Arbitration Law – Jurisdiction under Section 29A of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – High Court’s jurisdiction to entertain applications for extension of mandate of arbitral tribunal – Applications under Section 29A seeking extension of time to pass award filed before High Court – Preliminary objection raised by non-applicants regarding maintainability before High Court instead of Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in district – High Court’s interpretation of “Court” as per Section 2(1)(e) of the Act – Held: High Court not vested with original jurisdiction under Section 2(1)(e) for domestic arbitration cases where arbitral tribunal not appointed by High Court or Supreme Court – Applications dismissed with liberty to approach appropriate forum [Paras 1-36].

Jurisdiction – Interpretation of “Court” under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 29A application for extension of mandate of arbitral tribunal – Analysis of case law: M/s. K.V. Ramana Reddy vs. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited, Nilesh Ramanabhai Patel vs. Bhanubhai Ramanbhai Patel, Cabra Instalaciones Y. Servicios vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, DDA vs. M/s. Tara Chand Sumit Construction Co., M/s. URC Construction (Private) Ltd. vs. M/s. BEML Ltd. – Emphasis on High Court’s and Supreme Court’s role in appointing arbitrators under Section 11 – High Court’s jurisdiction to extend mandate only when it initially appointed arbitrator under Section 11 – Definition of “Court” in Section 2(1)(e) is binding unless context otherwise requires [Paras 7-34].

Decision – Dismissal of Arbitration Applications – Held – High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain applications under Section 29A in domestic arbitration cases where it did not appoint the arbitral tribunal – Applications dismissed with no order as to costs – Applicants advised to approach appropriate forum [Paras 35-36].

Maintenance Law – Maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC – Enhancement and Cancellation of Maintenance – Application for cancellation of maintenance by husband rejected by Family Court – Application for enhancement of maintenance by wife allowed by Family Court – Husband challenged Family Court’s decision in High Court – High Court examined evidence and confirmed Family Court’s decision to enhance maintenance – High Court upheld the order considering the husband’s capacity to pay and the needs of the wife and son, despite wife’s employment – Revision application dismissed with costs and directions to award interest on arrears of maintenance [Paras 1-13].

Evidence Evaluation – High Court found no material change in circumstances justifying cancellation of maintenance – Wife’s employment did not exonerate husband from paying maintenance – Court rejected husband’s claim of wife using false name and fabricating documents – Name change after marriage considered customary and not fraudulent – Court upheld enhanced maintenance considering cost of living, educational expenses, and husband's substantial income [Paras 4-11].

Decision – Dismissal of Revision Application – Held – The revision application challenging two proceedings of maintenance is dismissed as non-maintainable – High Court found no perversity or impropriety in Family Court’s judgment – Costs imposed on husband for filing meritless revision application – Direction given to award interest on arrears of maintenance to ensure timely payment – Judgment to be circulated among District Judiciary of Maharashtra to set precedent for awarding interest on maintenance [Para 13].

Cooperative Societies – Test Audit Appointment – Quasi-Judicial vs. Administrative Orders – Revisions: The High Court examined whether the order appointing a special auditor under Section 81(3)© of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 was quasi-judicial or administrative, and whether such an order could be challenged under Section 154 of the said Act. The court held that the order under Section 81(3)© is administrative in nature, primarily directed at the supervision of society’s affairs without deciding on the substantive rights of parties. Consequently, it was concluded that a revision under Section 154 of the Act challenging the administrative order is not maintainable. [Paras 1-34]

Nature of Order – Quasi-Judicial vs. Administrative – Analysis: The court outlined the distinctions between quasi-judicial and administrative orders, emphasizing the necessity of a quasi-judicial body to act judicially, provide parties the opportunity to present their cases, and make decisions based on objective considerations. In this case, the order appointing a special auditor did not require such judicial conduct, hence classified as administrative. [Paras 23-31]

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope and Limitations: The court elaborated on the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, highlighting that it pertains to quasi-judicial orders. The examination of ‘regularity of proceedings’ cannot extend to quashing or setting aside administrative orders but is confined to ensuring the legality and propriety of quasi-judicial decisions. [Paras 7-22, 32]

Decision: The impugned stay order by respondent No. 2 was set aside, and it was clarified that respondent No. 6 may challenge the initial order appointing the special auditor through appropriate legal proceedings if desired. [Para 33]

Bail – Cancellation – Suppression of Material Facts – The respondent Indira Kumari @ Tanu secured bail by suppressing material evidence against her, specifically the statements of last seen witnesses recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The bail was granted under the false premise that there was no evidence against her. This concealment and misrepresentation amounted to an abuse of judicial process. The court, upon discovering this suppression, recalled the bail order dated 07.03.2024 and directed her arrest. [Paras 1-22]

Principle of Parity – Negative Parity – Bail Application – The co-accused Anuj Pokharna and Rishabh Raj sought bail on the ground of parity with Indira Kumari. The court rejected their bail applications, emphasizing that the principle of parity is based on positive equality and cannot be invoked to perpetuate an illegality. The court highlighted that parity cannot be claimed when the initial bail was obtained by suppressing material facts. [Paras 23-30]

Decision – Bail Cancelled – Bail Applications Rejected – The bail granted to Indira Kumari on 07.03.2024 was recalled and cancelled. The bail applications of Anuj Pokharna and Rishabh Raj were rejected. Directions were issued for the immediate arrest and detention of Indira Kumari. [Paras 22, 30-31]
 

Review Jurisdiction – Grounds for Review – Petitioner seeks review of dismissal order, arguing substantial questions of law were raised but not considered by the court – Review petition examined under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC – Review permissible on grounds of discovery of new evidence, error apparent on face of record, or other sufficient reason [Paras 1-22].

Error Apparent on Face of Record – Definition and Scope – Review jurisdiction confined to patent errors not requiring elaborate argument or reappreciation of evidence – Error must be self-evident and not subject to different interpretations or extensive reasoning – Prior case laws including Parsion Devi and Lily Thomas reiterated [Paras 10-17].

Previous Adjudication – No New Grounds – Petitioner’s arguments largely reiterate points already considered and rejected in the initial appeal – No new evidence or error apparent demonstrated – Review petition found to be an attempt to reargue the case on merits [Paras 19-23].

Judicial Precedents – Analysis and Application – Review jurisdiction principles from Apex Court judgments applied – Review not an appeal in disguise, meant to correct manifest errors only – Precedents from Col. Avatar Singh Sekhon, S. Nagaraj, and others discussed to emphasize limited scope of review [Paras 15-21].

Decision:

Review Petition Dismissed – No grounds for review found within the ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC – Original order dated 10.10.2023 upheld, dismissing the appeal for lack of substantial questions of law – Petitioner's arguments considered repetitive and unconvincing [Paras 23-24].

Eviction under Public Premises Act – Unauthorised Occupation – Prima Facie Satisfaction – The Estate Officer must have prima facie satisfaction that the respondent is in unauthorised occupation before issuing an eviction notice under Section 4(1) of the Public Premises Act – Satisfaction must be based on substantive material – Subsequent notices may waive earlier ones, impacting the basis for the eviction notice – Notice dated 9 February 2001 was found waived due to subsequent notices – Prima facie satisfaction formed on waived notice indicates non-application of mind [Paras 1-19].

Eviction Process – Statutory Compliance – Fairness and Reasonableness – Public authorities must act in public interest and follow principles of natural justice and constitutional fairness – Requirement for eviction under Public Premises Act involves dual-stage satisfaction: preliminary before issuing notice, and final after hearing the occupant – The necessity for eviction must align with constitutional principles and demonstrate bona fide need and fairness [Paras 20-29].

Protection under Maharashtra Rent Control Act – Waiver of Notice – Tenant’s Status – Respondent failed to prove tenancy prior to 1980 to claim protection under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act as interpreted in Suhas H. Pophale’s case – Multiple notices indicated tenancy was treated as subsisting, leading to waiver of earlier notices [Paras 30-31].

Decision: The Civil Revision Application is dismissed. The judgment of the City Civil Court, Greater Bombay, setting aside the eviction order of the Estate Officer, is upheld. The Estate Officer’s prima facie satisfaction was found to be based on non-application of mind due to reliance on waived notice. The applicant failed to demonstrate the fairness and reasonableness required for eviction [Paras 32-33].
 

Violation of Natural Justice – Reversion from IG to DIG without a proper hearing – Petitioners reverted as per orders dated 31.03.2023 without being given a subsequent opportunity for a hearing after initial postponement – Initial show cause notice dated 17.09.2021 followed by multiple notices and a scheduled hearing which was postponed due to non-availability of the Chief Minister – Respondents failed to reschedule the hearing and instead issued final reversion orders – Held, impugned orders set aside due to a violation of natural justice principles, directed to pass new orders after a proper hearing by 15.06.2024 – [Paras 1-9].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Business Dispute – The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR on the grounds that the dispute was of a civil nature arising out of a long-standing business relationship with the complainant. The petitioner contended that the complainant was attempting to use the criminal justice system to settle a commercial dispute, which involved transactions of crores of rupees over several years. The court noted that the existence of a business relationship without prior complaints undermined the credibility of the criminal allegations. The court emphasized that the FIR did not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence but rather a commercial relationship that had deteriorated. [Paras 1-10]

Abuse of Process – Civil Dispute Given Criminal Colour – The court highlighted that criminal prosecution should not be used to settle business disputes. The FIR, registered after an inordinate delay of over five years, did not contain allegations constituting the essential ingredients of the offences alleged. The court referred to precedents where it was held that mere breach of contract without mens rea does not constitute a criminal offence. [Paras 13-20]

Decision – FIR Quashed – The court exercised its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR, noting that continuing the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The court underscored the importance of preventing the criminal justice system from being misused to resolve civil disputes. [Paras 22-28]
 

Contractual Disputes – Withholding of Payment – Dispute arose over withholding of Rs. 1,40,42,000/- payment due to allegations of data breach by the respondent – Appellant cited contractual provisions permitting withholding payment for default – Held, withholding payment pending investigation justified under terms of agreement [Paras 1-7, 10-11].

Writ Jurisdiction – Exercise in Contractual Matters – High Court emphasized limited scope of writ jurisdiction in contractual disputes – Held, writ jurisdiction not appropriate where arbitration clause exists and parties have alternate remedy – Reference to Apex Court rulings on writ jurisdiction in contractual disputes [Paras 8-9].

Arbitration Clause – Dispute Resolution – Agreement contained arbitration clause for dispute resolution – High Court directed parties to resolve dispute through arbitration, setting aside writ court’s order for immediate payment – Emphasized need for arbitration as per contract terms [Para 11].

Decision: Writ Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment set aside – Parties directed to resolve dispute through arbitration as per agreement terms – No costs [Para 12].