Article 227 – Territorial jurisdiction – DRAT situs vs. DRT situs – Petition dismissed for want of jurisdiction – Petitioner challenged DRAT, Kolkata’s pre-deposit order (05.07.2024) and dismissal order (04.09.2024) arising out of DRT, Guwahati’s ex parte decree – Held: For challenges under Article 227 to orders of an appellate tribunal (interim or final) exercising jurisdiction over multiple States, the proper High Court is the one within whose territory the original Tribunal (DRT) is situated – Calcutta High Court lacks jurisdiction since the source DRT is Guwahati – Petition dismissed [Paras 1–3, 15, 19–21, 29–31, 45–47, 55–56].

Doctrine of Merger – Not determinative of Article 227 forum – Though original orders merge into appellate orders, situs of appellate forum does not confer Article 227 jurisdiction where the appellate forum spans multiple States – The doctrine cannot override the certainty-of-forum principle and the binding-precedent structure – Ambica Industries and ABC Papers applied [Paras 21–24, 29, 31, 35, 42–46].

Article 226(2) vs. Article 227 – Distinction in reach – Article 226(2) permits writ jurisdiction based on cause of action even beyond territorial seats – Article 227 superintendence is territorially tethered to courts/tribunals “throughout the territories” of the High Court – For appellate bodies covering multiple States, Article 227 control lies with the High Court where the adjudicatory source (DRT) is located [Paras 26–33, 38–40, 53–54].

Certainty of Forum – Prevention of forum shopping – When appellate tribunals cover several States, allowing dominus litis choice by relying on appellate situs would create uncertainty and inconsistent binding effect of precedents – Hence, only the High Court where the original adjudicating authority sits has supervisory jurisdiction – ABC Papers, Ambica Industries followed [Paras 29–31, 41–45].

Interlocutory Orders (Pre-deposit) – Same jurisdictional rule – Challenge to an interim pre-deposit direction and dismissal for non-compliance equally tracks the forum of the source DRT – Interference would revive the appeal and unsettle finality of the DRT’s order, rendering issues res sub judice – Therefore, Calcutta High Court cannot entertain even interlocutory challenges sourced from DRT, Guwahati [Paras 50–52].

Conflicting Coordinate Bench View – Sabbam Hari distinguished – Earlier order proceeded on “appellate order as part of cause of action” – In light of Ambica Industries, Calcutta Gujarati Education Society, Siddhartha S. Mookerjee and Navin Jain, Sabbam Hari is not a binding precedent on the jurisdictional point [Paras 48–50].

Decision – Application under Article 227 dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction – Liberty to approach the appropriate High Court within whose territory DRT, Guwahati is located – No order as to costs [Paras 55–57].

Land Acquisition – Sections 31 & 34 LAA – Non-deposit of compensation and liability for interest – Award dated 21.12.2004 not followed by deposit despite co-sharer dispute – Failure to deposit under Section 31 and absence of Section 12 notice to landowners noted – Held: Interest @ 9% p.a. from award/possession for one year and thereafter @ 15% p.a. is the statutory scheme under Section 34 – Concurrent decree awarding 9% p.a. from 21.12.2004 till 04.08.2009 upheld as plaintiffs did not seek enhancement – Appeal partly allowed only to modify post-decree interest structure [Paras 10–16, 18–20].

Collector’s Duty on Apportionment Dispute – Section 30 Reference and Section 31 Deposit – Co-sharer dispute no defence to retention – Collector must either refer dispute under Section 30 or deposit compensation in Court under Section 31 – Non-compliance fastens interest liability – Contention about prior writ/representations raised beyond pleadings and, even if considered, does not excuse non-deposit [Paras 14–17].

Section 12 Notice – Award Finality and Intimation – No pleading or proof that Section 12(2) notice of award was served on plaintiffs – Factor weighing against the appellant’s case on withholding payment [Para 13].

Rate/Mode of Interest – Modification of Trial Court’s Penal Direction – Trial Court’s stipulation of 18% p.a. if payment not made within two months found excessive – High Court modifies: over and above interest @ 9% p.a. on compensation from 21.12.2004 till 04.08.2009, the appellant shall pay interest @ 6% p.a. on this interest component from 04.08.2009 till realization – Decrees below modified to this extent [Paras 21–24].

Decision – Second appeal disposed of with modification – Interest @ 9% p.a. on compensation from 21.12.2004 (award) till 04.08.2009 (payment) sustained – Additional interest @ 6% p.a. on the accrued interest component from 04.08.2009 till realization substituted in place of 18% penal clause – Appeal partly allowed; rest of the decree affirmed [Paras 20, 22–24].

Anticipatory Bail – Economic Offences – Involvement in Fraudulent Investment Scheme – Bail Denied – The applicant, a partner in a firm accused of running a fraudulent investment scheme, sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS – FIR revealed a large-scale conspiracy involving collection of over ₹130 crores from investors through false promises – Court held that the material on record indicated the applicant’s active involvement from inception – Rejected plea that he was falsely implicated – Bail refused to prevent obstruction of investigation and custodial interrogation deemed necessary [Paras 1, 3, 12-14, 24, 27-28].

Statutory Bar – Applicability of GPID Act – Pre-arrest Bail Not Permissible – The offences alleged against the applicant attracted provisions of the GPID Act, which bars the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 17(2) – Court held that powers under Section 482 BNSS (analogous to Section 438 CrPC) are not available where GPID Act applies – Reiterated that special statutes override general provisions when specific exclusion is provided [Para 15].

Nature of Offence – Gravity and Modus Operandi Considered – Court emphasized that economic offences involve deliberate planning and have grave societal impact – Noted the coordinated modus operandi of accused to defraud innocent investors – Held such offences warrant a different approach than ordinary criminal acts, as they pose systemic risks to public confidence and national economy [Paras 13, 24-25].

Custodial Interrogation – Importance in Economic Offences – Custodial interrogation was considered crucial due to the ongoing investigation and the need to uncover concealed financial trails – Court cited precedents that custodial interrogation remains valid ground to deny anticipatory bail, especially in cases involving economic crimes with large financial implications [Paras 10, 18, 22, 27].

Prima Facie Involvement – Investigation Materials Support Accusation – Despite the applicant’s contention that co-accused or other parties were solely responsible, statements of witnesses and investigation materials indicated his direct role – Statement of co-accused Ramanpuri Goswami corroborated the applicant’s participation in the conspiracy – Court refused to treat the applicant as an uninvolved party [Paras 12-14].

Final Decision – Anticipatory Bail Rejected – Offences Grave and Investigation Active – Court concluded that no exceptional circumstances existed to exercise discretionary power under Section 482 BNSS – Anticipatory bail was refused in light of seriousness of offence, statutory restrictions under GPID Act, and the need to preserve integrity of investigation [Paras 24, 27-28].

Public Interest Litigation – Government Resolution establishing Additional Tahsildar office – Sections 4, 7 & 13, Maharashtra Land Revenue Code – Scope of power – GR dated 18.07.2023 created office of Additional Tahsildar at Kasar Shirsi, allocating 63 villages under its jurisdiction – Petitioners contended that such creation amounted to constitution/reconstitution of revenue area under Section 4(4), mandating prior publication and compliance with Section 24 of Bombay General Clauses Act – State contended that action was under Sections 7 and 13, relating to appointment of Revenue Officers, not creation of new revenue area – Held: Establishing Additional Tahsildar office for administrative convenience does not amount to constituting/altering revenue area – Section 4(4) not attracted – State acted within powers under Sections 7 & 13 – Petition dismissed [Paras 18–29, 34–36].

Distinction from Earlier Precedents – Avinash Ramkrishna Kashiwar & Santosh Suresh Patil cases – Not applicable – Those cases concerned creation/reconstitution of revenue areas under Section 4 – Present case involves only establishment of Additional Tahsildar’s office under Section 7/13 – Petitioners’ reliance misplaced [Paras 30–31].

Allegation of Political Motivation – Consideration – Material showed enquiry and recommendation by Sub-Divisional Officer and Collector before issuance of GR – Action based on administrative convenience and increased population – No arbitrariness or mala fides demonstrated – Court will not supplant executive wisdom in administrative matters [Paras 32–36].

Decision – PIL dismissed – Rule discharged – Pending applications also disposed of – Establishment of Additional Tahsildar office at Kasar Shirsi upheld as valid exercise of power under Sections 7 & 13, MLR Code [Paras 37–40].

Civil Procedure – Order XIV Rule 2(2) CPC – Section 10 CPC – Appeal against refusal to frame preliminary issues and to stay trial – Dismissal of appeal – Disputed factual matrix around family settlement (21.07.1998), relinquishment (05.06.1984), gift deeds (23.12.2004, 20.02.2008, 02.04.2012) and will (16.03.2010) required evidence – Issues did not go to jurisdiction or a statutory bar – Section 10 not attracted as subject-matter and reliefs in prior suit (challenge to 02.04.2012 gift deed) differ from present suit (partition and declaration re will) – Held: No interference with Single Judge – Appeal dismissed [Paras 25-27, 28-29].

Preliminary Issues – Scope under Order XIV Rule 2(2) – Pure questions of law limited to jurisdiction or statutory bar – Mixed questions requiring evidence cannot be tried first – Issues on registration/admissibility and “effect” of family settlement, relinquishment and gift deeds are fact-intensive – Discretion under Rule 2(2) is permissive (“may”), to be exercised judiciously – Finding that evidence is needed is neither arbitrary nor perverse [Paras 25.1-25.4, 25.12, 26.1-26.8].

Family Settlement – Registration Objection – Whether settlement dated 21.07.1998 was compulsorily registrable and its effect – Determination depends on nature, scope, and circumstances of execution – Cannot be resolved without evidence – Even otherwise, issue does not touch court’s jurisdiction nor create a statutory bar so as to qualify as a preliminary issue [Paras 25.9-25.10, 26.5].

Relinquishment and Gift Deeds – Effect on Maintainability – Triable Issues – Interplay between relinquishment (05.06.1984), later written family settlement (21.07.1998), and subsequent gift deeds (23.12.2004, 20.02.2008, 02.04.2012) disputed – Allegations of infirm disposition and internal inconsistencies (existence of 2012 gift despite 2008 gift) necessitate trial – Not fit for preliminary adjudication [Paras 26.6.2-26.6.5].

Pleadings – Alleged Wilful Suppression – Requires Trial – Whether plaintiff’s non-disclosure of earlier instruments amounts to wilful suppression/fraud on court is a question of fact – Needs evidence as per principles in S.J.S. Business Enterprises – Not a preliminary issue [Paras 26.9.1-26.9.4].

Section 10 CPC – Stay of Suit – Identity of Matter Directly and Substantially in Issue – Test is whether earlier decision would operate as res judicata – Prior suit (CS 58565/2016) challenges gift deed dated 02.04.2012; present suit seeks partition and declaration that will dated 16.03.2010 is void, along with injunction – Distinct causes, issues and reliefs – No identity; stay refused [Paras 27.1-27.4].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Impugned order refusing preliminary issues and Section 10 stay upheld – No order as to costs [Paras 28-29].

Bail under UAPA – Section 43D(5) – Complete embargo unless accusation prima facie untrue – Court examined whether material showed appellant’s role in conspiracy – Only recovery of one pistol, cartridges and Rs.50,000/- cash – No direct evidence of conspiracy – Held: Material insufficient to sustain continued custody [Paras 9-12].

Criminal Conspiracy – Proof – Requires meeting of minds – Mere recovery without nexus to larger conspiracy not adequate – Prosecution failed to attribute specific role to appellant in alleged terrorist acts or car snatching – Inference of conspiracy cannot rest on “bits here and there” [Paras 12-13].

Article 21 – Long Incarceration – Appellant in custody for over 5 years – Trial delayed – Supreme Court precedents (K.A. Najeeb, Shoma Kanti Sen, Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh) applied – Long custody itself valid ground to grant bail notwithstanding Section 43D(5) UAPA – Right to speedy trial paramount [Paras 13-15].

Bail Jurisprudence – Serious allegations alone insufficient – Bail not to be withheld as punishment – Purpose only to secure presence at trial – Constitutional Courts not strictly bound by prohibitory clause if continued incarceration breaches Article 21 [Paras 14-17].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Impugned order dated 31.10.2022 set aside – Bail granted to appellant subject to conditions [Paras 18-19].

Family Law - Divorce on Grounds of Cruelty and Desertion – Appeal Dismissed – Appellant-husband challenged the Family Court's rejection of his divorce petition under Section 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act – Alleged cruelty due to wife's medical issues, abusive behavior, and property pressure – Also alleged desertion without cause – Held: Appellant failed to plead or prove specific acts of cruelty or desertion – Family Court rightly found no cause of action and dismissed the divorce suit – High Court upheld findings, holding that general dissatisfaction or quarrels do not constitute cruelty – Appeal dismissed with affirmation of Family Court decree [Paras 2, 5, 9, 18-24].

Cruelty – No Specific Allegations or Dates – No Cogent Evidence Led – Divorce Denied – Appellant failed to specify dates or facts constituting cruelty in his petition or evidence – No corroboration from witnesses or documents – Held: Marital discord or occasional fights do not amount to cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) – Burden of proof not discharged – Findings of Family Court upheld [Paras 11-13, 18-20].

Desertion – Lack of Pleading and Evidence – False Allegation – No Case for Divorce – Appellant alleged wife deserted him but gave no date or evidence – Did not file petition under Section 9 for restitution of conjugal rights – Held: No proof of wilful desertion by respondent – Allegation found baseless – Divorce rightly denied on this ground as well [Para 21].

Mental Cruelty – Mere Marital Discord Not Sufficient – Law Reiterated – Held: Normal wear and tear of married life or occasional verbal fights not adequate to constitute mental cruelty – Court must consider effect of conduct on the aggrieved spouse – Reference made to Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh and Dastane v. Dastane – Legal threshold of cruelty not met [Paras 12-13].

Family Court Judgment – No Error in Appreciation of Evidence – Findings Based on Oral and Documentary Record – Held: Trial court rightly observed that there was no cause of action pleaded and no evidence to support cruelty or desertion – No perversity or illegality found – Appellate Court affirms judgment [Paras 5, 19-20, 23-24].

Appellate Review – Interference with Trial Court's Factual Findings Not Justified – Held: Appellate court should not interfere with findings based on oral evidence unless manifestly erroneous – Reference to Jagdish Singh v. Madhuri Devi (2008) 10 SCC 497 – High Court affirms Family Court decree [Para 22].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – No Merit in Grounds Raised – Family Court's refusal to grant divorce upheld – Appeal dismissed accordingly [Para 24].

Criminal Law – Summoning of Additional Accused – Section 319 CrPC – Standard of Proof – Mother of minor victim sought summoning of grandmother and paternal aunts on the ground of alleged suppression and non-reporting of child sexual abuse – Trial Court rejected application noting that no new or compelling evidence had emerged during trial beyond what was already part of the charge-sheet – High Court concurred, holding that child witness’s testimony was vague, inconsistent and lacked corroboration – Held: Section 319 CrPC requires strong prima facie evidence suggesting possible conviction – Mere suspicion or general allegations insufficient [Paras 8-13, 18-19].

POCSO Act – Duty to Report – Section 21 – Knowledge of Crime – Allegations against grandmother and paternal aunts for failing to report child sexual abuse – PW-1 (minor victim) made broad claims about “family knowing” and “suppression” – Court held that such statements lacked specificity and did not establish actual knowledge or intent to suppress – Held: Section 21 not attracted in absence of clear, credible, and independent proof of knowledge or concealment [Paras 15-16].

Misuse of Process – Matrimonial Acrimony – Vindictive Prosecution – High Court found application was not filed in the child’s best interest but was a misuse of criminal law motivated by the mother’s personal disputes with her estranged husband – Held: Attempt to implicate elderly grandmother and aunts using the minor victim’s testimony amounted to arm-twisting and gross abuse of process – Court cautioned against converting child protection laws into tools for vengeance [Paras 9, 14, 19-22].

Costs – Deterrence Against Frivolous Litigation – Trial Court’s imposition of ₹20,000 in costs upheld – Additional ₹10,000 cost imposed by High Court – Held: Costs justified to curb misuse of judicial time and protect individuals from baseless criminal allegations arising out of personal vendetta [Paras 21, 23].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Trial Court order upheld – Additional cost of ₹10,000 imposed – Pending applications also disposed of.

Civil Writ - Conversion Of Article 227 Petition Into An Appeal - Arbitral Award – Rejection of Objections under Section 34 – Article 227 Petition – Maintainability Disputed – The petitioner challenged the rejection of objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act via a petition under Article 226, later converted to Article 227 – Respondents objected on the ground that an appeal under Section 37 was the proper remedy – Held: Although the appeal under Section 37 is the appropriate route, the Court allowed conversion of the Article 227 petition into an appeal under Section 37 in the interest of justice and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings [Paras 2, 5, 6, 9].

Conversion of Petition – Power of High Court – Permissible in Appropriate Cases – The Court relied upon precedents including Kailash Chandra v. Ram Naresh Gupta (1982 All CJ 608) to reaffirm that conversion of a proceeding (revision/writ) into another form (appeal) is permissible where the legal remedy chosen is defective, provided necessary steps like payment of court fee and limitation compliance are taken – Distinguished Supreme Court's ruling in Vishesh Kumar v. Shanti Prasad which disallowed automatic treatment of revisions as writs – Held: Conversion allowed with conditions on compliance [Paras 7, 9].

Remedy under Section 37 – Technical Objection Overruled – The petitioner admitted to the availability of an appeal under Section 37 but sought conversion due to procedural history of the case – Court considered the timeline and exercised discretion to permit conversion instead of relegating the petitioner to file a fresh appeal – Held: Petition converted into appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act and to be listed before appropriate Bench [Paras 5, 9, 10].

Final Decision – Petition under Article 227 allowed to be converted into an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Three weeks’ time granted for compliance – Matter to be listed before the appropriate Bench thereafter [Paras 9-10].