Civil Law - Commercial Dispute - Commercial Courts Act 2015 - Section 12A - Pre-institution mediation - Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 - Appellant filed suit for recovery of money and moved an application for attachment before judgment alleging defendants were disposing of assets - Trial Court rejected plaint holding that the claim was essentially a monetary dispute and the plea of urgency was baseless/proforma - High Court held that the Trial Court failed to apply the judicial test laid down by the Supreme Court - The Court must examine the plaint and supporting documents to see if a real need for urgent intervention is contemplated - Even if interim relief is eventually denied on merits after hearing the court must not dismiss the suit under Order VII Rule 11 - Trial Court cannot adopt a cursory approach without adjudicating the interim application on its merits - Impugned order quashed and suit restored - Held - Plaint should not have been rejected when the appellant had explicitly sought urgent interim reliefs and made out a prima facie case for the same - [Paras 23-48].

Civil Law - Practice and Procedure - Commercial Courts Act 2015 - Section 12A - Urgent interim relief - Scope of judicial inquiry - The test is whether on an examination of the nature of the suit and the cause of action the prayer for urgent interim relief could be said to be contemplable from the standpoint of the plaintiff - The court should ensure the prayer is not a mask to bypass mediation but should not deny access to justice by a restrictive interpretation - When a plaintiff pleads urgent relief the court must adjudicate that application rather than summarily rejecting the plaint - Held - Mandatory mediation under Section 12A is not intended to destroy substantive rights of the plaintiff - [Paras 39-42].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order dated 10/11/2022 set aside – Commercial Suit restored to the file of the Commercial Court, Nashik, for adjudication on merits including the interim application – Refund of court fees directed.

Civil Law - Procedure - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 18 Rule 17 - Section 151 - Petitioner sought to reopen the case and recall PW2 to mark documents after closure of evidence and when the suit was posted for arguments - The trial court dismissed the application observing that the suit was over 10 years old and the petitioner failed to show diligence or relevance of documents despite having sufficient prior opportunity - High Court upheld the dismissal finding the application vague and lacking justification for such late-stage intervention - Held - Power to recall witnesses is not to be used in a routine manner to protract trials especially when the party failed to exercise due diligence earlier - [Paras 1-11].

Civil Law - Interim Measures - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 151 - Reopening and recalling of witnesses - Apex Court precedent emphasized that such measures should be avoided as far as possible and only allowed for compelling and acceptable reasons - In the present case the petitioner failed to disclose why the documents were not marked earlier and how they were imperative for adjudication - Held - Order of trial court affirmed as no fault could be found - [Paras 8-10].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed - Miscellaneous applications closed.

Civil Law - Amendment of Plaint - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 6 Rule 17 - Petitioner sought to amend partition suit to include shareholding of a family company as part of the estate of the deceased father - Trial Court rejected amendment noting petitioner had failed to satisfy the due diligence test and the matter was sub-judice before NCLT - High Court upheld the dismissal finding that permitting the amendment would cause prejudice to the respondents and lead to parallel proceedings for the same relief in a specialized forum - Held - Order of the trial court affirmed - [Paras 1-53].

Civil Law - Jurisdiction - Companies Act 1956 - Sections 397, 398, 402 and 403 - Pendency of proceedings regarding oppression and mismanagement - Whether civil court can entertain a plea for partition of shares currently the subject matter of an NCLT dispute - Held - NCLT possesses wide jurisdiction to adjudicate issues integral to complaints of oppression and mismanagement - Since shares were transferred prior to the deceased's death they did not form part of the estate for partition unless the transfer is first declared illegal by the NCLT - [Paras 27-39].

Civil Law - Due Diligence - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order VI Rule 17 - Proviso - Petitioner as a director of the company sought amendment three years after institution of the partition suit - Held - It is highly improbable that a director of a close-knit family company would be unaware of the transfer of majority shareholding for such an extended period - Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the information could not have been obtained earlier with reasonable due diligence - [Paras 44-47].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Impugned order of the trial court affirmed – No interference warranted.

Criminal Law - Dishonour of Cheque - Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 - Section 138 - Insolvency proceedings - Pendency of insolvency petition filed by the accused - Petitioner-accused sought to quash conviction contending that initiation of insolvency proceedings acts as a bar to criminal prosecution under the NI Act - High Court rejected the plea observing that criminal liability under Section 138 is a personal act and not a proceeding against the property of the insolvent - Held - Mere pendency of insolvency proceedings does not absolve the accused of criminal liability or stay the proceedings under Section 138 NI Act - Revision dismissed - [Paras 10-14].

Criminal Law - Dishonour of Cheque - Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 - Section 138 - Judicial Precedent - Pending Reference to Larger Bench - Petitioner contended that reference to a three-judge Bench in Dineshchand Surana v. UCO Bank concerning moratorium provisions provides protection - High Court held that until the reference is answered by the Supreme Court the existing settled law in P. Mohanraj v. Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt. Ltd. prevails - Held - Reference by itself does not grant shelter to the accused from criminal prosecution - [Paras 12-13].

Evidence Law - Suppression of Facts - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 3 - Material facts - Petitioner alleged respondent suppressed insolvency proceedings - Trial Court noted that pendency of I.P. No. 3 of 2019 was disclosed during cross-examination and considered by the Court - Held - No suppression of material facts established as the information was part of the record - [Para 11].

Decision: Criminal Revision Petition dismissed – Conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court upheld.

Civil Law - Contempt of Court - Contempt of Courts Act 1971 - Sections 10, 11 and 12 - Willful disobedience of court orders - Respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer failed to implement directions to mutate land records despite clear orders from the High Court and a subsequent Division Bench order in W.A. No. 1190 of 2025 - Respondent attempted to stall proceedings by citing pending family litigation despite the Court clarifying the suit pertained to different land survey numbers - Respondent further made derogatory remarks against the Court regarding the judicial process - Held - Respondent guilty of willful contempt and sentenced to civil imprisonment which was subsequently modified to community service in an orphanage for seven days along with a fine of Rs. 2,000 - [Paras 1-13].

Civil Law - Contempt of Court - Contempt of Courts Act 1971 - Section 12 - Sentencing - Power to modify sentence - Court has inherent power to modify a sentence of imprisonment to community service upon request and in light of circumstances - Held - Sentence of seven days civil imprisonment modified to seven days of service in an orphanage provided that the fine of Rs. 2,000 remains payable - [Paras 11-12].

Decision: Contempt Case allowed – Respondent sentenced to a fine of Rs. 2,000 and seven days of service in an orphanage – Matter listed for compliance on 01.10.2026.

Writ Law - Regularization of Service - Andhra Pradesh Ministerial Service Rules 1998 - Section 6 - Petitioner appointed on compassionate grounds as Typist in 2008 subject to acquiring Telugu Typewriting Higher Grade qualification within two years - Services regularized from date of acquiring qualification in 2010 pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.151 dated 22.06.2004 - Petitioner sought retrospective regularization from initial appointment date relying on G.O.Ms.No.69 dated 24.07.2023 which dispensed with typewriting requirements - High Court held that G.O.Ms.No.69 has only prospective effect and cannot unsettle seniority settled over twelve years ago - Rejection of representation by respondents held legal and valid - Held - Writ Petition dismissed - [Paras 1-15].

Service Law - Regularization - Compassionate Appointment - Executive Instructions - G.O.Ms.No.151 dated 22.06.2004 vs G.O.Ms.No.69 dated 24.07.2023 - Petitioner sought regularization from 2008 date of entry despite acquiring qualification in 2010 - Court observed that retrospective application of new government orders would create cascading effect on seniority of other employees - Petitioner bound by terms accepted at time of appointment - Held - Claim for retrospective regularization rejected - [Paras 10-13].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – No order as to costs – All pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Civil Law - Amendment of Plaint - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order VI Rule 17 - Plaintiff initially filed suit for partition claiming 1/12th share as co-sharer by natural succession - Subsequently filed application to amend plaint to seek declaration of 1/4th exclusive ownership based on a registered Will executed by father - Trial Court dismissed application as it sought to introduce a new case and fundamentally alter the nature of the suit - High Court held that such an amendment at the stage of evidence would require defendants to meet an entirely new case and the excuse of inadvertent omission by previous counsel is insufficient to permit changing the nature of the suit - Revision petition dismissed - [Paras 1-8].

Civil Law - Pleadings - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order VI Rule 17 - Nature of Suit - Plaintiff having already amended the plaint once to assert a specific share by inheritance cannot be allowed to subsequently introduce a plea of exclusive ownership through a Will - Held - An amendment that changes the fundamental character of the litigation and introduces a new cause of action which could have been raised earlier is rightly rejected - [Paras 6-7].

Decision: Revision petition dismissed – The order of the trial Court dated 21.08.2026 is upheld.

Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption - Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 - Sections 7 and 13 - Appeal against acquittal - Prosecution alleged accused demanded bribe for issuing revenue document - Trial Court acquitted citing material inconsistencies and defence evidence showing receipt of government dues - High Court re-evaluated evidence and found that prosecution failed to prove foundational facts of demand of illegal gratification - Complainant testimony inconsistent regarding amount and persons present - Recovery of tainted money alone insufficient for conviction in absence of proof of demand - Held - Findings of trial court reasonable and sustainable - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-54].

Criminal Law - Evidence - Standard of proof - Proof of demand - Sine qua non - Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 - Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) - Mere possession and recovery of currency notes without proof of demand does not establish offence - Foundational facts of demand and acceptance must be established before invoking statutory presumption under Section 20 - Held - Recovery of money stands proved but character of money as illegal gratification not established - [Paras 17-18, 48-49].

Criminal Law - Evidence - Tape-recorded conversation - Admissibility and Reliability - Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 - Reliability of transcript - Failure to produce original tape or establish authenticity - Prosecution failed to play recording in court or have voices identified - Held - Transcript cannot be treated as reliable corroborative evidence of alleged demand in absence of original recording and voice verification - [Paras 41-42].

Criminal Law - Appellate Power - Scope of interference - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 378 - Principles governing appeals against acquittal - Appellate Court should not disturb acquittal unless findings are palpably wrong or perverse - Where two reasonable views are possible the view favouring the accused must be upheld - Held - Order of acquittal affirmed as trial court's reasoning was based on proper appreciation of evidence - [Paras 9-11, 51-53].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal dated 19.12.1997 affirmed

Service Law - Misconduct - Removal from service - Hindu Marriage Act 1955 - Essential ceremonies - Petitioner removed from service for allegedly suppressing existence of a prior marriage at the time of joining - Complainant had obtained an Arya Samaj marriage certificate but admitted during criminal trial that Saptapadi and essential Hindu rituals were not performed - Trial Court had previously acquitted the petitioner of charges under Section 498A IPC - High Court held that in absence of proof of essential marriage ceremonies the Arya Samaj certificate alone does not constitute a valid marriage - Consequently the charge of false declaration regarding marital status was unsustainable - Held - Impugned order of removal quashed - [Paras 3-6].

Service Law - Departmental Inquiry - Validity of finding - Evidence Law - Marriage proof - Relying on Supreme Court precedents the Court reiterated that marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act is only valid when performed with essential ceremonies and Saptapadi - An Arya Samaj certificate without evidence of these rituals does not prove a valid marriage - Departmental finding of misconduct based on such certificate set aside - Held - Impugned removal order lacked legal basis - [Paras 6-6.2].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Impugned order dated 28.04.2022 quashed – Petitioner directed to resume duties forthwith – Period from removal to reinstatement to be treated as No work No pay but without break in service.