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for Rural Outlet at specified location; petitioner complied, invested, and nearly completed setup – Later LOI withdrawn citing site being on State highway – Held: Misrepresentation, if any, was by respondent company itself; cancellation arbitrary; LOI revived subject to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].

Second Appeal – Declaration of Title – Burden of Proof – Appeal Dismissed – Plaintiff relied on 1987 sale deed for 404.4 sq. yards but failed to prove vendor’s title or establish identification of plots – Plaintiff admitted lack of knowledge of survey numbers, plots, or boundaries and did not issue legal notice to defendant – Defendant proved 1992 registered sale deed, possession since then, and school construction with compound wall – Held: In a suit for declaration and possession, plaintiff must succeed on strength of own title; weakness of defendant’s case immaterial – Courts below rightly dismissed suit and appeal [Paras 16–24].

CPC – Section 100 – Scope of Interference – Second appeal jurisdiction confined to substantial questions of law; no reappreciation of evidence permissible – Concurrent findings of trial and first appellate courts based on evidence upheld – High Court noted exceptions to interference (ignoring material evidence, wrong inferences, misplacement of burden) not attracted – No substantial question of law arose [Paras 14–15, 27–28].

Property Law – Identification of Property – Plaintiff unable to identify property before Commissioner; Commissioner’s report confirmed school and latrines built about 8–10 years earlier – Plaintiff filed no objections to Commissioner’s report – Failure to identify property and prove vendor’s title fatal to relief claimed [Paras 18, 23–24].

Evidence – Burden of Proof – Plaintiff failed to produce sale deed of his vendor or examine him; produced only own deed (Ex.A1); did not prove possession or payment of taxes; admission of ignorance on title boundaries – Burden lies wholly on plaintiff in title suits – Defendant’s possession under registered deed since 1992 corroborated by witnesses and Commissioner’s report [Paras 18–19, 22–24].

Decision – Second appeal dismissed – Judgments of Trial Court (O.S. No. 24/2003, 01.06.2015) and First Appellate Court (A.S. No. 13/2015, 22.08.2022) confirmed – No substantial question of law arose – Parties directed to bear own costs [Paras 28–29].

Land Acquisition – Section 28-A – Beneficial Construction – Redetermination Allowed – Landowners who had not sought reference under Section 18 filed applications under Section 28-A within three months of award dated 30.01.2016 granting higher compensation – Held: Applications within limitation; SLAO order dated 17.02.2022 enhancing compensation @ ₹108/sq. mtr. with solatium and interest upheld – KUMS’ objections dismissed [Paras 7.1–7.6, 8(c)-(d)].

Limitation – Computation – Section 28-A – Commences From Specific Award Relied On – Contention that limitation ran from 1990 award unsustainable since that award was set aside; limitation runs from 2016 award relied upon by landowners – Applications filed on 26.04.2016 well within limitation [Paras 7.4–7.6, 8(b)-(c)].

Per Incuriam Precedent – Ramsingbhai vs. Pradeep Kumari – Banwari Clarified Law – Held: Earlier three-Judge Bench in Pradeep Kumari binding; Ramsingbhai per incuriam – Section 28-A to be construed liberally as beneficial legislation [Paras 7.11–7.12].

Hansoli Devi Case – Ineffective Reference – Acceptance of Compensation – Does Not Bar Relief – Even where references under Section 18 were dismissed as time-barred, right under Section 28-A subsists; acceptance of compensation with or without protest does not negate entitlement [Paras 7.13–7.16].

Equal Treatment – Compensation to Similarly Situated Landowners – Mandate of Section 28-A – Doctrine of distributive justice requires equal compensation for lands acquired under same notification – Financial burden on acquiring body no ground to deny statutory right [Paras 7.17–7.22].

Decision – Leading Petition Allowed – Connected KUMS Petitions Dismissed – KUMS directed to comply with SLAO order dated 17.02.2022 and deposit enhanced compensation with benefits within six weeks; failure to comply will attract 12% interest from date of default; landowners entitled to solatium, additional compensation, and statutory interest [Paras 8–9].

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].

Motor Accident Claim – Assessment of Income – Evidence of Mining and Agricultural Activities – Compensation Enhanced – Tribunal treated deceased as unskilled labour earning ₹4,914 per month – High Court held that evidence of statutory mining consents, crane registration, EMI payments of ₹35,170 per month, and agricultural land indicated much higher income – Monthly income assessed at ₹45,000 – Compensation recalculated accordingly [Paras 9-13, 18].

Motor Accident Compensation – Loan Repayment as Proof of Earning Capacity – Reliance on Gurpreet Kaur v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1778 – Regular repayment of heavy EMI reflects higher earning capacity; minimum wage cannot be the sole yardstick where positive evidence exists – Applied to present case [Paras 12-13].

Agricultural Income – Agriculturist not to be Treated as Unskilled Labour – Judicial recognition that agriculture requires skill, knowledge, and scientific input – Hence, deceased’s agricultural income also considered in computing monthly earnings [Paras 14-17].

Consortium – Award under Conventional Head – As per Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance, consortium includes spousal, parental, and filial – High Court awarded ₹40,000 each to all dependents (widow, four children, and mother) [Paras 19-20].

Final Computation – Income assessed at ₹45,000 per month; after applying multiplier of 13 and deductions, loss of income ₹65,81,328 – Consortium ₹2,40,000 – Funeral ₹15,000 – Loss of estate ₹15,000 – Total compensation ₹68,51,328 – Enhanced by ₹60,62,636 over Tribunal’s award – Interest @6% p.a. from date of claim petition, rising to 7.5% if delayed beyond two months [Paras 21-22].

Decision:

Appeal partly allowed—Impugned award modified—Compensation enhanced from ₹7,88,692 to ₹68,51,328 with interest—Insurance Company directed to deposit enhanced amount within two months, failing which higher interest rate applies.

Excise Law – Suspension of Licence – Disproportionate Penalty – Petitioner’s licences under various excise categories suspended w.e.f. 16.3.2024 based on alleged seizure of truck-load of liquor without proper documentation – High Court finds contradictions between Inspection Report and FIR regarding whether liquor was bottled at petitioner’s plant – Court observes that penalties were highly disproportionate and offences were compoundable – Suspension cannot be indefinite or tantamount to cancellation – Held: Orders of suspension and rejection of representation quashed; authorities directed to determine compounding fee and decide renewal application [Paras 4–6, 15–16, 23–29, 30, 37–39]

Contradictory Findings – Inspection Report vs FIR – Inspection Report claimed seized liquor appeared bottled at petitioner’s plant – FIR alleged liquor was not bottled at the plant – Court held this contradiction undermines credibility of State’s action – Additionally, allegations regarding missing truck and its recovery with reduced stock absent from Inspection Report but added in FIR, indicating afterthought – Held: FIR appears to have been registered post-facto to cover deficiencies in original inspection [Paras 22–25, 33]

Admission of Guilt – No Admission on Critical Issues – State argued petitioner admitted to offences – Court clarified that responsibility was only taken for minor stock discrepancies, not for alleged illegal liquor – No admission regarding truck-load seizure or Krishan Kumar’s role – Mischaracterization of replies by Financial Commissioner – Held: Impugned orders incorrectly based on supposed admissions not supported by record [Paras 17, 32–33]

Employment Status – Custody of Seized Liquor Given to Unauthorised Person – Seized truck allegedly handed over to Krishan Kumar, who was not named in official employee list and was claimed to be a construction contractor – Court held that even if Krishan Kumar was a supervisor, handing over seized liquor back to same person from whom it was recovered defies logic and legal procedure – Held: Serious procedural lapse undermines validity of entire action [Paras 21–24, 26–27]

Licensing – Renewal of Licence – State contended licence deemed cancelled for non-renewal – Court held that renewal had been delayed in earlier years without adverse consequences – Further, suspension of licence prevented petitioner from applying for renewal – Held: Petitioner could not be faulted for not renewing licence while suspension order was in effect [Paras 34–36, 38]

Excise Regulation – Permissible Wastage – Punjab Distillery Rules permit set-off of excess and deficient wastage across months within defined limits – Court held minor variation in physical stock of spirit and liquor was within acceptable norms and could not justify harsh penalty of suspension [Paras 28–30]

Right to Trade in Intoxicants – Fundamental Right – Court clarified that while no fundamental right exists to trade in intoxicants per se, once licence is granted, licensee acquires a protected right to carry on business subject to law – State cannot act arbitrarily or deny recourse to legal remedies [Para 31]

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Orders dated 15.6.2024 and 9.12.2024 suspending licences quashed – Commissioner (State Taxes and Excise) directed to determine appropriate compounding fee within 15 days and decide application for licence renewal accordingly.

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].

Warrant of Arrest – BNSS, 2023 – Calcutta HC upholds Magistrate’s order showing petitioner as absconder in municipal forgery case despite his compliance with Section 179 BNSS notice; revision dismissed.

Criminal Procedure – Warrant of Arrest – BNSS, 2023 – Magistrate’s Order – Petitioner shown as absconder in charge-sheet despite compliance with Section 179 BNSS notice – Held: compliance with notice does not bar Magistrate from issuing warrant if IO records non-availability during search – No ground to interfere in revisional jurisdiction – Petition dismissed [Paras 5-11].

Forgery Allegations – Building Plan Sanction – Inspection Book Records – Allegations of forged municipal inspection records to obtain 5-storied building plan where only 3 permitted – Charge-sheet filed against petitioner/developers – Whether forgery committed to be tested in trial – Revisional Court will not evaluate merits at pre-trial stage [Paras 2-3, 10].

Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – Section 442 BNSS – High Court’s power exceptional and sparing – Interference only in case of manifest illegality or miscarriage of justice – No error found in Magistrate’s order; casual handwriting lapse in prior order not sufficient for intervention [Paras 9-11].

Decision – Magistrate’s order dated 29.07.2025 issuing warrant of arrest sustained – Revision petition dismissed; trial to proceed in accordance with law [Paras 11-12].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 148 – Deposit of Minimum 20% Compensation – Discretion of Appellate Court – Applicants challenged order of First Appellate Court directing deposit of 20% of cheque amount while granting suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. – Contention: requirement not mandatory and could not be imposed after suspension of sentence – Held: As per Muskan Enterprises & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr., 2024 INSC 1046, read with Surinder Singh Deswal v. Virender Gandhi, and Jamboo Bhandari v. MP Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., appellate court has discretion to impose such condition, but ordinarily deposit of 20% is mandatory unless case is exceptional – Word “may” in Section 148(1) to be construed as “shall” in substance – Direction to deposit 20% is valid and within jurisdiction of appellate court even if imposed subsequently [Paras 6–11, 17].

Statutory Interpretation – ‘May’ and ‘Shall’ – Legislative Intent – Court held that though Section 148(1) NI Act uses both “may” and “shall”, their context indicates different purposes: “may” gives discretion to order deposit, “shall” makes the minimum quantum of deposit mandatory once discretion is exercised – Legislative intent was to ensure partial realization of compensation to complainant during pendency of appeal – Discretion must be exercised judiciously with recorded reasons where exemption from deposit is granted [Paras 8, 10–12, 17].

Criminal Procedure – Power to Impose Deposit Condition After Suspension of Sentence – Contention that deposit order could be passed only at the time of suspension of sentence rejected – Appellate court retains jurisdiction to direct deposit any time during pendency of appeal until final disposal – Purpose of Section 148 NI Act is to secure fair compensation and discourage protraction of appeals [Paras 7, 15–16].

Judicial Precedents – Harmonisation – High Court reconciled Jamboo Bhandari and Muskan Enterprises – Held: condition of 20% deposit is ordinarily mandatory; relaxation only in exceptional cases where deposit would cause grave injustice or deprive right of appeal; reasons must be recorded [Paras 6, 11–13].

Decision:

Criminal revision application dismissed – Order of First Appellate Court directing deposit of 20% compensation upheld – Rule discharged.