Contract Law - Breach of Agreement – Entitlement for Refund – Advance Sale Consideration Recoverable – The plaintiff paid ₹85 lakhs as advance for purchase of property under an agreement – Plaintiff alleged non-performance by defendant for failure to show title and extent of property – Defendant pleaded damages due to cessation of mill operations – Trial Court found plaintiff at fault but without proof of defendant’s damages awarded ₹10 lakhs as damages and balance ₹75 lakhs as refund – Held: Defendant failed to prove damages – Plaintiff entitled to full refund of ₹85 lakhs [Paras 6-7].

Interest on Advance – Discretionary Grant – Plaintiff entitled to reasonable interest – Plaintiff claimed interest on the advance amount – Defendant opposed interest alleging plaintiff’s breach – Supreme Court judgment in M/s Tomorrowland Ltd. Considered – No mala fides or misconduct attributable to plaintiff – Defendant invested and enjoyed benefit of ₹85 lakhs – Held: Interest at 6% per annum granted from date of suit till realization – Interest on ₹75 lakhs only till date of deposit in execution [Paras 8-10].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Trial Court Judgment Modified – Trial Court’s decree set aside – Plaintiff entitled to recover full advance amount with interest at 6% per annum from date of suit till recovery – Costs throughout granted to the plaintiff [Para 10].

Bail - NDPS Act – Minor Discrepancy in Sample Weight – Bail Denied – The petitioner contended that there was a discrepancy between the sample weight recorded before the Metropolitan Magistrate and the FSL report, suggesting tampering – Held: The discrepancy was minor and could be attributed to moisture loss – FSL did not indicate any tampering of the seal – Minor discrepancy not sufficient to grant bail [Paras 11-12].

Absence of Independent Witnesses and Videography – No Ground for Bail – Raid was conducted during midnight and non-joining of independent witnesses may be justified – However, absence of videography remains unexplained – Held: In absence of prolonged custody, this alone does not justify grant of bail unlike in cases such as Bantu v. State where long incarceration was a factor [Paras 13-14].

Clean Antecedents and Short Custody Period – Bail Denied – Petitioner has no prior criminal record and has been in custody for about one year – Held: As per precedents, relaxation of Section 37 of NDPS Act is generally allowed when custody exceeds 1½ to 3½ years – Present custody period being short, bail refused with liberty to renew application if trial is delayed [Paras 14-15].

Decision – Bail Application Dismissed – Liberty granted to file fresh application after six months if no substantial progress in trial [Para 15].

NDPS Act – Anticipatory Bail – Section 37 Rigours – Bail Denied - The petitioner was implicated in a case involving trans-border drug smuggling through drones and was named in a co-accused's disclosure statement – Investigation revealed communication through encrypted WhatsApp calls and exchange of coordinates for drone deliveries of heroin – Held: The petitioner failed to meet the twin conditions of Section 37 of NDPS Act; custodial interrogation required to unearth deeper drug nexus – Anticipatory bail denied [Paras 3, 7-10].

Drug Trafficking – Cross-Border Smuggling via Drones – Prima Facie Involvement – Petitioner’s Location and Communication Corroborated - The petitioner was found to be in contact with main accused and present at key locations identified for heroin drops via drones from Pakistan – WhatsApp call logs and mobile location data supported prosecution’s claim – Petitioner admitted to association but denied involvement; court held his role requires custodial inquiry [Paras 3, 7].

Presumption under Section 37 – Commercial Quantity – Burden on Accused to Prove Innocence – The Court reiterated settled legal principles that Section 37 places a reverse burden on the accused in NDPS cases involving commercial quantity – Bail can only be granted if court believes the accused is not guilty and unlikely to reoffend – Petitioner failed to meet either criterion [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Bail Application Dismissed – No Case Made Out Under Section 438 CrPC - The Court found no reasonable ground to believe the petitioner was innocent – Citing prior rulings, it declined to interfere in the ongoing investigation – Interim protection withdrawn; petition dismissed [Paras 10, 12].

Matrimonial Law – 125 CrPC - Maintenance – Interest on Maintenance – Mandatory under Precedent – Review Allowed - The applicants sought review of the judgment dated 29.11.2024 on the ground that the Court failed to apply the binding precedent of Prakash vs. Vithabai, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1487, which mandates award of interest on arrears of maintenance – The Court held that failure to apply the said binding precedent amounted to an error apparent on the face of the record – The bar under Section 362 CrPC does not apply to proceedings under Section 125 CrPC as per Sanjeev Kapoor vs. Chandana Kapoor (2020) 13 SCC 172 – Review allowed and interest @9% per annum awarded on maintenance from 07.06.2024 till realization [Paras 5-28].

Review – Error Apparent on Record – Non-consideration of Binding Precedent – The Court held that overlooking binding judgments, including Prakash (supra), amounts to an error apparent on the face of the record and warrants review, particularly in proceedings under Section 125 CrPC which are quasi-civil in nature [Paras 17-24].

Maintainability – Review in Maintenance Proceedings – Embargo under Section 362 CrPC Relaxed – The Court reiterated that Section 362 CrPC does not bar review in Section 125 CrPC proceedings owing to their social welfare character – Reference made to Sanjeev Kapoor (supra) and Rina Kumari vs. Dinesh Kumar Mahto 2025 SCC OnLine SC 72 [Paras 15-24].

Decision – Review Allowed – Interest Granted – The Court reviewed the judgment dated 29.11.2024 and directed Respondent No.1 to pay interest @9% per annum on the maintenance amount awarded from 07.06.2024 till the date of realization – Rest of the judgment remained unaltered [Paras 27-28].

Criminal Law – POCSO Act - Appeal Against Acquittal – Standard of Review – Presumption of Innocence – Appeal Dismissed - High Court reiterated that appellate interference in acquittal must rest on compelling reasons, particularly when trial court had evaluated the credibility of the victim and prosecution witnesses thoroughly – Held: No perversity or illegality found in trial court’s reasoning to justify interference [Paras 13-17].

Victim Testimony – Reliability – Inconsistent and Uncorroborated – Acquittal Upheld - The prosecutrix, though not declared hostile, gave inconsistent statements during cross-examination, failed to recall specific dates and details, and contradicted earlier depositions and medical history – Held: Victim not a wholly reliable witness, and her testimony lacked independent corroboration [Paras 8-9, 13-14].

Medical and Forensic Evidence – DNA Report Inconclusive – No Signs of Injury – Acquittal Maintained - Medical evidence indicated pregnancy but did not reveal any signs of physical injury or establish forced intercourse – DNA profiling report did not support prosecution case – Held: Evidence insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 11-13].

Hostile Witnesses – Prosecution Weakened – Acquittal Justified - Parents of the victim (PWs 3 and 4) and other relatives did not support the prosecution, and were declared hostile – Held: Absence of supportive testimony from material witnesses undermined the prosecution case significantly [Paras 10-11].

Decision – No Interference Warranted – Appeal Dismissed - The Court held that in the absence of reliable victim testimony and lack of corroborative evidence, there is no ground to overturn the acquittal – Appeal dismissed [Para 17].

Bail Application – Prolonged Incarceration – Right to Speedy Trial – Bail Granted - Applicants had undergone pre-trial incarceration for over 13 years without conclusion of the trial – The Court held that such prolonged detention amounts to pre-trial punishment and violates the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution – The trial was stalled due to multiple pending applications and indefinite delay – Bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 2-8, 16-28]. 
 Parity Principle – Identical Role as Co-Accused – Bail Allowed - The Applicants demonstrated that similarly placed co-accused had been granted bail earlier – The Court accepted the plea of parity and held that denial of bail in such circumstances would amount to unequal treatment [Paras 4.2, 28]. 
 
Medical Grounds – Consideration under HIV Act – Applicant No.2's Bail Supported - Applicant No.2, being HIV positive, invoked Section 34(2) of the HIV Act which mandates priority in disposal of cases concerning HIV positive persons – The Court took judicial notice of his health condition while granting bail [Paras 4.3, 28]. 
 
Bail Principles – Article 21 – Bail as Rule, Jail as Exception – Reiterated - Relying on settled precedents, including Satender Kumar Antil, Maneka Gandhi, and Gudikanti Narasimhulu, the Court reaffirmed that bail is the rule and refusal is the exception – Long incarceration without trial violates constitutional guarantees of liberty [Paras 12-17]. 
 
Decision – Bail Granted - Applicants released on bail subject to strict conditions to ensure presence at trial and prevent interference with the evidence – Application allowed [Paras 2830]. 
 

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Valid Loan Transaction and Dishonoured Cheque – Conviction Upheld - The petitioner contended that no loan was availed and the cheque was misused – The Court upheld concurrent findings of both courts holding that the accused had availed Rs.1 crore as loan and had issued cheque (Ex.P4) and acknowledgment (Ex.P2 & Ex.P3) – Defence that cheque was issued to one Santhosh for a smaller loan was found unsubstantiated and lacking in evidence – Conviction confirmed [Paras 10-19]. 
 
Evidence – Admission by Accused – Presumption not Rebutted - The accused admitted execution of crucial documents including Ex.P2 (consideration receipt), Ex.P3 (confirmation of balance), and Ex.P4 (dishonoured cheque) – No independent evidence was led to prove the defence that the cheque was given to Santhosh – Admission of execution and failure to examine Santhosh undermined the defence – Presumption under Section 139 of N.I. 
Act stood unrebutted [Paras 14-18]. 
 
Power of Attorney – Substitution of GPA Holder – No Illegality - The petitioner contended that PW1 lacked authority due to subsequent substitution of GPA holder – The Court held that Ex.P1 continued to be valid as no material showed its withdrawal – PW1 was competent to depose on behalf of the complainant – The contention was rejected [Paras 11, 17-18]. 
 
Revision – Limited Scope – No Perversity Found – Dismissed - The Court reiterated that revisional jurisdiction is limited to correcting patent illegality or perversity – Since both courts properly appreciated oral and documentary evidence, no interference was warranted – Revision dismissed [Para 19]. 
 
 

Consumer Rights – Service Charge in Restaurants – Guidelines under CPA, 2019 – Upheld – CCPA guidelines prohibiting mandatory levy of service charge held valid – The Court upheld the guidelines issued by CCPA barring mandatory collection of service charge, observing that such charges cannot be imposed coercively, and must be voluntary – Held: Such mandatory collection is deceptive, amounts to unfair trade practice under Section 2(47) of CPA, and violates consumer rights – CCPA empowered under Section 18(2)(l) to issue binding guidelines in the interest of consumers [Paras 83-85, 174(i), 174(iii)(iv)]. 
 
Freedom of Trade – Article 19(1)(g) vs. Consumer Interest – Reasonable Restriction – Upheld – The guidelines were found not to infringe Article 19(1)(g) as they imposed reasonable restrictions in public interest – Court held the limitation on the restaurant’s right to impose service charges was proportional and constitutional – Larger interest of consumers prevailed over business interests of establishments [Paras 83-85, 174(ii)]. 
 
Contract Law – Unconscionable Contracts – Service Charge Clause – Invalid – Even if a customer accepts service charge knowing its inclusion on the menu, the resulting contract is not enforceable – Court ruled the unequal bargaining power and lack of real choice renders such contracts void as unfair and unconscionable under the CPA [Paras 99-101]. 
 
Statutory Backing – Guidelines of CCPA – Binding Nature – Upheld – The Court held that guidelines issued under Section 18(2)(l) of the CPA, 2019 are binding and not merely advisory – The statutory scheme envisages enforcement of such guidelines through penal provisions under Section 88 of the Act [Paras 73-75, 136-138, 174(i)]. 
 
Misleading Practices – Terminology and Lack of Transparency – Service 
Charge Illegal – The use of terms like “levy” and “service charge” was held to be misleading and deceptive to consumers – The absence of visible and transparent disclosure of service charge violated the consumer’s right to know 
– Held to constitute unfair trade practice under CPA [Paras 170-171, 174(iv)]. 
 
Final Decision – Writ Petitions Dismissed – Guidelines Validated – The Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the restaurant associations and upheld the validity and enforceability of the guidelines issued by CCPA – Declared that the service charge must be voluntary and any mandatory imposition would be illegal [Para 174]. 
 

NDPS Bail – Prima Facie Evidence – Bail Rejected – The petitioner challenged her custody on the ground that her statement under Section 67 NDPS Act is inadmissible and the seizure was procedurally defective – The Court held that independent of the Section 67 statement, there were sufficient prima facie materials including parcel bearing petitioner’s name and number, deleted images of the parcel from her mobile, and links to other accused – Bail refused considering seriousness of offence and applicability of Section 37 NDPS Act [Paras 3-6]. 
 
Section 52A Compliance – Not a Ground for Bail at Pre-trial Stage – Relying on NCB vs. Md. Kasif, the Court reiterated that compliance lapses under Section 52A NDPS Act, including inventory certification and sample taking, are procedural and to be tested at trial – Such irregularities alone do not justify bail at the pretrial stage [Paras 5-6]. 
 
Evidence Act Compliance – Hash Values and Digital Certificates – Left Open for Trial – The petitioner argued that the prosecution failed to file proper digital certificates under Section 63(4)(c) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam for Call Detail Records and mobile forensic reports – The Court held that such objections pertain to evidentiary appreciation and must be adjudicated during trial, not at bail stage [Paras 6]. 
 
Decision – Bail Application Rejected – Considering the petitioner’s role, prima facie evidence and involvement in an international drug racket, bail prayer rejected – Trial court directed to expedite the trial after splitting the record against absconding accused [Paras 6-8].