Motor Accident Claim – Compensation Enhancement – Permanent Disability – Appellant, a lorry driver, suffered fracture and underwent surgery due to negligent driving by APSRTC bus – MACT awarded ₹36,000 – High Court found MACT failed to adequately consider future medical expenses, loss of income, and associated costs – Compensation enhanced to ₹90,000 with 7.5% interest – Held: Disability certificate absent, but evidence of surgery, insertion of screws, and future treatment justified reasonable enhancement [Paras 11, 18, 24–26].

Assessment of Compensation – Judicial Approach – Court relied on Supreme Court guidance in Baby Sakshi Greola, Kajal, Rajkumar, Yadava Kumar – Clarified that compensation is broader than mere damages – It must restore the claimant as closely as possible to pre-injury status – Held: Tribunal erred by not granting amounts under heads like future treatment, transportation, and attendant charges [Paras 19–20].

Liability – Hired Vehicle – Insurer’s Responsibility – APSRTC bus was hired from private owner and insured – High Court affirmed that insurance company (Respondent No. 3) remains liable to pay compensation as per settled legal position – No appeal by insurer, hence liability not contested [Paras 10, 22].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Compensation enhanced from ₹36,000 to ₹90,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum from date of petition till realization – Respondent No. 3 (insurer) held liable to pay – Claimant permitted to withdraw the amount – No order as to costs.

PIL - Wildlife Law – Possession of Ivory – Notification under Section 40(4) of Wild Life Protection Act – Gazette Publication Mandatory – State issued notifications permitting declaration of ivory articles by a film actor and granted ownership certificates – Notifications not published in the Official Gazette – Held: Power under Section 40(4) must be exercised strictly in the manner prescribed – Non-publication in the official gazette renders the notifications void ab initio – Subsequent ownership certificates issued are unenforceable in law [Paras 10-12, 14] –

Statutory Interpretation – Requirement of Gazette Notification – Cannot be waived – Court rejected State's contention that alternate publicity (press circulation and website posting) satisfies requirement – Held: In absence of official gazette publication, the notifications are non est – Relying on Nazir Ahmad v. King-Emperor, I.T.C. Bhadrachalam Paperboards v. Mandal Revenue Officer – Exercise of delegated power must strictly follow statutory prescription [Paras 11-12] –

Public Interest Litigation – Locus Standi – Maintainability upheld – Despite contentions of political or personal motive, Court held the writ petitions raised genuine questions about legality of executive action under the Wildlife Act – Petitioners had standing to question misuse of statutory powers [Para 13] –

Retrospective Regularisation – Not Permitted – Notifications held to be 'stillborn' and incapable of subsequent validation through belated gazette publication – De facto doctrine inapplicable to statutorily void acts [Paras 12, 14] –

Criminal Proceedings – No Interference – Though petitioners prayed for directions to expedite pending criminal proceedings against the actor, Court declined to interfere – Held: Criminal matters already pending and monitored; such relief not warranted in writ jurisdiction [Para 2] –

Decision: Writ Petitions allowed – Government Orders dated 16.12.2015 and 17.02.2016 and Ownership Certificates dated 16.01.2016 and 06.04.2016 quashed as void and unenforceable – State may issue fresh notification under Section 40(4) in accordance with law – No costs.

Criminal Law – Dishonour of Cheque – Section 138 N.I. Act – Acquittal – Accused issued cheque for ₹3,20,000/- allegedly in discharge of debt – Cheque dishonoured due to insufficient funds – Trial court acquitted accused – Complainant failed to disclose date and details of loan transaction in complaint, statutory notice, and chief affidavit – In cross-examination, complainant admitted no documentation was obtained from accused and gave inconsistent dates – Held: Trial court’s view that complainant failed to prove existence of debt or liability was reasonable – Acquittal upheld [Paras 2-5, 9-11, 24]

Negotiable Instruments Act – Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 – Standard of Rebuttal – Accused need only rebut presumption by preponderance of probabilities – Evidence of past financial disputes between accused and complainant’s brother, threats from a third party and lack of source of funds shown – Held: Probable defence raised successfully – Presumption rebutted [Paras 12, 14-17, 22]

Appellate Powers – Appeal Against Acquittal – Reappreciation of Evidence – Court reaffirmed principles from Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka – Held: Double presumption of innocence favours accused – If trial court’s view is reasonably possible, appellate court should not interfere – Acquittal maintained [Paras 23-24]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal confirmed – No interference warranted [Para 24].

Criminal Law – Framing of Charge – Prima Facie Case – Land Fraud Allegation – Petitioners accused of securing illegal allotment of plot by suppressing material facts regarding existing allotment in husband’s name – Trial court refused discharge holding prima facie evidence existed – Held: At framing of charge, court need only examine whether allegations taken at face value disclose commission of offence – Accused cannot rely on defence documents or arguments at this stage – Discharge rightly rejected [Paras 5, 8-9, 11-12].

False Declaration – Allotment of Plot – IPC Sections 193/200/420 – Petitioner No. 2 submitted affidavit stating no prior allotment to her or her family – Investigation revealed husband had prior allotment under same scheme – Allegation that petitioner acted in connivance with officials to secure illegal allotment – Held: Suppression of fact and use of false affidavit justified charge-sheet – Matter to be tested during trial [Paras 3-4, 11].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Interference with Charge Framing – Revisional Court not to evaluate defence evidence or undertake meticulous scrutiny – Interference only if decision is perverse or patently illegal – No such finding in present case – Petition dismissed [Paras 10, 12].

Decision: Criminal Revision dismissed – Order framing charges upheld – Petitioners to face trial.

Ad-interim injunction - Intellectual Property – Copyright Infringement – Cinematograph Film – Plaintiff claimed exclusive rights in film “Mee Shivajiraje Bhosale Boltoy” including script, dialogues, title, and promotional material – Defendant's film “Punha Shivajiraje Bhosale” alleged to be a derivative or substantial reproduction – Held: No facsimile copy made – No infringement under Section 14(d) of the Copyright Act as defendants’ film is independently shot – Mere resemblance or similarity does not amount to infringement [Paras 33–34].

Copyright Law – Literary Work – Infringement of Script and Dialogues – Plaintiff failed to produce original script – Similarities alleged through chart (Exhibit O3) were broad, generic, and not substantially similar – Dialogues claimed were common expressions in Marathi language and not original to plaintiff – No prima facie case made out for infringement of literary work [Paras 35–37].

Intellectual Property – Promotional Material and Posters – Use of Standard Font and Public Historical Figure – Plaintiff claimed infringement based on poster design and use of Shivaji Maharaj’s image – Held: Use of image of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj and standard Marathi font not original or exclusive – No copyright or passing off made out in promotional material [Para 38].

Trademark Law – Passing Off – Title of Film – Claim of goodwill in title “Mee Shivajiraje Bhosale Boltoy” – Court held that no exclusivity or goodwill can be claimed in names like “Shivajiraje Bhosale” or “Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj” – No deceptive similarity or likelihood of confusion found – Plaintiff failed to establish goodwill, confusion, or misrepresentation – No passing off made out [Paras 39–41].

Interim Relief – Delay and Laches – Plaintiff had knowledge of defendants’ film since April 2025 – Suit filed only on 10.10.2025 – No explanation for delay – Court cited precedents discouraging last-minute injunctions before film releases – Delay found to be deliberate and strategic – Ad-interim relief refused solely on grounds of delay [Paras 23–27].

Equity – Balance of Convenience – Courts should not entertain urgent injunctions without adequate justification – Defendant invested substantial resources – Plaintiff’s last-minute litigation found inequitable – Held: Plaintiff not entitled to equitable relief – Interim application to be heard finally after pleadings completed [Paras 42–44].

Decision: Ad-interim relief refused – Interim Application to be listed for final hearing from 17.11.2025 – Defendants to file replies within two weeks – Plaintiff permitted rejoinder within one week thereafter – Costs reserved [Paras 44–46].

Tax Law – CST Exemption – C Forms Mandatory – Industrial Unit claimed exemption under Assam Industrial Policy, 2008 – Exemption denied for 2010-11 on ground of failure to furnish mandatory “C Forms” under Section 8(4), CST Act – Petitioner argued that exemption under Section 8(5) can still be granted – Held: Section 8(5) is conditional upon compliance with Section 8(4) – Exemption rightly denied [Paras 12-14, 17]

Fiscal Interpretation – Strict Interpretation of Tax Statutes – Court reaffirmed settled principle that exemption provisions must be interpreted strictly in favour of Revenue – Eligibility certificate alone insufficient without fulfillment of statutory conditions – No vested right to exemption in absence of compliance with procedural norms [Paras 15-16]

Industrial Policy – Scope of Rebate – Petitioner relied on Industrial Policy and alleged assessment officer had recommended exemption – Revisional authority found even the allowed rebate exceeded legal limit – Held: Recommendation does not override statutory requirements – Rebate not permissible without C Forms [Paras 13, 14]

Precedents – Applicability – Reliance on decisions in Prism Cement, Techer Power Solution, Shree Digvijay Cement found misplaced – Court held cited cases were factually distinguishable – Present case lacked similar alternative provision for exemption without C Forms [Paras 17-20]

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No exemption admissible under Section 8(5) of CST Act without fulfillment of declaration requirement under Section 8(4) – No interference warranted with orders passed by assessing and revisional authorities.

Writ of Habeas Corpus - Preventive Detention – Non-consideration of Representation – Violation of Article 22(5) – Detention confirmed under Section 9(f) of the PIT NDPS Act – Petitioner contended that representation dated 08.02.2025 was not considered independently by State Government – Court found no mention of such consideration in confirmation order (Annexure-B) or related files – Held: Representation must be considered independently of Advisory Board opinion – Failure to do so violates constitutional mandate under Article 22(5) – Detention vitiated [Paras 11–16, 19]

Detention – Right to Representation to Central Government – Detenue not informed of right to make representation to Central Government under Section 12(1)(b) of the PIT NDPS Act – Held: Obligation exists under Article 22(5) to inform detenue of such right – Failure to communicate this vitiates the order – Supported by SC ruling in Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel v. Union of India [(1995) 4 SCC 51] [Paras 20–22]

Preventive Detention – Independent Application of Mind – Confirmation order (Annexure-B) merely reproduced draft order based on Advisory Board report – No independent examination of detenue’s representation found in file – Held: Confirmation must reflect independent reasoning by competent authority – Mechanistic approval insufficient – Quashed [Paras 15–16]

NDPS Offences – Habitual Offender Allegation – Detenue had 12 prior NDPS cases, several pending trial – Alleged to be involved in organized trafficking from Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh – Court held such allegations, though serious, do not override procedural safeguards under Constitution – Preventive detention must satisfy strict compliance with statutory and constitutional mandates [Paras 2–5, 23]

Decision – Detention order dated 27.12.2024 and confirmation order dated 20.03.2025 quashed – Writ petition allowed – Operative portion to be communicated to prison authorities immediately [Para 23]

Criminal Law – Rape – Quashing on Settlement – Gang Rape and Abduction – Petitioners accused of abducting and repeatedly raping the de facto complainant under threat and confinement – Despite affidavit of compromise by victim, High Court refused to quash proceedings – Held: Offences of rape, especially gang rape, are crimes against society, not merely private wrongs – Settlements cannot override public interest in prosecuting such grave offences [Paras 1-8, 14-16]

Compromise – Non-Permissibility in Heinous Offences – Victim filed affidavit citing pressure from relatives and disinterest in prosecution – Court reiterated that compromise has no role in cases involving rape, abduction, and offences of mental depravity – Cited binding precedents from Supreme Court: Gian Singh, Parbatbhai Aahir, Madanlal, Ramji Lal Bairwa, and In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents – Held: Proceedings cannot be terminated under Section 482 CrPC in such serious cases [Paras 9-13]

Section 482 CrPC – Inherent Powers – Scope – High Court has limited discretion to quash criminal proceedings – Court emphasized that quashment cannot be resorted to when prosecution records prima facie indicate commission of grave offences – Compromise with victim, even if genuine, cannot justify interference in serious criminal matters involving dignity and bodily integrity [Paras 13-14]

Gender Justice – Offence Against Woman – Protection of Dignity – Court stressed that crimes like rape violate bodily autonomy and societal values – Attempt to settle such offences undermines rule of law and weakens criminal justice system – Dismissal of petition necessary to uphold constitutional and statutory protections for victims [Paras 11-13, 15]

Decision: Criminal miscellaneous case dismissed – Petitioners not entitled to quashment of proceedings under Section 482 CrPC despite victim’s affidavit – Trial to proceed before Sessions Court.

Family Law - Custody of Minor – Welfare of Child – Preference of Child – Guardians and Wards Act – Custody Retained with Grandparents – Father (appellant) sought custody of minor son from maternal grandparents and uncle – Family Court dismissed the custody application while granting visitation rights – High Court found that child (aged 11) had been in continuous custody of maternal relatives since birth (except for ~3 months) – Interaction by trial court confirmed child did not recognize or prefer to stay with father – Held: Welfare of the child is paramount – Child’s settled surroundings, education, comfort, emotional bonding with grandparents support continuation of current custody [Paras 9–14]

Natural Guardian – Not Absolute Right – Positive Test Not Satisfied – Though father is natural guardian and not unfit, mere absence of disqualification is insufficient – Father failed to satisfy “positive test” of better suitability for child’s welfare as laid down in Nil Ratan Kundu – Grandparents shown to be financially stable, educated, and capable of providing a stable and nurturing environment [Paras 7, 11]

Preference of Minor – Section 17(3) of Guardians and Wards Act – Not Sole but Relevant Factor – Trial Court’s direct interaction revealed the child to be emotionally bonded with grandparents and unwilling to stay with father – Held: Preference of child must be respected where consistent with welfare, particularly for children old enough to form intelligent judgment [Paras 11, 13–14]

Compromise Agreement – Not Conclusive of Welfare – Earlier custody temporarily given to father by mutual agreement in 2017 – Child taken back by respondents shortly after – Family Court found no material to show continued bonding or advantage in restoring custody to father – Compromise agreement not determinative of current welfare needs [Para 12]

Visitation Rights – Expanded in Appeal – Periodic Vacation Custody Granted – High Court upheld Family Court’s order with expanded visitation – Father allowed to take child for outings during Puja, Winter and Summer vacations initially for 7 days, later extendable to 15 days with child’s concurrence – Travel plans to be shared with grandparents, who may accompany if child desires – Custody to remain with grandparents until child attains majority [Para 14]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Custody to remain with Respondent No.1 (maternal grandfather) – Father’s visitation rights expanded to include vacation trips with specified safeguards – No costs [Para 15]