Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Validity of Charges – Petitioners challenged the charge-sheet and criminal proceedings initiated under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act and POCSO Act – Evidence presented indicated the victim was of legal age at the time of marriage – FIR alleged child marriage based on hearsay without verifying facts – Continuation of proceedings deemed an abuse of court process – Charges quashed [Paras 1-15].

Assessment of Age – Crucial Evidence – Petitioners provided valid documentation of the victim’s age, proving she was above 18 at the time of marriage – Court emphasized importance of verifying evidence before proceeding with charges – Relied on Supreme Court’s principles in quashing cases lacking prima facie evidence [Paras 10-13].

Legal Precedents – Applied Rulings – Referenced Supreme Court rulings supporting quashing of proceedings when charges do not constitute any offense or are based on improbable allegations – Cited notable cases including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal for guiding principles on quashing FIRs [Para 12].

Decision: Criminal petition allowed – Charge-sheet No. 73/2023 dated 30.03.2023 quashed – Special [POCSO] Case No. 72(H)/2023 proceedings quashed.

Caste Certificate – Provisional Admission and Employment – Petitioner admitted to M.B.B.S. and M.D. courses based on provisional caste certificate – Caste claim invalidated by Scrutiny Committee – Petitioner completed courses and was appointed as Medical Officer – Petitioner sought protection of education and employment – High Court dismissed the petition, citing the Apex Court’s judgment in Jagdish Bahira & Others v. State of Maharashtra, which mandates withdrawal of benefits secured through invalid caste certificates – Court observed that protection of such benefits violates constitutional and statutory norms [Paras 1-14].

Equity Principle – Protection of Education – Petitioner’s plea for protection based on prolonged benefits availed due to inaction by authorities – Court rejected plea, emphasizing that equitable considerations cannot override statutory mandates – Apex Court precedents in Jagdish Bahira and other relevant judgments upheld, stating that benefits drawn under false caste claims must be withdrawn to preserve integrity and rule of law [Paras 10-12].

Legislative Mandate – Withdrawal of Benefits – Supreme Court decisions reiterated – Benefits drawn under false claims to be withdrawn – No protection for admissions or employment secured on invalid caste certificates – Section 10 of the Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001 emphasized [Paras 10-13].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – No protection for educational and employment benefits drawn under invalid caste claim – Effect and operation of the judgment stayed for four weeks – Rule discharged, no costs [Para 14].

Anticipatory Bail – Conditions and Considerations – The applicant, aged 74, sought anticipatory bail in relation to an FIR filed under various sections of the IPC involving allegations of forgery and conspiracy. The court considered the applicant's age, the civil nature of the underlying dispute, the delayed filing of the FIR, and the applicant's role as an attesting witness. The court emphasized that anticipatory bail can be granted irrespective of the nature of the offences unless barred by statute and reaffirmed the principles laid down in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab [Paras 1-21].

Non-Disclosure and Its Impact – The court addressed the issue of non-disclosure of prior writ petition and Section 482 application by the applicant. It held that while non-disclosure of material facts can be fatal in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, it does not apply with the same rigor to statutory powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C. [Paras 12-20].

Conditions for Anticipatory Bail – The court imposed conditions for the grant of anticipatory bail, including executing a bond, not committing similar offences, not making inducements, and not leaving India without prior permission of the court [Para 22].

Decision: The application for anticipatory bail is allowed. The applicant is granted anticipatory bail until the conclusion of the trial, subject to conditions [Para 22].

Interim Maintenance – Property Ownership Not Determinative – Petitioner, despite owning a gifted two-storied building, lacks independent income – Magistrate erroneously concluded property alone suffices for maintenance – Gifted property does not negate husband’s statutory obligation to provide maintenance if wife lacks her own income – Claim for interim maintenance justified and allowed [Paras 1-6].

Husband’s Income – Liability to Maintain – Opposite party no. 1’s take-home salary considered – Even with existing liabilities, sufficient income demonstrated to grant interim maintenance – Opposite party no. 1 directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to petitioner from the date of application under Section 23(1) – Arrears to be cleared in 40 equal installments [Paras 5-8].

Ex Parte Decision – Opposite party no. 1 failed to appear despite proper service – Case heard and decided ex parte – Petitioner’s entitlement to interim maintenance affirmed [Paras 3, 7].

Decision: Criminal Revisional Application allowed – Interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month awarded – Opposite party no. 1 to pay arrears in 40 equal installments – Order by Magistrate set aside, interim order vacated [Paras 6-12].
 

Conditional Attachment – Acceptance of Security – Appeal against Sub Court’s decision accepting security of immovable property for lifting conditional attachment – Property in question recorded as paddy land – Appellant's concern about insufficient value and legal issues with security offered – Sub Court’s order set aside due to unresolved issues about property’s classification and value [Paras 1-7].

Revenue Records – Correction and Legal Status – Dispute over property recorded as paddy land in revenue records – 1st defendant's efforts to correct records – Court emphasizes need for proper classification before accepting property as security – Future applications permitted upon correction of records [Paras 4-7].

Decision – Orders Set Aside – Conditional attachment over plaint A schedule property to continue until sufficient security is provided – 1st defendant allowed to file fresh application if revenue records are corrected – Emphasis on current insufficiency of security due to legal and factual uncertainties [Para 7].

Trademark Law – Cancellation – Procedural Error – Appellant sought cancellation of respondent's trademark ‘CLARIWASH’ on grounds of deceptive similarity and procedural errors in the examination report – Claimed prior use of ‘CLARI’ formative trademarks – Trial court dismissed cancellation petition – On appeal, High Court held procedural errors alone insufficient for cancellation unless registration violates substantive provisions of the Act – No deceptive similarity found between ‘CLARIWASH’ and appellant’s trademarks ‘CLARI-FI’ and ‘CLARIMOIST’ – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-45].

Trademark Similarity – Examination of Competing Trademarks – Marks must be considered as a whole – Appellant's claim of family of ‘CLARI’ formative trademarks not established at material time – No prima facie similarity between ‘CLARIWASH’ and appellant’s trademarks [Paras 30-37].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No grounds to interfere with the trial court's judgment – Registration of respondent's trademark upheld – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 43-45].

Criminal Law – Bail Application – Consideration of Evidence and Custodial Period
Petitioner accused of multiple serious offenses, including attempt to murder police officers, illegal possession of arms, and possession of narcotic substances – Prosecution alleges petitioner fired at police team with intent to kill – Defence argues false implication and fabrication of evidence by police, including the planting of poppy straw – Court notes absence of mention of poppy straw in initial FIR – Applicant in custody for over a year, trial likely to be protracted – Bail granted considering prolonged detention and substantial grounds to challenge prosecution case [Paras 1-8].

Conditions for Bail – Personal Bond and Surety Requirements
Bail granted subject to petitioner furnishing personal bond and surety bonds, providing details of bank accounts, and submitting copies of Aadhar cards and bank passbook front page for penalty recovery under Section 446 Cr.P.C. if needed [Para 8].

Decision:  Bail application allowed – Petitioner to be released on bail upon fulfilling stipulated conditions [Para 8].
 

Disciplinary Proceedings – Non-Issuance of First Show-Cause Notice – Deceased employee dismissed from service after prolonged unauthorized absence – Disciplinary authority failed to issue the first show-cause notice along with the enquiry report as mandated by Rule 15(10) of the OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962 – High Court quashed the dismissal order due to procedural lapses and violation of principles of natural justice – Petitioner held entitled to notional service benefits and family pension [Paras 4-7].

Judicial Review – Scope and Interference – Court emphasized that judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision – Interference justified where procedural rules and natural justice principles are violated – High Court directed the release of pensionary benefits within three months [Paras 4.9-4.17].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Orders of dismissal and subsequent appellate confirmation quashed – Deceased employee deemed to have continued in service notionally till superannuation – Petitioner entitled to pension and pensionary benefits [Para 8].

Landlord and Tenant – Eviction – Arrears of Rent – Petitioner tenant failed to pay rent for over six months and ignored landlord’s notice demanding arrears – Landlord entitled to decree for possession under Section 12(3)(a) of Bombay Rent Act – Tenant's defence of non-receipt of notice and payment to another heir rejected – Notice considered duly served – Appeal dismissed, eviction decree upheld [Paras 1-30].

Fixation of Standard Rent – Application filed after prescribed period – Bombay Rent Act requires filing within one month of notice – Application rejected – Standard rent application cannot nullify decree for arrears of rent and eviction [Paras 26-33].

Service of Notice – Validity – Notice sent to tenant’s workplace and marked as refused – Held valid service – Tenant had prior knowledge of landlord’s ownership and obligation to pay rent [Paras 18-20].

Tenant's Obligations – Arrears of Rent – Tenant failed to deposit arrears during pendency of suit – Triple default: pre-suit, post-suit, and during suit – No protection under Section 12(3)(b) for non-compliance [Paras 27-28].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Concurrent findings of lower courts upheld – Tenant's eviction affirmed – Application for fixation of standard rent dismissed as untimely and ineffective in negating default [Paras 33-34].