Public Interest Litigation (PIL) – Memorial Construction on Mayor’s Bungalow Premises – Challenge to Policy Decision – Petitions filed challenging Government Resolution dated 27.09.2016, amendment to Section 92 (dd-1) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, change in reservation of land from Green Zone to Residential Zone, and concessional lease for Balasaheb Thackeray Rashtriya Smarak – Held: Decision to set up the Memorial falls within the realm of policy – Court cannot substitute its judgment unless it infringes fundamental rights – Memorial for a public figure constitutes a public purpose – No interference warranted [Paras 1-34].

Judicial Review – Policy Decision – Selection of Site – Scope Limited – Choice of Mayor’s Bungalow for Memorial after recommendation by High Power Committee (HPC) is a well-considered decision – Court held that matters of land allotment and site selection fall outside the scope of judicial review unless violation of statutory norms is established – Petitioners not opposing Memorial per se, only selection of site – Held: No procedural irregularity in site selection [Paras 17-22].

Constitutional Validity – Amendment of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act – Section 92(dd-1) – Lease of Public Land at Nominal Rent – Challenge to amendment permitting grant of lease at ₹1 per annum for 30 years – No challenge to legislative competence – Court held that in absence of manifest arbitrariness or lack of constitutional values, no ground for striking down the provision – Petitioners failed to establish arbitrariness – Valid exercise of legislative power [Paras 23-25].

Development Plan – Change in Reservation – Green Zone to Residential – Compliance with MRTP Act – Notification dated 22.01.2019 effecting change in zoning from Green to Residential and label from Mayor’s Bungalow to Balasaheb Thackeray Rashtriya Smarak – Objections invited and considered as per MRTP Act – Planning Committee found that open space had increased in Development Plan 2034 – Held: Change of label or zoning does not amount to illegal modification – No procedural impropriety found – Process followed correctly [Paras 26-28].

Trust Constitution – Challenge to Composition of Trustees – Public Trust for Memorial – Trustees include family members of late Balasaheb Thackeray and political party members – Held: Not arbitrary – Since Memorial is to honour Balasaheb Thackeray, inclusion of family members and party members reasonable – Four ex-officio government officers also on the Trust board – Any grievances about the Trust are remediable under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act – No interference warranted [Paras 29-30].

Lease at Nominal Rent – Public Land for Memorial – Held: Mere fact that prime land is leased at nominal rent does not warrant interference when land ownership remains with MCGM and Memorial is for public purpose – Precedents cited where similar leases were granted for other memorials – Decision within policy discretion – No violation of law [Paras 31].

Environmental Clearance – Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Compliance – MCZMA clearance obtained confirming compliance with CRZ Notification 2011 – Court held there is no violation of environmental norms in construction of the Memorial [Para 32].

Decision – Petitions dismissed – No illegality or procedural irregularity found in the decisions regarding site selection, amendment to law, change of reservation, or formation of Trust – Held: The Memorial construction is virtually complete, further interference is unwarranted – No order as to costs [Para 34].

Criminal Law – Prevention of Corruption Act – Demand and Acceptance of Bribe – Conviction Set Aside – The appellant was convicted under Section 7 of the PC Act for allegedly demanding and accepting ₹2,500 as illegal gratification for issuing a no-dues certificate – The complainant (PW-1) turned hostile, denying any demand or acceptance of bribe and stating that CBI officers dictated the complaint and planted the trap – Shadow witness (PW-2) admitted he did not hear any demand, and the acceptance was not witnessed directly – Held: In absence of proof of demand, mere recovery of money is insufficient for conviction under Section 7 – Conviction and sentence set aside – Acquittal.[Paras 1–2, 10–13, 32, 41, 45, 55–58, 67–68].

Hostile Witness – Legal Implication – Cannot Form Sole Basis for Conviction – Complainant (PW-1) and shadow witness (PW-2) turned hostile – PW-1 denied writing the complaint voluntarily and asserted the appellant never demanded bribe – PW-2 confirmed lack of direct hearing or witnessing of demand – Held: Evidence of hostile witnesses must be scrutinized for independent reliability – Here, the statements failed to establish foundational facts necessary for presumption under Section 20 of PC Act [Paras 10–13, 53–57].

Presumption Under Section 20 – Foundational Facts Absent – No Legal Presumption Drawn – The trial court presumed guilt based on recovery alone despite lack of direct proof of demand – Held: The presumption under Section 20 can be raised only when demand and acceptance are proved – Cited judgments including B. Jayaraj, Satyanarayana Murthy, Neeraj Dutta clarified that demand is sine qua non – Since prosecution failed to prove demand, no presumption under Section 20 could arise [Paras 41, 43–45, 55–58, 66–67].

Failure to Examine Material Witness – Adverse Inference Drawn Against Prosecution – Statement of Jagdish Singh, cited in the charge sheet as corroborative, was not brought as prosecution witness but later examined as DW-4 – He denied having given the prosecution statement – Held: As per Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act, adverse inference must be drawn against the party who withholds a key witness – Supports appellant’s claim of false implication [Paras 62–65].

Trap Evidence – Circumstantial and Contradictory – Not Sufficient for Conviction – Witnesses DW-5 and DW-7 who were present during the trap stated that money was planted by CBI officers and appellant was beaten and falsely implicated – Their testimony remained consistent and unshaken in cross-examination – Held: Circumstances raised grave doubts about the integrity of the trap and undermined prosecution’s case [Paras 24–25, 60–61].

Final Judgment – Conviction Unsustainable – Appeal Allowed – The High Court found that prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was not legally sustainable – The appellant was acquitted and fine amount ordered to be refunded [Paras 67–68].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Bail Cancellation – Section 528 of BNSS - Cancellation of Bail Due to Non-Appearance – Order Set Aside – Petitioner failed to appear before the trial Court on 08.07.2024 due to noting the wrong date – Trial Court cancelled bail, forfeited bail/surety bonds, and issued non-bailable warrants – Held: Non-appearance was neither deliberate nor intentional – The explanation provided is justified – Extreme action of bail cancellation unjustified in absence of wilful default – Order cancelling bail quashed [Paras 1-7].

Criminal Procedure – Fairness and Liberty – Article 21 of Constitution – While maintaining law and order is essential, any curtailment of personal liberty must align with fair procedure under Article 21 of the Constitution – The issuance of non-bailable warrants is solely to secure presence, not punitive in nature – Once the accused comes forward voluntarily and undertakes to appear, liberty must be balanced with procedural fairness [Para 8].

Non-Bailable Warrants – Objective and Remedy – The purpose of issuing non-bailable warrants is to ensure the appearance of the accused – Where the accused voluntarily approaches the Court and offers a reasonable explanation with an undertaking to appear in future, the extreme remedy of warrant issuance and bail cancellation is unwarranted – Cancellation order set aside with direction to surrender within two weeks [Paras 9-10].

Relief – Bail Restored with Costs – Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 08.07.2024 cancelling bail, forfeiting bonds, and issuing warrants quashed – Petitioner directed to surrender within two weeks and furnish fresh bail/surety bonds – Costs of ₹10,000 imposed to be deposited with PGIMER Poor Patient Welfare Fund, Chandigarh – Bail to be granted only after submission of cost receipt [Paras 10-12].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Interim protection to continue subject to surrender within two weeks – Failure to surrender will result in vacation of protection [Paras 11-13].

Civil Law - Trademark – Prior User Rights – Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act – Interim Injunction Refused – The plaintiff claimed rights over the mark ‘STELLADEXIN’ based on trademark registration and an exclusive agency agreement with defendant no. 5 (Chinese manufacturer) – Held: Defendant no. 5 is the prior adopter and continuous user of the marks ‘STELLA’, ‘STELLADEXIN’ and related device marks since 2013 in India, predating the plaintiff’s claimed use from 2015 – Defendant no. 5 entitled to protection under Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act – No infringement made out against defendants [Paras 12-17].

Trademark Infringement – International Exhaustion – Section 30(3) of the Trade Marks Act – Sale of Genuine Goods Not Infringement – Defendant no. 2 was importing and reselling original goods manufactured by defendant no. 5 under authorization – Held: Sale of genuine products under an authorized distribution arrangement does not amount to infringement – Applied principle of international exhaustion as upheld in Kapil Wadhwa v. Samsung Electronics and Seagate Technology LLC v. Daichi International [Paras 18-19].

Exclusive Agency Agreement – Effect of Termination – The exclusive agency agreement between the plaintiff and defendant no. 5 was terminated vide letter dated 13.11.2024 – Held: Post termination, the plaintiff cannot claim exclusivity over the mark in India – Plaintiff’s claim of monopoly over ‘STELLADEXIN’ not tenable when defendant no. 5 continues to be the rightful owner and prior user [Paras 10.7, 16-17].

Interim Relief – Balance of Convenience – Prima Facie Case Not Made Out – Interim injunction order dated 27.08.2024 vacated – Held: Balance of convenience lies in favour of defendants who were prior users – Grant of injunction would unfairly restrain the defendants from dealing in products they have lawfully sold in India since 2013 – Plaintiff merely an importer cannot claim monopoly over goods of defendant no. 5 [Paras 20-22].

Decision – Applications for interim injunction (I.A. 37339/2024 and I.A. 49076/2024) dismissed – Application by defendant no. 2 (I.A. 41504/2024) seeking vacation of interim injunction allowed – Observations confined to interim stage without prejudice to the final outcome of the suit [Paras 22-24].

Matrimonial Law - Domestic Violence – Interim Monetary Relief – Section 23 of PWDV Act – Interim Relief Enhanced – The petitioner, wife of the opposite party, challenged the order of the Appellate Court granting interim relief of Rs. 50,000/- per month to her and Rs. 80,000/- per month to her daughter – Considering the opposite party’s annual income of Rs. 7.19 crores (2020-21) and petitioner’s meagre income, the Court held that the interim maintenance awarded was inadequate – Interim maintenance enhanced to Rs. 1,50,000/- per month for the wife and Rs. 2,50,000/- for the minor daughter from the date of filing under Section 23 – Directed the Trial Court to expedite the final disposal of the main application [Paras 24-26].

Maintenance – Standard of Living – Interpretation of “Accustomed” – Section 20(2) of PWDV Act – Held – The term “accustomed” refers to the standard of living the aggrieved person enjoyed during the marriage, not to the current wealth of the husband – The wife is entitled to be maintained in a manner consistent with her marital standard, but not an equalization of wealth – The Court balanced between exaggerated claims of the petitioner and the attempts by the husband to evade fair maintenance [Paras 20-22].

Equalization of Wealth – Not the Objective of Maintenance – Reiterated – Citing Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda, the Court clarified that monetary relief under PWDV Act cannot be equated with equalization of wealth – Maintenance aims at preventing destitution and securing dignified living, not matching the wealth of the spouse [Para 21].

Independent Income of Wife – Whether Bar to Maintenance – Held – Even if the wife has some income, it does not disentitle her from claiming maintenance if the income is insufficient to sustain a lifestyle consistent with her status during marriage – The existence of modest earnings does not absolve the husband from his legal and moral obligation of maintenance [Para 22].

Allegation of Adultery – Prima Facie Irrelevant – No Bar to Maintenance – Held – Allegations of adultery based on media reports and public perception cannot be accepted without cogent legal proof – In absence of clear evidence, such allegations cannot be grounds to deny maintenance [Para 23].

Maintenance for Child – Child’s Education and Welfare – The Court held that Rs. 2,50,000/- per month for the child is justified considering the child’s educational needs and standard of living, with liberty to the father to voluntarily contribute more towards educational or special expenses [Para 25].

Decision – Interim Monetary Relief Modified – Interim maintenance enhanced to Rs. 1,50,000/- per month for the petitioner (wife) and Rs. 2,50,000/- per month for the minor daughter – Trial Court directed to dispose of the main application under Section 12 of PWDV Act expeditiously, preferably within 60 days – Petition disposed of [Paras 25-26].

Criminal Law – Conviction under Section 354A(i), 354D(1)(i) of IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act – Acquittal Ordered – The accused was convicted by the Trial Court for holding the victim’s hand and uttering “I love you” – The High Court held that mere holding of hand and expression of love without any overt sexual act, demand for sexual favour, or repeated conduct does not constitute offences under IPC Sections 354A(i), 354D(1)(i), or Section 8 of the POCSO Act – No evidence of sexual intent or stalking – Conviction quashed and accused acquitted [Paras 1-42].

POCSO Act – Proof of Age – Admissibility of Birth Certificate – Section 17 of Registration of Births and Deaths Act and Section 35 of Evidence Act – Age of victim proved – Birth certificate produced from competent authority showing victim’s date of birth as 12.05.1999 held admissible as primary evidence under Section 77 of the Evidence Act – No cross-examination challenging age – Held: Prosecution proved victim was minor at time of offence [Paras 11-16].

Sexual Harassment – Section 354A IPC – Essential Ingredients – Sexual Intent – Mere utterance of “I Love You” and holding hand without any unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures or demand for sexual favours does not constitute sexual harassment – No evidence of sexually coloured remarks – Held: Offence under Section 354A IPC not made out [Paras 23-26, 31-37].

Stalking – Section 354D IPC – Requirement of Repeated Contact – A single instance of following or interaction without repeated acts is insufficient to constitute stalking – No evidence of following to foster personal interaction despite disinterest – Held: Charge under Section 354D IPC unsustainable [Paras 29-30].

POCSO Act – Sexual Assault – Requirement of Physical Contact with Sexual Intent – Section 7 and Punishment under Section 8 of POCSO Act – No allegation of touching private parts or other acts indicating sexual assault – Uttering “I Love You” by itself does not establish sexual intent – No physical act reflecting sexual overture – Held: Offence under Section 8 of POCSO Act not established [Paras 31-39].

Interpretation of Sexual Intent – Reliance on Bandu Vitthalrao Borwar vs. State of Maharashtra, 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 16128 – Expression of “I Love You” in absence of gestures, physical touch or overt sexual conduct is not sufficient to prove sexual intent – Intention is to be determined from overall circumstances – Held: No evidence to conclude existence of sexual intent [Paras 35-37].

Appeal – Acquittal – Conviction set aside – Judgment of Trial Court erroneous for misapplication of Sections 354A and 354D IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act – Accused acquitted of all charges – Directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case [Para 42].

Successive Regular Bail – Sections 8(C), 20(B)(ii)(b), and 29 of the NDPS Act – Successive Bail Application Dismissed – The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of BNSS in connection with possession of 9.982 kg of ganja under the NDPS Act – The earlier bail application was withdrawn with liberty reserved for refiling in case of delay in trial – The Court found no change in circumstances justifying a successive bail application – Noted that the trial is proceeding without delay – Applicant has 14 criminal antecedents, including two under the NDPS Act, and played a principal role in the offence – Held: The applicant failed to make out a case for bail – Application dismissed and Rule discharged [Paras 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 13].

NDPS Act – Conscious Possession – Applicability of Animus Possidendi – Plea of Non-possession Rejected – Held: Contraband of 9.982 kg ganja recovered from vehicle under control of the applicant – Mere lack of physical possession does not negate culpability – Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Union of India v. Md. Nawaz Khan (2021) 10 SCC 100, which clarified that ‘possession’ includes knowledge and control with animus possidendi – Argument of non-recovery from personal possession rejected [Para 8].

Successive Bail – No Change in Circumstance – Legal Principle – Held: Successive bail applications are maintainable only if there is a significant change in circumstances – Mere passage of time or filing of charge sheet does not constitute change – Cited Apex Court rulings in Virupakshappa Gouda v. State of Karnataka (2017) 5 SCC 406 and Navin Singh v. State of U.P. (2021) 2 SCC (Cri.) 809 – Filing of charge sheet does not dilute the seriousness of allegations – Successive bail cannot be entertained routinely [Para 9].

Bail Principles – Factors Considered – NDPS and Criminal Antecedents – Held: While considering bail, the court must consider the nature of accusations, severity of punishment, role of the accused, past conduct, possibility of tampering with evidence, and larger public interest – Cited CBI v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy (2013) 7 SCC 452 and Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh (2012) 9 SCC 446 – Given the applicant’s multiple past offences and repeat nature of NDPS violations, bail rightly rejected [Paras 10-11].

Parity with Co-accused – Not Applicable – Role of Applicant More Serious – Held: Bail granted to co-accused does not apply when the applicant's role is distinct and graver – Co-accused were granted bail because their involvement was limited to driving or assisting, whereas the applicant is alleged to be the main supplier of contraband – Past criminal history further disentitles him to claim parity – Parity principle rejected [Paras 7, 12].

Successive Bail – Judicial Discipline – Guiding Principles – Held: Cited Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan (2002) 3 SCC 598 – While the right to make successive bail applications exists, the Court is duty-bound to examine whether new grounds or change in circumstances justify taking a view different from earlier decisions – No such grounds exist in this case [Para 12].

Decision – Bail Application Dismissed – Considering the seriousness of the offence, past criminal antecedents, absence of any change in circumstances, and the risk of reoffending, the Court dismissed the successive bail application – Directed the trial court to expedite the trial on day-to-day basis and to provide legal aid if the applicant does not engage a private lawyer [Paras 13-14].

Civil Writ – Challenge to MRT Order – Section 88C and 32G of Maharashtra Tenancy Act – Writ Petition Allowed – The petitioner, tenant of agricultural land, was declared as deemed purchaser of 5/8th share by the Additional Tahsildar and Assistant Collector — MRT erroneously reversed these concurrent findings ignoring the legal effect of Section 88C proceedings that limited the landlord’s right to only 3/8th share — MRT exceeded its limited revisional jurisdiction under Section 76 by reappreciating facts rather than correcting legal errors — Held: Orders of the Revenue Authorities restored and MRT’s order set aside [Paras 1-18].

Tenancy Law – Effect of Section 88C – Once exemption under Section 88C is granted to landlord only for part of the land, the tenant automatically becomes deemed purchaser of the balance land – Finding of the MRT contrary to settled legal position – Ignoring the finality of 88C proceedings amounts to a patent error [Paras 8-13].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope under Section 76 – Revisional powers are limited to correcting errors of law, procedural lapses, or failure to decide legal issues – MRT cannot act as an appellate authority to reassess facts or substitute factual findings – MRT exceeded jurisdiction by reappreciating evidence and interfering with concurrent factual findings of the revenue authorities [Paras 14-15].

Adoption Dispute – Not Relevant to Tenancy Determination – Registered adoption deed of petitioner upheld by civil court – Challenge to adoption pending in civil court does not affect tenancy rights under Section 32G – MRT wrongly considered this issue beyond its jurisdiction [Para 14].

Parallel Proceedings – Impermissible – Civil suit filed by landlord claiming exclusive ownership after conclusion of 88C tenancy proceedings is not tenable – Filing of multiple proceedings for same cause of action disapproved – MRT failed to appreciate this aspect [Para 10].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – MRT’s order dated 01.01.1998 set aside – Orders dated 10.07.1990 by Additional Tahsildar and 25.01.1991 by Assistant Collector restored – Rights of respondents to pursue civil remedies, if any, kept open – Petition disposed of accordingly [Paras 16-18].

Partition Suit – Succession Rights of Heirs of Nawab of Bhopal – Applicability of Personal Law vs. Merger Agreement – Judgment Set Aside – The plaintiffs claimed partition of private properties of Nawab Hamidullah Khan post his demise in 1960, asserting succession as per Muslim Personal Law – Trial Court dismissed suits relying on Allahabad High Court judgment (AIR 1997 All 122) – Held: The Allahabad High Court judgment was overruled by Supreme Court in Talat Fatima Hasan v. Syed Murtaza Ali Khan (2020) 15 SCC 655 – The Trial Court’s judgment, being founded on an overruled precedent and without evaluating the full evidence, cannot stand – Appeals allowed, impugned judgment set aside, suits remanded for fresh decision on merits [Paras 3-4, 18-21].

Succession of Rulers' Private Properties – Clause VII of Bhopal Merger Agreement – Applicability of Personal Law Deferred – The respondents contended succession to private property passes solely to the successor of throne under Clause VII of the Merger Agreement, excluding other legal heirs – The Court observed the issue requires fresh adjudication especially after Supreme Court clarified the distinction between succession to Gaddi and private properties – Matter remanded to Trial Court for proper examination including admissibility of fresh evidence [Paras 7, 14, 21].

Power of Appellate Court to Remand – Applicability of Order 14 Rule 23A CPC – The High Court invoked Order 14 Rule 23A CPC observing the trial court decided the matter without considering essential legal aspects, particularly in light of a binding precedent now overturned – Directed remand for comprehensive reconsideration including potential fresh evidence, directing trial court to conclude within one year due to pendency since 1999 [Paras 18-21].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Judgment and decree dated 14.02.2000 set aside – Suits remanded back to District Court, Bhopal for fresh adjudication expeditiously within one year – Pending applications disposed with liberty to raise all issues before trial court [Paras 21-26].