Civil Law - Amendment of Pleadings – Whether Time-Barred Claims Can Be Introduced – The petitioner challenged the trial court’s decision permitting amendment of the plaint, arguing that time-barred claims were being introduced—Held: The amendment did not ex facie introduce a time-barred claim—At best, the issue of limitation was arguable and could be decided at trial—No jurisdictional error in allowing amendment [Paras 7(ix)-7(x)].

Impleadment of New Defendants – Effect on Nature of Suit – The amendment sought to include additional partners as defendants—Petitioner contended that the newly added persons were not actual partners—Held: The impleadment of new parties did not change the nature of the suit—Validity of their involvement to be determined at trial—Amendment upheld [Paras 7(viii)-7(x)].

Mandatory Mediation Under Section 12-A of Commercial Courts Act – Whether Applicable – The petitioner argued that allowing the amendment bypassed the mandatory pre-litigation mediation under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act—Held: The suit was not before a Commercial Court—Section 12-A not applicable—Petitioner has remedies under law if it wishes to contest commercial jurisdiction separately [Para 7(xi)].

Final Decision – Revision petition dismissed – Amendment order upheld—Court found no illegality or jurisdictional error in the trial court’s decision [Para 7(xiii)].

Matrimonial Muslim Law - Maintenance — Minor Daughter’s Right — Section 125 CrPC — Maintenance directed for wife but omitted for minor daughter — Illegality committed by Family Court — Held: Minor daughter, being undisputedly born out of wedlock, is entitled to maintenance from her father under Section 125 CrPC — Court directed Rs.2,000/- per month as maintenance for the minor daughter [Paras 13-14, 24, 28].

Maintenance — Quantum — Income of Husband — Boutique Business Income

Considered — Opposite party failed to effectively rebut wife’s claim of Rs.30,000/- monthly income from boutique business — Alleged lower earnings rejected due to lack of convincing evidence — Held: Maintenance fixed at Rs.2,000/- per month each for wife and minor daughter (Total Rs.4,000/- per month) considering dependents of husband [Paras 23, 29-31].

Muslim Wife — Entitlement to Maintenance after Divorce — Applicability of Section 125 CrPC — Even after divorce, if wife unable to maintain herself, entitled to maintenance — Payment of Dain-mehar or maintenance during iddat period does not discharge husband’s liability unless full life provision made — Divorce does not bar maintenance under Section 125 CrPC if wife is destitute — Held: Opposite party’s claim of divorce ineffective to deny maintenance [Paras 25-27].

Maintenance — Date from which Payable — Maintenance payable from date of application — Family Court wrongly awarded maintenance from date of order — Held: Maintenance shall be paid from 01.03.2012, the date of maintenance petition filing [Paras 15, 33-34].

Final Decision — Criminal Revision Allowed — Impugned order modified — Maintenance granted to both wife and daughter from the date of filing the application — Petition allowed [Paras 34-35].

Criminal Law  - Quashing - Information Technology Act – Section 67 – Privacy and Consent in Marital Relationship – Application for Quashing Rejected – The applicant-husband sought quashing of criminal proceedings initiated under Section 67 of the IT Act for allegedly making and sharing an obscene video of his wife without her consent – Held: The marital bond does not dilute a wife’s individual rights to privacy and bodily autonomy – Making and sharing intimate content without consent constitutes a breach of trust and a punishable offence – Marriage does not provide immunity to a husband for such violations [Paras 3-5].

Criminal Procedure Code – Section 482 – Scope of Inherent Powers – No Interference Warranted – The Court held that issues related to factual determination, evidence appreciation, and credibility are within the domain of the trial court – No mala fide or malicious intent was evident to justify interference under Section 482 CrPC – Application dismissed as devoid of merit [Paras 6-7].

Bail - Acid Attack – Role of the Accused – Whether Bail Can Be Granted – The petitioner was accused of being a key conspirator in an acid attack on a senior resident doctor—Prosecution alleged that he facilitated the crime by procuring acid and hiring juveniles to execute the attack—Held: Given the gravity of the offence, granting bail at this stage would not be appropriate—Petition dismissed [Paras 9-11].

Delay in Trial – Repeated Non-Compliance with Judicial Directions – Petitioner argued that despite High Court and Supreme Court orders directing trial completion, proceedings remained pending—Held: Delay in trial cannot be the sole ground for bail in heinous offences—However, strict directions issued for trial completion within one month—Failure to comply may allow the petitioner to seek fresh bail [Paras 12-18].

Judicial Oversight – Ensuring Compliance with Time-Bound Trial Orders – The High Court sought an explanation from the trial court for the delay—Held: Miscommunication and lack of follow-up led to non-compliance—Court directed all trial courts to prominently mark time-bound cases to prevent such lapses in the future [Paras 19-21].

Final Decision – Bail denied—Trial court directed to conclude proceedings within one month—Failure to do so would allow the petitioner to reapply for bail [Paras 22-23].
 

Quashing of FIR – Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings – Section 299 BNS – FIR Not Quashed – The petitioner, a political spokesperson, was accused of tearing pages of the holy book "Manusmriti" during a live television debate – The petitioner contended that the act was neither intentional nor malicious and relied on precedent to argue that mere insult to religion without a deliberate and malicious intent does not attract penal provisions – The State opposed the plea, arguing that the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence – Held: The act of tearing pages of a religious book during a live televised debate prima facie indicated a deliberate and malicious intention to outrage religious feelings, and thus, a cognizable offence was made out – No interference warranted under Article 226 – Writ petition dismissed [Paras 9, 18, 21-22].

Criminal Law – Rape - Quashing of FIR – False promise of marriage – Misconception of fact – No prima facie case made out – The petitioner and complainant were mature individuals who met on a dating app and were engaged in a consensual relationship – The FIR was filed after a prolonged period, and previous complaints made by the complainant to the Jersey City Police Department, USA, and Thane Police did not mention the alleged incident – Held: The allegations do not constitute an offence of rape, as there was no false promise of marriage made to induce consent for sexual relations – The FIR is quashed [Paras 56-67].

Legal principle – Minimum threshold for rape allegation – Burden on complainant – The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pramod Pawar case held that a breach of promise cannot be equated with a false promise unless it is shown that the accused never intended to marry at the outset – The complainant, being married at the time of the alleged incident, could not have entertained the belief that consent was given on the basis of a marriage promise – Held: The FIR does not disclose a cognizable offence and is liable to be quashed [Paras 63-71].

Judicial discretion – Power under Section 482 CrPC – Scope of interference – Courts can quash proceedings where allegations are inherently improbable or filed with an ulterior motive – The complainant had initially sought monetary compensation instead of criminal proceedings, which indicates malafide intent – Held: The case falls within the parameters set in Bhajan Lal (1992 SCC (Cri) 426) for quashing criminal proceedings – FIR quashed [Paras 58-66].
 

Criminal Law - Will – Fraud and Undue Influence – Whether Execution Was Valid – The plaintiff-respondent challenged the Will executed by his father Lodhe in favor of the appellant—Trial court and appellate court found that the Will was obtained through fraud and undue influence, as the testator was ill, illiterate, and under the influence of alcohol—Held: Execution of the Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances—Failure to provide for legal heirs raised doubts about voluntariness—Will set aside [Paras 16-22].

Parentage – Whether Plaintiff Was the Legitimate Son of the Testator – The defendant-appellant claimed the plaintiff-respondent was not the biological son of Lodhe—Courts below relied on school records, caste certificate, and money order receipts sent by plaintiff to the testator—Held: Documentary evidence confirmed parentage—Findings of lower courts upheld [Paras 12-14].

Compliance with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC – Whether Appellate Judgment Was Defective – The appellant argued that the lower appellate court failed to frame points of determination as per Order 41 Rule 31 CPC—Held: While explicit framing of points was missing, the judgment considered all issues in detail—No violation found—Substantial compliance with procedural requirements [Paras 26-29].

Second Appeal – Scope of Interference – Whether Findings Were Perverse – The appellant contended that findings of fact were perverse and against evidence—Held: Concurrent findings of fact by two courts below cannot be interfered with unless shown to be perverse—No such perversity established—Second appeal dismissed [Paras 30-31].

Final Decision – Second appeal dismissed—Findings of lower courts upheld—Will declared invalid—Plaintiff confirmed as legal heir—No costs awarded [Para 32].

Taxational Law – CGST Act, UPGST Act - Provisional Attachment – Justification under Section 83 of UPGST Act – The petitioner’s bank account was provisionally attached due to alleged tax evasion – The petitioner contended that the attachment was arbitrary and relied on Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh (AIR 2021 SC 2114), where the Supreme Court ruled that provisional attachment should be exercised as a last resort – The Court distinguished the present case, noting that the petitioner had been given a hearing, had filed objections, and a reasoned order was passed – Held: The provisional attachment was justified as per law, and the petitioner’s objections were adequately considered [Paras 3-9].

Tax Evasion – Non-Payment of GST Collected – Section 74 of CGST Act – The petitioner had collected GST from customers but failed to deposit it with the government – The demand order confirmed a liability of ₹2,23,73,267 each under CGST and SGST, along with penalties and interest – Held: The non-payment of collected GST constitutes a serious contravention, justifying the recovery action under Section 74 [Paras 4-5, 10].

Alternative Remedy – Appeal against Demand Order – The petitioner sought to challenge the demand order through the writ petition – The Court ruled that the petitioner had a statutory alternative remedy of filing an appeal – Held: Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked when a statutory appellate remedy exists, and the petitioner must pursue an appeal under the law [Paras 6, 9].

Scope of Judicial Review – Provisional Attachment under Section 83 – The Court observed that provisional attachment under Section 83 can be challenged only when exercised arbitrarily or without due process – Since the petitioner had been granted an opportunity to object and was heard by the authorities, judicial interference was unwarranted – Held: The attachment order was lawful and within the framework of GST laws [Paras 8-10].

Penalty for GST Violation – Section 122(2)(b) and Section 125 of CGST Act – The petitioner and its director were found liable for penalties under the GST Act for tax evasion – A total penalty of ₹2,23,73,267 was imposed on the petitioner, with additional penalties on its director – Held: The penalties imposed were in accordance with statutory provisions and justified in light of the findings of tax evasion [Paras 5, 11].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – The Court found no arbitrariness in the provisional attachment or the demand order. Alternative remedy directed – The petitioner was granted liberty to file an appeal against the demand order in accordance with the law.

Civil Writ - Medical Admission – NEET-UG Counselling – Retention of Seat – Finality of Admission Process – The petitioner, who had been allotted a seat in Government Medical College, Nagpur, sought transfer to Topiwala National Medical College, Mumbai, alleging misallocation of the Hilly Area Open Women category seat – The petitioner had submitted a Status Retention Form, thereby confirming his admission and rendering himself ineligible for further rounds – Held: Once a student opts for status retention, they forfeit the right to seek upgradation in subsequent rounds – Petition dismissed [Paras 23-27].

Reservation Policy – Hilly Area and Female Reservation – Applicability of Rules – The petitioner contended that the seat vacated by an upgradation should have been allotted to him instead of a lower-ranked candidate – The court held that under Rule 9.4.9 of the NEET-UG Brochure, female reservation within a category must be filled first before considering male candidates – Held: The seat was correctly allotted as per reservation rules, and no illegality was committed [Paras 19-21].

Judicial Review – Limited Scope in Admission Matters – The petitioner challenged the admission process, seeking judicial intervention to alter seat allotment – The court reiterated that judicial review in admission cases is limited to manifest errors or violations of legal provisions – Held: There was no procedural irregularity, and intervention was unwarranted [Paras 22-28].

Public Policy – Finality in Admission Process – Avoiding Disruption of Medical Education – The court criticized attempts by students to alter admissions after completion of counselling, emphasizing the need for finality – Held: Allowing such challenges would disrupt the admission process and create uncertainty in medical education [Paras 26-30].

Abuse of Legal Process – Attempt to Dislodge Another Student – Condemned – The court disapproved of the petitioner’s attempt to dislodge a fellow student to gain a seat in a preferred institution despite already securing admission in a government medical college – Held: Such litigation tactics are unacceptable and amount to an abuse of the judicial process [Paras 31-32].

Decision: Petition dismissed.