Service Law – Suspension and Reinstatement – Duty Period Not Automatic – Criminal Acquittal Irrelevant Where Departmental Charges Proven – Respondent sought duty benefit for suspension/dismissal period citing criminal acquittal – Held: As departmental charges were proved and only punishment modified (not exoneration), benefit under FR 54-B(1)(9) not attracted – Writ court erred in applying wrong rule [Paras 6-9, 22-24].

Scope of Fundamental Rule 54 – Period of Suspension to be Specifically Declared as Duty – Competent Authority’s Discretion – The appellate authority did not direct suspension/dismissal periods to be treated as duty – Held: Per FR 54(5) & 54-B(1)(11), in absence of full exoneration, duty status must be specifically declared; otherwise authority is entitled to convert into leave or leave without pay [Paras 20-31].

Doctrine of Proportionality – Not Invoked – Modified Punishment Valid – Respondent’s removal was reduced to pay reduction by appellate authority – No finding that punishment was disproportionate – Held: Disciplinary discretion upheld; no interference warranted [Paras 17-19].

Continuity for Pension – Permitted – Not Duty Benefits – Though suspension and dismissal periods treated as leave, continuity for pensionary service preserved – Held: Respondent entitled to pension benefits based on service continuity but not to salary or duty status for impugned periods [Para 33].

Final Decision – Writ Appeal Allowed – High Court’s direction to treat suspension/dismissal period as duty set aside – Original departmental decision treating those periods as leave restored [Paras 32-34].
 

Criminal Law – FEMA Act - Compounding of Offence – Maintainability after Adjudication – Compounding Application Rejected – Petitioner sought compounding of offence under FEMA after conclusion of adjudication and imposition of penalty – Held: Once adjudication concludes, application for compounding is impermissible – The intent of compounding is to avoid adjudication, not override it post-facto – No provision under the Act or Rules allows compounding after adjudication – Petitioner’s interpretation of Rule 11 rejected [Paras 5-6, 10-13, 23-25, 3335]. 
 
Jurisdiction of RBI – Limitation on Power to Compound – No Power to Undo Adjudication – RBI lacks jurisdiction to entertain compounding after final adjudication order – Accepting such an interpretation would create uncertainty and indefinite proceedings – The RBI’s Master Directions, Compounding Rules, and Circulars clearly limit compounding to preadjudication stages – No contrary precedent cited by petitioner – The Court upholds RBI’s rejection of application [Paras 21, 30-34]. 
 
Legislative Intent – Adjudication and Compounding are Mutually Exclusive – Remedy Exhausted – Allowing compounding post-adjudication would render the adjudication nugatory and leave penalty provisions toothless – Such a scenario not contemplated by FEMA – The Court emphasized that compounding must precede or coincide with the adjudication, not follow its conclusion [Paras 31-35]. 
 
Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Compounding Application Rejected Validly – The Court found no reason to interfere with the RBI’s decision – Writ petition dismissed – Interim relief vacated – No costs awarded [Paras 36-39]. 
 

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].

Criminal Law – Quashing - Criminal Breach of Trust and Cheating – Prima Facie Allegations – Petition to Quash FIR Dismissed – The petitioner company had awarded a subcontract under a major irrigation project to a contractor who further sublet to the complainant – Despite knowledge and involvement, petitioners denied privity of contract – Held: Documents show suppression of facts and knowledge of work done by complainant – Prima facie case made out under Sections 406 and 420 IPC [Paras 3-28].

Suppression of Material Facts – Clean Hands Doctrine – Petition Liable to be Dismissed – Petitioners falsely claimed ignorance of sub-contract and execution of work – Letter and bank guarantees demonstrated active involvement – Held: Suppression of facts disqualifies petitioner from seeking relief under Article 226 or Section 482 CrPC – Petition dismissed on this ground alone [Paras 20-28].

Criminal Trespass and Intimidation – Allegations Specific and Supported – Offence Under Sections 447 and 506 IPC – Held: Specific incident of trespass, abuse and use of machinery to damage site attributed to petitioner’s staff – Allegations sufficient for investigation and possible charges [Paras 34-35].

Civil Dispute vs Criminal Liability – Coexistence Permissible – Criminal Intent Alleged – Petitioners argued matter was civil in nature – Held: Civil dispute does not bar criminal proceedings where fraud, deception or criminal conspiracy alleged – FIR not liable to be quashed at threshold [Paras 17-19, 36-38].

Investigation Not to Be Scuttled – FIR Discloses Cognizable Offence – High Court Should Not Interfere – Held: Applying principles from Neeharika Infrastructure, Tulsi Ram and Somjeet Mallick, investigation should be allowed to proceed where allegations disclose prima facie cognizable offences – Interim relief was improperly obtained via suppression – Petition dismissed [Paras 37-42].

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].

Civil Law - Specific Performance – Validity of Agreement and Compliance by Vendees – Agreements Upheld – Both agreements to sell dated 28.04.1984 and 10.06.1985 found to be valid and unrevoked – Plaintiffs proved payment of earnest money and continued possession – Held: Trial court rightly found that plaintiffs fulfilled their contractual obligations while the vendor failed to obtain income tax clearance and complete partition formalities [Paras 7, 48-52]. 
 
Readiness and Willingness – Deposition by Power of Attorney – Admissible – Plaintiffs' attorney, who was also a close family member (husband/father), was held competent to depose – Court held that Section 120 of the Evidence Act allows a spouse to testify for another, and his involvement in the transaction from inception was well documented – Held: No adverse inference can be drawn against plaintiffs for non-appearance when their attorney was adequately involved and competent [Paras 29-47]. 
 
Limitation – No Fixed Date for Sale Execution – Cause of Action Dependent on Vendor’s Acts – Since execution of sale deed was conditional upon vendor obtaining clearance certificate and completing partition entries, limitation would begin only upon refusal or non-compliance – Held: Suit not barred by limitation [Paras 53-55]. 
 
Order II Rule 2 and Section 11 CPC – No Bar to Present Suit – Prior Suits Not Decided on Merits – Two previous suits dismissed for being premature or nonmaintainable—third suit withdrawn—Held: Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 does not bar subsequent suit under Order VII Rule 13 – Suit for specific performance maintainable [Paras 13-28]. 
 
Possession – Plaintiffs Shown to be in Physical Possession – Dispute Over Malkana Possession Baseless – Agreement dated 28.04.1984 confirmed possession with plaintiffs, which continued post-partition – Held: Possession never legally transferred to defendant No.2, who is not a bona fide purchaser and acted with notice of earlier agreement – Concurrent findings upheld [Paras 56-61]. 
 
Appeal Against Concurrent Findings – No Interference Warranted – High Court reiterated limits on second appellate jurisdiction – Held: No perversity or misreading of evidence in judgments of lower courts – Appeal dismissed [Paras 62-63]. 
 

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].

Bail under NDPS Act – Recovery Marginally Exceeding Commercial Quantity – Bail Granted – The petitioner was found with 55 kg poppy husk and 500 grams opium – The Court observed that the recovery was marginally over the commercial quantity limit – Petitioner was in custody for 1 year and 5 days – Only 2 out of 20 prosecution witnesses examined – Trial likely to take a long time – Bail granted considering prolonged incarceration and pending trial [Paras 3-4].

Clean Antecedents – No Previous Conviction or Criminal History – The petitioner had no past criminal record and was not involved in any other case – The Court considered clean antecedents as a significant factor favoring bail – Bail cannot be mechanically denied solely due to seriousness of offence without considering individual circumstances [Paras 3-4].

Right to Speedy Trial – Article 21 of the Constitution – Delay in Trial Considered – The Court emphasized that prolonged pre-trial detention violates Article 21 rights – Referred to Hussainara Khatoon, Dataram Singh, and Baljinder Singh alias Rock cases to hold that bail is the rule and detention an exception – Bail is justified where there is no immediate prospect of conclusion of trial [Paras 4-5].

Decision – Bail Granted – Petition allowed – Petitioner directed to be released on regular bail on furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court – No opinion expressed on merits of the case [Para 5].
 

Eviction – Bona Fide Requirement – Office of Advocate in Commercial Premises – Decree Upheld - Held: An Advocate's office in a commercial building attracts Section 12(1)(f) for eviction on ground of bona fide need for non-residential use – Office run from second floor of residential building with access difficulties for litigants not reasonably suitable – Landlord entitled to evict for establishing proper office [Paras 13-19].

Alternative Accommodation – Suitability Question of Fact – Court Cannot Impose Standard on Landlord - Held: It is not for the tenant or Court to dictate suitability of existing space – Landlord is best judge of his bona fide requirement – The office on second floor was unsuitable due to accessibility issues for old and infirm litigants [Paras 17-20].

Profession v. Business – Office of Advocate Covered Under Non-Residential Use - Although profession is not commerce, Advocate's office situated in commercial building is treated as non-residential use within meaning of Section 12(1)(f) – Distinction between residential office and office in commercial area recognized [Paras 11-14].

Pleadings – Material Facts Sufficient – Specific Pleadings Regarding Non-Availability of Suitable Accommodation Found - Petitioner had clearly pleaded lack of suitable alternative accommodation and inability to run office properly – Contentions regarding lack of formal plea rejected [Paras 16-18].

Judicial Approach – Tenant Cannot Dictate Landlord’s Needs – Well Settled Principle - Held: Courts cannot insist how landlord should utilize property or where he should run office – It is open to landlord to choose suitable accommodation for professional purposes [Paras 19-21].

Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – Eviction Decree Under Section 12(1)(f) Affirmed - Appellant directed to vacate premises as per eviction decree confirmed by Appellate and Trial Courts [Paras 22-23].