Labour Law – Territorial Jurisdiction – MRTU & PULP Act – Situs of Employment – Cause of Action – Head Office as Nerve Centre – GlaxoSmithKline Impliedly Overruled – The Division Bench of this Court in GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. held that the situs of the employee’s employment alone governs territorial jurisdiction – Held: This view stands impliedly overruled by the later Supreme Court decisions in Nandram v. Garware Polyester Ltd. and Rakesh Kumar Verma v. HDFC Bank Ltd. – The cause of action also arises where the head or corporate office took the impugned decision, issued appointment, transfer or termination orders, or paid salary – The situs test alone cannot determine jurisdiction – both the situs and the place of managerial decision are relevant [Paras 90–107, 111–112, 147].

Doctrine of Implied Overruling – Effect of Later Supreme Court Decision – A later, inconsistent Supreme Court decision operates as an implied overruling of an earlier High Court ruling – Following S.E. Graphites Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Telangana and C.N. Rudramurthy v. K. Barkhatullah Khan – The decision in GlaxoSmithKline is inconsistent with Nandram and Rakesh Kumar Verma and is therefore impliedly overruled [Paras 83–91].

Industrial Adjudication – Applicability of CPC Principles – Territorial Jurisdiction – Although the Code of Civil Procedure is not directly applicable to labour adjudication, its principles concerning accrual of cause of action and concurrent jurisdiction are relevant – Section 20 CPC can guide determination of jurisdiction where part of the cause arises – Industrial disputes may give rise to concurrent jurisdiction in more than one State [Paras 108–136].

Concurrent Jurisdiction – Cause of Action Arising at Multiple Places – When part of the cause of action arises within Maharashtra (where the head or corporate office is located) and part outside (where the employee is posted), both courts have jurisdiction – No extra-territorial application of the MRTU Act arises in such cases [Paras 106–109, 130].

Precedents – Interpretation of Earlier Rulings – Lalbhai Tricumlal Mills Ltd. – The decision is not an authority for the proposition that jurisdiction lies only at the employee’s situs – Read harmoniously with Laxman Baburao Repal v. Poona Labour Court and Workmen v. Rangavilas Motors (P) Ltd. to mean that the place where the dispute substantially arises, including the head office, may confer jurisdiction [Paras 117–122].

Judicial Discipline – Article 141 – Binding Nature of Supreme Court’s Law – High Courts are bound by Supreme Court pronouncements – If inconsistency exists, the High Court’s earlier contrary view stands impliedly overruled even if not expressly mentioned [Paras 88–89].

Waiver of Objection to Territorial Jurisdiction – Section 21 CPC – Objections as to territorial jurisdiction are technical and must be raised at the earliest stage; otherwise, they are deemed waived – Belated objections after prolonged proceedings are unsustainable without proof of prejudice [Paras 159–160, 205].

Labour Litigation – Delay and Prejudice – Employees were denied adjudication on merits for over 15 years due to technical objections on jurisdiction – Court deprecated such tactics and directed expeditious disposal within one year in each remanded case [Paras 158–160, 213].

Remand and Relief – Orders dismissing complaints for want of jurisdiction under GlaxoSmithKline set aside – Complaints restored for decision on merits – Employers directed to pay costs ranging from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- to the employees/unions [Paras 170–213].

Decision – GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Labour Court, Mumbai and decisions following it held impliedly overruled – Labour and Industrial Courts within Maharashtra have jurisdiction where part of the cause arises due to managerial decisions at head office – Appeals and writ petitions allowed; complaints restored; costs imposed; direction for decision within one year [Paras 161–214].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Cheque Issued as Security – Accused issued cheque for ₹10 lakhs, allegedly in discharge of loan liability – Defence claimed cheque was given as security for registration charges in real estate transaction – Trial Court held real estate transaction and RTGS payment occurred on same date, lending credence to defence – Held: Cheque not proved to have been issued in discharge of legally enforceable debt – Acquittal upheld [Paras 5, 10, 11].

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Acquittal – Principles – High Court reiterated that unless trial court’s view is perverse or impossible, appellate court will not interfere – Omission in statutory notice and doubtful version of complainant regarding earlier cheques considered relevant – Held: Trial Court’s view plausible and not liable to be disturbed in appeal [Paras 6, 12].

Presumption under NI Act – Rebuttal – Accused denied liability and explained cheque was given as security – Complainant failed to prove that cheque was issued in discharge of existing debt – Held: Presumption rebutted – Burden not discharged by complainant – DW-1’s testimony partially favourable but insufficient to prove complainant’s case beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 7, 8, 10].

Pleadings – Omission in Statutory Notice – Complainant admitted two earlier cheques were issued and replaced by impugned cheque – Omission to mention earlier cheques in statutory notice undermined credibility – Held: Such omissions can raise doubt about genuineness of transaction when key part of liability is left out [Paras 5, 11].

Decision: Criminal appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal by Trial Court upheld – No perversity or illegality found in the reasoning – Complainant failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt – Presumption under Section 139 of NI Act successfully rebutted.

Excise Law – Illegal Transportation of Liquor – Acquittal – Accused intercepted while allegedly transporting 55 cartons of country liquor without permit – Prosecution relied solely on police testimony as independent witness turned hostile – Photographer did not confirm seizure proceedings – No photographs of search or sealing of liquor bottles produced – Held: Serious procedural lapses and contradictions in prosecution version created reasonable doubt – Acquittal by Trial Court upheld [Paras 6, 17, 19, 22].

Criminal Procedure – Appeal Against Acquittal – Interference by Appellate Court – Reaffirmation of legal principles that interference is warranted only if trial court’s view is perverse, based on misreading of evidence, or if no other conclusion except guilt is possible – Held: Trial court’s evaluation of evidence was plausible and based on contradictions and lack of independent corroboration – Appeal dismissed [Paras 12, 13, 23].

Witness Credibility – Hostile Witness – Independent witness denied witnessing seizure and stated he signed on police request – Police failed to examine any other neutral witnesses despite the seizure occurring at a public bus stand – Held: Non-association of independent witnesses and hostile testimony cast doubt on fairness of investigation – Prosecution case not proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 20–22].

Contradictory Testimony – Chain of Events Not Plausible – Rukka, site plan, and officer testimonies conflicted on number of officials chasing vehicle and their mode of travel – Motorcycle could not carry four police personnel – Discrepancies undermined the reliability of prosecution story – No clear evidence of actual seizure at the stated spot [Paras 15–17].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal affirmed – Trial Court’s judgment found to be a reasonable view based on gaps in evidence, contradictions, and lack of corroboration – High Court declined to interfere under settled principles of appellate review against acquittal.

NDPS – Bail – Commercial Quantity – MDMA 70 gms – FSL positive – Twin conditions – Bail refused – Accused No.3 sought bail under Sec. 483 BNSS/439 CrPC for offences under Secs. 8(c), 21(c) & 22(c) NDPS – Court held seizure of 70 gms MDMA from petitioner established prima facie by mahazar and FSL report – Quantity is commercial – No grounds to believe petitioner not guilty nor that he would not commit offence on bail – Petition dismissed [Paras 7–9].

Delay/Procedure – Sec. 42 & Sec. 57 NDPS – At bail stage – Petitioner’s contentions that the seizing officer did not comply Sec. 57 and that Sec. 42 was not followed held to be matters for trial – Not determinative at bail stage when commercial quantity recovered [Para 8].

Factual Foundation – Arrest & Seizure – Petitioner arrested on 18.12.2024 – 70 gms MDMA and a mobile phone seized – Charge-sheet filed; case fixed for hearing – No criminal antecedents pleaded, but gravity and statutory rigour under Section 37 outweigh plea for bail [Paras 3, 4, 7–8].

Public Interest – Drug offences against society/youngsters – Court notes societal impact and likelihood of re-offending as factors against grant of bail in commercial quantity cases [Para 4].

Decision: Criminal petition dismissed – Bail refused [Para 9].

Criminal Law – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Acquittal – Appellant convicted under Sections 302, 201 and 498-A IPC for allegedly murdering his wife by strangulation with a saree and shifting the body to another village – Trial Court relied on Ex.P2 (alleged note by deceased), medical opinion and recovery of saree pieces – Held: Prosecution failed to prove the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt – Death occurred in matrimonial home but no direct evidence linking accused – Circumstances insufficient to convict [Paras 12, 17, 22, 41]

Evidence Law – Expert Opinion – Dying Declaration – Handwriting of deceased in Ex.P2 (notebook) opined by expert to be genuine – However, discrepancies in name, date, and content – No corroboration from surrounding facts – Held: Opinion of handwriting expert is weak evidence and cannot solely form basis of conviction – Ex.P2 not reliable or admissible as dying declaration – Not put to accused in Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination – Cannot be used against him [Paras 19, 30-33]

Criminal Jurisprudence – Section 106 Evidence Act – Burden on Accused – Accused’s explanation of bleeding and shifting to hospital found false – But held: Mere false explanation not sufficient – Failure to explain under Section 106 is an additional link, not a substitute for complete chain of evidence – Prosecution must first establish prima facie case beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 18, 22, 25]

Criminal Trial – Section 313 Cr.P.C. – Use of Accused's Statement – Accused’s responses under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be treated as substantive evidence – Circumstances not properly put to accused – Held: Violation of procedural safeguards – Statements under Section 313 must be specific and complete – Incriminating material not placed for explanation – Ex.P2 not referred – Violates right to fair defence [Paras 26-27, 33]

Motive – Absence of Proof – Alleged motive of accused wanting to marry another woman not substantiated – No independent witness to cruelty – Family members' testimony lacked corroboration – Held: Motive not proved – In case of circumstantial evidence, motive is key – Its absence weighs in favour of accused [Paras 13, 36-40]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302, 201 and 498-A IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Fine amount to be refunded – Accused already on bail directed to complete legal formalities [Paras 42-43]

Civil Procedure – Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – Appeal against concurrent findings of trial and first appellate courts granting injunction against encroachment on Abadi Deh land – Held: No substantial question of law involved – High Court cannot interfere with pure findings of fact unless perverse or unsupported by evidence – Appeal dismissed [Paras 12–13].

Property Law – Abadi Deh Land – Ownership and Possession – Plaintiff proved ownership of Khasra No. 44 and joint proprietary rights in Abadi Deh land (Khasra No. 54) – Site plan and oral evidence proved encroachment by defendants on portion marked ‘ABCD’ – Defendants violated compromise to measure land before construction – Held: Plaintiff entitled to protection and restoration of possession [Paras 8–10].

Injunction – Prohibitory and Mandatory Injunction – Plaintiff initially sought only permanent injunction, but replication raised issue of ongoing illegal construction – Court exercised power under Order VII Rule 7 CPC to mould relief – Held: Mandatory injunction justified where encroachment proved and issue raised during trial – No prejudice caused to defendants [Para 11].

Pleadings and Evidence – Credibility of Witnesses – Defendants’ witnesses gave inconsistent evidence and contradicted own pleadings – Plaintiff’s witnesses supported site plan and compromise – Held: Trial court rightly relied on consistent and trustworthy plaintiff evidence – No error found in appreciation of facts [Paras 9–10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No substantial question of law arises – Concurrent findings upheld – Plaintiff’s entitlement to permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction affirmed – Pending applications also disposed of.

Maintenance – Income Assessment – Section 125 CrPC – Family Court awarded Rs. 22,000 per month to wife based on net salary of Rs. 90,562 of the petitioner – High Court held award constitutes ~25% of net income, consistent with guidelines laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha – Upheld as fair and reasonable [Paras 5, 7].

Matrimonial Dispute – Desertion – Petitioner argued wife had deserted him and was unwilling to reconcile – High Court held that unless desertion is adjudicated under Section 9 HMA in pending Matrimonial Case No. 25 of 2020, maintenance cannot be denied – Allegations of desertion alone not sufficient to bar entitlement [Paras 4, 7].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope – Court reiterated that in exercise of revisional powers, it cannot reappreciate factual findings unless there is patent illegality or material irregularity – No such error found in the trial court’s maintenance order – Revision dismissed [Paras 7–8].

Family Law – Maintenance Claim – Alleged unwillingness to reconcile or prior settlement proceedings cannot negate statutory entitlement to maintenance – Trial court’s findings based on admitted income and legal entitlement upheld [Paras 3, 5, 6].

Criminal Law – Sexual Assault – Acquittal – Respondent No. 2 accused of showing obscene videos and attempting to molest a minor girl – FIR lodged after delay of 4 days – No medical evidence or certified age document produced to prove minority of victim – Photocopy of birth certificate not verified per statutory requirement – Held: Prosecution failed to establish victim’s age under Section 94 of the JJ Act and Rule 12 of JJ Rules – Absence of proof of age fatal to prosecution under POCSO [Paras 10–14, 28]

Criminal Procedure – Appeal Against Acquittal – Interference – Trial Court had acquitted respondent on findings that victim’s testimony was inconsistent and not corroborated – No recovery of mobile phone, video, or other evidence – Witnesses other than victim were hearsay – Delay in lodging FIR not explained – Held: Acquittal based on plausible view supported by record – Appellate court not to interfere unless findings are perverse or unreasonable – No compelling reason found to reverse acquittal [Paras 15–29]

Evidence – Credibility of Witness – Victim’s version introduced for first time during examination-in-chief not supported by earlier Section 161/164 CrPC statements – Contradictions noted in testimony – Recovery not made – Investigating Officer admitted lapses in probe and failure to verify key evidence – Held: Prosecution evidence lacked consistency and credibility – Trial Court justified in treating evidence as insufficient [Paras 18, 28]

Burden of Proof – Failure of Prosecution – Held: Burden to prove guilt always lies on prosecution – Minor inconsistencies could be ignored, but failure to prove key ingredients (age, recovery, corroboration) undermines case – Burden never shifts unless prima facie case made – Trial Court’s reasoning not contrary to settled law [Paras 26–29]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of respondent No. 2 upheld – No interference warranted by appellate court – Trial court’s view held to be a possible and reasoned view based on evidence.

Family Law – Return of Gold Ornaments/Istridhan – Recovery Claim – Marriage Gifts – Wife claimed 65 sovereigns of gold ornaments were entrusted to husband and in-laws – Family Court allowed recovery of 52.955 sovereigns or value thereof – Held: Photographs and evidence proved possession of at least 53 sovereigns – Admission of husband inconsistent – Decree modified to return 45 sovereigns or market value as on date of recovery [Paras 2–10, 12]

Evidence – Documentary Evidence – Admissibility of Invoices – Appellants challenged admissibility of Exts. A6–A8 (jewellery invoices) citing non-compliance with VAT Rules – Held: Non-compliance may entail tax consequences but does not per se make document inadmissible in matrimonial litigation – Documents marked through shop owner PW2 found credible [Paras 7, 10]

Civil Procedure – Discretion to Award Alternate Relief – Market Value of Gold – Rule 7 of Order VII CPC permits court to grant general or alternative relief not specifically prayed for – Held: Where gold not returned, Family Court can direct payment of value at prevailing market rate as on date of payment – No bar on such relief in matrimonial proceedings [Para 12]

Family Law – Cross Objection by Wife – Court rejected claim for 12 sovereigns for lack of evidence – Wife failed to examine any relatives who allegedly gifted that portion of gold – Cross-objection allowed in part – Decree confined to 45 sovereigns only [Paras 4, 10]

Decision: Appeal and cross objection partly allowed – Appellants directed to return 45 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the respondent within one month – On failure to return, respondent entitled to recover prevailing market value of 45 sovereigns as on the date of actual recovery – No interest to be awarded.