Criminal Law - Quashing – Proclaimed Offender – Compliance with Section 82 CrPC Mandatory – Petitioner declared proclaimed offender under Section 82 CrPC despite offences being bailable and co-accused having been released on probation – Held: Trial Court failed to comply with the mandatory procedure under Section 82(1) CrPC including absence of 30-day notice, failure to record satisfaction of concealment or absconding, and improper publication – Declaration as proclaimed offender vitiated as being mechanical and illegal [Paras 1–6, 8–9].

Proclamation Proceedings – Quashment – Where proclamation order was passed in violation of Section 82 CrPC and there was no evidence of willful evasion of trial by the petitioner – Held: Criminal proceedings arising from such invalid proclamation liable to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS to prevent miscarriage of justice – Petitioner had cooperated with investigation and absence was neither deliberate nor intentional [Paras 7–10].

Fair Trial – Procedural Safeguards – Mandatory nature of Section 82 CrPC reaffirmed – Requirement of Court’s satisfaction regarding absconding or concealment, and adherence to the triple-mode publication under Section 82(2), held to be essential – Non-observance renders entire proclamation process and consequential proceedings a nullity [Paras 5–9].

Decision: Petition allowed – Order dated 01.10.2022 declaring petitioner as proclaimed offender quashed along with all consequential proceedings – Petitioner having cooperated with investigation and not shown to be willfully absconding – Pending applications also disposed of.

Criminal Law – Assault on Child – Section 323 IPC – Conviction Upheld – Section 8(2) Goa Children’s Act – Set Aside – Evidence of PW1 (injured child) found wholly reliable – Ocular testimony consistent and unshaken – Medical certificate not proved but ocular evidence given primacy – Incident held isolated and lacking ingredients of “child abuse” under Section 2(m); no deliberate cruelty or sustained maltreatment – Held: Conviction under Section 323 IPC sustainable; conviction under Section 8(2) Goa Children’s Act unsustainable [Paras 18-25, 29, 38-40].

Evidence Law – Injured Witness – High Evidentiary Value – PW1’s testimony inspires confidence – No material contradictions – Defence plea of enmity rejected – Law reiterated that injured witness has inbuilt guarantee of presence; cannot be disbelieved without compelling reasons [Paras 20, 24, 27].

Ocular vs. Medical Evidence – Primacy of Ocular Testimony – Medical certificate not proved as doctor not examined – However, ocular version corroborated by PW2 and not challenged in cross-examination – Medical evidence need not prevail unless it rules out prosecution case entirely – Conviction can rest on reliable ocular testimony [Paras 25-26].

Investigation – Panchanama – Non-examination of Panch Witness Not Fatal – Scene of offence panchanama proved through Investigating Officer – Law reiterated that recovery/panchanama can be proved by IO even if pancha turns hostile or is not examined [Paras 30-32].

Criminal Law – Goa Children’s Act – Scope of “Child Abuse” – Isolated Incident – Not Every Assault Amounts to Child Abuse – Supreme Court in Santosh Khajnekar followed – Abuse must involve cruelty, exploitation, deliberate ill-treatment or intent to cause serious harm – Mere assault during quarrel does not constitute child abuse under Section 8(2) – Conviction under Goa Children’s Act set aside [Paras 37-39].

Probation of Offenders Act – Applicability Mandatory for Offence under Section 323 IPC – Court must consider probation for offences punishable with less than life imprisonment – Matter remanded to Trial Court for determining grant of probation after obtaining Probation Officer’s report – Law reiterated that courts must assess probation for first-time offenders unless excluded by statute [Paras 41-46].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Conviction under Section 323 IPC Confirmed – Conviction under Section 8(2) Goa Children’s Act Set Aside – Matter Remanded on Probation Issue – Fine to be refunded [Para 47].

Criminal Law - SC/ST Act – Recommendation for FIR – Jurisdiction of Commission – Order dated 05.01.2018 passed by Member of National Commission for Scheduled Castes recommending registration of FIR under SC/ST Act against DDA official (Karamvir Narwal) and restoring vendor’s permission challenged – Held: NCSC is empowered to recommend enquiry but cannot direct FIR registration – The impugned order is merely recommendatory and not binding – No mandatory direction for FIR found [Paras 33-36].

Street Vendors Act – Right to Vend – Respondent street vendor had valid permission which was later withdrawn by DDA – Subsequent Writ Petition quashed revocation order – Vendor allegedly harassed and caste-abused by DDA official – Held: Grievance essentially related to vending rights and withdrawal of permission – No evidence of specific incident of caste abuse noted – Omnibus allegations insufficient to justify FIR [Paras 32-34].

Writ Jurisdiction – Maintainability – Petition filed by DDA challenging recommendation of NCSC – Held: Petition maintainable to clarify that NCSC’s order was only advisory in nature – Police not bound to register FIR solely on Commission’s recommendation – Enquiry may be conducted in accordance with law [Paras 35-36].

Decision: Writ Petition disposed of – Clarified that impugned order of NCSC dated 05.01.2018 is recommendatory and not mandatory – No direction to register FIR – Police free to proceed with enquiry under law [Paras 36-37].

Family Law - Tribal Succession – Gender Equality – Burden of Proof – Scheduled Tribe (Gond) – Ancestral Property – Daughter’s Right to Inherit – Error in Law by Lower Courts – Appeal Allowed – Matter Remanded – Plaintiff, a daughter of deceased tribal father (Gond community), sought 1/5th share in ancestral house property – Trial Court and First Appellate Court rejected claim holding burden was on her to prove custom allowing daughters to inherit – Held: View contrary to law laid down by this Court in Babulal v. Resmabai and Supreme Court in Ram Charan v. Sukhram – When succession law is silent, burden lies on party asserting exclusion to prove custom – Lower Courts erred in shifting burden on plaintiff – Findings perverse and unsustainable in law – Matter remanded for fresh decision in accordance with principles of justice, equity, and Article 14 of Constitution [Paras 2, 21–26].

Customary Law – Proof of Exclusion – Article 14 – Scheduled Tribe – Constitutional Mandate – Plaintiff Proved Tribal Identity – No Custom Proven by Defendants – Lower Courts Misapplied Law – Plaintiff established she was daughter of deceased tribal father and belonged to Gond ST community – No contrary custom proven by defendants to justify exclusion – In absence of valid customary exclusion, denial of share to tribal women violates Article 14 – Held: Custom cannot be presumed – Must be pleaded and proved by party relying on it – Misapplication of burden of proof rendered concurrent findings unsustainable [Paras 21–24].

Appeal – Concurrent Findings Overturned – Legal Error – Matter Remanded – Though concurrent findings existed, both Courts fundamentally erred in applying incorrect legal principles – Denial of inheritance on basis of misapplied burden caused miscarriage of justice – Matter remanded to Trial Court with liberty to both parties to lead evidence and decision to be made afresh as per settled legal position [Paras 25–27].

Decision: Second Appeal allowed – Judgments of Trial Court and First Appellate Court quashed – Matter remanded to Trial Court for fresh decision after hearing both sides and applying correct legal principles.

Mines and Minerals – Quarry Lease – Renewal – Delay – Interpretation of Expiry Date – Application for renewal of quarry lease rejected as being filed after expiry of lease term – Lease expired on 29.12.2013 (a Sunday) – Application filed on 30.12.2013 – Held: By operation of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, where the last day falls on a holiday, act done on the next working day is valid – Application held to be within time – Rejection order unsustainable [Paras 10, 15–17]

Service of Orders – Communication Requirement – Limitation for Revision – Revision petition under Rule 53(1) of 1994 Rules rejected as delayed by more than six years – Petitioner claimed order of rejection dated 18.01.2014 was never communicated and came to know only in 2019 through RTI – Held: No material to show rejection order was ever communicated – Limitation would run from date of communication – Matter remanded for reconsideration [Paras 18–19]

Quarry Lease – Penalty for Delayed Renewal – Acceptance of Application with Fee – Application filed with two demand drafts for renewal fee and security deposit – Prima facie shows compliance with payment requirement – Issue of absence of arrears clearance certificate not sufficient ground for rejection in absence of notice or opportunity – Revisional authority to re-examine [Para 20]

General Clauses Act – Applicability to Lease Renewals – Provisions of Section 10 applicable to statutory time limits for filing applications under mining rules – Sunday falling on last day of lease term entitled petitioner to file application on next working day – Similar approach adopted by High Court in Robo Silicon Ltd. case affirmed [Paras 12–13, 16]

Decision: Impugned order set aside – Matter remanded to Revisional Authority for reconsideration – Petition disposed of with liberty to parties to raise all contentions afresh [Paras 21–22]

Civil Law – Partition - Assigned Lands – Transfer Validity – Applicability of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 – Partition Suit – Adverse Possession – Limitation – Appeal Allowed – Sale of land in 1964 challenged by plaintiffs on ground it violated provisions of the 1977 Assigned Lands Act – Trial court held sale void under Section 3 of the Act – Held: As per G.O.Ms.No.1142 dated 18.06.1954 and G.O.Ms.No.575 dated 16.11.2018, lands assigned before 18.06.1954 are outside the scope of the 1977 Act – Sale deed executed in 1964 valid – Plaintiffs’ claim to title not proven – Suit for partition without seeking declaratory relief is not maintainable – Plaintiffs failed to implead legal representatives of deceased co-plaintiffs – Suit partly abated – Further, defendants had continuous possession for over 25 years – Plaintiffs’ claim barred by limitation and adverse possession established [Paras 19, 23-27, 28-32, 34].

Domestic Violence – Delay in Proceedings – Pendency of Case Since 2018 – Petitioner-wife filed complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act on 06.11.2018 – Despite service of notice on 28.05.2019, respondent failed to appear – Trial proceeded ex parte – Respondent appeared only in January 2021 – Interim maintenance of ₹15,000/month awarded but reduced to ₹10,000/month by revisional court – Maintenance never paid despite salary of ₹1.10 lakh/month – Total arrears of ₹4.55 lakh accrued – High Court observed inordinate delay and systemic apathy in enforcement of maintenance orders [Paras 2-6]

Non-Compliance with Judicial Directions – Supreme Court and High Court Precedents Ignored – Neither trial court nor revisional court directed respondent to file affidavit of assets and liabilities as mandated in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 and Parul Tyagi v. Gaurav Tyagi, 2023 SCC OnLine All 2684 – Prior directive in Rajesh Babu Saxena v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine All 2260 for recovery from salary also disregarded – Court expressed concern over indifference by trial courts to binding precedents, warning of loss of public confidence [Paras 7-8]

Judicial Accountability – Explanations Called from Magistrate and Revisional Court – Magistrate directed to furnish explanation for failure to seek affidavit of assets/liabilities – Revisional Court to explain basis for reducing maintenance from ₹15,000 to ₹10,000/month – Failure to provide satisfactory reasons may invite administrative action – Registrar (Compliance) directed to communicate order – Registrar General to collect responses before next hearing [Paras 8-9]

Decision: Magistrate and Revisional Court directed to submit explanations through Registrar General – Next hearing fixed for 14.10.2025 – Warning issued that evasive replies may attract administrative action.

Family Law – Transfer of Matrimonial Proceedings – Section 21-A, Hindu Marriage Act – Both husband and wife filed divorce petitions in different courts within Maharashtra – Husband’s petition filed first before Family Court, Bandra; wife’s later petition before Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan – Held: Section 21-A(2)(b) mandates that the later petition “shall” be transferred to the court where the earlier petition was presented – Statutory compulsion overrides discretionary transfer under Section 24 CPC – Wife’s convenience, though generally preferred, cannot prevail against specific legislative direction – Husband’s application allowed; wife’s dismissed [Paras 1–7, 9–10].

Interpretation – Special vs. General Law – Section 21-A of the Hindu Marriage Act (special provision) prevails over Section 24 of CPC (general procedural power) – Word “shall” in Section 21-A indicates mandatory transfer; word “may” in Section 24 CPC denotes discretion – Thus, proceedings governed by Section 21-A must follow statutory mandate [Para 6].

Case Law – Applicability – Supreme Court’s ruling in N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199, and Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay, (2001) 10 SCC 41, distinguishable as they did not concern Section 21-A – Guda Vijayalakshmi v. Guda Ramchandra Sekhara Sastry, (1981) 2 SCC 646, reaffirmed that Section 21-A is not exhaustive and CPC transfer powers continue to apply, but in intra-state cases statutory mandate under Section 21-A governs [Paras 8–8.3].

Convenience of Wife – Distance of 50 km between Kalyan and Bandra not unreasonable – Wife permitted to appear via video conferencing or physically with travel expenses paid by husband (₹2,500 per hearing) – Monetary inconvenience mitigated [Para 9–10.5].

Decision: MCA No. 124 of 2024 (wife’s application) dismissed – MCA No. 415 of 2024 (husband’s application) allowed – Wife’s HMP No. 2159/2022 before Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan to be transferred and tagged with Marriage Petition No. 3540/2022 pending before Family Court, Bandra – Both to be heard together – No continuation of interim relief granted [Paras 10–12].

Arbitration – Judicial Interference – Limited Scope under Section 37 – Appeal against judgment upholding arbitral award awarding contractor Rs.6.66 lakhs with interest – Held: Interference under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act is narrowly circumscribed – Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own view for that of the arbitrator – Award found to be reasoned and based on plausible interpretation – No patent illegality or perversity demonstrated – Appeal dismissed [Paras 10–13, 33–35]

Contract Law – Delay in Execution – Time as Essence – Though the contract originally required completion by 03.07.1992, time was extended until 31.05.1993 – Arbitral Tribunal found delays attributable to Railways’ conduct – Contract rescission held unjustified – Tribunal’s findings on delay and liability upheld as based on evidence and within arbitral jurisdiction [Paras 2(iii)–(v), 31]

Arbitration – Interpretation of Contract – Pricing and Claims – Claims 6 and 7 challenged as contrary to contractual pricing – Tribunal interpreted contract clauses and ISI specifications governing waterproofing and bitumen application – Held: Pricing interpretation was reasonable and within bounds of contract – No ground to interfere on reappraisal of evidence [Paras 32]

Public Policy and Patent Illegality – No Violation – No violation of public policy, fundamental policy of Indian law, or basic morality demonstrated – No fraud, corruption, or procedural impropriety found – Tribunal applied proper reasoning and considered all relevant material – Award immune from curial interference [Paras 13, 27–30, 33]

Arbitration – Interest on Award – Permissibility – Arbitrator awarded 12% interest p.a. on claims and cost of arbitration – Held: Grant of interest in consonance with Section 31(7) of the A&C Act – Contractual bar not absolute – No legal infirmity in award of interest [Para 7]

Judicial Precedents – Conformity with Supreme Court Guidance – High Court reiterates principles from MMTC v. Vedanta, PSA Sical Terminals, Associate Builders, DMRC, and Reliance Infrastructure – Emphasises minimal interference, deference to arbitrator’s findings, and narrow scope of review under Sections 34/37 [Paras 14–26]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No interference warranted with the arbitral award or the District Judge’s judgment upholding it – Award found legally sound, reasoned, and within jurisdiction – No costs imposed – Interim orders vacated [Paras 34–36]