Mining Law – Quarry Lease – Validity of Lease – Earlier Lease Held Invalid – Claim for Renewal/Extension – Quarry lease granted in favour of partner of petitioner firm (Vivek Exports) pursuant to Government Order relaxing Rule 3A of KMMC Rules – Said Government Order subsequently quashed by High Court and affirmed by Supreme Court – Earlier writ proceedings had already held that renewal of lease granted in favour of Vivek Exports was implicitly invalid and not a subsisting valid lease – Said finding attained finality after dismissal of appeal before Supreme Court – Held: Petitioner cannot claim extension or statutory renewal under amended rules on the basis of an invalid lease – Endorsement rejecting request for extension justified [Paras 13-20].

Mining Lease – Statutory Extension under KMMC (Amendment) Rules – Applicability – Petitioner sought extension of quarry lease up to 30 years under Rule 8A(2) of KMMC (Amendment) Rules, 2016 and further relied on KMMC (Amendment) Rules, 2023 providing deemed lease period of 50 years – Court held that such statutory extension presupposes existence of a valid subsisting lease – Since the lease itself was declared invalid by earlier judicial orders that attained finality, benefit of statutory extension cannot be invoked [Paras 16-20].

Writ Jurisdiction – Delay and Laches – Challenge after Seven Years – Petitioner challenged endorsement rejecting its claim after nearly seven years – Explanation offered regarding illness and misunderstanding regarding subsisting lease was unsupported by material – Held: Inordinate delay without satisfactory explanation is a sufficient ground to reject writ petition in addition to lack of merits [Paras 21-22].

Quarry Lease Application – Pending Application – Effect of Amendments to KMMC Rules – Application for quarry lease filed by KUM Internationals in 2008 was rejected on ground that applied area overlapped with existing lease – After earlier proceedings held the existing lease invalid and directed reconsideration, authorities rejected application citing Rule 8B of KMMC (Amendment) Rules, 2016 and absence of NOCs from other departments – Held: Since application had been pending since 2010 and previous court orders directed consideration, rejection on ground that NOCs were not received prior to 12.08.2016 was unjustified – Responsibility to obtain NOCs primarily lies with authorities [Paras 28-33].

Mining Law – Responsibility for Obtaining NOCs – Role of Authorities – Under Rule 8(5) of the KMMC Rules (prior to later amendment), the duty to seek NOCs from other departments rested on the Senior Geologist/competent authority – Applicant could only facilitate the process – Authorities cannot reject application solely for non-receipt of NOCs when such process was within their control [Paras 32-34].

Effect of KMMC (Amendment) Rules, 2023 – Amendment revived eligibility of applications filed prior to the 2016 Rules – Considering the earlier judicial directions and the amendment restoring eligibility, application of KUM for quarry lease over notified 5 acres deserved consideration and grant [Paras 30-31].

Decision:

Writ Petition No.2922/2023 (filed by Vivek Exports) dismissed – Claim for extension/renewal of quarry lease rejected.

Writ Petition No.10370/2022 (filed by KUM Internationals) allowed – Endorsement dated 10.12.2020 rejecting application quashed – Authorities directed to issue necessary notification and execute quarry lease deed in favour of KUM for the notified area within four weeks.

Labour Law – Unfair Labour Practice – Temporary Employees – Denial of Permanency – Petitioners employed as clerks and peons by District Central Co-operative Bank continued on temporary basis for more than a decade despite performing work of permanent and perennial nature – Industrial Court dismissed complaints solely on ground that staffing pattern of the Bank had not been approved – Evidence on record showed that petitioners were appointed against vacant posts, worked continuously without termination, PF contributions were deducted and deposited, and duties were identical to those performed by permanent employees – Bank admitted existence of substantial manpower shortage and perennial nature of work – Held: Continuation of employees as temporary for prolonged period despite existence of vacancies constitutes unfair labour practice under Items 5 and 6 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act – Industrial Court erred in ignoring admissions and evidence on record – Impugned award set aside [Paras 28–37, 63–67].

Unfair Labour Practice – Discrimination in Service Conditions – Petitioners paid consolidated wages of Rs.6000–9000 and denied allowances, leave benefits, promotions and other privileges available to permanent employees performing identical work – Bank admitted denial of benefits solely on ground of temporary status – Held: Differential treatment without justification amounts to discrimination attracting Item 5 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act [Paras 5–6, 65–67].

Banking Regulation – NABARD Guidelines – Nature and Binding Effect – Bank relied on NABARD communications and guidelines regarding staffing pattern and recruitment policy claiming that absence of sanctioned staffing pattern prevented regularisation – Court held that Section 35 of the Banking Regulation Act empowers inspection and supervisory functions but does not confer authority on NABARD to issue binding directions regarding staffing pattern or service regularisation – Such communications are advisory and do not have statutory force unless backed by specific statutory provision or rule [Paras 39–44].

Co-operative Societies – Power of State Government – Section 79A of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act – Statutory directions regarding management and administration of co-operative societies including staffing pattern can be issued only by State Government under Section 79A – Such directions acquire binding force only when issued in writing upon satisfaction that they are necessary in public interest or for proper management – In absence of any such order on record, employer cannot rely on alleged restriction to deny permanency [Paras 45–52].

Regularisation – Principle under MRTU & PULP Act – Reliance on Supreme Court decision in Casteribe – Industrial and Labour Courts empowered to grant appropriate relief including permanency where employees are deliberately continued on temporary status for years to deny benefits attached to permanent employment – Relief not based merely on long service but on proof of unfair labour practice – Where work is perennial, vacancies exist and employees are continued for years, denial of permanency amounts to unfair labour practice [Paras 55–58].

Decision: Writ petitions allowed – Judgment and Award dated 20 May 2022 passed by Industrial Court, Nashik quashed and set aside – Respondent Bank held to have engaged in unfair labour practices under Items 5 and 6 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act – Bank directed to undertake exercise of regularisation of petitioners against available vacant posts within twelve weeks subject to verification of eligibility – Eligible petitioners to be granted permanency with continuity of service – Regular pay scale and benefits to be granted prospectively from date of regularisation – Bank restrained from terminating petitioners till completion of exercise – Request for stay rejected.

Banking Law - SARFAESI Act – Taking possession of secured assets – Jurisdiction of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate – Challenge to order passed under Section 14 SARFAESI Act on ground that only Chief Judicial Magistrate or District Magistrate is competent – Applicants contended that Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate lacked jurisdiction as High Court notification did not expressly confer powers of Chief Judicial Magistrate – Held: Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate exercises the same judicial powers as Chief Judicial Magistrate and is competent to deal with application under Section 14 SARFAESI Act – Notification appointing JMFC as Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate implicitly confers powers under Section 10(2) BNSS / Section 12(2) CrPC – Contention regarding lack of jurisdiction rejected [Paras 18–28, 42].

Criminal Procedure – Powers of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate – Scope of Section 10 BNSS and Section 12 CrPC – Court clarified that Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate is subordinate to Chief Judicial Magistrate only for administrative purposes and not in exercise of judicial powers – For judicial functions, ACJM stands at par with Chief Judicial Magistrate and can exercise powers under criminal law and other statutes unless expressly restricted [Paras 22–24].

SARFAESI Act – Alternative remedy – Maintainability of petition under Section 482 CrPC – Borrower challenged action taken by bank for possession of secured assets after loan account classified as NPA – Held: SARFAESI Act provides complete statutory mechanism including remedy before Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 – High Court should not exercise inherent jurisdiction when efficacious statutory remedy is available – Petition held not maintainable [Paras 38–41, 43].

Banking Law – Recovery of secured debts – Legislative scheme of SARFAESI Act – Court reiterated that Act empowers banks and financial institutions to enforce security interests and recover dues without intervention of court while simultaneously providing safeguards through remedy before DRT – Borrower aggrieved by measures under Section 13(4) or Section 14 must approach DRT for relief [Paras 29–36].

Inherent Powers – Exercise under Section 482 CrPC – High Court emphasized that inherent powers cannot be invoked when dispute relates to recovery proceedings under a special statute providing its own adjudicatory mechanism – Interference in SARFAESI proceedings at this stage would be improper [Paras 38–44].

Decision: Application dismissed – Orders passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 14 SARFAESI Act and order of Additional Sessions Judge upheld – Applicants directed to avail remedy before Debt Recovery Tribunal – Prayer for stay rejected.

Registration Act – Power of Registrar – Cancellation of Registered Document – District Registrar entertained complaint under Section 68(2) and nullified three registered sale deeds on allegation of fraud – Held: Section 68(2) only confers supervisory power over Sub-Registrars and authority to rectify errors relating to registration records – It does not confer power to cancel or declare registered documents as null and void – Such power lies exclusively with Civil Court [Paras 9, 15–16].

Registration of Documents – Fraud Allegations – Jurisdiction of Registering Authority – Allegations of fraudulent sale transactions raised between parties – Held: Registering authority cannot adjudicate disputed questions of title or civil rights – Fraud in general sense cannot be expanded to permit administrative authorities to cancel registered documents – Parties must approach Civil Court for declaration of invalidity of sale deeds [Paras 12–14].

Civil Disputes – Parallel Proceedings – Complaint before Registrar during pendency of civil suit – Civil suit seeking declaration of sale deeds as null and void was already pending – Registrar nevertheless entertained complaint and cancelled documents – Held: Such exercise of power amounts to usurpation of jurisdiction of Civil Court and violates property rights protected under Article 300A of the Constitution [Paras 15–16].

Writ Jurisdiction – Determination of Disputed Facts – Learned Single Judge dismissed writ petition on basis of alleged fraud – Division Bench held that disputed questions regarding consideration and genuineness of transaction must be decided in civil suit and not in writ proceedings [Para 17].

Decision: Writ Appeal allowed – Order of Single Judge set aside – Order of District Registrar cancelling sale deeds quashed – Parties relegated to pursue remedies before Civil Court.

Civil Law – Production of Documents – Cross-Examination – Amended CPC – Defendant sought to produce payment receipts during cross-examination of plaintiff to confront him with payments made towards consideration amount of sale deeds – Trial court rejected application – Held: Documents not foreign to or divorced from pleadings can be produced during cross-examination; trial court's order set aside and defendant permitted to produce documents [Paras 28–32].

Documents – Production During Cross-Examination – Exceptions Under CPC – Orders VII Rule 14(4), VIII Rule 1A(4) and XIII Rule 1(3) CPC create specific exceptions permitting production of documents for cross-examination of witnesses of the other party or to refresh memory of a witness, even without prior production with pleadings and without leave of court – Such production is governed by Section 145 of the Evidence Act and corresponding Section 148 of BSA [Paras 18–21, 25–26].

Section 145 Evidence Act – Cross-Examination by Previous Statements in Writing – A party may cross-examine a witness by contradicting him with his previous statement in writing, provided it is relevant to matters in question – No leave of court required for production of documents for purposes of cross-examination or refreshing memory – Court must allow production on touchstone of Section 145 of Evidence Act [Paras 22, 26].

Party as Witness – No Distinction – Supreme Court in Mohammed Abdul Wahid v. Nilofer overruled Division Bench of Bombay High Court and held that witnesses and parties to a suit are on the same footing for purposes of adducing evidence – A party-witness cannot be treated differently from a witness simpliciter for purposes of producing documents during cross-examination [Paras 11–14].

Documents Not Foreign to Pleadings – Permissible in Cross-Examination – So long as a document produced during cross-examination is not completely divorced from or foreign to the pleadings, it cannot be disallowed – Written statement contained pleading regarding payment of consideration; receipts sought to be produced relate directly to such pleading – Production permissible [Paras 15–16, 29–30].

Laxmikant Sinal Lotlekar – Not Binding Precedent on Amended CPC – Decision in Laxmikant Sinal Lotlekar dealt with unamended provisions of CPC including deleted Rule 18 of Order VII, substituted Rule 1 of Order VIII and deleted Rule 2 of Order XIII – Proposition therein that only documents outside the case of the parties can be confronted in cross-examination cannot be read as binding precedent under amended CPC in light of Supreme Court's ruling in Mohammed Wahid [Paras 17, 27].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Impugned order dated 08.12.2021 of 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Khed, Rajgurunagar, quashed and set aside – Trial Court directed to permit defendant no. 1 to produce documents as per list at Exhibit 118 to confront plaintiff no. 1 during cross-examination.

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Sections 21(1) and 21(2) of the BUDS Act - Digital Gold Business – Petitioners challenged FIR alleging that their business model involved sale of physical gold backed by bullion stored in third-party vaults and therefore did not constitute “deposit” under BUDS Act – State alleged that large sums were collected from the public through digital platform promising gold linked value and referral incentives – Held: Allegations disclose serious and triable issues regarding acceptance of money from public under an unregulated scheme – Investigation cannot be stifled at inception – Petition to quash FIR rejected [Paras 8–12].

Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 – Meaning of “Deposit” – Petitioners contended that payments made by customers for purchase of digital gold constitute commercial transactions and not deposits – Court held that definition of “deposit” under Section 2(4) is broad and cannot be narrowly construed to exclude modern financial arrangements such as digital gold or commodity-linked schemes – Substance of transaction rather than its form must be examined – Whether the scheme amounts to deposit collection is a matter for investigation [Paras 8, 11].

Financial Technology – Digital Gold Platforms – Regulatory Vacuum – RBI and SEBI communications indicated that digital gold products are not regulated under existing securities or banking frameworks – Court observed that absence of regulation by SEBI or RBI does not place such schemes beyond reach of criminal law – Transactions collecting money from public without regulatory oversight may still fall within BUDS Act [Paras 7, 11].

Criminal Procedure – Scope of Quashing – Investigation Stage – Court reiterated that quashing of FIR under Section 528 BNSS (analogous to Section 482 CrPC) is an exception and not the rule – At the stage of FIR the Court cannot evaluate disputed facts or determine whether allegations will ultimately result in conviction – Investigation must be permitted to proceed when allegations disclose cognizable offence [Paras 9–10].

Interpretation of Welfare Legislation – Purposive Construction – BUDS Act enacted as remedial legislation to curb innovative financial frauds and schemes designed to circumvent regulatory oversight – Court held that interpretation must be purposive and expansive to address evolving cyber-enabled financial schemes rather than confined to traditional cash deposit models [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – FIR in Crime No.25 of 2026 under Sections 21(1) and 21(2) of BUDS Act upheld – Investigation permitted to proceed – Observations made confined only to adjudication under Section 528 BNSS and shall not affect merits of trial.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheque – “Account Blocked / Debit Freeze” – Maintainability of prosecution under Section 138 – Petitioners issued cheque for ₹41 lakhs to complainant relating to breach of No-Pre-EMI scheme in housing project – Cheque presented after police ordered debit freezing of company’s bank account in connection with criminal investigation – Bank returned cheque with endorsement “Account blocked situation covered in 2125” – Held: Dishonour occurred due to statutory freezing of account and not due to insufficiency of funds – Where drawer has no control or authority over account at time of presentation, essential ingredients of Section 138 are not satisfied – Proceedings liable to be quashed [Paras 6-12].

Section 138 NI Act – Requirement that cheque must be drawn on “account maintained by the drawer” – Meaning of expression – For offence to arise, drawer must have operational control over bank account at time cheque becomes payable – If account is frozen or attached by statutory authority or court order, the drawer cannot operate or maintain the account – In such circumstances dishonour cannot be attributed to voluntary act of drawer – Prosecution under Section 138 not sustainable [Paras 8-11].

Cheque Dishonour – Reason “Account Blocked” – Distinction from “Insufficient Funds” – RBI clearing regulations classify return codes where payment stopped due to attachment or legal restriction – Such return does not indicate failure of drawer to maintain funds – Where dishonour arises from attachment or freezing of account beyond drawer’s control, criminal liability under Section 138 cannot be invoked [Para 11].

Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Exercise of inherent jurisdiction – Court found that cheque was issued when account was operative and freeze order was passed later during police investigation – Petitioners were unaware of freezing at time of replying to statutory notice – Continuing prosecution despite absence of statutory ingredients would result in miscarriage of justice – Hence proceedings in cheque case quashed [Paras 10-12].

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – Proceedings in C.C. No.1446 of 2025 pending before XIII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act quashed.

Motor Accident Compensation – Proof of Negligence – Delay in FIR – Insurance Company challenged involvement of insured vehicle citing 12-day delay in FIR and discrepancies between MLC and eyewitness testimony – High Court held that delay in FIR alone cannot be treated as fatal where police investigation culminated in filing of charge-sheet and evidence on record supports occurrence of accident – Mere discrepancy in history recorded in MLC, especially when injured was unconscious, cannot discredit claimant’s case – Tribunal’s finding on negligence upheld [Paras 24-32].

Motor Accident Claims – Standard of Proof – Balance of Probabilities – Court reiterated that proceedings before MACT are not governed by strict rules of evidence and negligence is to be established on the basis of preponderance of probabilities rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt – Filing of charge-sheet in criminal proceedings may itself support a finding of negligence in MACT proceedings [Paras 23, 27-28].

Evidence – Eyewitness Testimony – Minor Inconsistencies – Eye-witness admitted inability to read English alphabets forming part of vehicle registration number but consistently narrated circumstances of accident and could identify numerical digits – Such discrepancy insufficient to discard entire testimony particularly when supported by police investigation and surrounding circumstances [Paras 25-26].

Motor Accident Compensation – Assessment of Income – Income Tax Returns – Tribunal relied upon latest ITR filed after accident to determine income – High Court held that where latest return reflects abnormal variation, income should be assessed on average of preceding returns – Annual income recalculated on average basis leading to modification of compensation under loss of income and loss of future earnings [Paras 47-52].

Compensation – Attendant Charges – Multiplier Method – Where claimant suffers profound disability and requires continuous assistance for daily activities, attendant charges may be calculated using minimum wages and multiplier method – Award upheld as consistent with principles laid down by Supreme Court [Paras 43-45].

Compensation – Non-Pecuniary Damages – Pain, Suffering and Loss of Amenities – Considering severe traumatic brain injury, prolonged hospitalization and permanent disability affecting physical, cognitive and behavioural functioning, High Court upheld substantial compensation for pain and suffering and enhanced amount awarded for loss of amenities of life [Paras 54-55].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Enhancement of Compensation – Even in absence of cross-appeal or cross-objection by claimant, High Court may enhance compensation if evidence justifies higher award to ensure just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act [Para 60].

Interest on Compensation – Period During Dismissal for Default – Claim petition had remained dismissed for default for a period before restoration – Court held that interest from date of filing of claim petition need not be curtailed where claimant’s medical condition reasonably explains delay in prosecution of proceedings [Paras 56-58].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Tribunal’s award modified – Total compensation enhanced from ₹1,25,35,440/- to ₹1,25,84,913/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from date of filing of claim petition – Insurance Company directed to deposit enhanced amount with Tribunal for disbursement as per existing disbursement scheme.

Criminal Law – Murder of Minor Child – Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence – Trial Court convicted accused under Sections 302 and 201 IPC for allegedly murdering a 4½-year-old boy after administering liquor and abandoning him in a marshy land – Prosecution relied mainly on the circumstance that the child was last seen entering the verandah of the accused’s house – High Court held that the testimony of PW2, the sole witness to the “last seen” circumstance, was unreliable as he failed to disclose the fact to anyone immediately despite participating in the search for the missing child – Held: Prosecution failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances pointing exclusively to the guilt of the accused – Conviction unsustainable – Benefit of doubt to the accused [Paras 18-21, 35].

Evidence – “Last Seen Together” Theory – Reliability of Sole Witness – PW2 claimed to have seen the deceased child entering the accused’s house shortly before the child went missing – However, PW2 did not disclose this fact to the child’s family members, neighbours, or even to his own wife (PW3) while participating in the search on the same day – Such non-disclosure of a crucial fact at the earliest opportunity rendered his testimony suspicious – Held: Evidence of PW2 unsafe to rely upon without independent corroboration [Paras 18-20].

Circumstantial Evidence – Principles Governing Conviction – In cases resting solely on circumstantial evidence, each circumstance must be fully established and must form a complete chain leading only to the hypothesis of guilt of the accused – Circumstances proved must exclude every possible hypothesis consistent with innocence – Failure to establish such a complete chain entitles the accused to benefit of doubt [Paras 11-12, 35].

Evidence – False Explanation by Accused – Accused left workplace stating that he was attending a function at his wife’s house which was later found to be false – Held: Mere falsity of explanation or conduct alone cannot be treated as a decisive circumstance to prove guilt in the absence of other incriminating evidence linking the accused to the crime [Paras 23-25].

Criminal Law – Motive – Alleged Sexual Abuse – Prosecution alleged that accused committed unnatural sexual assault on the child before murdering him – However, medical and chemical examination revealed no signs of sexual assault and nothing incriminating was detected – Held: Alleged motive remained unproved, weakening the prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence [Para 26].

Evidence – Recovery of Articles – Tyre allegedly used by the child recovered from accused’s compound more than eight months after the incident and not pursuant to disclosure under Section 27 Evidence Act – Recovery from an open place near houses in a populated locality carries little evidentiary value and does not connect the accused with the offence [Para 27].

Evidence – Recovery of Liquor Bottles and Purchase of Liquor – Liquor bottles recovered from an open marshy land prior to arrest of the accused and not at his instance – Evidence of PW28 that accused purchased liquor doubtful as thousands of customers visited the shop daily – Even if purchase proved, it does not establish that the accused administered liquor to the child – Circumstance too weak to connect the accused with the crime [Paras 28-30].

Forensic Evidence – Bloodstains and Recovered Dhoti – Scientific examination detected blood on seized dhoti and samples collected from accused’s house, but origin of blood could not be determined due to insufficient quantity – In absence of proof that the blood was human or belonged to the deceased, forensic evidence does not advance the prosecution case [Paras 32-34].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – To be released forthwith if not required in any other case.