Criminal Law – Framing of Charges – Standard at the Stage of Framing – Prima Facie Case Sufficient - The Court clarified that at the stage of framing charges, detailed evaluation of evidence is not warranted; a prima facie view suggesting the accused might have committed the offence is sufficient – Charges framed against petitioners upheld [Paras 42-45].

Prevention of Corruption Act – Demand and Acceptance – Essential Ingredients – Demand of Bribe Proven Prima Facie - Statements of material witnesses and money trail corroborated prima facie the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused Binod Giri and involvement of Asif Ibrahim Dadarkar – Held that demand and motive were sufficiently established for trial purposes [Paras 38-40].

Evidence Law – Admissibility of Intercepted Calls – Compliance with Telegraph Act – To be Determined During Trial - Though compliance with Rule 419A and Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act was questioned, the Court held that admissibility and procedural compliance would be determined during trial and does not affect the framing of charges [Paras 41-47].

Criminal Procedure – Money Trail and Recovery – Effect on Framing of Charges – The existence of a money trail and seizure of bribe articles such as the Lenovo Tablet substantiated the prosecution’s version, justifying framing of charges against both accused [Paras 36-39, 48-49].

Decision – Writ Petitions Dismissed – Charges Against Petitioners Upheld - The Court dismissed the petitions challenging the framing of charges, holding there was sufficient material for the trial to proceed against both petitioners [Paras 49-50].
 

Family Law – Divorce – Cruelty – False Accusations and Malicious Litigation – Divorce Granted – Appellant-husband alleged verbal and physical cruelty, police complaints, and baseless suspicions of infidelity – Respondent admitted her allegation of second marriage was based on hearsay – Court held: Repeated unfounded allegations, abusive conduct, and long separation constituted mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act – Divorce granted [Paras 2–3, 5, 9–14].

Family Law – Judicial Separation – Improper Invocation – No Power to Grant in RCR Petition – Judicial Separation Set Aside – Family Court granted judicial separation in both divorce and restitution petitions invoking Section 13A – Held: Court has no power to grant judicial separation in petition filed under Section 9 for restitution of conjugal rights – Judicial separation under H.M.O.P. No.1228/2014 was without jurisdiction – Set aside [Paras 3–4, 14, 16].

Evidence – Non-Examination of Witnesses – Effect – Family Members Not Examined – Not Fatal – Husband produced photo of injury allegedly inflicted by wife – Family Court discredited evidence due to non-examination of petitioner’s mother – Held: Petitioner’s testimony unshaken in cross-examination; absence of supporting witness not fatal – Finding of Family Court legally unsustainable [Paras 5, 10].

Family Law – Long Separation and Irretrievable Breakdown – Divorce Justified – Parties living separately since 2013 – Wife willing to give up custody without seeking visitation – Cumulative conduct showed irreparable breakdown – Cited Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh and Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan – Held: Marriage broken beyond repair; continuance would cause mental cruelty [Paras 8, 12–14].

Maintenance – Enhancement Justified – Increase in Living and Educational Costs – Family Court awarded ₹30,000/month maintenance – Court enhanced to ₹40,000/month considering child’s age and inflation – Directed payment from date of receipt of judgment copy [Para 15].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Divorce Decree Granted – Judicial Separation Set Aside – RCR Petition Dismissed – Maintenance Enhanced – Family Court Judgment dated 23.02.2021 set aside – Marriage dissolved by decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act [Para 16–17].

Civil Law - Land Acquisition – Return of Land – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Land Not Returned – Claim Rejected - Petitioner sought return of acquired land contending that project was abandoned and land was unused – Held: Under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, there is no provision mandating return of acquired land for non-use – Claims for return upheld under Act 30 of 2013 are not applicable – Reliance placed on multiple Supreme Court judgments affirming non-return of acquired land [Paras 15-16].

Compensation – Availability of Remedies – Liberty Granted - Petitioner directed to avail remedy under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for enhancement of compensation – Compensation already deposited before Civil Court – Held: Writ Petition dismissed with liberty to pursue remedy under Land Acquisition Act [Para 16].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed; liberty given to pursue appropriate remedy under Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
 

Criminal Law – Quashing - POCSO Act – Ingredients Not Attracted – FIR Quashed – Accusation Against Petitioners Held Malicious – The complainant alleged harassment and attempted sexual assault on her 17-year-old daughter by her brothers and their children – FIR registered under Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act – Court held that no ingredients of “sexual intent” or “sexual assault” as defined under Sections 7, 11, or 12 were present – Held: Complaint was retaliatory in nature, filed in context of ongoing property disputes [Paras 5-8, 14-15].

Section 354 IPC – Outrage of Modesty – No Material to Support Allegation – Court found no indication of intent to outrage modesty as required under Section 354 IPC – Allegations were vague and unsupported by evidence or witness statements – Permitting investigation held to be an abuse of process [Paras 9-10].

Section 506 IPC – Criminal Intimidation – Ingredients Lacking – Mere allegations of threats insufficient – FIR failed to disclose any specific intimidation to person or property as required under Section 503 IPC – Held: No prima facie case made out for criminal intimidation [Paras 10-11].

Abuse of Process – Complaint Filed as Counterblast to Family Dispute – FIR Quashed – Court observed numerous civil and criminal proceedings already pending among the parties – Held: FIR filed to harass petitioners and settle scores – Quashing justified under Section 482 CrPC to prevent miscarriage of justice [Paras 11-13].

Final Decision – Petition Allowed – FIR in Crime No. 400 of 2024 Quashed – All proceedings arising therefrom terminated – Interim stay of investigation made absolute [Para 13].
 

Civil Law - Contract – Fraudulent Execution – Misuse of Advocate-Client Relationship – Agreement Cancelled - Plaintiff alleged that the defendant, an advocate, misused trust and obtained signatures on an agreement of sale under the pretext of executing a rental agreement – The Trial Court found misrepresentation and fraud – Held: The defendant abused the Advocate–Client relationship, and the agreement of sale was obtained by misrepresentation, thus liable to be cancelled [Paras 10-21].

Proof and Evidence – Adverse Inference Against Defendant – No Oral Evidence – Decree Confirmed - Defendant failed to lead oral evidence despite multiple opportunities, leading to an adverse inference being drawn – Plaintiff’s evidence, supported by documents like bank transactions, legal notices, and photographs, was found credible – Held: Decree for cancellation of agreement and award of damages justified [Paras 12-18].

Damages – Demolition of Property – Rs. 10,00,000/- Awarded – Defendant demolished the superstructure and removed valuable fixtures without lawful authority – Held: Plaintiff entitled to damages as assessed based on Advocate Commissioner’s report and documentary evidence [Paras 22-23].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Judgment and decree of Trial Court in O.S. No.2521/2019 dated 29.04.2024 upheld – No order as to costs [Para 24].
 

Criminal Law - Appeal Against Acquittal – Criminal Breach of Trust – Sections 409 and 424 IPC – Appeal Dismissed - The appellant challenged the acquittal order, alleging misappropriation of partnership firm funds by the respondents – The Trial Court had acquitted respondents citing lack of documentary evidence proving dishonest misappropriation – Held: The appellant failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the respondents misappropriated the firm's money and did not substantiate entrustment and misuse as required under Section 409 IPC [Paras 2, 18-21].

Partnership Dispute – Civil Nature of Dispute – No Criminality Attributed – Appeal Dismissed - The dispute between the parties arose out of business transactions within a partnership firm – Held: The allegations mainly constituted civil disputes over accounting and settlement, and the criminal charges were not established independently – Criminal liability cannot be presumed merely from civil disputes [Paras 12, 17-18].

Standard of Proof – Appeal Against Acquittal – Principles Applied – Double Presumption - In an appeal against acquittal, double presumption of innocence operates in favour of the accused – Held: The appellate Court should not interfere unless the trial Court’s view is perverse or unsustainable – No compelling reasons found to overturn the acquittal [Paras 22-24].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed - No evidence showing criminal breach of trust or fraud beyond reasonable doubt – No perversity in trial Court’s acquittal order – Appeal dismissed, upholding the trial Court’s judgment [Paras 23-24].
 

Civil Law - Tenancy Rights – Effect of Mortgage in Favour of Tenant – Section 25A of the Maharashtra Tenancy Act – Tenancy Upheld in Part - Petitioners proved tenancy rights over Gat Nos.28/1 to 28/4 by documentary evidence and admission in earlier civil suit – Held: Mortgage did not extinguish tenancy, it only suspended it temporarily under Section 25A – Petitioners entitled to purchase Gat Nos.28/1 to 28/4 [Paras 1-37].

Tenancy Claim – Land Partly Handed to Third Party Mortgagee – Application of Section 25A – Tenancy Rights Lost in Respect of Gat No.31 - As possession of Gat No.31 had passed to third party (non-tenant) mortgagee, tenancy rights of Petitioners not protected under Section 25A – Petitioners failed to establish tenancy over Gat No.31 [Paras 29-33].

Interpretation – No Implied Surrender of Tenancy – Execution of Mortgage Not Tantamount to Surrender – Section 15 of Tenancy Act – Petitioners Continued as Tenants - Court held that execution of mortgage deed did not amount to surrender of tenancy rights, especially prior to 1956 amendment introducing surrender provisions – Tenancy merely suspended, not extinguished [Paras 34-35].

Civil Court Admissions – Binding Nature in Tenancy Proceedings – Admission of Tenancy in Earlier Suit Recognised - Admissions made by landlords in earlier civil litigation found binding and not to be disregarded by tenancy authorities – Admissions constituted waiver of proof [Para 25].

Final Decision – Petitions Partly Allowed – MRT Order Set Aside Qua Gat Nos.28/1 to 28/4, Sustained for Gat No.31 - Petitioners declared entitled to purchase Gat Nos.28/1 to 28/4 under Section 32G – No entitlement for Gat No.31 – Interim applications disposed of [Paras 38-40].
 

Civil Law - Trademark Infringement Suit – Commercial Suit Classification – Section 12 of CC Act – Specific Value Sufficient – Suit for infringement of ‘KRANTI’ trademark valued at over Rs.95 lakhs – Court held that valuation as pleaded, based on market value under Section 12(1)(d) of the Commercial Courts Act, satisfies ‘specified value’ requirement [Paras 6-13, 16-18].

Framing of Additional Issues – Scope Under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC – No Additional Issue Required – Court emphasized that issues are framed based on material propositions in pleadings – Petitioners’ plea for framing additional issue on jurisdiction rejected as no material variance or necessity shown [Paras 15-17].

Pleadings Interpretation – Hyper-Technical Objection Rejected – Absence of express mention of ‘specified value’ wording not fatal where pleadings, market value, and relief valuation collectively satisfied statutory requirements – Substance over form adopted [Paras 18-19].

Relationship Between CC Act and Suits Valuation/Court Fees Act – Harmonious Reading – CC Act provisions do not override the Court Fees Act or Suits Valuation Act – Principles of valuation under Court Fees law prevail unless specifically altered – Confirmed by reliance on Pankaj Ravjibhai Patel case [Paras 19-20].

Limited Interference Under Article 227 – Scope Explained – High Court reiterated that supervisory jurisdiction is limited, not appellate, and interference warranted only in case of grave injustice or jurisdictional error, neither of which existed here [Para 21].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Impugned order of Trial Court upheld – No interference called for – Suit to proceed before Commercial Court based on existing issues – Petitioners directed to bear their own costs [Paras 22-23].

Service Law - Pension Law - Pension Calculation – Deputation Allowance – Exclusion from Average Emoluments – Deputation Allowance Not Included - Petitioners contended that deputation allowance received during service on deputation should be included in the last drawn salary for calculating pension – Held: Deputation allowance cannot be treated as part of basic pay for pension fixation as per Bank Pension Regulations and Government Clarifications – Pension to be based on substantive pay in parent bank, not the higher pay on deputation [Paras 2-3, 14-20].

Deputation – Nature and Effect on Service – Voluntary and Temporary Assignment - Deputation described as voluntary and temporary, with petitioners having no vested right for absorption in the borrowing organization – Deputation cannot be construed as promotion or higher substantive appointment merely because superannuation occurred during deputation period [Paras 5-12, 24-25].

Government Clarifications – Circular Dated 27 November 1998 – Clarificatory and Binding - Ministry of Finance circular clarified that pension should be based on pay in parent bank but for deputation – Deputation pay cannot be considered for calculating pensionary benefits [Para 15-16, 26].

Provident Fund Contributions – Impact on Pension Rights – Contributions Do Not Alter Basic Pay - The fact that provident fund was deducted on deputation allowance does not create a right to claim higher pension – Mistake, if any, cannot confer benefit contrary to regulations [Paras 17-20].

Decision – Writ Petitions Dismissed – Petitioners not entitled to have deputation allowance counted for pension fixation – Directions issued to refund provident fund contributions on deputation allowance with statutory interest [Paras 32-33].