Civil Law – Ownership and Possession – Adverse Possession – Article 65, Limitation Act, 1963 – Plaintiff inherited property from her deceased husband – Defendant, plaintiff’s sister, claimed ownership based on alleged gift and alternatively adverse possession since 1971 – Mutation Entry No.49 showing defendant’s name cancelled in 1984 after inquiry revealed no gift deed or plaintiff’s consent – Held: Defendant failed to prove gift or ownership – Pleas of ownership and adverse possession being mutually inconsistent, adverse possession not established – Possession of defendant was unauthorized – Plaintiff entitled to recover possession [Paras 17–20, 30–33].

Limitation – Starting Point of Limitation – Article 65, Limitation Act – Limitation for suit based on title begins from date when defendant’s possession becomes adverse, not from date of ownership of plaintiff – Defendant’s possession never became adverse as she claimed to be owner under a gift – Hence, no commencement of limitation period – Suit filed in 1987, within limitation, based on plaintiff’s knowledge on 26.03.1984 of mutation entry – Findings of lower courts upheld [Paras 16, 20, 32].

Plea of Adverse Possession – Essentials – Defendant claiming adverse possession must plead (a) date of entry into possession, (b) nature of possession, (c) knowledge of true owner, (d) continuity, and (e) openness and hostility – Mere possession or mutation entry does not confer title – “Animus possidendi” under hostile colour of title required – Long possession or casual occupation does not constitute adverse possession [Paras 21–24, 26, 29].

Legal Principles – Article 65 and Section 27 of Limitation Act – Once title of true owner is proved, burden shifts to defendant to establish perfection of title by adverse possession – Unless adverse possession for 12 years is proved, plaintiff’s right to recover possession remains absolute – Applied principles from Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India, (2004) 10 SCC 779; Saroop Singh v. Banto, (2005) 8 SCC 330; Krishnamurthy Setlur v. O.V. Narasimha Setty, (2007) 3 SCC 569; Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur, (2019) 8 SCC 729 [Paras 21–29].

Decision – Defendant failed to establish gift or adverse possession – Possession held unauthorized – No interference warranted – Second Appeal dismissed [Para 33].

Family Law – Return of Gold Ornaments/Istridhan – Recovery Claim – Marriage Gifts – Wife claimed 65 sovereigns of gold ornaments were entrusted to husband and in-laws – Family Court allowed recovery of 52.955 sovereigns or value thereof – Held: Photographs and evidence proved possession of at least 53 sovereigns – Admission of husband inconsistent – Decree modified to return 45 sovereigns or market value as on date of recovery [Paras 2–10, 12]

Evidence – Documentary Evidence – Admissibility of Invoices – Appellants challenged admissibility of Exts. A6–A8 (jewellery invoices) citing non-compliance with VAT Rules – Held: Non-compliance may entail tax consequences but does not per se make document inadmissible in matrimonial litigation – Documents marked through shop owner PW2 found credible [Paras 7, 10]

Civil Procedure – Discretion to Award Alternate Relief – Market Value of Gold – Rule 7 of Order VII CPC permits court to grant general or alternative relief not specifically prayed for – Held: Where gold not returned, Family Court can direct payment of value at prevailing market rate as on date of payment – No bar on such relief in matrimonial proceedings [Para 12]

Family Law – Cross Objection by Wife – Court rejected claim for 12 sovereigns for lack of evidence – Wife failed to examine any relatives who allegedly gifted that portion of gold – Cross-objection allowed in part – Decree confined to 45 sovereigns only [Paras 4, 10]

Decision: Appeal and cross objection partly allowed – Appellants directed to return 45 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the respondent within one month – On failure to return, respondent entitled to recover prevailing market value of 45 sovereigns as on the date of actual recovery – No interest to be awarded.

Civil Procedure – Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – Appeal against concurrent findings of trial and first appellate courts granting injunction against encroachment on Abadi Deh land – Held: No substantial question of law involved – High Court cannot interfere with pure findings of fact unless perverse or unsupported by evidence – Appeal dismissed [Paras 12–13].

Property Law – Abadi Deh Land – Ownership and Possession – Plaintiff proved ownership of Khasra No. 44 and joint proprietary rights in Abadi Deh land (Khasra No. 54) – Site plan and oral evidence proved encroachment by defendants on portion marked ‘ABCD’ – Defendants violated compromise to measure land before construction – Held: Plaintiff entitled to protection and restoration of possession [Paras 8–10].

Injunction – Prohibitory and Mandatory Injunction – Plaintiff initially sought only permanent injunction, but replication raised issue of ongoing illegal construction – Court exercised power under Order VII Rule 7 CPC to mould relief – Held: Mandatory injunction justified where encroachment proved and issue raised during trial – No prejudice caused to defendants [Para 11].

Pleadings and Evidence – Credibility of Witnesses – Defendants’ witnesses gave inconsistent evidence and contradicted own pleadings – Plaintiff’s witnesses supported site plan and compromise – Held: Trial court rightly relied on consistent and trustworthy plaintiff evidence – No error found in appreciation of facts [Paras 9–10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No substantial question of law arises – Concurrent findings upheld – Plaintiff’s entitlement to permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction affirmed – Pending applications also disposed of.

Criminal Law – Rape – Consent – Relationship Between Accused and Victim Found Consensual – Allegations of Drugging Not Substantiated – Appeal Against Acquittal Dismissed – Appellant challenged acquittal of accused under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 376(d), 120-B, 342, 506 IPC and Section 67 IT Act – FIR filed 9 months after alleged incident – Prior similar complaint against accused withdrawn – Medical report (Ex.P-21) recorded no signs of recent sexual assault and noted prior consensual sexual relationship – Photographs revealed voluntary association – Held: Prosecution version inconsistent and contradicted by medical, electronic and testimonial evidence – Relationship was consensual – No grounds to interfere with acquittal [Paras 5–8, 15–16, 25, 33–35, 43–46]

Criminal Procedure – Delay in Lodging FIR – No Justifiable Explanation – Delay Casts Doubt on Credibility of Prosecution Case – FIR lodged on 11.11.2021 for incident allegedly occurring between 06.02.2021 to 08.02.2021 – No satisfactory explanation for delay even after hospital discharge on 24.02.2021 – Delay unexplained even after discounting COVID-19 period – Held: Unexplained delay fatal to prosecution case and indicative of afterthought [Paras 17–18, 39, 41]

Criminal Procedure – Leave to Appeal Against Acquittal – Principles for Interference – Appellate Court Should Not Interfere Unless Trial Court’s View Is Perverse or Unreasonable – Citing Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 – Held: No two views possible – Trial Court rightly appreciated evidence – No compelling reason for interference with acquittal [Para 46]

Digital and Forensic Evidence – Electronic Evidence and Medical Reports Do Not Support Allegations – Consent Evident from Victim’s Own Statement and Conduct – Victim admitted in MLC (Ex.P-21) to 10-month friendship and 9-month physical relationship with accused – No evidence of forcible violation or use of sedatives in MLC – Forensic report found no human sperm on seized items – Photographs showed intimacy – Held: Circumstances negate allegation of rape or conspiracy [Paras 14, 25, 30, 43–44]

Decision: Leave to appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC rejected – Appeal under Section 41 BNSS dismissed – Acquittal of all accused upheld.

Service Law – Age of Superannuation – NTC Employee – Validity of Reduction in Retirement Age – Petitioner, a mill-grade employee of Model Mills (taken over by NTC), challenged superannuation at age 58, claiming his retirement age was 60 – Labour Court and Industrial Court rejected complaint holding employer had legal authority to reduce retirement age to 58 – Writ Court upheld concurrent findings, relying on NTC Rules, 1985 and Section 14 of the Nationalisation Act, 1974 – Held: NTC validly altered conditions of service, including retirement age – No unfair labour practice established [Paras 2.3, 3, 6–8, 10].

Labour Law – MRTU & PULP Act – Complaint Under Item 1 of Schedule IV – Illegal Termination – Not Made Out – Superannuation notice challenged as illegal termination – Labour Court held notice was legal as per service rules – Revision by employee dismissed by Industrial Court – Writ Court concurred with lower courts and held action of employer did not amount to unfair labour practice [Paras 3, 4, 10].

Interpretation of Service Rules – Applicability of NTC Rules, 1985 – Whether Agreement with Union Overrides Rules – Petitioner relied on past agreement between Model Mills and Union to claim retirement age of 60 – Court held such an agreement was not an industry-wise agreement under Rule 2.3 of NTC Rules – Held: Agreement confined to one establishment cannot override NTC Rules applicable post-nationalisation [Paras 7–8].

Binding Precedent – Reliance on Division Bench Decision in Vasant Sheshrao Kale (2010 (3) Mh.L.J. 610) – Issue squarely covered by binding precedent holding that NTC validly altered age of superannuation through statutory rules – Petition devoid of merit in light of precedent and concurrent findings of fact [Paras 6–8, 10].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – No error found in concurrent findings of Labour Court and Industrial Court – No unfair labour practice or illegal termination established – Rule discharged, no costs awarded [Para 10, Order].

Excise Law – Illegal Transportation of Liquor – Acquittal – Accused intercepted while allegedly transporting 55 cartons of country liquor without permit – Prosecution relied solely on police testimony as independent witness turned hostile – Photographer did not confirm seizure proceedings – No photographs of search or sealing of liquor bottles produced – Held: Serious procedural lapses and contradictions in prosecution version created reasonable doubt – Acquittal by Trial Court upheld [Paras 6, 17, 19, 22].

Criminal Procedure – Appeal Against Acquittal – Interference by Appellate Court – Reaffirmation of legal principles that interference is warranted only if trial court’s view is perverse, based on misreading of evidence, or if no other conclusion except guilt is possible – Held: Trial court’s evaluation of evidence was plausible and based on contradictions and lack of independent corroboration – Appeal dismissed [Paras 12, 13, 23].

Witness Credibility – Hostile Witness – Independent witness denied witnessing seizure and stated he signed on police request – Police failed to examine any other neutral witnesses despite the seizure occurring at a public bus stand – Held: Non-association of independent witnesses and hostile testimony cast doubt on fairness of investigation – Prosecution case not proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 20–22].

Contradictory Testimony – Chain of Events Not Plausible – Rukka, site plan, and officer testimonies conflicted on number of officials chasing vehicle and their mode of travel – Motorcycle could not carry four police personnel – Discrepancies undermined the reliability of prosecution story – No clear evidence of actual seizure at the stated spot [Paras 15–17].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal affirmed – Trial Court’s judgment found to be a reasonable view based on gaps in evidence, contradictions, and lack of corroboration – High Court declined to interfere under settled principles of appellate review against acquittal.

Labour Law – Territorial Jurisdiction – MRTU & PULP Act – Situs of Employment – Cause of Action – Head Office as Nerve Centre – GlaxoSmithKline Impliedly Overruled – The Division Bench of this Court in GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. held that the situs of the employee’s employment alone governs territorial jurisdiction – Held: This view stands impliedly overruled by the later Supreme Court decisions in Nandram v. Garware Polyester Ltd. and Rakesh Kumar Verma v. HDFC Bank Ltd. – The cause of action also arises where the head or corporate office took the impugned decision, issued appointment, transfer or termination orders, or paid salary – The situs test alone cannot determine jurisdiction – both the situs and the place of managerial decision are relevant [Paras 90–107, 111–112, 147].

Doctrine of Implied Overruling – Effect of Later Supreme Court Decision – A later, inconsistent Supreme Court decision operates as an implied overruling of an earlier High Court ruling – Following S.E. Graphites Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Telangana and C.N. Rudramurthy v. K. Barkhatullah Khan – The decision in GlaxoSmithKline is inconsistent with Nandram and Rakesh Kumar Verma and is therefore impliedly overruled [Paras 83–91].

Industrial Adjudication – Applicability of CPC Principles – Territorial Jurisdiction – Although the Code of Civil Procedure is not directly applicable to labour adjudication, its principles concerning accrual of cause of action and concurrent jurisdiction are relevant – Section 20 CPC can guide determination of jurisdiction where part of the cause arises – Industrial disputes may give rise to concurrent jurisdiction in more than one State [Paras 108–136].

Concurrent Jurisdiction – Cause of Action Arising at Multiple Places – When part of the cause of action arises within Maharashtra (where the head or corporate office is located) and part outside (where the employee is posted), both courts have jurisdiction – No extra-territorial application of the MRTU Act arises in such cases [Paras 106–109, 130].

Precedents – Interpretation of Earlier Rulings – Lalbhai Tricumlal Mills Ltd. – The decision is not an authority for the proposition that jurisdiction lies only at the employee’s situs – Read harmoniously with Laxman Baburao Repal v. Poona Labour Court and Workmen v. Rangavilas Motors (P) Ltd. to mean that the place where the dispute substantially arises, including the head office, may confer jurisdiction [Paras 117–122].

Judicial Discipline – Article 141 – Binding Nature of Supreme Court’s Law – High Courts are bound by Supreme Court pronouncements – If inconsistency exists, the High Court’s earlier contrary view stands impliedly overruled even if not expressly mentioned [Paras 88–89].

Waiver of Objection to Territorial Jurisdiction – Section 21 CPC – Objections as to territorial jurisdiction are technical and must be raised at the earliest stage; otherwise, they are deemed waived – Belated objections after prolonged proceedings are unsustainable without proof of prejudice [Paras 159–160, 205].

Labour Litigation – Delay and Prejudice – Employees were denied adjudication on merits for over 15 years due to technical objections on jurisdiction – Court deprecated such tactics and directed expeditious disposal within one year in each remanded case [Paras 158–160, 213].

Remand and Relief – Orders dismissing complaints for want of jurisdiction under GlaxoSmithKline set aside – Complaints restored for decision on merits – Employers directed to pay costs ranging from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- to the employees/unions [Paras 170–213].

Decision – GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Labour Court, Mumbai and decisions following it held impliedly overruled – Labour and Industrial Courts within Maharashtra have jurisdiction where part of the cause arises due to managerial decisions at head office – Appeals and writ petitions allowed; complaints restored; costs imposed; direction for decision within one year [Paras 161–214].

NDPS – Bail – Commercial Quantity – MDMA 70 gms – FSL positive – Twin conditions – Bail refused – Accused No.3 sought bail under Sec. 483 BNSS/439 CrPC for offences under Secs. 8(c), 21(c) & 22(c) NDPS – Court held seizure of 70 gms MDMA from petitioner established prima facie by mahazar and FSL report – Quantity is commercial – No grounds to believe petitioner not guilty nor that he would not commit offence on bail – Petition dismissed [Paras 7–9].

Delay/Procedure – Sec. 42 & Sec. 57 NDPS – At bail stage – Petitioner’s contentions that the seizing officer did not comply Sec. 57 and that Sec. 42 was not followed held to be matters for trial – Not determinative at bail stage when commercial quantity recovered [Para 8].

Factual Foundation – Arrest & Seizure – Petitioner arrested on 18.12.2024 – 70 gms MDMA and a mobile phone seized – Charge-sheet filed; case fixed for hearing – No criminal antecedents pleaded, but gravity and statutory rigour under Section 37 outweigh plea for bail [Paras 3, 4, 7–8].

Public Interest – Drug offences against society/youngsters – Court notes societal impact and likelihood of re-offending as factors against grant of bail in commercial quantity cases [Para 4].

Decision: Criminal petition dismissed – Bail refused [Para 9].

Constitution of India – Article 226 – Right to Know About FIR – Liberty to Approach Police – Petitioner's claim of FIRs based on online content attributed to him – Petitioner sought details of FIRs purportedly registered following publication of videos critical of the Chief Justice of India – State unable to confirm petitioner’s involvement based on social media links available – Held: Petitioner may furnish video details to Senior Superintendent of Police, SAS Nagar via email to ascertain FIR details – Writ petition disposed accordingly [Paras 2–6]

Criminal Law – Uncertain Accusation – Pre-emptive Remedy – FIR Not Confirmed Against Petitioner – State submitted that offensive content was under investigation but could not confirm identity of accused from social media links – No coercive action or named FIR against petitioner disclosed at this stage – No basis for further anticipatory relief – Petition for protection of liberty closed with liberty to verify with police [Paras 3–5]

Decision: Writ petition disposed – Petitioner at liberty to submit relevant social media content to Senior Superintendent of Police, SAS Nagar, to obtain details of any FIR registered – No costs.