion to grant lump-sum alimony – Considering socio-economic background of parties and guided by Supreme Court decision in Sau. Jiya v. Kuldeep, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 213, awarded ₹5,00,000/- as one-time permanent alimony to wife – To be paid within four months – Held: Covers all pending and future claims by appellant [Para 13].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(a) HMA upheld – ₹5,00,000 awarded to appellant-wife as one-time permanent alimony to be paid within 4 months – Decree to be drawn accordingly [Paras 12–14].

Family Law – 125 CrPC - Maintenance – Assessment of Income – Reliance on ITR – Petitioner-husband claimed low income but his ITR for AY 2018-19 showed annual income of Rs. 5,18,268/- (approx. Rs. 43,189/- pm) – Petitioner claimed subsequent ITRs showed reduced income – Held: Family Court rightly relied on the ITR of AY 2018-19 as the most reliable indicator, rejecting subsequent lower ITRs and undated salary certificates as unreliable attempts to conceal income – [Paras 8, 9, 11].

Family Law – Maintenance – Quantum and Apportionment – Annurita Vohra Formula – Family Court awarded Rs. 25,000/- pm to wife out of husband's assessed income of Rs. 43,189/- pm – Held: Awarding more than half of the husband's income is excessive – Applying the principle of apportionment (2 shares for husband, 1 for wife), the wife is entitled to roughly 1/3rd of net income – Considering inflation and need for dignified living, maintenance modified to Rs. 17,000/- per month – [Paras 12, 13].

Criminal Procedure – Section 125 vs. Interim Order – Petitioner argued final maintenance cannot exceed interim maintenance without proof of changed circumstances under Section 127 Cr.P.C. – Held: Final determination under Section 125 is independent of the interim order and is based on evidence led during trial – It is not a modification under Section 127 Cr.P.C. – Family Court can enhance or reduce amount in final judgment based on evidence – [Para 10].

Decision: Petition disposed of. Impugned judgment modified; maintenance reduced from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 17,000/- per month.

Election Law – Writ of Quo Warranto - Reservation and Caste Certificate – Requirement for Reserved Posts – Appellant contested and won election for Zila Panchayat Member from a seat reserved for OBC category – Appellant submitted an affidavit claiming OBC status ("Pal Baghele") but admittedly did not possess a caste certificate – Held: A candidate contesting for a reserved post must possess a valid caste certificate as proof of belonging to that category – Self-declaration via affidavit is insufficient to contest an election for a reserved seat – The requirement is mandatory to ensure the benefit of reservation reaches the intended beneficiaries – [Paras 11, 14].

Constitutional Law – Writ of Quo Warranto – Maintainability after Election Petition Dismissal – Respondent No. 6 sought a writ of quo warranto challenging appellant's authority to hold office after his wife's election petition was dismissed on technical grounds – Appellant argued that the dismissal of the election petition barred the writ – Held: Dismissal of an election petition does not debar an independent voter/citizen from seeking a writ of quo warranto if the holder of the office lacks the fundamental eligibility (caste certificate) – No right can be conferred on an individual which they cannot possess under law – The writ is maintainable to prevent a usurper from holding public office – [Paras 8, 12, 13].

Constitution of India – Article 226 – Interference in Election Matters – Held: While Article 329(b) bars interference during the election process, the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 after the election process is over if there is a violation of constitutional provisions or statutory eligibility criteria – Allowing a person ineligible for a reserved seat to continue in office would be a fraud on the Constitution – [Paras 13, 14].

Decision: Appeal dismissed - The order declaring the appellant ineligible to hold the post of Member, Zila Panchayat is upheld - [Para 15].

Service Law – Termination/Cancellation of Absorption – Principles of Natural Justice – University cancelled absorption of petitioners citing illegality in initial appointment by former In-charge VC, relying on an Enquiry Committee report – No notice or hearing given; report not supplied – Held: Even if appointments are alleged to be illegal, if facts (like existence of posts, advertisement) are disputed, adherence to natural justice is mandatory – Unilateral cancellation without hearing violates audi alteram partem – [Paras 34, 35, 37].

Administrative Law – Non-Speaking Order – Requirement of Reasons – Impugned order merely referred to Enquiry Report and Governor's letters without discussing individual cases or reasons – Held: Reasons are the heartbeat of an order – A non-speaking order having civil consequences (loss of job) is void – [Paras 38, 41, 42].

Service Law – Illegal vs. Irregular Appointments – Right to Hearing – University argued "illegal ab initio" appointments need no hearing – Held: Exceptions to natural justice are rare – Where petitioners worked for years and were absorbed by competent authority, they cannot be condemned unheard – "Useless formality" theory rejected as facts were not incontrovertible – [Paras 35, 36].

Decision: Writ petitions allowed. Impugned order quashed. Petitioners to be reinstated with consequential benefits. Liberty granted to University to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

Banking Law - SARFAESI Act – Auction Sale – Rights of Auction Purchaser – Petitioner declared highest bidder and deposited entire bid amount including 25% earnest money – Sale could not be confirmed due to DRT order directing status quo and restraining confirmation of sale – Held: Mere participation in auction and deposit of bid amount does not create any vested right in favour of auction purchaser unless sale is confirmed and sale certificate is issued [Paras 9–11, 30–31].

SARFAESI Act – Section 13(8) – Right of Redemption – Borrower’s right to redeem secured asset prior to confirmation of sale – In pre-amendment regime (prior to 2016), borrower entitled to redeem till sale is confirmed – Held: Since sale was never confirmed owing to DRT’s restraint order, borrower validly exercised right of redemption under Section 13(8) by settling dues with the Bank [Paras 15–18, 25, 33–37].

Debt Recovery Tribunal – Interim Order – Effect – DRT permitted bank to proceed with auction but restrained confirmation of sale – Held: Such restraint preserved borrower’s statutory right of redemption and bank was legally justified in not confirming the sale in favour of auction purchaser [Paras 19, 22, 25].

Bank – Compromise / One Time Settlement – Powers of Secured Creditor – Settlement entered with borrower during pendency of SARFAESI proceedings and accepted by Tribunal – Held: In absence of any statutory bar or restraint order prohibiting settlement, bank’s decision to accept compromise cannot be termed illegal or arbitrary [Paras 31–32, 34].

Impleadment – Auction Purchaser – Necessity of Party – Auction purchaser sought impleadment in SARFAESI proceedings – DRT rejected application – Held: Auction purchaser not a necessary party where sale itself was not confirmed and borrower’s redemption right subsisted [Paras 15, 24–25].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Scope – High Court cannot act as a fact-finding authority to adjudicate disputed questions such as receipt of cheques or postal communications – Limited to examining legality and propriety of orders of Tribunal [Paras 40–41].

Refund – Auction Purchaser – Equity – Though auction purchaser had no enforceable right to confirmation of sale, bank admittedly retained earnest money – Held: Bank directed to refund Rs.17.50 lakhs with interest at 5% per annum, failing which enhanced interest at 8% per annum payable [Paras 38, 42–43].

Decision: Revisional application partly allowed – Impugned order of DRAT not interfered with insofar as refusal to confirm sale – UCO Bank directed to refund earnest money of Rs.17.50 lakhs with interest – Borrower directed to pay costs of Rs.50,000/- to State Legal Services Authority – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Quashing - Municipal Law – Octroi Evasion – Vicarious Liability – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Pune Municipal Corporation filed complaint alleging non-payment of octroi on import of gold bullions/coins by Bank – Summons issued against Bank and its senior officers including CEO, Deputy MD, Legal Officer and Branch Manager – Petitioners sought quashing on ground of absence of specific role attributed to individual officers – Held: Mere designation or official position insufficient to attract vicarious liability [Paras 1–6, 17].

Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 – Sections 398 and 401 – Ingredients of Offence – Section 398 requires import of goods liable to octroi, non-payment of octroi and intention to defraud Corporation – Section 401 creates vicarious liability only when specific role of director or officer is pleaded – In absence of averments demonstrating intention to defraud and active role of officers, prosecution against them unsustainable [Paras 9–11, 17].

Criminal Liability of Company Officials – Requirement of Specific Averments – Complaint contained only general and omnibus allegations against Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 – No pleading showing how or in what manner they were in charge of and responsible for conduct of business at relevant time – Held: Criminal prosecution against company officials cannot continue without specific and unambiguous allegations [Paras 6, 11, 17].

Interpretation of Vicarious Liability – Parity with Negotiable Instruments Act – Court held that principles governing vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are pari materia with Section 401 of the BPMC Act – Reliance placed on Supreme Court precedents holding that vicarious liability must be pleaded and proved and cannot be inferred merely from designation [Paras 12–16].

Criminal Process – Abuse of Process – Continuation of proceedings against officers without foundational pleadings amounts to abuse of process of law – Summons issued by JMFC based on conjectures and without prima facie material against officers – Liable to be quashed under writ jurisdiction [Paras 6, 17–19].

Partial Quashing – Distinction Between Company and Officers – Complaint and proceedings quashed only qua Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 – Proceedings against Petitioner No.1-Bank permitted to continue – All contentions left open before Trial Court insofar as Bank is concerned [Paras 19–21].

Decision: Criminal Writ Petition partly allowed – Complaint in Criminal Case No. 236 of 2009 and summons dated 20.11.2009 quashed and set aside against Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 – Complaint against Petitioner No.1-Bank to proceed – Rule made partially absolute [Paras 19–21].