Property Law - Jurisdiction of Deputy Registrar – Section 16A of Apartment Act – Delegation of Powers under MCS Act – Jurisdiction Upheld – Petitioners contended that the Deputy Registrar lacked authority under Section 16A of the Apartment Act, as no express delegation existed – Held: Notification dated 24.11.2021 issued under Section 3 of the MCS Act conferred powers of the Registrar on the District Deputy Registrar of Pune City – Hence, order dated 08.07.2021 passed by the Deputy Registrar was within jurisdiction [Paras 3.1, 4, 17].

Interpretation of Section 10 of Apartment Act – Common Maintenance Charges – Proportionate Contribution Mandated – Petitioners challenged the directive to pay maintenance based on apartment size – Held: Deed of Declaration dated 29.07.2011 and statutory provisions under Sections 6 and 10 of the Apartment Act require owners to bear common expenses in proportion to their undivided interest – The clause explicitly provides for sharing expenses based on unit size – Equal maintenance practice by resolution is contrary to law and cannot override statute or registered deed [Paras 6-12, 14-17].

Validity of Deed of Declaration – Binding Nature of Registered Instruments – Obligation of Apartment Owners – Held: Deed of Declaration and Supplementary Deed are binding on all owners – Covenant in clause 8(XVIII) of the Declaration clearly provides a formula for sharing expenses based on area and contribution to maintenance corpus fund – Registered instrument must prevail unless modified through another registered document – Members cannot escape obligations under the Deed or the Apartment Act [Paras 6-9, 11, 14].

Equality Argument – Larger Flat Owners Not Entitled to Equal Charges – Rejected – Petitioners contended that larger flat owners did not enjoy more benefits in common areas – Held: Argument untenable – Larger apartments have greater value and higher undivided share; statutory scheme mandates proportionate contribution – Equal maintenance collection historically practiced cannot negate statutory obligation [Paras 10-12, 16-17].

Condonation of Prior Resolutions – Estoppel and Practice – No Defence Against Statutory Compliance – Petitioners argued that the general body resolutions permitted equal charges – Held: Past practice or resolutions cannot override provisions of the Apartment Act – Registered Deed of Declaration and statutory mandate must be followed – Petitioners have benefited from previous inequality but cannot now resist legal compliance [Paras 13, 15, 17].

Final Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Orders of Deputy Registrar and Co-operative Court Upheld – Held: Both orders dated 08.07.2021 and 13.05.2022 are reasoned and consistent with the Apartment Act and the Deed of Declaration – Writ Petition fails – No interference warranted [Paras 17-19].

Civil Law – Mandatory Injunction and Mesne Profits – Licensee Status – Appeal Dismissed - Plaintiff-respondent filed suit for mandatory injunction directing appellant to vacate premises and recovery of mesne profits – Appellant inducted as licensee by license deed dated 06.08.2014 at ₹1,800 per month – Continued unauthorized possession after expiry of license – Compromise executed on 07.11.2017 (Ex.P4) where appellant agreed to vacate by 31.12.2019 and pay enhanced compensation of ₹2,500 per month – Appellant alleged tenancy rights and claimed license deed and compromise obtained by fraud on blank papers – Both Trial and First Appellate Courts concurrently found appellant was licensee who failed to substantiate allegations of fraud and tenancy rights – Appeal dismissed holding appellant liable to vacate and pay mesne profits from date of suit till possession handed over – Held: Concurrent findings upheld, no substantial question of law arises; appeal without merit [Paras 3-11].

Decision – Regular Second Appeal Dismissed – No Substantial Question of Law – Appellant's claim of tenancy and allegations of fraudulent execution of license deed rejected by both Courts below. Findings affirmed; appeal held meritless and accordingly dismissed [Paras 10-11].

Transgender & Intersex Persons Policy – Implementation & Reforms – Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 – Court Directions Issued – In writ petition concerning rights of transgender persons, the Court noted with appreciation the State’s notification of the Tamil Nadu State Policy for Transgender Persons, 2025 – Considered community suggestions on horizontal reservation, representation in monitoring committees, marriage registration, recognition of domestic partnerships, and renaming of policy – Directed State to take early decision on reservation; ensure representation of trans women, trans men, and intersex persons in district/state committees; issue directions to Registrars for smooth marriage registration; and consider renaming policy to reflect transgender and intersex focus – Also urged framing of LGBQA+ policy at the earliest – Ordered relevant departments to file status reports on NCERT module and medical curriculum sensitisation – Matter posted for further orders [Paras 1-10, 14].

Reservation – Clause 3.7 of Policy – Court noted ambiguity on whether horizontal reservation in education and public employment is envisaged – Directed Government to decide to avoid repeated litigation [Para 4].

Monitoring Committees – Representation Mandated – Directed State to ensure district and state-level committees under the policy include at least one trans woman, one trans man, and one intersex person – Necessary notifications to be issued for effective functioning [Para 5].

Marriage of Transgender Persons – Apex Court Recognition – Directed State to issue instructions to Registrars for legal sanction and registration of such marriages in line with NALSA and Arunkumar rulings [Para 6].

Recognition of Domestic Partnerships – Suggested that State provide for deeds of familial association or civil unions to safeguard rights where succession laws are silent [Para 7].

Policy Title – Court observed that renaming to “Transgender and Intersex Persons Policy” may better reflect intent and community identity [Para 8].

Decision:Court issued directions to Government to consider and implement community suggestions, take decisions on reservation and policy amendments, ensure committee representation, and expedite framing of LGBQA+ policy – Status reports directed – Matter adjourned to 15.09.2025 for further orders [Paras 4-10, 14].

Motor Accident – Compensation – Fatal Accident – Pillion rider – Widow mother of deceased filed claim for Rs.15 lakhs – Tribunal awarded Rs.23,38,000/- with 7.5% interest – Tribunal wrongly deducted ½ of income instead of correct deduction method – High Court fixed monthly income at Rs.16,000/- based on bank statement – 40% added for future prospects – Deduction of ½ applied as per Supreme Court’s direction in Pranay Sethi – Revised compensation for loss of dependency computed as Rs.24,19,200/- – No change in award under other heads – Total compensation enhanced to Rs.24,89,200/- with same interest rate – Insurance company directed to deposit the enhanced amount within 8 weeks – No interest payable for delay in filing the appeal [Paras 2, 5, 9–11].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Compensation enhanced from Rs.23,38,000/- to Rs.24,89,200/- – Rate of interest at 7.5% per annum maintained – Typographical corrections made vide order dated 11/11/2025.

Criminal Law - NDPS – Superdari of Vehicle – Release Ordered – Long Pendency and Vehicle Devaluation Considered – The petitioner sought release of his vehicle (Innova car) on superdari, which had been seized in connection with an NDPS case where 2.6 kg of opium was recovered – Though petitioner was found in the vehicle, trial was pending and vehicle had remained in custody for over 3½ years – Held: Continued impoundment would cause irreversible loss due to weather exposure – Order rejecting superdari set aside – Vehicle directed to be released to registered owner with conditions [Paras 1-3, 6-7].

Property Release – No Adjudication on Guilt – Interim Custody Allowed – The Court emphasized that no court had found the petitioner guilty yet, and detention of the vehicle does not serve purpose while ownership was not in dispute – Release does not affect trial rights – Petitioner directed not to sell or alter the vehicle’s condition [Paras 3, 7-8].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Impugned Order Set Aside – Vehicle Ordered to be Released on Superdari – Subject to furnishing bond and maintaining vehicle condition [Paras 7-8].

Criminal Proceedings – Quashing of FIR – Section 482 CrPC – FIR registered for offences under Sections 120B, 406, 420, 447, 468, 471, 506 read with 34 IPC – Allegations related to a property dispute where complainant claimed to be owner and accused allegedly trespassed and attempted to alienate property – Petitioner argued dispute purely civil in nature and continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process – Held: Allegations, if taken at face value, disclose essential ingredients of offences alleged – Defence contentions and documents require appreciation at trial, not in quashing proceedings – Petition dismissed [Paras 9–15].

Civil vs Criminal Nature – Overlap – Merely because a transaction gives rise to a civil dispute does not preclude criminal prosecution if ingredients of criminal offence are made out – Court reiterated that scope under Section 482 CrPC is limited to cases where allegations do not disclose cognizable offence or where proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides [Paras 10–11].

Abuse of Process – No Ground for Quash – High Court declined to quash FIR as complaint prima facie disclosed offences – Petitioner’s plea that dispute was civil in nature rejected – Inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to be exercised sparingly and in rarest of rare cases to prevent abuse of process of court or secure ends of justice [Paras 12–14].

Decision – Petition dismissed – Trial to proceed in accordance with law – Observations made only for purpose of deciding quash petition and not to influence merits at trial [Para 15].

Anticipatory Bail – Complaint Case – Issuance of Summons – Section 482 BNSS – Application Not Maintainable – The applicant sought anticipatory bail in a complaint case alleging a non-bailable offence on the ground that summons had been issued against him – The Court examined the scope of Section 482 BNSS (corresponding to Section 438 Cr.P.C.), the meaning of “reason to believe” under Section 2(29) BNS, and the distinction between arrest and custody – Held: Mere issuance of summons in a complaint case does not create a reasonable apprehension of arrest by police without warrant, and hence anticipatory bail is not maintainable – Apprehension under Section 482 BNSS must relate to arbitrary or unwanted arrest by police or prosecuting agencies, not custody taken by the court on appearance – Application rejected [Paras 1–3, 27–33].

Bailable Warrant in Complaint Case – Section 482 BNSS – Not Maintainable – In complaint cases where bailable warrant is issued, the accused is entitled to bail upon readiness to furnish it – Hence, no apprehension of arrest or detention arises to sustain anticipatory bail [Para 32(ii)].

Non-Bailable Warrant/Proclamation – Exception – Section 482 BNSS – Ordinarily Not Maintainable – Following Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar (2024 INSC 202), anticipatory bail can be granted in such cases only in extreme, exceptional circumstances in the interest of justice [Para 32(iii)].

Decision – Present case involved only issuance of summons dated 23.08.2022 without any bailable/non-bailable warrant – Held: Anticipatory bail application dismissed as not maintainable – Applicant permitted to seek regular bail within 15 days [Paras 33–35].

Civil Law - Execution of Decree – Section 51, Order 21 Rule 32, Order 17 of the CPC - Inordinate Delay – Judicial Dereliction – Despite decree being passed in 2014 and confirmed in RSA in 2017, execution filed in 2015 remained unresolved till 2025 – Multiple extension requests filed by Executing Court citing administrative difficulties and State non-cooperation – Held: Conduct reflects abdication of judicial duty and disregard of Supreme Court’s mandate in Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi – Executing Court directed to complete execution within two months – No further extension to be granted [Paras 1-2, 33-36, 49-52].

Executing Court Jurisdiction – Cannot Reopen Merits – Respondent-State and Executing Court attempted to revisit settled merits of the decree during execution proceedings – Held: Such action is impermissible under Section 47 CPC – Executing Court bound to execute decree as is, without reappreciation of merits – Affidavit filed by State officials amounted to re-arguing dismissed RSA and reflects deliberate evasion [Paras 28, 38].

State Conduct – Delay by Design – Affidavits by Government Officers Citing Unrelated Grounds – Officers failed to comply with decree despite repeated High Court orders – Held: Conduct of the State in filing argumentative affidavits instead of taking steps for compliance shows intent to delay and obstruct execution – Such behaviour undermines public confidence in rule of law and invites judicial scrutiny [Paras 26-28, 32, 35].

Supreme Court Mandate – Six-Month Timeline in Execution – As per directions in Rahul S. Shah’s case, execution proceedings must be concluded within six months – Extensions beyond that only with recorded reasons – Held: Repeated delays and perfunctory reasons given by Executing Court constitute clear violation of binding precedent – Judicial officers warned against non-compliance which may amount to contempt [Paras 39-41, 44-46].

Final Directions – Compliance Mandated – District and Sessions Judge, Ferozepur directed to oversee immediate execution – Executing Court ordered to conclude proceedings within two months from date of order, on a day-to-day basis – Order to be circulated to all District and Sessions Judges in Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh for strict compliance with Rahul S. Shah guidelines – Warning of contempt in case of non-compliance [Paras 50-53].

Criminal Law - Suspension of Conviction – Disqualification under Companies Act – Application Dismissed – The appellant was convicted under Sections 120B, 420, and 471 IPC for misrepresentations made before government authorities to secure coal block allocation – He sought stay of conviction to avoid disqualification under Section 196(3)(d) of the Companies Act, 2013 – Held: No exceptional circumstance shown to warrant suspension of conviction – Appellant is also facing prosecution in another coal scam case – Conviction upheld at this stage [Paras 1–3, 27–36].

Irreversible Consequences – Nature of Disqualification – Not an Exceptional Case – The appellant argued that disqualification from his position as Managing Director of a public company would lead to irreversible consequences – Court held that conviction-related disqualification under Companies Act alone does not amount to exceptional hardship – Held: Such consequence is statutory and not extraordinary in the present context [Paras 21–24, 32–33].

Public Interest – Coal Block Scam as Distinct Class – Wider Ramifications Considered – Relying on Supreme Court decisions in Girish Kumar Suneja and Manohar Lal Sharma, Court held that coal block allocation cases form a distinct and serious category involving widespread public interest – The appellant’s role and benefit from fraudulent documents warranted denial of relief under Section 389(1) CrPC – Held: No stay of conviction justified [Paras 15, 35–36].

Suspension of Sentence – Granted on Parity with Co-Convict – Considering the appellant’s age, clean record, family circumstances, compliance with earlier conditions, and parity with Manoj Kumar Jayaswal (co-convict whose sentence was suspended), Court suspended the sentence and granted bail – Appellant directed not to leave India without permission and to furnish bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with one surety [Paras 38–40].

Decision – Stay of conviction rejected; sentence suspended – Held: Application partly allowed – While consequences of conviction under Companies Act are recognized, present case lacks the exceptional circumstances required to stay conviction – Sentence suspended during pendency of appeal [Paras 37–40].