Property Law – Communal Land – Order I Rule 8 CPC – Adverse Possession by State – Identity of Land – State estopped from claiming adverse possession – Suit partly maintainable – Declaration granted for Hal Plot No.1575; claim rejected for “Smasana” land [Paras 15–29].

Communal Land – “Smasana” – Necessity of Representative Suit – Non-Joinder – Suit Not Maintainable – Hal Plot No.1563 recorded as “Smasana” is communal land in which entire village has common interest – Plaintiffs failed to comply with mandatory requirements of Order I Rule 8 CPC before seeking declaration of title – Villagers of Mouza Attopur-Badapokharital being necessary parties, suit in respect of A.0.03 decimals of Hal Plot No.1563 rightly dismissed by courts below – Held: No error in concurrent findings dismissing claim regarding “Smasana” land [Paras 15–18].

Adverse Possession – Plea by State – Impermissible – Implied Admission of Plaintiff’s Title and Identity of Property – State pleaded long possession and prescriptive title over A.0.09 decimals of Hal Plot No.1575 – Such plea amounts to implicit admission of plaintiffs’ title and identity of the suit land – As per settled law, the State cannot perfect title by adverse possession against its own citizens – Trial Court’s and First Appellate Court’s findings denying identity and ownership unsustainable – Held: State precluded from claiming adverse possession; plaintiffs’ title stands established [Paras 19–25].

Title and Identity – Establishment through Defendant’s Admissions – Reversal of Concurrent Findings – Once State claimed adverse possession, identity of A.0.09 decimals in Plot No.1575 stands admitted – Concurrent findings that plaintiffs failed to identify suit land contradicted legal effect of State’s plea – High Court interferes with concurrent findings under Section 100 CPC as findings were perverse and contrary to settled principles [Paras 22–26].

Relief – Partial Decree – Declaration of Title and Direction for RoR Correction – Suit dismissed for A.0.03 decimals of Hal Plot No.1563 (“Smasana”) – Suit decreed for A.0.09 decimals of Hal Plot No.1575 – Plaintiffs declared owners; State declared to have no right, title or interest – Possession confirmed in favour of plaintiffs – State directed to correct RoR accordingly – Appeal allowed in part [Paras 27–29].

Negotiable Instruments – Cheque Dishonour – Secondary Evidence – Original Cheque Lost – Complainant sought to mark photocopy of cheque under Section 65 of Evidence Act after discovering original was missing – Trial Court rejected plea citing lack of explanation and absence of return memo – Held: Respondent had not denied existence of cheque but only disputed ink and handwriting – Court directed that photostat copy be marked as primary evidence – All defences left open for trial [Paras 2, 4, 5]

Criminal Procedure – Revision – Interference with Trial Court’s Discretion – Rejection of secondary evidence without considering surrounding documentary evidence including promissory note, legal notice, reply – Held: Trial Court erred in mechanically rejecting the application – Revision allowed to avoid miscarriage of justice in a long pending matter [Paras 4, 5]

Evidence Act – Secondary Evidence – Photostat Copy – Permissibility – Where original cheque is lost and its existence is corroborated by other documents such as promissory note and notices – Held: Photocopy admissible under Section 65 of Evidence Act – Respondent free to challenge genuineness during trial [Paras 4, 5]

Trial Directions – Expeditious Disposal – Case pending since 2014 – Directed to be posted on day-to-day basis and completed within two months from receipt of order [Para 6]

Decision: Criminal Revision allowed – Order of trial court set aside – Photostat copy of cheque permitted to be marked as primary evidence – Trial Court directed to complete trial within two months – Connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition closed [Paras 5-7]

Telecom Law – Jurisdiction of TDSAT – Dispute Between Service Providers – Plaintiff (a Class 'A' ISP) and Defendant No.1 (a Category 'A' ITSP) entered into an Operational Merger Agreement (OMA) for resource and infrastructure integration – Allegations of breach of contract, disruption of services, and withholding of infrastructure affecting thousands of end consumers – Held: Dispute is between service providers and directly impacts users—Squarely falls within exclusive jurisdiction of TDSAT under Section 14(a)(ii) of TRAI Act—Civil suit not maintainable [Paras 3, 22–26, 38–39]

Civil Procedure – Bar of Jurisdiction – Section 15 of TRAI Act – Civil courts barred from entertaining disputes that TDSAT is competent to adjudicate – Inclusion of individual directors and foreign parent company (non-service providers) does not alter the core nature of the dispute – Allegations against Defendants 2–5 arise from their roles within service provider operations – No distinct cause of action independent of the primary dispute – Civil court lacks jurisdiction [Paras 30–35]

Consumer Impact – Scope of TRAI Act – Plaintiff admitted disruption of service to approx. 19,000 residential and commercial users including hospitals, schools, and government bodies – Held: Where dispute affects a large body of consumers, TDSAT as the expert tribunal must adjudicate – Object of TRAI Act is to ensure consumer protection and orderly growth of telecom sector [Paras 24–26]

Contractual Disputes – Private Agreement Between Telecom Operators – Plaintiff argued dispute arose from a private contractual arrangement unrelated to regulatory functions – Court rejected argument citing binding precedent that even private agreements between service providers fall within TDSAT’s domain if consumer interests are affected or sectoral regulation is implicated [Paras 27–29]

Distinction from Precedents – Cases relied upon by plaintiff (e.g., Amrit Aneja, Hathway Digital) held inapplicable – Those disputes involved non-service providers or employer-employee issues – In contrast, current dispute involves operational failures and service disruptions between two licensed service providers [Paras 36–37]

Decision:Suit held not maintainable – Dispute falls within exclusive jurisdiction of TDSAT under Sections 14 and 15 of the TRAI Act – Civil court barred from entertaining the matter – Plaint rejected – Pending applications disposed of accordingly.

Negotiable Instruments – Section 138 Conviction – Revisional Jurisdiction – High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence under Art. 227/Section 482 CrPC – Change of company name does not invalidate complaint – Authorised representative proved – Defence payments not proved – Concurrent findings upheld – Revision dismissed [Paras 25–33].

Negotiable Instruments – Dishonour of Cheque – Ingredients Established – Conviction Proper – Complainant proved supply of goods, issuance of cheque, dishonour for “Insufficient Funds”, service of statutory notice, and failure to pay within statutory period – Petitioners did not dispute issuance of cheque nor reply to notice – Defence of prior payments (Rs.1,00,000/– and Rs.2,00,000/–) unsupported by admissible evidence – Held: All statutory ingredients of Section 138 NI Act satisfied; no perversity in concurrent conviction [Paras 22–25].

Revisional/Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 & Section 482 CrPC – No Re-Appreciation of Evidence – Revisional/supervisory power is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors, perversity, patent illegality or miscarriage of justice – High Court cannot act as a second appellate court or reassess credibility of witnesses – Interference only if findings are based on no evidence or are manifestly perverse – Held: No such infirmity shown; revisional challenge rejected [Paras 26–30].

Corporate Law – Change of Company Name – Complaint in Old Name Maintainable – Complainant company’s subsequent change from “Ltd.” to “Private Ltd.” does not invalidate proceedings already instituted – Rights and liabilities of old entity vest in new entity by operation of Section 23(1) of Companies Act, 1956 – Pending proceedings may continue in old name – Held: Complaint not defective; no requirement to amend cause title; authorised representative validly proved by board resolutions (Ext.1/1) [Paras 31–32].

Authorisation to Represent Company – Valid Board Resolution – Complaint Maintainable – Complainant produced board resolution authorising initial representative; upon his departure, fresh resolution authorised PW-1 – Held: Proper authority established; objection meritless [Para 31].

Case Law Relied Upon – Applicability – Decisions cited by petitioners on non-existence of complainant company, lack of authority, and presumption rebuttal held inapplicable on facts; defence failed to rebut statutory presumption under Sections 118 & 139 NI Act [Paras 25, 31].

Result – Revision Dismissed – Interim Orders Vacated – Trial Court to Proceed – No grounds to interfere with concurrent findings – C.R.R. 4568 of 2023 dismissed; interim order vacated; Trial Court to act on server copy [Paras 33–36].

Criminal Law – Cross-Examination – Statutory Right – Accused facing charges under Sections 376(2)(n), 506 & 392 IPC – Opportunity to cross-examine PW-1 (prosecutrix) and PW-2 (her mother) closed by trial court on first day of their examination as defence counsel was unwell – Subsequent application under Section 311 CrPC for recall of witnesses also rejected – Held: Cross-examination is a vital statutory right under Sections 137 and 138 of the Evidence Act – Denial of such opportunity vitiates fair trial [Paras 1–6, 7–8]

Criminal Procedure – Section 311 CrPC – Recalling Witnesses – Trial court rejected application under Section 311 CrPC without considering that defence counsel was medically indisposed – Held: Section 311 CrPC empowers the court to recall and re-examine any witness if their evidence appears essential for a just decision – Power must be exercised to further the cause of justice – Failure to recall key witnesses in this case amounted to miscarriage of justice [Paras 9–10]

Judicial Discretion – Principles for Recalling Witnesses – Reliance placed on Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar (2013) 14 SCC 461 – Court reiterated that Section 311 CrPC should be used judicially, with fairness to the accused as a paramount consideration – Discretion must aim to ensure a complete and just adjudication of criminal trial [Para 11]

Decision: Petition allowed – Orders dated 03.04.2024 and 10.05.2024 set aside – Trial Court directed to re-summon PW-1 and PW-2 and afford petitioner opportunity to cross-examine them – All pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Law – Police Harassment – Herbal Hookah in Restaurant – Petitioner alleged police interference with lawful restaurant operation citing alleged sale of tobacco-laced hookah – Petitioner claimed use of only herbal substances without nicotine – Held: Police not to interfere with restaurant business unless illegal activity is found – Direction issued to petitioner to approach FSSAI for certification [Paras 1-3, 7-8]

Tobacco Control – COTPA Act – Section 4A – Hookah Bars – State amendment prohibits hookah bars – Whether petitioner’s hookah product contains tobacco or nicotine is a factual issue to be verified by competent authorities – Held: Court cannot act on mere oral claims – Matter to be decided by FSSAI and not by the Court [Paras 5-6]

Food Safety – Jurisdiction of FSSAI – Products inhaled via hookah without tobacco/nicotine fall within the definition of “food” under Section 2(za) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 – FSSAI to test samples and verify composition – If product is free of tobacco/nicotine, petitioner can continue operating hookah bar [Paras 6-9]

Police Powers – Surveillance vs Harassment – Though restaurant is located near educational institutions, police can only act if illegal activities are found – General interference in routine lawful business not permitted – Police liberty preserved to act if any illegality is detected [Paras 4, 10]

Decision: Petition disposed of – Petitioner directed to approach FSSAI with product ingredients – Police restrained from interference in lawful business unless illegality is found – Petitioner at liberty to continue business if products are certified tobacco/nicotine-free [Para 8]

Criminal Law – Attachment Order - Prevention of Money Laundering – Attachment of Property – Flat purchased by respondent through unregistered agreement from a company under winding-up – Tribunal quashed ED's attachment – High Court held that no valid title passed through unregistered agreement – Held: Respondent had no ownership; property continued to vest with United Breweries (Holdings) Ltd – Flat rightly attached as proceeds of crime under Section 2(1)(u), PMLA – Tribunal erred in ignoring legal position on title transfer and statutory scheme under PMLA [Paras 25, 34–40, 42, 46–47]

Winding Up – Void Transactions – Agreement to Sell entered after winding-up petition filed – No leave of Company Court taken – Held: Transaction void under Section 536(2), Companies Act – Official Liquidator’s no objection was not bona fide – Registration of sale deed during pendency of restoration proceedings held invalid [Paras 36–37, 46]

Property Law – Ownership – Unregistered Agreement to Sell – Mere agreement does not confer title – Held: As per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act and Suraj Lamp case, only registered conveyance creates ownership rights – Buyer at best had a right to seek specific performance – Respondent had no legal interest in property [Paras 38–41]

PMLA – Procedural Compliance – Freezing and Attachment – Provisional attachment by ED was in accordance with Section 5 and confirmed by Adjudicating Authority – High Court reiterated importance of procedural safeguards under PMLA – Cited Opto Circuits (2021) 6 SCC 707 to reaffirm that failure to follow mandatory procedure renders freezing invalid – In present case, ED complied fully [Paras 21–24]

Restoration of Property – Public Sector Banks – Banks holding public funds passed stringent tests under PMLA – Special Court ordered restoration of attached assets to bank consortium – Respondent suppressed facts during sale deed registration – Held: Conduct not bona fide, undermined pending PMLA and winding-up proceedings [Paras 44–45]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order of Appellate Tribunal quashing attachment set aside – Flat No. 7A held to be validly attached as proceeds of crime – Respondent held to have no title – Sale deed executed during pendency of proceedings declared invalid.

Employees Compensation – Territorial Jurisdiction – Dismissal of Claim – Appellants challenged dismissal of compensation claim by Commissioner, Thane, for want of territorial jurisdiction – Deceased claimant initially resided in Thane when application was filed but later shifted to Uttar Pradesh – Employer based in Gujarat and accident occurred in Gujarat – Insurance company had branch office at Thane – Held: Though the employer’s registered office was not at Thane, the claimant’s ordinary residence at the time of filing and the insurer’s business presence in Thane established territorial jurisdiction – Commissioner’s rejection on jurisdictional ground was incorrect – Hyper-technical approach must be avoided in beneficial legislation like EC Act [Paras 6, 14, 38-43].

Substantial Question of Law – Appeal under Section 30 EC Act – Whether dismissal on ground of territorial jurisdiction raised substantial question of law – Held: Interpretation of ‘ordinary residence’ and relevance of insurer’s business presence involve substantial legal issues – Commissioner failed to consider this appropriately – Findings liable to be set aside [Paras 8, 11-13].

Insurance Law – Coverage under Vehicle Package Policy – Risk of employment injury covered under Employees’ Compensation Act – Insurer’s liability contractual and enforceable – Presence of insurer’s branch office, though not specified under EC Act, relevant in light of CPC principles – Insurer entitled to support Commissioner’s findings despite not raising territorial objection earlier [Paras 22-28, 40-41].

Remand – Improper Dismissal – Commissioner’s findings on employment and accident not interfered with – Matter remanded to determine compensation and apportionment of liability between employer and insurer – Appeal partly allowed [Paras 43-44].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Dismissal of claim on territorial jurisdiction grounds set aside – Matter remanded to Commissioner for hearing on compensation and liability – Final disposal directed within three months from 23rd November 2025.

Preventive Detention – Verification of In-Camera Statements – Subjective Satisfaction – Petitioner challenged preventive detention under MPDA Act alleging non-compliance with procedural safeguards – Contended that Detaining Authority failed to personally verify in-camera statements of witnesses – Held: It is not a legal requirement that the Detaining Authority must personally verify in-camera statements – Verification by a senior police officer such as Assistant Commissioner of Police suffices and provides necessary procedural safeguard – Assistant Commissioner personally interacted with witnesses, visited incident spot, and verified genuineness of statements – Detaining Authority perused entire record, including verification report, and recorded subjective satisfaction [Paras 4–11].

Preventive Detention – Procedural Safeguards – Compliance with Legal Requirements – Grounds of detention, in-camera statements, and verification report were supplied to the detenu – Detaining Authority noted and considered all relevant material before passing the detention order – Detention order satisfies requirements of Section 8 MPDA Act and Article 22(5) of the Constitution – No breach of procedural safeguards found [Paras 6–10, 12].

Judicial Review – Subjective Satisfaction – Scope – Courts cannot substitute their own opinion for the subjective satisfaction of Detaining Authority – Reasonableness of satisfaction is not to be tested objectively – Judicial interference not warranted unless procedural illegality or arbitrariness is established – Held: No infirmity found in detention order – Petition lacks merit [Paras 5, 12–13].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Rule discharged – Interim application also disposed of as infructuous.