Arbitration Law - Arbitration Agreement – Clause 70 of Contract – Disputes Arising During the Currency of the Contract – Arbitrator Appointed – Disputes arose due to changes in the scope and design of the project by the respondents, delaying project completion and increasing costs – Clause 28.1.4(c) of the MES Manual allows arbitration during the contract period under exceptional circumstances – Held: The contention of respondents that arbitration cannot proceed until project completion is unsustainable in light of contractual provisions permitting arbitration during the contract’s pendency – Arbitrator appointed to adjudicate disputes [Paras 5-8].

Delay in Work Completion – Attribution of Responsibility – Respondents at Fault – 70% of the contract work was completed on time, but delays occurred due to design changes introduced by the respondents and their failure to provide revised specifications promptly – 11 extensions were granted to the petitioner without any objection from the respondents, further demonstrating their responsibility for delays – Delay not attributable to the petitioner [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Sole Arbitrator Appointed – Disputes Referred for Arbitration – Petition allowed – Mr. Arvind Kumar Arora, DG (Pers), MES Department, appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between the parties – Arbitrator’s fees to be borne equally by both parties – No second arbitration to be pursued post-contract completion [Paras 9-10].

Criminal Law – Murder – Acquittal - Eyewitness Testimony – Single Dock Identification – Credibility Doubted – Conviction Overturned – The Court noted that the sole eyewitness (P.W. 15) identified the accused a year after the incident during dock identification without prior Test Identification Parade (TIP) – The prolonged time lapse and absence of corroboration raised doubts about the witness’s reliability – It was observed that P.W. 15 might have had opportunities to see the accused in Court prior to identification – Held: Failure to conduct TIP was fatal to the prosecution’s case – Decision: Conviction overturned, appellants acquitted [Paras 36-47].

Discovery of Weapons – Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act – Inadmissibility of Recovery Evidence – Conviction Overturned – The Court found no direct link between the accused and the recovered weapons allegedly used in the murders – The prosecution failed to establish authorship of concealment or connection to the crime – Held: Mere recovery of weapons without proof of possession or use by the accused cannot establish guilt – Decision: Conviction overturned, appellants acquitted [Paras 48-52].

Call Detail Records (CDRs) – Procedural Lapses – Certification under Section 65B of the Evidence Act Absent – Conviction Overturned – The prosecution relied on CDRs to establish conspiracy but failed to furnish a valid certificate as required under Section 65B of the Evidence Act – Held: The CDRs were rendered inadmissible, and no conclusive proof of conspiracy was established – Decision: Conviction overturned, appellants acquitted [Paras 61-64].

Circumstantial Evidence – Conspiracy – Standard of Proof Not Met – Conviction Overturned – The Court observed that the prosecution’s reliance on circumstantial evidence, including slogans and pamphlets, failed to conclusively establish the accused's involvement in the conspiracy – The pamphlets and slogans lacked evidentiary value under Sections 62-67 of the Evidence Act – Held: The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt – Decision: Conviction overturned, appellants acquitted [Paras 65-72].

Benefit of Doubt – Acquittal – The Court held that the discrepancies in evidence, reliance on inadmissible evidence, and failure to meet the burden of proof necessitated giving the benefit of doubt to the appellants – Held: All appellants acquitted of charges and directed to be released forthwith – Decision: Appeals allowed, appellants acquitted [Paras 73-79].
 

Civil Law - Review - Maintainability – Review Petition by Change of Counsel – Without "No Objection" – Review Filed Invalidly – Review petition filed by a new counsel without obtaining a "No Objection Certificate" from the counsel who argued the original writ petition – Held: Filing of review petition without proper authorization violates settled principles – Review dismissed as improperly filed [Paras 5.6-5.22].

Review Scope – Reargument of Decided Matters – Petition Barred – The grounds raised in the review petition seek to reargue matters already decided – No error apparent on the face of the record was demonstrated – Reopening of adjudicated issues not permissible under the guise of review – Review petition dismissed [Paras 5.23-5.32].

Delay in Filing – No Sufficient Cause – Application for condonation of delay dismissed – Petitioners failed to provide sufficient cause for condoning 152 days of delay in filing the review – Alleged incapacity of counsel's clerk due to an accident not substantiated by evidence – Delay deemed unjustifiable [Paras 6.1-6.14].

Fraud Allegations – Misuse of Review Petition – Unsupported Claims – Allegations of fraud and misrepresentation raised in review proceedings without prior basis in writ petition – Such claims seen as an abuse of judicial process – Dismissal warranted [Para 7.4].

Decision – Review Petition Dismissed – Costs Imposed – The Court rejected the plea to condone the delay in filing the review petition and dismissed it on grounds of procedural impropriety, suppression of material facts, and lack of merit – Costs of Rs. 25,000 imposed on the petitioners to be deposited with the High Court Bar Association Advocates’ Welfare Fund, Cuttack, within four weeks [Paras 8-10].
 

Rent Law - Transmission of Tenancy Rights – Section 7(15)(d), Maharashtra Rent Control Act – Relationship and Residence as Family – Claim Rejected – The applicant sought recognition as a tenant after the death of the original tenant, claiming to have resided with the deceased as a family member – The Trial Court and Appellate Court held that the applicant, being the son of the deceased tenant’s sister-in-law, did not meet the requirements of Section 7(15)(d) – The Courts further found no evidence of continuous residence with the tenant as a member of the family – Held: Plaintiff’s claim of tenancy was untenable, and the concurrent findings were upheld – Decision: Civil Revision Application dismissed [Paras 17-54].

Definition of ‘Family’ – Distant Relatives Not Included – The Court reiterated that while the term 'family' must be given a liberal interpretation, it cannot include distant relatives such as nephews or cousins who do not provide evidence of consistent residence with the tenant as part of one family unit – The applicant’s distant relationship with the deceased tenant and his lack of evidence regarding continuous cohabitation negated his claim – Decision: Civil Revision Application dismissed [Paras 22-26].

Concurrent Findings – Limited Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – The applicant failed to demonstrate any perversity or jurisdictional error in the concurrent findings of the Trial and Appellate Courts – The High Court refused to re-assess evidence in its revisional capacity – Decision: No interference warranted; application dismissed [Paras 54-56].

Documentary Evidence – Inadequate Proof of Continuous Residence – Transmission of Tenancy Rejected – The applicant’s reliance on documents such as ration cards, bank statements, and photographs was insufficient to establish continuous residence with the deceased tenant as a family member – Most documents either pertained to a period after the tenant’s death or failed to substantiate the claim of family residence – Decision: Civil Revision Application dismissed [Paras 46-54].

Neutral Testimony – Credibility of Constituted Attorney – Evidence of Arvind Kamdar – The testimony of the deceased tenant's constituted attorney was found to be credible and neutral – It established that the applicant forcibly entered the suit premises shortly before the tenant’s death and was not residing there as a family member – Decision: Evidence supported rejection of tenancy claim [Paras 38-44].

Legislative Intent – Protection for Genuine Family Members – Section 7(15)(d) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act aims to protect genuine family members from eviction, not to create inheritable rights for distant relatives – The applicant’s claim violated the legislative objective – Decision: Civil Revision Application dismissed [Paras 53-54].

Decision:

The Civil Revision Application was dismissed, upholding the findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court that the applicant failed to establish himself as a member of the deceased tenant’s family residing in the suit premises. The High Court emphasized the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction and found no perversity or jurisdictional error in the concurrent findings.

Civil  Writ - Increase in MBBS seats  - Interim Relief in Educational Matters – Grant of Additional Seats – Interim Order Deprecated - The Supreme Court and precedents have consistently disapproved granting interim relief to increase seats in educational institutions, as it impacts the admission process and students’ futures – Held: Interim orders increasing seats are improper but admissions made under the current order will not be disturbed [Paras 9, 14, 31].

Deficiency in Compliance – Procedural Irregularities in Seat Allocation – Application Rejected - The Single Judge’s interim order was based on finding minor deficiencies and discriminatory treatment by the appellants. However, established principles dictate that such issues be resolved through final adjudication – Held: Interim relief inappropriate; case remanded for expedited hearing on merits [Paras 7, 12, 32].

Judicial Consistency – Past Rulings on Interim Orders in Medical Admissions – Principles Reiterated - Precedents, including MCI v. JSS Medical College, emphasize that interim relief in matters affecting medical admissions should be avoided due to the cascading impact on students and institutions – Held: High Court erred in granting interim relief; adherence to precedents required [Paras 15-20].

Exceptional Circumstances – Admissions Completed Under Interim Order – Practical Relief Granted - Despite holding the interim order improper, the Court refrained from canceling admissions made under it, to prevent harm to students already enrolled. Directions were issued for expedited resolution of the writ petition – Held: Admissions under the interim order protected; case to be decided expeditiously [Paras 31, 32].
 

Civil Writ - Foreign Medical Graduates – Requirement of CRMI for Two Years – Judicial Deference to Expert Bodies – The petitioners challenged Note 3 in provisional registration certificates requiring two years of CRMI, asserting they completed offline training and examinations during the pandemic – The respondents cited Supreme Court decisions and National Medical Commission circulars mandating two years of CRMI for students who studied online during the pandemic or Ukraine war – Held: The Court declined to interfere, deferring to the expertise of regulatory authorities and the public interest in ensuring adequate practical training for medical professionals [Paras 9-19].

Academic Matters – Limited Judicial Review – Courts Should Avoid Substituting Expert Decisions – Reiterated the principle that academic bodies’ decisions should not be interfered with unless there is a statutory or legal violation – Courts lack the technical expertise to evaluate clinical training sufficiency or academic curricula [Paras 17-20].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – No Illegality Found in Note 3 – The petitioners failed to substantiate claims of completing adequate offline training during the pandemic – The stipulation of two years’ CRMI was upheld as reasonable and consistent with Supreme Court directions and regulatory mandates – Writ petition dismissed as devoid of merit [Paras 21].
 

Civil Law - Employees’ Provident Fund Act – Quashing of Proceedings – Limitation Bar Applied – Proceedings Quashed – The petitioners challenged criminal proceedings alleging non-filing of provident fund returns, citing limitation and prior dissolution of their establishment – Held: Cognizance taken beyond the statutory limitation period under Section 468 CrPC rendered the proceedings unsustainable – Proceedings quashed [Paras 12-15, 17-19].

Directors’ Liability – Absence of Mens Rea or Vicarious Responsibility – No Grounds for Continuation – The petitioners, who were directors of a defunct company, were not liable for vicarious responsibility under Section 14A of the EPF Act due to the absence of active management or control over the establishment during the relevant period – Quashing upheld [Paras 6a, 7, 16].

Policy Recommendations – Withdrawal of Prosecution for Non-Filing of Returns – The Court noted that the Central Board of Trustees, EPFO, recommended withdrawal of prosecutions for non-filing of returns to avoid unnecessary litigation – Held: Continuation of such proceedings would waste judicial resources and government exchequer [Paras 6f, 16].

Precedents – Applicability of Prior Judgments – Prosecution Barred by Limitation – Following Kartik Chandra Das v. State of West Bengal and C.B. Bhandari v. Provident Fund Inspector, the Court reaffirmed that delayed cognizance in cases of this nature contravenes statutory limitations and procedural safeguards [Paras 6h, 6i].

Decision – Petitions Allowed – Proceedings Quashed – Cognizance orders and related proceedings quashed, and any associated orders set aside – Observations made regarding the futility of continuing such proceedings given the non-operational status of the company and expiry of the limitation period [Paras 18-19].

Criminal Procedure – Discharge Application – Prima Facie Case Established – Rejection Upheld – The petitioner, an advocate, sought discharge in a case involving forgery, conspiracy, and transfer of government land based on disputed mutation entries. Both the Magistrate and Sessions Judge rejected the discharge application, citing prima facie evidence of the petitioner’s role in executing fraudulent sale deeds despite knowledge of the government’s ownership of the land – Held: Sufficient material exists to frame charges; discharge application rightly rejected. Defense cannot be considered at this stage [Paras 1-52].

Cheating and Forgery – Knowledge of Government Ownership – Prima Facie Case – The petitioner allegedly conspired with co-accused to execute fraudulent sale deeds for land known to be owned by the government. Investigation revealed that mutation entries were manipulated by the accused, and the land was transferred fraudulently to defraud the government. Court held that the material on record established ingredients of cheating and forgery under IPC [Paras 36-41, 47-49].

Role of Advocate in Conspiracy – Professional Misconduct – The petitioner, a practicing advocate, actively participated in the execution of forged sale deeds and filed civil suits to claim ownership over government land. The Court found his actions not only criminal but also amounting to professional misconduct – Held: Prima facie case established against the petitioner, justifying framing of charges [Paras 50-51].

Discharge vs. Quashing – Distinct Legal Considerations – The Court reiterated the distinction between grounds for quashing proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and those for discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. – Held: While the earlier dismissal of the quashing petition established the existence of prima facie evidence, the discharge application must be assessed independently based on materials on record [Paras 44-45].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed.

Presumption of Joint Ownership – Application of Mohammedan Law – Appeal Allowed – The appellant claimed exclusive ownership of seven properties, while the respondent asserted joint ownership inherited from their father. Both lower courts relied on the concept of a "karta" and presumption of joint ownership akin to Hindu law principles – Held: Under Mohammedan law, there is no presumption of joint ownership, and each property must be individually assessed based on title, possession, and evidence. The lower courts erred in applying Hindu joint family principles to Mohammedan property disputes, leading to a perverse finding [Paras 22-23].

Declaration of Title – Weight of Evidence – Records of Rights and Tax Receipts Given Due Weight – The lower courts dismissed the appellant's claims of ownership despite registered deeds, records of rights (CS & RS ROR), and tax receipts in the appellant's name. Reliance on a Local Commissioner’s report for determining possession was improper – Held: Official records of rights and tax receipts carry a presumption of correctness unless rebutted with substantive evidence. Lower courts erred in disregarding such documentary evidence [Paras 21, 27].

Doctrine of Adverse Possession and Gifts – Misapplication of Mohammedan Law – The appellant’s claim of title through adverse possession and oral heba (gift) was rejected by the lower courts based on procedural technicalities and lack of registration – Held: Under Mohammedan law, gifts (heba) need not be in writing or registered but require declaration, acceptance, and delivery of possession. The lower courts failed to apply this standard and incorrectly rejected the appellant's claim without evaluating compliance with the essentials of a valid Mohammedan gift [Paras 25-26].

Bar Under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act – Improper Dismissal of Suit – The suit was dismissed for lack of a prayer for recovery of possession, with reliance placed on the Local Commissioner’s report showing the defendant’s possession over certain properties – Held: In disputes between co-sharers, mere possession by one party does not amount to ouster unless hostile title is established. Absence of such pleading or evidence makes dismissal under Section 34 unsustainable. Relief could also have been molded under Order VII Rule 7 of the CPC [Paras 29-30].

High Court's Role in Second Appeal – Concurrent Findings Overturned – The lower courts ignored settled principles of Mohammedan law and made findings based on inadmissible or no evidence, amounting to perversity – Held: High Court, in second appeal, has jurisdiction to interfere where findings are based on no evidence, ignore material evidence, or apply incorrect legal principles [Paras 16-17].

Decision:

The second appeal was allowed. The judgments of the Trial Court (28/11/1979) and First Appellate Court (03/04/1984) were set aside. The case was remanded to the Trial Court for fresh adjudication on merits within six months, after giving both parties an opportunity to contest [Paras 31].