Civil Law - Land Revenue Act – Delay Condonation – Appeal Filed After 24 Years – Quashing Sought – Delay Condonation Upheld – Petitioner challenged condonation of 24-year delay in appeal against mutation order – Court found that petitioner had actively participated in appeal proceedings post-revisional order – Once petitioner accepted revisional direction and appeared before appellate authority, he could not later challenge the same order without disclosing participation – Held: Petition dismissed due to suppression of material facts and conduct unbecoming of a litigant invoking extraordinary jurisdiction [Paras 24–26, 31].

Writ Jurisdiction – Suppression of Material Facts – Petitioner Approached Court with Unclean Hands – Petition Dismissed – Petitioner failed to disclose that he had participated in proceedings before Appellate Court from 18.08.2022 to 04.11.2023 – Held: Writ remedy being equitable, discretionary relief cannot be granted to a litigant who deliberately misleads the Court – Court dismissed the writ petition and imposed exemplary costs [Paras 25–30, 34–35].

Parallel Proceedings – Abuse of Process – Invoking Article 226 While Participating in Lower Court Proceedings – Impermissible – Petitioner challenged revisional and appellate orders in writ jurisdiction while simultaneously pursuing proceedings before the appellate forum – This amounted to forum shopping and abuse of judicial process – Held: Dual remedies on same cause of action not maintainable when material facts are suppressed [Paras 24, 34].

Exemplary Costs – Misuse of Constitutional Remedy – ₹20,000 Imposed for Abuse of Process – In view of calculated concealment and misuse of Court’s process, the Court imposed ₹20,000 costs on the petitioner to be deposited in the Advocate’s Welfare Fund – Intended to deter dishonest litigants and uphold sanctity of writ jurisdiction [Para 34].

Final Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Costs Imposed – No Relief Granted – Court found that petitioner suppressed critical information and tried to mislead the Court – Petition dismissed with ₹20,000 costs – Observed that petitioner was not entitled to any discretionary relief under Article 226 [Para 35].

Taxation Law - Section 32AB Deduction – Profits to be Determined as per Audited Accounts under Companies Act – Additional Sugarcane Price Paid After Year-End Not to be Deducted – The assessee claimed 20% deduction under Section 32AB based on profits shown in the audited Profit & Loss Account as per the Companies Act, without reducing the additional sugarcane price paid after closing of accounts – The Assessing Officer reduced the said amount from the profit for Section 32AB, but the Court held that Section 32AB(3) specifically mandates that profits must be taken as per audited accounts under Parts II & III of Schedule VI, Companies Act, and not as per computation under the Income Tax Act – Held: The assessee’s method of claiming deduction is correct, and the additional sugarcane price paid after year-end cannot be reduced from profits for Section 32AB computation [Paras 1-3, 16-28, 31-32].

Consistency in Accounting – No Revenue Loss from Consistent Practice – The Court observed that the assessee’s consistent practice of deducting additional cane price in the subsequent year’s profits led to no revenue loss, as the deduction evened out over time – The Revenue’s objection for only one year was found unsustainable [Paras 16, 31].

Interpretation of Section 32AB – Reliance on Judicial Precedent – The judgment relied on precedents including Jindal Aluminium Ltd. (Karnataka HC), Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., and Apollo Tyres Ltd. (Supreme Court) to reiterate that profits as per audited accounts under the Companies Act alone must be considered for Section 32AB deduction – Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to alter profits except as permitted under the statute [Paras 20-28].

Distinction from Tasgaon Taluka SSK Ltd. and Parry Agro Industries Ltd. – Inapplicability of Cited Cases – The cases cited by the Revenue addressed different issues and did not apply to the methodology for computation under Section 32AB [Paras 29-30].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Orders of Assessing Officer, CIT(A), and ITAT Set Aside – Question of Law Answered in Favour of Assessee – The Court held that deduction under Section 32AB must be based on profits as per audited accounts, without adjustment for additional sugarcane price paid after year-end – Appeal allowed, impugned orders set aside [Paras 31-33].

Criminal Law - Appeal Against Conviction – Robbery, Use of Deadly Weapon, and Recovery – Section 394/397/411/34 IPC & Section 25 Arms Act – Conviction Upheld – The appellant challenged his conviction for robbery and allied offences, arguing improper recovery, lack of proof of mobile phone ownership, and misapplication of Section 397 IPC in conjunction with Section 34 – The Court found that consistent and credible ocular testimony of the complainant (PW-5) and the injured witness (PW-7), supported by medical evidence and recovery of weapon and property, established the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt – The specific role of inflicting stab injury was attributed to the appellant, and evidence remained unshaken in cross-examination – Held: Conviction and sentence upheld [Paras 2-10, 11, 13].

Section 397 IPC – Applicability and Use of Deadly Weapon – Legal Principles Restated – The Court reaffirmed that use of a deadly weapon, even during escape with stolen property, attracts Section 397 IPC, as per established precedent in Asif v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2022 SCC OnLine Del 270 – The sequence of events, including the stabbing during the course of robbery and escape, squarely attracted Section 397 – Section 397 can operate even if co-accused actually snatched the property, where the appellant used the weapon to facilitate the offence [Para 10].

Reduction of Sentence – No Leniency Warranted in Light of Past Convictions and Gravity – The appellant’s plea for reduction of sentence to the statutory minimum was rejected – The Court noted the appellant’s previous convictions and involvement in other pending cases – Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, and the absence of mitigating factors, no interference with sentence was warranted – Prayer for reduction of sentence rejected [Paras 11-12].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and Sentence Affirmed – The appeal was dismissed; conviction and order on sentence were upheld – Directions issued for compliance by jail authorities and trial court [Paras 13-14].

NDPS Bail – Sections 21, 25, 29 of the NDPS - Recovery of Intermediate Quantity of Heroine – Section 37 Not Attracted – Bail Granted – Petitioner was arrested for alleged possession of 100 grams of heroin, an intermediate quantity – Co-accused implicated her through disclosure statement – Held: Section 37 NDPS not applicable to intermediate quantity – Bail granted considering long custody, parity with co-accused, and absence of need for further investigation [Paras 2, 14, 24-26].

Disclosure Statement – Limited Evidentiary Value – Arrest Based on Co-accused’s Statement – The applicant’s arrest was based on a disclosure statement of co-accused without independent corroboration – Held: Sole reliance on disclosure without further investigation cannot justify prolonged incarceration – Custodial interrogation no longer required [Paras 13-14, 24-25].

Procedural Safeguards – Violation of Sections 42, 50 and 57 NDPS Act Alleged – Petitioner alleged multiple procedural lapses, including improper communication of grounds of arrest and non-compliance with Section 50 NDPS – Held: These contentions merit consideration at trial – Not decisive for rejecting bail at this stage [Paras 4-10].

Parity and Discrimination – Co-accused Already Released – Petitioner Entitled to Bail – Co-accused with similar or lesser recovery granted bail – Held: Applicant cannot be treated differently in absence of compelling distinguishing factors – Parity principle applicable [Para 24].

Prolonged Custody – No Need for Further Investigation – Chargesheet Filed – Bail Justified – Petitioner in custody since 26.04.2024 – No fresh recovery required and investigation substantially completed – Held: Further incarceration unnecessary and would amount to pre-trial punishment [Paras 2, 11, 24-26].

Final Order – Bail Granted – Subject to Conditions – Court granted bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 35,000/- with surety and imposed conditions including attendance in Court, no tampering with evidence, and residence verification [Para 26].

Civil Law - Representative Suit – Conversion After 21 Years – Writ Petition Allowed – Association of retired employees filed suit in 2004 seeking multiple pensionary benefits under Vysya Bank Employees’ Pension Regulations, 1995 for members retired under VRS 2002—In 2024, plaintiffs applied under Order I Rule 8 CPC to convert into representative suit—Trial court allowed, terming lack of initial compliance a curable procedural defect—High Court quashed order, holding that (i) no public notice issued to all interested as mandated, (ii) application filed after conclusion of arguments and reservation of judgment constituted inordinate, prejudicial delay, and (iii) members’ grievances were diverse, defeating requirement of common interest—Directed trial court to conclude long-pending suit within 4 weeks [Paras 10-14].

Order I Rule 8 CPC – Mandatory Preconditions – Court emphasised statutory requirement of prior permission and notice to all interested persons—Violation renders representative character invalid; cannot be cured post-reservation of judgment when diverse claims exist [Paras 10-12].

Delay and Prejudice – Filing application after two decades and at stage of judgment reservation shows indolence; allowing would cause grave prejudice and indefinite prolongation [Paras 11-12].

Decision – Writ petition allowed; trial court’s order dated 15.02.2025 in I.A. No. 1/2024 quashed; application under Order I Rule 8 CPC dismissed; trial court directed to deliver judgment in O.S. No. 8105/2004 within 4 weeks [Para 14].

Civil Writ - Panchayat Election – Sole Nomination – Election Process Frustrated – Petition Dismissed – Election to President of Nalluru Gram Panchayat was scheduled for 21.07.2025—Only petitioner submitted nomination, but Prescribed Election Officer failed to attend and no scrutiny or further process occurred—Some members could not submit nominations due to officer’s absence—State issued fresh calendar for 06.08.2025—High Court held that election process never commenced and stood frustrated due to Prescribed Officer’s conduct; declaration of petitioner as elected untenable; fresh poll justified [Paras 1-6].

Nomination Procedure – Mandatory Compliance – Nomination must be filed with Prescribed Election Officer—Submission to unauthorised officer invalid; absence of scrutiny and withdrawal stages vitiated process [Paras 2, 5].

Right to Contest – Fresh Election – Court clarified that all eligible candidates, including petitioner, may file nominations for rescheduled poll [Para 7].

Decision – Writ petition dismissed; State’s decision to hold fresh election upheld [Paras 6-7].

Civil Writ - PIL - Solid Waste Processing – Prayer for Shifting Refused – Compliance with SWM Rules, 2016 Upheld – Petitioners sought direction to relocate waste processing activities of PCB and PMC at Hadapsar Industrial Estate, alleging pollution, foul odour, health hazards, and violation of previous governmental directions – Held: Processing facilities at the site are in accordance with the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 and the State Government’s order dated 11.09.2018 – No mandatory order exists to shift or close processing at the current site – Petitioners’ reliance on direction for exploration of alternative site held only recommendatory, not binding – Shifting of all waste processing outside city limits not feasible for urban agglomerations like Pune – Existing facilities to continue with safeguards [Paras 21, 44-47, 55-56, 60-61].

Interpretation of State and Court Directions – Secretary, UDD’s Order of 11.09.2018 – Suitability for Waste Processing – After expert review and site visit, Secretary, UDD held the entire 28-acre land suitable for solid waste processing but prohibited further open dumping of mixed waste – Scientific processing, composting, bio-mining, and capping of legacy waste mandated – Direction to “look for alternative site” held as long-term recommendation, not as immediate order for relocation – Mere non-implementation of exploratory direction does not vitiate ongoing authorized operations [Paras 41-44, 45, 55-56].

Legal Duties of Local Bodies – Waste Management within City Limits – Under Rule 11(f) & Rule 15 of SWM Rules, 2016, local bodies must establish waste processing/disposal facilities for each area of 20 sq. km – Complete removal of all such facilities from city limits neither practical nor required under law – Mandate is to ensure scientific processing, compliance with environmental safeguards, and avoidance of mixed waste dumping – Individual inconvenience or ‘not in my backyard’ syndrome cannot override statutory duty for citywide waste management [Paras 29-31, 45-47].

Role of Pollution Control Board and Oversight – Authorization and Monitoring by MPCB – Facility authorized by Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) with compliance to SWM Rules, 2016 – MPCB to monitor strict adherence to conditions, and to take legal action in case of any violation – No challenge to MPCB authorization in current petitions – Ongoing operation of facility remains subject to continuous regulatory compliance [Paras 33, 40, 57, 61(v)].

Joint Use by PCB and PMC – Validity of Collaboration – No legal bar against PCB and PMC jointly using the Hadapsar site for waste processing – Site within PMC limits but under PCB control; mutual arrangement to treat waste from both authorities found legal and longstanding – Petitioners’ objection to joint use rejected [Paras 53-54].

Safeguards and Environmental Protections – Directions to Minimize Health Impact – Both PCB and PMC directed to strictly prevent dumping of mixed waste and to ensure scientific processing, composting, and proper disposal of residual waste – Both bodies must adopt all feasible modern measures (including odour/dust suppression, enclosure, fogging/misting, increased boundary wall, etc.) to protect public health and minimize nuisance – Court issues further directions for compliance with SWM Rules, 2016 and State Government’s order dated 11.09.2018 [Paras 48-52, 59-61].

Decision – Relief for Shifting Facility Rejected – Both writ petitions and PIL dismissed – Prayer for shifting the waste processing facility from Hadapsar Industrial Estate to an alternate site refused – Directions issued for scientific and compliant management of facility, with liberty to PCB/PMC to seek more land if needed [Paras 60-62].

Tenancy Law - Rent Control Act – Executability of Eviction Decree – Multinational Company Sub-lessee – Jurisdiction Upheld – The petitioner, a multinational company, challenged the execution of eviction decrees on the ground that premises were exempt under Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 – Held: The exemption is qua the premises let or sub-let lawfully – In the absence of lawful subletting, and where tenancy was terminated due to non-user and subletting by original tenant, the Small Causes Court retained jurisdiction – Executing Court rightly refused to declare decree null and void [Paras 6.4, 6.8, 31-35, 38-39].

Execution – Scope of Challenge – Nullity of Decree – Limited Grounds – The Court reiterated that executing courts can declare a decree null and void only when there is inherent lack of jurisdiction – Held: In this case, decree was passed by a court having jurisdiction over landlord-tenant matters – Petitioner is barred from changing stance post-decree execution proceedings – No inherent lack of jurisdiction found [Paras 16-18, 39-40].

Tenant and Sub-tenant – Contradictory Stand – Estoppel – Petitioner Denied Protection Under Rent Act, Then Claimed Exemption – Not Permissible – Before the Trial Court, the petitioner had denied being in exclusive possession and claimed protection under the Rent Act – Later, in execution proceedings, sought to argue that the Act does not apply – Held: Petitioner estopped from raising contrary plea at belated stage – Such volte-face undermines judicial process [Paras 11, 33-34].

Interpretation – Exemption Under Section 3(1)(b) – Applies to Lawfully Let or Sub-let Premises – Cannot Be Used to Circumvent Rent Act – Held: Section 3(1)(b) applies only to premises let or sub-let lawfully – Allowing unlawful subletting to invoke exemption would render protections of the Rent Act meaningless – Such interpretation rejected [Paras 36-38].

Decision – Petitions Dismissed – Executing Court Order Sustained – Writ Petitions dismissed – No interference warranted with orders upholding decree and possession warrants – Rule discharged with no order as to costs [Paras 41-42].

Matrimonial Law - Partition of Matrimonial Property – Order 12 Rule 6 CPC – Judgment on Admissions – Appeal Dismissed – Husband’s application for preliminary decree allowed by Family Court on basis of admission in wife’s written statement that suit property was jointly purchased – Sale deed reflected joint ownership without specified shares – Held: Admission was categorical; vague claims of higher contribution unsupported by evidence cannot override statutory presumption of equal shares under Section 45 TPA – No trial necessary on ownership issue [Paras 16-18].

PWDV Act – Right to Reside in Shared Household – Scope – Wife’s plea to resist partition citing Section 17 PWDV Act rejected – Court held right of residence is not absolute and does not bar lawful partition by co-owner – Statutory protection intended to prevent unlawful eviction, not to confer greater proprietary rights than ownership share – Financially independent spouse cannot indefinitely block partition on “shared household” claim [Paras 19-22].

Equitable Considerations – Court noted husband’s bona fide offer to pay wife ₹4 crore or provide alternative residence – Wife’s insistence on exclusive possession unjustified in law and equity – Purpose of partition suit is to secure each co-owner’s enjoyment of their share [Para 27].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Preliminary decree of equal ownership upheld – Observations confined to present appeal and not to affect merits of other pending proceedings [Paras 28-30].