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.

Service Law – Age of Superannuation – NTC Employee – Validity of Reduction in Retirement Age – Petitioner, a mill-grade employee of Model Mills (taken over by NTC), challenged superannuation at age 58, claiming his retirement age was 60 – Labour Court and Industrial Court rejected complaint holding employer had legal authority to reduce retirement age to 58 – Writ Court upheld concurrent findings, relying on NTC Rules, 1985 and Section 14 of the Nationalisation Act, 1974 – Held: NTC validly altered conditions of service, including retirement age – No unfair labour practice established [Paras 2.3, 3, 6–8, 10].

Labour Law – MRTU & PULP Act – Complaint Under Item 1 of Schedule IV – Illegal Termination – Not Made Out – Superannuation notice challenged as illegal termination – Labour Court held notice was legal as per service rules – Revision by employee dismissed by Industrial Court – Writ Court concurred with lower courts and held action of employer did not amount to unfair labour practice [Paras 3, 4, 10].

Interpretation of Service Rules – Applicability of NTC Rules, 1985 – Whether Agreement with Union Overrides Rules – Petitioner relied on past agreement between Model Mills and Union to claim retirement age of 60 – Court held such an agreement was not an industry-wise agreement under Rule 2.3 of NTC Rules – Held: Agreement confined to one establishment cannot override NTC Rules applicable post-nationalisation [Paras 7–8].

Binding Precedent – Reliance on Division Bench Decision in Vasant Sheshrao Kale (2010 (3) Mh.L.J. 610) – Issue squarely covered by binding precedent holding that NTC validly altered age of superannuation through statutory rules – Petition devoid of merit in light of precedent and concurrent findings of fact [Paras 6–8, 10].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – No error found in concurrent findings of Labour Court and Industrial Court – No unfair labour practice or illegal termination established – Rule discharged, no costs awarded [Para 10, Order].

Civil Law – Suit For Recovery - Limitation – Acknowledgment of Debt – Barred Suit – Plaintiff relied on alleged last payment of ₹4,080 on 18.07.1992 as acknowledgment of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act – Trial Court held the document (Ex-A10) untrustworthy due to surrounding circumstances and timing amid criminal litigation between parties – Held: Plaintiff failed to prove valid acknowledgment – Suit filed on 17.07.1995 is barred by limitation [Paras 14, 21–25].

Negotiable Instruments – Inchoate Instrument – Section 20 NI Act – One promissory note (Ex-A5) left blank in the promisee column though duly stamped and signed – Plaintiff failed to fill in promisee’s name before filing suit – Held: Document incomplete and unenforceable – Section 20 does not rescue claim absent completed instrument at time of suit – No decree can be granted on incomplete negotiable instrument [Paras 18–19].

Evidence Act – Presumption under Section 118 NI Act – Defendants admitted borrowal of ₹2,04,000 in reply notice (Ex-A9) but claimed it was paid via Ashok Sharma and related to another entity – Held: Presumption under Section 118 applies to Ex-A2 to A4, which were in plaintiff’s name and not rebutted by acceptable evidence – However, relief denied due to bar of limitation and defects in Ex-A5 [Paras 15–17].

Civil Procedure – Verification of Pleadings – Inconsistency in description of plaintiff's status—Suit filed as "Proprietor" but verified as "Partner/Manager"—Held: Unexplained ambiguity in business structure and verification creates procedural defect—Plaintiff failed to clarify firm status even after remand—Trial Court rightly found plaint defective [Para 26].

Civil Procedure – Appeal Against Dismissal – Concurrent Findings – Trial Court dismissed suit after remand for failure to prove limitation and validity of documents – High Court found no perversity in Trial Court’s appreciation of evidence – Held: No reason to interfere with findings—Appeal dismissed [Paras 26–27].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and Decree of Trial Court dated 04/09/2013 in O.S. No. 5989 of 1997 upheld – Suit barred by limitation and based on incomplete documents – Defendants entitled to recover deposit amount with accrued interest, if not already withdrawn – No order as to costs.

Judicial Officers – Disciplinary Proceedings – Bail Order – Alleged Extraneous Motive – Charge of Misconduct – NDPS Act – Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. – Rule 16, CCA Rules, 1958 – Officer dismissed for allegedly granting bail to accused under NDPS Act with oblique motive upon change of advocate – Enquiry Officer held charge proved – Full Court accepted report and recommended dismissal – Governor passed dismissal order – Held: The bail order was a statutory/default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., not based on discretion or favouritism – No charge-sheet filed within 90 days; officer was bound by law to grant bail – Allegation of extraneous consideration baseless [Paras 21–33].

Evidence – Perversity of Findings – Use of Extraneous Material – Enquiry Officer relied on irrelevant bail orders of other accused (Ramesh and Ayub) not forming part of charge – Held: Findings based on extraneous and irrelevant evidence – Such reliance vitiates enquiry report – No reasonable person could reach conclusion of guilt on record evidence [Paras 34–38].

Natural Justice – Opportunity of Hearing – Article 311(2) – Opportunity before Full Court was granted; petitioner failed to avail – No further hearing required at stage of punishment by Governor – Governor’s order not invalid for want of speaking order – Full Court’s administrative decision deemed to have been made after due application of mind [Paras 40–42].

Vague Charge – Extraneous Consideration Not Particularized – Judicial Independence – Charge alleging “oblique motive” unsupported by any evidence of specific motive or benefit – Following Abhay Jain v. Rajasthan High Court, (2022) 13 SCC 1, and Ramesh Chander Singh v. High Court of Allahabad – Held: Disciplinary proceedings against judicial officers cannot be based merely on judicial orders unless tainted by proven malice or corruption – Findings suffer from perversity [Paras 33–34].

Judicial Review – Scope under Articles 226 & 227 – High Court not to act as appellate court over Full Court’s administrative decision unless process is vitiated by perversity or violation of procedure – However, where enquiry findings are arbitrary and unsupported by evidence, interference justified [Paras 36–38].

Relief – Reinstatement and Back Wages – Dismissal order dated 08.04.2010 set aside – Petitioner deemed reinstated till retirement (28.02.2011) – Entitled to full back wages, continuity of service, and consequential pensionary benefits to legal heirs [Paras 44–46].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Enquiry report, Full Court resolutions, and Governor’s dismissal order quashed – Petitioner deemed reinstated with full back wages and all consequential benefits – Pensionary benefits to be paid to family of deceased officer [Para 46].

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].

Civil Law – Partition Suit – Withdrawal Without Notice – Maintainability of Writ – Plaintiffs withdrew partition suit unconditionally and ex parte through Lok Adalat – Co-sharers (Defendant Nos. 20 and 21) not notified or served with application or purshish – Held: Withdrawal of partition suit without hearing all co-sharers, particularly those supporting the claim and seeking transposition, violates principles of natural justice – Mandatory requirement under Section 20 of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, for notice prior to Lok Adalat reference not followed – Writ under Article 227 maintainable to challenge award passed without jurisdiction or in breach of procedure [Paras 8–21, 25–28].

Lok Adalat – Jurisdiction and Procedure – Trial Court referred matter to Lok Adalat suo motu based on unilateral application by plaintiffs – No hearing or notice to petitioners – Held: Reference to Lok Adalat not valid in absence of opportunity to opposing parties – Order/decree passed in Lok Adalat set aside for procedural illegality and breach of Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act [Paras 12–20, 27–28].

Transposition of Parties – Order XXIII Rule 1-A CPC – Right of Co-defendant to Continue Proceedings – Petitioners, having identical interest in ancestral properties and not opposing the suit, had right to seek transposition upon withdrawal – Trial Court’s order denying such opportunity violated procedure and equity – Petitioners allowed to seek transposition upon restoration of suit [Paras 4.6, 25, 28(v)].

Constitution – Article 227 – Maintainability of Writ – Challenge to Lok Adalat award maintainable under Article 227 alone – Supreme Court rulings clarify writ under Article 226 or 227 is remedy against Lok Adalat award on limited grounds including violation of natural justice – Objection to maintainability rejected [Paras 9–11].

Decision: Writ allowed – Impugned order dated 03/08/2019 passed by Trial Court in Lok Adalat quashed – Special Civil Suit No. 158 of 2016 restored to original file – Petitioners (Defendant Nos. 20 and 21) permitted to object to withdrawal and seek transposition under Order XXIII Rule 1-A CPC – Trial Court to decide all issues afresh – All legal contentions left open for determination.

Criminal Law – Cyber Fraud – Bail – Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act - Accused allegedly part of a ₹10 crore cyber-fraud syndicate using fake identities and mule bank accounts – Petitioners charged with creating forged Aadhaar and PAN cards and opening fraudulent accounts used to route cheated funds – Bank employee and landlord identified one petitioner (Paramjit Kharb) as person posing as “Rinku Singh” – Biometric evidence linking petitioner to fake identity found credible – Another petitioner (Ram Kumar Raman) allegedly handled and resold bank accounts and SIMs to foreign-based scam operators in Dubai – Remote access tools used for cross-border financial transactions – Co-accused granted bail on parity but petitioners' roles found more central and incriminating – Held: Seriousness of offence, digital and forensic evidence, and continued investigation justify rejection of bail [Paras 1, 2, 6–9, 17–25, 36–44, 46–48].

Information Technology – Forged Digital Identity – Aadhaar-based biometrics used to open mule accounts – Dual biometric link between petitioner’s real and forged identity established – Defence claim of technical impossibility dismissed as trial matter – Landlord and bank official confirmed identity fraud and tenancy arrangement in name of forged identity – Held: Prosecution case not based merely on co-accused disclosures but supported by independent evidence [Paras 19–20, 36–39].

Criminal Conspiracy – Inter-State and Transnational Syndicate – Petitioners named in multiple FIRs across various states including Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, and Uttar Pradesh – Defence claim that FIRs arise from same factual matrix rejected – Court held such multiplicity evidences scale and reach of operation, not duplication – Role of petitioners found active and deliberate in wider scam network [Paras 42–44].

Judicial Discretion – Bail Principles – Parity – Although some co-accused released on bail, parity not absolute – Petitioners found on higher hierarchical footing with greater responsibility in fraud execution – Recoveries from Raman and biometric evidence against Kharb weighed heavily – Held: Petitioners’ custodial detention necessary due to risk of tampering, abscondence, and ongoing investigation [Paras 41–44].

Decision: Bail applications dismissed – Court held that prima facie material links both petitioners to serious and organised cyber fraud – Gravity of offence, scale of operation, and inter-state ramifications require continued custody – No case made out for grant of bail at present stage [Paras 45–49].

Criminal Law – Child Trafficking – Cancellation of Bail – Grave Offence – Modus Operandi of Organized Crime Syndicate – Bail Granted by Trial Court Set Aside – FIR revealed inter-State infant trafficking network with accused persons involved in procurement, delivery, and sale of newborns from poor families for profit – Trial Court granted bail to two accused (Pooja and Bimla) without proper consideration of the seriousness of offence or role of accused – High Court held that the impugned orders were mechanically passed and failed to assess parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in Ashok Dhankad and Pinki – Bail orders cancelled and accused directed to surrender [Paras 2–14, 38–39, 41–46, 55–61].

Criminal Procedure – Bail Jurisprudence – Factors for Grant and Cancellation – High Court Emphasizes Need to Consider Public Interest, Risk of Witness Tampering, and Offence Gravity – Trial Court erred in granting bail solely on ground that charge sheet was filed and no further custodial interrogation was needed – Held: Filing of charge sheet is not the sole test for granting bail – Risk of absconding, destruction of evidence, and societal impact must be weighed [Paras 45–50, 55].

Evidence – CDRs, WhatsApp Chats and Video Footage – Destruction of Mobile Phones by Accused – Chain of Circumstantial Evidence Against Respondents Upheld – Court noted mobile data, call records, money transfers, and video footage placed on record – Alleged destruction of phones showed consciousness of guilt – Prima facie links between co-accused (Pooja and Bimla) established through digital evidence and co-accused statements – Bail granted despite such material found unsustainable [Paras 19–21, 25, 42–44, 57–58].

Human Trafficking – Adoption as Defence – Rejected at Bail Stage – Judicial Caution Mandated – Defence plea that infants were given in adoption rejected – Court held that claim cannot overshadow serious allegations of trafficking and is matter for trial – Held: In cases involving vulnerable victims (infants), strict scrutiny and protective approach necessary at bail stage [Paras 47–48].

Precedent – Ashok Dhankad and Pinki Cases Applied – Grave Offences Demand Heightened Judicial Scrutiny – Court reiterated principles from Ashok Dhankad v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Pinki v. State of U.P. – Bail in cases of grave offences like child trafficking must consider societal impact and risk of recurrence – Mechanical grant of bail undermines public confidence in justice system [Paras 48–52].

Decision: Petitions allowed – Impugned bail orders dated 22.07.2025 (Bimla) and 30.07.2025 (Pooja) set aside – Respondents directed to surrender within 7 days – Trial Court directed to proceed with expeditious trial – Observations confined to bail proceedings and not to influence merits of trial [Paras 60–65].

Criminal Law – Rape – Conviction Reversed – Appellant convicted under Section 376 IPC and Section 4(2) POCSO Act for allegedly raping the prosecutrix in a hotel after luring her under the pretext of performing religious rituals – Trial Court relied primarily on the victim’s statement and late-produced school register – Appellate Court found significant contradictions between the victim’s written complaint, statement under Section 164 CrPC, deposition during trial, and statement to the doctor – Held: Inconsistencies in the prosecutrix’s version, lack of corroboration from medical or independent evidence, and non-examination of crucial witnesses create serious doubt about the prosecution’s case. Acquittal [Paras 22–27, 34].

POCSO Act – Age Determination – Radiological examination placed age of victim between 16–17 years – Following the +2 year margin of error rule, Court held victim may have been over 18 years on date of alleged occurrence – No valid school records produced during trial, and late-marked admission register lacked authentication – Held: Prosecution failed to establish that victim was a minor – Charges under POCSO Act unsustainable [Paras 28–33].

Evidence – Medical and Forensic Lapses – Doctor (P.W.1) found no recent signs of sexual assault, lacerations were old and healed – No visible physical injuries – Appellant was arrested same day, yet no medical examination was conducted – Non-compliance with Sections 53A and 54 CrPC held to be fatal to the prosecution case [Paras 27–28].

Witness Testimony – Credibility of Prosecutrix – Victim gave inconsistent versions regarding place of occurrence, events, and family involvement – Contradictions between her own accounts and those of her mother – Court held she could not be treated as a “sterling witness” as per Supreme Court’s test in Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi) – Conviction cannot rest solely on uncorroborated and doubtful testimony [Paras 22–27, 34].

Investigation – Lapses – No seizure of victim’s clothing, no CCTV footage, visitor registers or call detail records collected – No independent witnesses examined – Defence established significant procedural failures in investigation – Held: Cumulative effect of these lapses undermined the prosecution version [Paras 15, 19, 23].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 376 IPC and Section 4(2) POCSO Act set aside – Appellant acquitted by granting benefit of doubt – Appellant to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case [Paras 35–37].