Specific Performance – Agreement to Sell – Proof of Sale Transaction – Appeal Allowed – Plaintiff proved Ex. A1 agreement for sale of 11.538 cents at ₹70,000/cent and advance payment of ₹7 lakhs (87% of consideration); defendant’s plea of loan transaction rejected as unsupported by evidence – Held: Specific performance granted on deposit of balance with 8% interest [Paras 8–16, 19–21].

Sale Agreement – Authenticity – Defendant admitted signatures on Ex. A1 and endorsement Ex. A1(a); plea that payment of ₹2 lakhs was interest disbelieved as implying 40% rate – Court held additional ₹2 lakhs was further advance towards sale consideration [Paras 8–12].

Inadequacy of Price – Defendant’s plea that land was worth ₹5–8 lakhs/cent rejected – Evidence of DW2 valuer unreliable; Ex. A2 sale deed of 1991 showed value of only ₹16,900/cent – Price of ₹70,000/cent in 1995 held reasonable [Paras 13–15].

Specific Relief Act – Section 20 (Unamended) – Discretion – Plaintiff had paid 87% of consideration and was ready and willing; refusal would cause irreparable loss – Discretion exercised in favour of decree for specific performance – Amendment of 2018 held prospective, not applicable to 1995 contract [Paras 16–20].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Trial Court decree set aside – Specific performance granted – Plaintiff to deposit balance with 8% p.a. interest from 16.01.1995 within two months; defendant to execute conveyance or same to be executed through court – Parties to bear own costs [Para 21].

Family Law - Maintenance – Award of ₹21,000 to Wife/Mother – Challenge under Section 438 r/w 442 BNSS – Petitioners (husband and sons of respondent) contended that respondent left matrimonial home voluntarily in 2015 and filed maintenance petition only in 2019 – Petitioners alleged their own lack of income and claimed respondent had sufficient means and was living independently – Family Court awarded ₹21,000/month as maintenance – Held: Order proper and requires no interference – Petitioners failed to show any illegality, impropriety, or abuse of process [Paras 2–6, 9–11].

Social and Legal Duty – Husband and Sons – Court reaffirmed legal and moral duty of husband and sons to maintain wife/mother – Emphasised the vital social role of mothers and moral obligation of children to ensure their dignity in old age – Financial capacity of petitioners not a valid excuse when basic maintenance is concerned [Paras 7–8].

Quantum of Maintenance – Reasonableness – Court held ₹21,000 not excessive or disproportionate given rising living costs – Observed that Section 125 CrPC is a beneficial provision enacted to prevent vagrancy and provide support to dependent wife/mother – No error in Family Court’s determination of amount [Para 9].

Delay in Filing – Not Bar to Maintenance – Delay of four years in filing maintenance petition does not disentitle respondent when entitlement under law is otherwise established – Petitioners failed to establish that respondent was living separately without just cause [Paras 4–5].

No Grounds for Revision – Court found no error, perversity or abuse of process in impugned order – Family Court rightly exercised jurisdiction and applied settled principles – Criminal revision petition dismissed as devoid of merit [Paras 9–12].

Decision: Criminal Revision Petition dismissed – Family Court order upheld – Maintenance of ₹21,000/month to continue – No interference warranted – Miscellaneous petition also dismissed.

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Sale of Waqf Property – Petitioner, as Manager of Mazar-e-Najmi Waqf, executed sale deed of Waqf property allegedly based on forged permission letter – Later cancelled transaction and returned consideration – FIR registered under IPC and PC Act – Petitioner sought quashing citing absence of dishonest intent and lack of locus in complainant – Held: Mere cancellation of sale deed and refund of money does not absolve the act of alleged forgery and criminal misconduct [Paras 1-3, 16].

Waqf Act – Section 52A – Locus of Complainant – Bar under Section 52A(3) applies only to offences under Section 52A – Where FIR involves IPC and PC Act offences, bar does not apply – Police entitled to investigate cognizable offences independent of complaint by Waqf Board – Complainant’s locus upheld [Paras 13-15].

Forgery – Consent Letter – Handwriting Dispute – Allegation that consent letter of Waqf Board used for sale was forged – Waqf Board Administrator denied issuance and authorship – Handwriting samples collected and expert report awaited – Prima facie material for investigation – Petition for quashing rejected [Paras 16, 20].

Scope of Section 528 BNSS (Earlier Section 482 CrPC) – Court reiterates settled law on limited and sparing use of inherent powers – No detailed evaluation of defence at FIR stage – If FIR discloses prima facie offence, continuation of investigation justified – Court not to assess truthfulness of defence plea at pre-trial stage [Paras 17-20].

Public Servant – Misuse of Official Position – As Manager/Mutawalli under Waqf Act, petitioner is public servant under Section 101(2) – Allegation of dishonest misappropriation of property attracts Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of PC Act – Prima facie case disclosed [Paras 11, 13].

Decision: Petition dismissed – FIR not liable to be quashed – Allegations in FIR disclose prima facie offences under IPC and PC Act – Locus of complainant valid – Petitioner free to raise all defences at trial stage – Observations not to affect framing of charge.

Terrorism – Bail under UAPA – Section 43D(5) – Prima Facie True Test – Appeal Dismissed – Appellant charged with serious offences under IPC, Arms Act, Explosive Substances Act, and UAPA – NIA alleged active involvement in criminal conspiracy, recce, and recovery of arms – Held: Material collected by NIA indicates prima facie truth of allegations under UAPA – Bar under Section 43D(5) attracted – Bail rejected as a rule where accusations are prima facie true [Paras 23-27, 42-48].

Criminal Procedure – Bail – Repeated Applications – No Fresh Grounds – Appeal Not Maintainable – Earlier bail application rejected on merits by High Court and affirmed by Supreme Court – Present appeal based on prolonged custody, with no new factual or legal grounds – Held: Mere long incarceration not sufficient ground for bail in grave offences under UAPA – Appeal dismissed [Paras 32-33, 46-47].

UAPA – Delay in Trial – Not Sole Ground for Bail – Though appellant in custody since 07.02.2021, Court reiterated that delay cannot justify bail where serious allegations exist – Cited Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb – Trial ongoing, charges framed, witnesses examined – Liberty given by Supreme Court to reapply if trial stalls not attracted [Paras 43-45, 47].

Judicial Approach – Bail under Special Statutes – Departure from General Principles – Courts required to apply stricter standards under UAPA – Unlike general criminal law, ‘bail is the rule’ principle does not apply – Prima facie satisfaction of guilt is sufficient to deny bail – Rule reinforced by Supreme Court in Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali and Gurwinder Singh [Paras 24-25, 34-39].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No interference with trial court’s order dated 30.08.2024 rejecting bail – No costs – Pending interlocutory applications also disposed of.

Aadhaar Act – Disclosure of Demographic Information – Section 33(1) – Application filed by State police under Section 33(1) of Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 – Sought disclosure of Aadhaar enrolment details and supporting documents of Respondent No.3, an Israeli national allegedly residing in India illegally – Respondent arrested in NDPS and Foreigners Act offences – UIDAI initially declined disclosure citing Section 33 – Court held: A case made out for disclosure – Respondent had no valid passport/visa at time of enrolment – Documents essential for ongoing criminal investigation – Application allowed [Paras 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 13, 15, 17].

Criminal Law – Foreigners Act – Illegal Stay in India – Respondent No.3 arrested for serious offences under NDPS Act and Foreigners Act – Had multiple convictions and pending trials – Found staying without valid travel documents – Despite such status, Aadhaar card issued in 2021 – Court noted that “resident” under Section 3 of Aadhaar Act must be read in context of lawful residence – Absence of valid documents at time of Aadhaar issuance raises serious concerns – Disclosure necessary to investigate misuse of Aadhaar [Paras 2, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13].

Privacy – Article 21 – Right to Privacy vs. Public Interest – Respondent opposed disclosure citing K.S. Puttaswamy judgment and Article 21 – Court held: Right to privacy is not absolute – Must yield to compelling State interest and due process – Documents sought (Form 1 for Aadhaar enrolment) were not private records but government-certified identity/address proof issued by a Gazetted Officer – Disclosure would not breach privacy or fundamental rights [Paras 3, 6, 16].

Scope of Section 33 – Judicial Oversight of Disclosure – Section 33(1) empowers High Court to allow disclosure of identity or authentication records after hearing affected parties – Court satisfied that circumstances (foreign national with criminal background, no lawful residence, suspected misuse of Aadhaar) warranted judicial intervention – Demographic data relevant to offences under Foreigners Act – Balance struck between individual privacy and national security/investigation needs [Paras 7, 9, 14, 15, 17].

Decision: Application under Section 33(1) of Aadhaar Act allowed – UIDAI directed to provide Aadhaar enrolment Form 1, demographic data, and details of Enrolment Agency used by Respondent No.3 – Sealed cover returned to UIDAI’s counsel – Rule made absolute [Para 17].

Bail – BNSS Ss. 480 & 483 – Grant of Bail with Stringent Conditions – Petition Allowed – Accused allegedly conspired with co-accused to steal phones, debit card, confine complainant, attempt strangulation, and extort money; already faced multiple arrests in connected crimes in 2024–25 – Held: Considering detention of 67 days, completion of major investigation, examination of 14 witnesses, and fixed residence, bail granted with strict conditions to prevent absconding or witness intimidation [Paras 8–11].

Criminal Procedure – Bail Principles – Court noted that bail cannot be denied as punishment at pre-trial stage; while gravity of offences considered, the period of custody and progress of investigation weighed in favour of bail – Previous dismissal of pre-arrest bail not a bar once investigation substantially complete [Paras 8–10].

IPC & IT Act Offences – Allegations involved conspiracy to administer sedatives, extortion using stolen digital devices and bank cards, and attempt to murder complainant by strangulation; however, custody beyond 67 days not justified when prosecution already examined key witnesses – Custodial interrogation no longer necessary [Paras 2, 8–9].

Bail Conditions – Accused directed to execute bond of ₹25,000 with two sureties; weekly appearance at PS; not to leave Andhra Pradesh without permission; surrender passport; refrain from threats or inducements to witnesses; cooperate with investigation; not to indulge in any future offence – Conditions aimed to balance liberty of accused with integrity of investigation [Para 10].

Decision – Criminal Petition allowed – Petitioner/Accused No.2 enlarged on bail with conditions as specified; non-compliance to entail cancellation of bail [Para 11].

NDPS Act – Possession of 1 Kg Opium – Section 18 – Sentence Modified – Conviction affirmed – Appellant convicted in 2011 for offence under S.18 NDPS Act, sentenced to 2 years R.I. and ₹10,000 fine – Having already undergone over 3 months’ custody and trial prolonged for 21 years, High Court reduced sentence to period already undergone while enhancing fine to ₹30,000 – Held: Right to speedy trial, age, financial hardship and proportionality principles justified leniency [Paras 6–11].

Sentencing – Principles – Court reiterated that sentencing discretion must balance gravity of offence, proportionality, reformation, and deterrence – Reliance on Deo Narain Mandal v. State of U.P., (2004) 7 SCC 257 (discretion in awarding sentence within statutory range) and Ravada Sasikala v. State of A.P., AIR 2017 SC 1186 (sentencing serves social purpose) – Long pendency and minimal custody favoured modification [Paras 7–8].

Constitutional Law – Right to Speedy Trial – Prolonged trial spanning 21 years taken into account as mitigating factor – Court emphasised that delay itself causes mental agony and social hardship and must weigh in sentencing [Para 10].

Supreme Court Precedents – Relief also guided by Haripada Das v. State of West Bengal, (1998) 9 SCC 678 and Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 2 SCC 648 – Sentences can be moulded to period undergone when justice so demands [Para 10].

Decision – Conviction under Section 18 NDPS Act upheld – Sentence reduced to already undergone (3 months 20 days) – Fine enhanced from ₹10,000 to ₹30,000 payable within 3 months, failing which appellant to undergo 3 months R.I. – Appeal partly allowed with modifications; bail bonds discharged [Paras 11–12].

Petroleum Retail Outlet – Withdrawal of LOI – Rural vs. Regular Classification – LOI revived – BPCL invited applications for Rural Outlet at specified location; petitioner complied, invested, and nearly completed setup – Later LOI withdrawn citing site being on State highway – Held: Misrepresentation, if any, was by respondent company itself; cancellation arbitrary; LOI revived subject to petitioner paying difference of fees applicable to Regular Outlet [Paras 18-21, 37-43].

Oil Companies – Clause 22 (False Information) – Inapplicable – Respondents sought to invoke Clause 22 of Dealer Selection Brochure – Court held petitioner had not misrepresented; location itself advertised as Rural by respondents – Clause 22 cannot be used against applicant when mistake lies with company [Paras 26-29].

Woman Entrepreneur – Protection from Arbitrary Action – Article 15(3) – Court emphasized need to interpret actions in light of constitutional protection for women entrepreneurs – Arbitrary withdrawal of LOI after investment and NOCs caused undue hardship – Relief granted in writ jurisdiction [Paras 31-33].

Decision – Petition allowed – Impugned cancellation letter dated 25.01.2023 quashed – LOI revived in petitioner’s favour for outlet at Kaijgaon to Tarwade Kh, Jalgaon – Subject to deposit of ₹11,02,000 (difference for Regular Outlet) within six weeks – Respondents directed to operationalize outlet thereafter [Paras 41-45].

Commercial tenancy – Section 12A CCA – Urgent interim relief & prior exemption order – O.VII R.11 refusal and interim injunction upheld – Petition dismissed [Paras 2–6, 7–8].

Commercial Courts Act, s.12A – Urgency & exemption – Where plaintiff sought urgent interim relief and the trial court had already granted a specific exemption from pre-institution mediation (order dated 07.09.2024), non-invocation of PIM did not abrogate s.12A – Exemption order, never challenged, attained finality; may be relied upon while rejecting O.VII R.11 plea [Paras 2, 4, 6].

Pleadings – Rejection of plaint under O.VII R.11 – Assessment confined to averments in the plaint; defence pleas (e.g., alleged fit-out extension/payment till July 2024) irrelevant at R.11 stage – Trial court correct in refusing to traverse defence material while deciding R.11 [Para 7].

Interim Injunction – Restraining creation of third-party interests – In a possession/arrears suit, evidence of substantial arrears (~₹60 lakh across floors), non-payment despite O.XV-A/O.XXXIX R.10 orders, and ongoing execution (bailiff appointed for mezzanine; ground floor execution continuing) establish a real, not illusory, urgency and justify ad-interim restraint to prevent alienation/defeat of decree [Paras 4–5].

Section 12A CCA – “Real urgency” – Seeking interim injunction coupled with facts indicating imminent risk (arrears, execution steps, apprehended alienation) constitutes genuine urgency; s.12A exemption properly invoked and cannot be re-litigated via O.VII R.11 once exemption order stands unassailed [Paras 3–6].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – No infirmity – Concurrent findings on urgency, finality of exemption order, and proper R.11 approach disclose no perversity; Art. 227 petition dismissed with upholding of impugned interlocutory orders [Para 8].

Decision: Held – Trial court order upheld; application under O.VII R.11 rightly dismissed in view of prior, unchallenged s.12A exemption and the limited R.11 inquiry; interim injunction restraining creation of third-party interests justified on facts – Petition and pending applications dismissed [Paras 6–8].