Criminal Law – Economic Offences – Anticipatory Bail – Alleged Ponzi Scheme – Sections 406, 409, 420 IPC and MPID Act – Applicant accused of being part of financial fraud involving over ₹1.13 crore collected through investment scheme – Co-accused (husband and wife, main operators of company) already granted anticipatory bail – Entire amount deposited before Sessions Court for refund to investors – Held: Allegations against applicant limited to disseminating information via laptop – Custodial interrogation not required – Bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 2–8].

Criminal Procedure – Anticipatory Bail – Section 438 CrPC – Scope – Prior anticipatory bail application withdrawn to rectify omission of antecedents – Court found no significant role attributed to applicant and noted that financial loss to investors had been mitigated – Balance of convenience favoured grant of anticipatory bail [Paras 3, 6–8].

Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act – Compliance and Refund – Full amount involved in fraudulent investment scheme already deposited in court – No objection from main accused to refund – Investor interest protected – Held: Relevant factor for grant of bail [Paras 5, 8].

Decision: Anticipatory bail granted – Applicant to be released on bail in the event of arrest on furnishing PR bond of ₹1,00,000 with one or two sureties – Conditions imposed including cooperation with investigation, no tampering with evidence or contact with witnesses, and no travel abroad without permission – Application disposed [Para 8–9].

Criminal Revision – Scope – Revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC is supervisory, not appellate – interference permissible only in cases of patent defect, error of jurisdiction, perversity, or non-consideration of material evidence – High Court cannot reappreciate evidence to substitute findings of fact unless perverse  [Paras 13-18].

Section 498A IPC – Cruelty – Frequent beatings and demand of ₹20,000/- proved – corroborated by testimony of victim (PW1), her father (PW6), accused’s brother (PW4), and father (PW8) – medical evidence consistent – contradictions in testimonies were minor, attributable to lapse of memory, not sufficient to discard prosecution case – conviction under Section 498A sustained [Paras 19-42].

Sections 323 & 506 IPC – Assault and criminal intimidation – Evidence of victim and corroborating eyewitnesses proved beatings and threats – conviction upheld [Paras 19, 23-24, 27-29, 42].

Sentence – Trial Court imposed maximum sentence of 3 years under Section 498A without assigning reasons – considering that accused had left matrimonial home about one year prior to incident and danger to victim had reduced, maximum sentence held unjustified – imprisonment reduced from 3 years to 1 year; fine reduced from ₹10,000/- to ₹5,000/- with default sentence maintained – no interference with sentences under Sections 323 & 506 IPC [Para 43-44].

Decision – Revision partly allowed – conviction under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC upheld – sentence under Section 498A modified to 1 year SI + ₹5,000/- fine; sentences under Sections 323 & 506 IPC affirmed [Paras 42-44].

Motor Accident Claim – Compensation – Quantum – Pain and Suffering – Modification of Award – Tribunal awarded ₹7,60,000 with 7% interest – Appellant (Insurance Co.) challenged the award as excessive and based on planted vehicle – Claimant filed cross-objection for enhancement – High Court held: ₹5,00,000 awarded for pain and suffering justified in light of 55% disability (pelvic fracture and urethral injury), but ₹2,00,000 awarded for loss of amenities reduced to ₹1,50,000 – Total compensation revised to ₹7,10,000 with 7% interest from date of filing [Paras 10–12].

Motor Accident – Delay in FIR – Not Fatal – Medical Emergency Justified Delay – FIR was lodged with delay showing involvement of unknown vehicle – Insurance Company alleged false implication – Court held that delay due to medical emergency and hospitalisation is not fatal – Tribunal rightly rejected allegation of planting of vehicle – Charge-sheet and testimony of injured supported claim [Paras 7–9].

Motor Accident – Permanent Disability – Functional Disability Rejected – No Loss of Income Granted – Claimant suffered 55% physical disability (spine and hip) but failed to prove functional disability or reduced earning capacity – Tribunal rightly declined compensation for loss of income or promotion denial – High Court upheld [Paras 6, 8A].

Cross-Objection – Enhancement Claim – Rejected for Lack of Evidence – Claimant alleged loss of salary due to reversion from medical category B-1 to C-1 – Tribunal found no evidence of functional impairment or reduced pay – High Court declined to enhance compensation [Para 8A].

Decision:

Appeal partly allowed – Tribunal's award modified – Total compensation reduced from ₹7,60,000 to ₹7,10,000 with interest @7% p.a. from 25.03.2015 till realization – If not paid within 8 weeks, penal interest @9% shall apply – Cross-objection dismissed – No costs.

Family Law – Divorce – Ex Parte Decree – Special Marriage Act – Decree set aside – Marriage dissolved by Family Court based on unchallenged testimony of husband after wife failed to file written statement and remained absent – Held: Even in absence of contesting party, Family Court must assess evidence on merits and provide reasoned findings – Mere non-appearance or failure to file written statement not sufficient to decree divorce – Trial Court’s reliance solely on absence of wife without independent assessment of cruelty allegations rendered judgment perverse – Judgment set aside and matter remanded for fresh trial [Paras 10-16].

Civil Procedure – Duty of Court in Ex Parte Proceedings – Trial Court must scrutinize pleadings and evidence even when defendant is ex parte – Decree cannot be automatic – Reiterated that evidence must be evaluated independently and findings must be recorded with reasons – Failure to do so amounts to miscarriage of justice [Paras 11-12, 15].

Appellate Intervention – Remand Ordered – Matter restored to original file to allow appellant-wife to file written statement – Both parties granted opportunity to lead and test evidence afresh – Trial Court directed to complete proceedings within nine months [Paras 16-17].

Subsequent Remarriage – No Bar to Appellate Relief – Fact that respondent-husband remarried during pendency of appeal does not prevent appellate court from setting aside a perverse and unreasoned decree – Rule of law must prevail over subsequent developments [Para 18].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Decree of divorce set aside – Matter remanded to Family Court from the stage of written statement – Trial to proceed afresh – No costs [Paras 19-20].

Criminal Law – Murder – Kidnapping for Ransom – Conviction upheld – Deceased (Devang) was kidnapped and murdered by the accused-appellants – Trial court convicted accused under Sections 302, 364A, 363, 201, and 506(2) IPC – On appeal, High Court found the chain of circumstantial evidence to be complete and consistent with the hypothesis of guilt – Theory of “last seen together”, discovery of body and incriminating articles at the instance of accused, forensic report and CDRs established guilt – No explanation offered by accused under Section 313 CrPC – Held: Prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction upheld [Paras 1 to 37].

Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen Theory – Deceased last seen with both accused at 8:00 AM at Bindu Sarovar pick-up stand (PW-9, PW-10) – Accused identified as Nirav @ Ravi Shah and Dhaval @ Jato Darji – PW-9 saw Devang enter the accused's car – PW-10 corroborated same – Defence failed to establish inconsistency or enmity – Delay in recording witness statements held not fatal – Presence of accused with deceased established [Paras 8 to 12].

Criminal Law – Kidnapping and Ransom Call – PW-1 (father of deceased) received ransom calls from deceased's phone demanding ₹40 lakhs and threatening murder if police were informed – Phone number used belonged to complainant and was used by deceased – Deposition corroborated by documentary evidence (Exh.138, Exh.145) – Factum of kidnapping, ransom demand and subsequent murder of Devang proved beyond reasonable doubt – Non-examination of relatives Deviprasad and Avinash Thakar not fatal [Paras 13, 14, 32].

Evidence Act – Extra-Judicial Confession – PW-11 (Suraj Rami) deposed that accused Dhaval confessed to murder in conversation – Accused allegedly discussed use of spray/medicine to render someone unconscious – Witness informed police only on 24.08.2015 – Court held confession not used as foundation of conviction but to lend assurance to other established evidence – Delay and nature of relationship did not erode credibility significantly – Held: Extra judicial confession supports prosecution case [Paras 15 to 15.1].

Discovery and Recovery – Section 27 Evidence Act – Dead body exhumed at instance of accused Nirav Shah (PW-4) – Clothes of deceased, blood-stained clothes of accused, knife and car used in crime recovered at instance of Nirav and Dhaval (PWs 5, 8) – Serological report (Exh.126) confirmed blood group of deceased found on clothes of accused – Court held recoveries proved in accordance with law – Minor discrepancies in keys and house entry not material [Paras 18 to 26, 28].

Criminal Procedure – Section 313 CrPC – Accused offered no explanation to incriminating evidence put to them – Repeatedly denied knowledge or truth without rebuttal – Absence of any credible defence or alternate hypothesis – Held: Adverse inference against accused is justified [Paras 34, 35].

Indian Evidence Act – Sections 8, 106, 114 – Conduct of accused in leading police to recovery sites held admissible under Section 8 – Accused last seen with deceased but gave no explanation under Section 106 – Presumption under Section 114 drawn from natural conduct and silence of accused – Held: Entire chain of evidence consistent with guilt – No other hypothesis possible [Paras 35, 36].

Motive – Prosecution failed to prove specific motive regarding debt or desire for luxury – Court held motive not essential when chain of circumstantial evidence is complete and points only to guilt – Absence of motive does not create reasonable doubt when other evidence is cogent and convincing – [Para 27].

Appeal – Dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302, 364A, 363, 201 and 506(2) IPC upheld – Accused to surrender within 4 weeks if on bail [Para 37].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Conviction upheld – Accused to surrender before jail authorities within four weeks if on bail.

Taxation Law - Goods and Services Tax – Cross-Empowerment – Jurisdiction of CGST Officers – Petitioners assigned to State Tax Authorities challenged issuance of show cause notices by Joint Commissioner, CGST – Held: Section 6(1) of CGST Act provides inherent and automatic cross-empowerment to officers of Centre and States – Notification required only when conditions are imposed – No notification necessary for activation of jurisdiction – Clarified by CBIC circular dated 22.06.2020 and upheld in Armour Security India Ltd. – Objection on jurisdiction rejected [Paras 14–32, 38].

GST – Intelligence-Based Enforcement – Petitioners alleged to have availed fraudulent ITC through paper transactions among 12 firms in a single textile park – Searches conducted and evidence revealed paper turnover without actual supply – Held: Intelligence-based action is valid ground for CGST initiation irrespective of administrative allocation – Central authority not barred from initiating action – Show cause notice upheld [Paras 4–6, 37–42].

CGST – Competence of Joint Commissioner – Petitioners argued that Joint Commissioner could not issue show cause notice for demand < Rs.1 crore – Held: Section 5(2) of CGST Act authorises senior officers to exercise powers of subordinate officers – Circular dated 09.02.2018 merely administrative – Joint Commissioner is competent to issue notice regardless of amount involved [Paras 34–36].

GST – Bunching of Multiple Financial Years – Petitioners challenged issuance of a single show cause notice for five assessment years – Held: No express bar under Section 74 against such bunching – Issue left open for adjudication by authority concerned – No interference at notice stage [Para 33].

GST – Enforcement vs Audit – Distinction clarified – Enforcement actions based on intelligence not restricted by administrative allocation – Dual proceedings not permitted on same subject matter – Intelligence-based proceedings may be initiated by either authority – Reaffirmed through Supreme Court’s ruling in M/S Armour Security India Ltd. v. Commissioner CGST Delhi East, 2025 INSC 982 [Paras 38–41].

Decision: Petitions dismissed – Section 6(1) of CGST Act provides for automatic cross-empowerment – Show cause notices valid and within jurisdiction of CGST authorities – Petitioners free to raise other defences before adjudicating authority – Interpretation of Section 6 conclusively decided; other issues left open [Para 42].

Arbitration – MSMED Act – Commercial Dispute – Supply of Goods – Dispute over unpaid dues under three purchase orders raised by micro enterprise Ranjana Industries against Mahindra – Mahindra raised objections of late delivery and quality defects – Held: Objections not raised within statutory 15-day window under Section 2(e) of MSMED Act – Arbitral Tribunal rightly treated delivery as deemed accepted – No proof of return or rejection of goods shown – Finding upheld [Paras 2–16, 27–38, 44–48].

Arbitration – Scope of Judicial Review under Sections 34 & 37 – Concurrent findings of Arbitral Tribunal and District Court held not perverse or contrary to fundamental policy – Appellate court cannot reappreciate evidence – Mahindra’s claims of defects, rejection and counter-claim for damages not substantiated with proof – No ground to interfere under Section 37 – Appeal dismissed [Paras 39–41, 49–50].

Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) – Protection of Small Suppliers – MSMED Act provides statutory framework to ensure timely payments – 15-day deadline for objections mandatory, not directory – Mahindra’s conduct amounted to unfair delay and frustration of statutory entitlements of micro supplier – Held: Deadline under Section 2(e) has substantive legal consequences including accrual of interest under Section 16 [Paras 45–46].

Evidence – Onus of Proof – Rejection of Goods – Onus on Mahindra to prove that goods were defective and returned – No debit notes, return challans, or payment proof for alternate vendor produced – Tribunal’s inference that goods were accepted and used is reasonable and based on preponderance of probability [Paras 19, 33–36, 38–39].

Corporate Litigation – Abuse of Process – Cost and Conduct – Court criticises Mahindra’s continued litigation despite two concurrent findings – Notes power asymmetry between large corporates and micro enterprises – Cost of litigation treated as “miscellaneous expense” by Mahindra – Interest and deposit provisions under MSMED Act meant to deter such conduct – Mahindra directed to pay Rs. 1.5 lakh as costs and release deposit [Paras 51–54].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Arbitral Award and District Court order upheld – Mahindra directed to pay Rs. 16,16,950 with interest under Sections 15 & 16 of MSMED Act within one month – Costs of Rs. 1.5 lakh to be paid to Respondent within four weeks – Deposit to be released to Respondent [Paras 50–52].

Judicial Service – Premature Retirement – Validity of Notification – Petitioner, serving as Additional District Judge, prematurely retired at age 53 under Rule 21 of Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005 – Challenge on ground that Notification issued without Governor’s personal satisfaction and instead based on recommendation to Government – Held: As per Articles 163 and 166 of Constitution and relevant business rules, orders issued in the name of Governor by authorized officers are valid – No illegality found in issuance of Notification [Paras 19-31]

Judicial Review – Scope and Limits – High Court’s administrative recommendation based on Committee report assessing petitioner’s service record from 2001 to 2015 – Performance recorded as ‘just adequate’ or ‘adequate’ in several years and ‘poor’ in one quarter – Petitioner’s challenge to one ‘poor’ entry rejected – Held: Premature retirement is based on subjective satisfaction – No malafide, procedural breach, or absence of material found – No ground for judicial interference made out [Paras 32-35]

Natural Justice – Applicability – Petitioner’s plea for opportunity of hearing before compulsory retirement rejected – Held: Compulsory retirement is not a punitive action – Principles of natural justice not applicable – Even one adverse or uncommunicated entry may justify retirement in public interest [Paras 33-34]

Governor’s Role – Interpretation of Rule 21 – Petitioner’s argument that the recommendation must be addressed to the Governor personally held untenable – Held: Governor acts on aid and advice of Council of Ministers under Article 163 – Decision by High Court was forwarded to State Government in accordance with established procedure – No deviation from constitutional or statutory mandate [Paras 19-31]

Integrity and Standards of Judicial Officers – Court reaffirmed the high standards expected from members of the judiciary – Administrative Committee and Full Court entitled to assess overall performance and reputation of judicial officers and act in public interest – Held: Courts cannot interfere unless the decision is arbitrary, mala fide or based on no material [Paras 34-35]

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Impugned Notification dated 18.07.2016 upheld – Rule discharged – No order as to costs.

Labour Law – Unfair Labour Practice – Continuous Engagement for Over 9 Years – Denial of Permanency – Petitioners employed as Firemen and Drivers by Malegaon Municipal Corporation since 2016–17 on six-month contracts – Worked uninterruptedly, with only technical breaks – Corporation admitted continuous engagement but denied permanency citing financial constraints and staffing pattern guidelines – Industrial Court dismissed ULP Complaints citing establishment expenditure exceeding 35% ceiling – Held: Long-term engagement of workmen in essential services on daily wages amounts to unfair labour practice – Continuous temporary employment with artificial breaks amounts to exploitation – Corporation’s justification based on financial limits and staffing constraints rejected [Paras 6–14, 17–18, 21–22].

Constitutional Law – Article 14 and 21 – Arbitrary Termination During Pendency of Writ Petition – Petitioners' services were terminated on 02.07.2025 during pendency of writ petitions despite prior ad-interim protection – Held: Action of Corporation is arbitrary and high-handed – Termination orders quashed – Petitioners entitled to reinstatement with continuity and backwages – Fundamental rights to equality, fairness, and dignity in public employment violated [Paras 14, 18, 28–29].

Public Employment – Essential Services – Scope of Regularisation – Drivers and Firemen held to be part of essential service cadre – Corporation’s failure to absorb them into sanctioned posts despite staffing approvals since 2016–17 amounts to systemic neglect and inequity – Reliance on GR clause regarding 35% expenditure cap held to be insufficient to deny permanency – Reference made to SC’s rulings in Dharam Singh, Shripal, and Jaggo cases affirming protection of long-serving ad-hoc workers against exploitation [Paras 12, 20–25].

Industrial Law – Evidence and Burden of Proof – No Rebuttal by Employer – Petitioners led documentary and oral evidence proving continuous engagement and discharge of regular duties – Corporation failed to rebut evidence or show valid justification – Labour Court’s dismissal of complaints solely on administrative grounds unsustainable – Held: Petitioners entitled to permanency and benefits under MRTU & PULP Act [Paras 15–17, 24–25].

Decision:

Writ Petitions allowed – Impugned orders dated 06.05.2025 and termination orders dated 02.07.2025 quashed – Petitioners directed to be reinstated within one week with continuity in service, backwages from 02.07.2025, and all benefits of permanency from date of judgment [Paras 27–30].