NDPS Act – Possession of 1 Kg Opium – Section 18 – Sentence Modified – Conviction affirmed – Appellant convicted in 2011 for offence under S.18 NDPS Act, sentenced to 2 years R.I. and ₹10,000 fine – Having already undergone over 3 months’ custody and trial prolonged for 21 years, High Court reduced sentence to period already undergone while enhancing fine to ₹30,000 – Held: Right to speedy trial, age, financial hardship and proportionality principles justified leniency [Paras 6–11].

Sentencing – Principles – Court reiterated that sentencing discretion must balance gravity of offence, proportionality, reformation, and deterrence – Reliance on Deo Narain Mandal v. State of U.P., (2004) 7 SCC 257 (discretion in awarding sentence within statutory range) and Ravada Sasikala v. State of A.P., AIR 2017 SC 1186 (sentencing serves social purpose) – Long pendency and minimal custody favoured modification [Paras 7–8].

Constitutional Law – Right to Speedy Trial – Prolonged trial spanning 21 years taken into account as mitigating factor – Court emphasised that delay itself causes mental agony and social hardship and must weigh in sentencing [Para 10].

Supreme Court Precedents – Relief also guided by Haripada Das v. State of West Bengal, (1998) 9 SCC 678 and Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 2 SCC 648 – Sentences can be moulded to period undergone when justice so demands [Para 10].

Decision – Conviction under Section 18 NDPS Act upheld – Sentence reduced to already undergone (3 months 20 days) – Fine enhanced from ₹10,000 to ₹30,000 payable within 3 months, failing which appellant to undergo 3 months R.I. – Appeal partly allowed with modifications; bail bonds discharged [Paras 11–12].

Land Acquisition – Section 28-A – Beneficial Construction – Redetermination Allowed – Landowners who had not sought reference under Section 18 filed applications under Section 28-A within three months of award dated 30.01.2016 granting higher compensation – Held: Applications within limitation; SLAO order dated 17.02.2022 enhancing compensation @ ₹108/sq. mtr. with solatium and interest upheld – KUMS’ objections dismissed [Paras 7.1–7.6, 8(c)-(d)].

Limitation – Computation – Section 28-A – Commences From Specific Award Relied On – Contention that limitation ran from 1990 award unsustainable since that award was set aside; limitation runs from 2016 award relied upon by landowners – Applications filed on 26.04.2016 well within limitation [Paras 7.4–7.6, 8(b)-(c)].

Per Incuriam Precedent – Ramsingbhai vs. Pradeep Kumari – Banwari Clarified Law – Held: Earlier three-Judge Bench in Pradeep Kumari binding; Ramsingbhai per incuriam – Section 28-A to be construed liberally as beneficial legislation [Paras 7.11–7.12].

Hansoli Devi Case – Ineffective Reference – Acceptance of Compensation – Does Not Bar Relief – Even where references under Section 18 were dismissed as time-barred, right under Section 28-A subsists; acceptance of compensation with or without protest does not negate entitlement [Paras 7.13–7.16].

Equal Treatment – Compensation to Similarly Situated Landowners – Mandate of Section 28-A – Doctrine of distributive justice requires equal compensation for lands acquired under same notification – Financial burden on acquiring body no ground to deny statutory right [Paras 7.17–7.22].

Decision – Leading Petition Allowed – Connected KUMS Petitions Dismissed – KUMS directed to comply with SLAO order dated 17.02.2022 and deposit enhanced compensation with benefits within six weeks; failure to comply will attract 12% interest from date of default; landowners entitled to solatium, additional compensation, and statutory interest [Paras 8–9].

Petroleum Retail Outlet – Withdrawal of LOI – Rural vs. Regular Classification – LOI revived – BPCL invited applications for Rural Outlet at specified location; petitioner complied, invested, and nearly completed setup – Later LOI withdrawn citing site being on State highway – Held: Misrepresentation, if any, was by respondent company itself; cancellation arbitrary; LOI revived subject to petitioner paying difference of fees applicable to Regular Outlet [Paras 18-21, 37-43].

Oil Companies – Clause 22 (False Information) – Inapplicable – Respondents sought to invoke Clause 22 of Dealer Selection Brochure – Court held petitioner had not misrepresented; location itself advertised as Rural by respondents – Clause 22 cannot be used against applicant when mistake lies with company [Paras 26-29].

Woman Entrepreneur – Protection from Arbitrary Action – Article 15(3) – Court emphasized need to interpret actions in light of constitutional protection for women entrepreneurs – Arbitrary withdrawal of LOI after investment and NOCs caused undue hardship – Relief granted in writ jurisdiction [Paras 31-33].

Decision – Petition allowed – Impugned cancellation letter dated 25.01.2023 quashed – LOI revived in petitioner’s favour for outlet at Kaijgaon to Tarwade Kh, Jalgaon – Subject to deposit of ₹11,02,000 (difference for Regular Outlet) within six weeks – Respondents directed to operationalize outlet thereafter [Paras 41-45].

Service Law – Probation – Deemed Confirmation – Petitioner appointed on compassionate grounds on 15.10.2001 – Probation extendable up to three years – No order of discharge passed – Held: Petitioner deemed confirmed on 15.10.2004 in terms of Rule 11 of PUNSUP service byelaws and judgment in State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh – Inaction by employer cannot prejudice petitioner’s right to confirmation [Paras 1, 2, 6, 7] –

Service Law – Annual Increments – Withholding on basis of FIR – Petitioner denied increments due to pendency of FIR registered in 2017 – No charge sheet served till date – Held: Registration of FIR is not a ground to withhold earned increments – Increment is a vested right for past performance and cannot be withheld arbitrarily without concluded disciplinary proceedings – Minor punishment of withholding increment without cumulative effect does not bar further benefits – Reliance on KPTCL v. C.P. Mundinamani [2023 INSC 352] and Dharam Singh case – Impugned order quashed [Paras 3-5, 8-9] –

Promotion and ACP Scheme – Petitioner eligible under adopted ACP policy of 4-9-14 years – Denial based on pending FIR – Held: Promotion and ACP cannot be denied in absence of concluded departmental proceedings – Respondents directed to consider claim in accordance with law [Paras 2, 10] –

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 13.06.2024 set aside – Petitioner deemed confirmed from 15.10.2004 – Entitled to annual increments from date of clearing type test – Claim under ACP scheme and for promotion to be considered within 3 months [Para 10].

Motor Accident Claim – Fake Driving Licence – Liability of Insurer – Tribunal found driver of Tata 407 truck had no valid licence, licence not genuine as per licensing authority’s report – Despite this, Tribunal saddled insurer with absolute liability without recovery rights – Held: Not sustainable [Paras 6-7].

Pay and Recover Principle – Judicial Precedents – SC in Kamla Devi, Swaran Singh and Shamanna settled law: insurer must first pay compensation to third-party victims and thereafter recover same from vehicle owner/driver if breach of policy condition proved – Object is to protect innocent victims while preserving insurer’s contractual rights [Para 7].

Application to Present Case – High Court held once breach of licence condition proved, insurer entitled to recovery rights – Tribunal erred in omitting this relief – Award upheld for compensation quantum but modified to allow recovery by insurer after satisfying claimants [Paras 6-8].

Decision – Appeal allowed in part – Compensation of ₹2,88,000 with 9% interest to claimants upheld – Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. directed to pay amount to claimants and recover same from owner (R-6) and driver (R-5) of offending vehicle [Para 8-9].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 148 – Deposit of Minimum 20% Compensation – Discretion of Appellate Court – Applicants challenged order of First Appellate Court directing deposit of 20% of cheque amount while granting suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. – Contention: requirement not mandatory and could not be imposed after suspension of sentence – Held: As per Muskan Enterprises & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr., 2024 INSC 1046, read with Surinder Singh Deswal v. Virender Gandhi, and Jamboo Bhandari v. MP Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., appellate court has discretion to impose such condition, but ordinarily deposit of 20% is mandatory unless case is exceptional – Word “may” in Section 148(1) to be construed as “shall” in substance – Direction to deposit 20% is valid and within jurisdiction of appellate court even if imposed subsequently [Paras 6–11, 17].

Statutory Interpretation – ‘May’ and ‘Shall’ – Legislative Intent – Court held that though Section 148(1) NI Act uses both “may” and “shall”, their context indicates different purposes: “may” gives discretion to order deposit, “shall” makes the minimum quantum of deposit mandatory once discretion is exercised – Legislative intent was to ensure partial realization of compensation to complainant during pendency of appeal – Discretion must be exercised judiciously with recorded reasons where exemption from deposit is granted [Paras 8, 10–12, 17].

Criminal Procedure – Power to Impose Deposit Condition After Suspension of Sentence – Contention that deposit order could be passed only at the time of suspension of sentence rejected – Appellate court retains jurisdiction to direct deposit any time during pendency of appeal until final disposal – Purpose of Section 148 NI Act is to secure fair compensation and discourage protraction of appeals [Paras 7, 15–16].

Judicial Precedents – Harmonisation – High Court reconciled Jamboo Bhandari and Muskan Enterprises – Held: condition of 20% deposit is ordinarily mandatory; relaxation only in exceptional cases where deposit would cause grave injustice or deprive right of appeal; reasons must be recorded [Paras 6, 11–13].

Decision:

Criminal revision application dismissed – Order of First Appellate Court directing deposit of 20% compensation upheld – Rule discharged.

Warrant of Arrest – BNSS, 2023 – Calcutta HC upholds Magistrate’s order showing petitioner as absconder in municipal forgery case despite his compliance with Section 179 BNSS notice; revision dismissed.

Criminal Procedure – Warrant of Arrest – BNSS, 2023 – Magistrate’s Order – Petitioner shown as absconder in charge-sheet despite compliance with Section 179 BNSS notice – Held: compliance with notice does not bar Magistrate from issuing warrant if IO records non-availability during search – No ground to interfere in revisional jurisdiction – Petition dismissed [Paras 5-11].

Forgery Allegations – Building Plan Sanction – Inspection Book Records – Allegations of forged municipal inspection records to obtain 5-storied building plan where only 3 permitted – Charge-sheet filed against petitioner/developers – Whether forgery committed to be tested in trial – Revisional Court will not evaluate merits at pre-trial stage [Paras 2-3, 10].

Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – Section 442 BNSS – High Court’s power exceptional and sparing – Interference only in case of manifest illegality or miscarriage of justice – No error found in Magistrate’s order; casual handwriting lapse in prior order not sufficient for intervention [Paras 9-11].

Decision – Magistrate’s order dated 29.07.2025 issuing warrant of arrest sustained – Revision petition dismissed; trial to proceed in accordance with law [Paras 11-12].

Lease Agreement – COVID-19 – Force Majeure Clause – Appeal Dismissed – Rent partially waived for lockdown period – Liquidated damages and penal rent claims rejected due to lack of actual loss – Amendment to Section 10 of Specific Relief Act held inapplicable to pre-2018 contracts [Paras 26-27, 44-46, 60-68].

Force Majeure – Lease Interpretation – Clause 12 invoked during COVID-19 – Pandemic held to be covered under “Act of God” and “Embargo” – Court upheld that the conditions in Clause 12 were illustrative, not exhaustive – Held: Lockdown restrictions justified non-payment of rent for April and May 2020 [Paras 26-27, 46-48].

Penalty Clauses – Clauses 14.2 and 7.2 – Claim for six months’ additional rent and double rent rejected – Held: No breach committed by lessee, and liquidated damages require proof of actual loss under Sections 73 & 74 of Contract Act – Contractual amount is upper limit; reasonable compensation necessary – Penal rent not awarded [Paras 39-46, 54-58].

Specific Relief – Retrospective Application – Amended Section 10 of Specific Relief Act not applicable to contracts executed before 01.10.2018 – Held: Court’s discretion in granting relief retained under pre-amendment law – SC decisions in Katta Sujatha Reddy and Daivasigamani relied upon [Paras 60-71].

Equitable Apportionment – Shared Burden of Pandemic – Court awarded 50% rent for April–May 2020 – Justified on ground that both lessor and lessee suffered economic hardship – Held: Equitable solution in absence of rent waiver agreement [Paras 52-53].

Summary Judgment – Maintainability – Application under Order XIII-A filed by appellant – Appellant estopped from arguing that suit required trial – Court justified in granting limited relief and rejecting exaggerated claims without trial [Para 74].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Force majeure clause rightly applied – No penal or double rent awarded – Rent granted at 50% for April–May 2020 and full rent from June 2020 to December 2020 – Interest and GST arrears also awarded – Decree of Single Judge upheld in entirety [Paras 51, 73, 75-76].

Commercial tenancy – Section 12A CCA – Urgent interim relief & prior exemption order – O.VII R.11 refusal and interim injunction upheld – Petition dismissed [Paras 2–6, 7–8].

Commercial Courts Act, s.12A – Urgency & exemption – Where plaintiff sought urgent interim relief and the trial court had already granted a specific exemption from pre-institution mediation (order dated 07.09.2024), non-invocation of PIM did not abrogate s.12A – Exemption order, never challenged, attained finality; may be relied upon while rejecting O.VII R.11 plea [Paras 2, 4, 6].

Pleadings – Rejection of plaint under O.VII R.11 – Assessment confined to averments in the plaint; defence pleas (e.g., alleged fit-out extension/payment till July 2024) irrelevant at R.11 stage – Trial court correct in refusing to traverse defence material while deciding R.11 [Para 7].

Interim Injunction – Restraining creation of third-party interests – In a possession/arrears suit, evidence of substantial arrears (~₹60 lakh across floors), non-payment despite O.XV-A/O.XXXIX R.10 orders, and ongoing execution (bailiff appointed for mezzanine; ground floor execution continuing) establish a real, not illusory, urgency and justify ad-interim restraint to prevent alienation/defeat of decree [Paras 4–5].

Section 12A CCA – “Real urgency” – Seeking interim injunction coupled with facts indicating imminent risk (arrears, execution steps, apprehended alienation) constitutes genuine urgency; s.12A exemption properly invoked and cannot be re-litigated via O.VII R.11 once exemption order stands unassailed [Paras 3–6].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – No infirmity – Concurrent findings on urgency, finality of exemption order, and proper R.11 approach disclose no perversity; Art. 227 petition dismissed with upholding of impugned interlocutory orders [Para 8].

Decision: Held – Trial court order upheld; application under O.VII R.11 rightly dismissed in view of prior, unchallenged s.12A exemption and the limited R.11 inquiry; interim injunction restraining creation of third-party interests justified on facts – Petition and pending applications dismissed [Paras 6–8].