Anticipatory Bail – Economic Offences – Involvement in Fraudulent Investment Scheme – Bail Denied – The applicant, a partner in a firm accused of running a fraudulent investment scheme, sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS – FIR revealed a large-scale conspiracy involving collection of over ₹130 crores from investors through false promises – Court held that the material on record indicated the applicant’s active involvement from inception – Rejected plea that he was falsely implicated – Bail refused to prevent obstruction of investigation and custodial interrogation deemed necessary [Paras 1, 3, 12-14, 24, 27-28].

Statutory Bar – Applicability of GPID Act – Pre-arrest Bail Not Permissible – The offences alleged against the applicant attracted provisions of the GPID Act, which bars the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 17(2) – Court held that powers under Section 482 BNSS (analogous to Section 438 CrPC) are not available where GPID Act applies – Reiterated that special statutes override general provisions when specific exclusion is provided [Para 15].

Nature of Offence – Gravity and Modus Operandi Considered – Court emphasized that economic offences involve deliberate planning and have grave societal impact – Noted the coordinated modus operandi of accused to defraud innocent investors – Held such offences warrant a different approach than ordinary criminal acts, as they pose systemic risks to public confidence and national economy [Paras 13, 24-25].

Custodial Interrogation – Importance in Economic Offences – Custodial interrogation was considered crucial due to the ongoing investigation and the need to uncover concealed financial trails – Court cited precedents that custodial interrogation remains valid ground to deny anticipatory bail, especially in cases involving economic crimes with large financial implications [Paras 10, 18, 22, 27].

Prima Facie Involvement – Investigation Materials Support Accusation – Despite the applicant’s contention that co-accused or other parties were solely responsible, statements of witnesses and investigation materials indicated his direct role – Statement of co-accused Ramanpuri Goswami corroborated the applicant’s participation in the conspiracy – Court refused to treat the applicant as an uninvolved party [Paras 12-14].

Final Decision – Anticipatory Bail Rejected – Offences Grave and Investigation Active – Court concluded that no exceptional circumstances existed to exercise discretionary power under Section 482 BNSS – Anticipatory bail was refused in light of seriousness of offence, statutory restrictions under GPID Act, and the need to preserve integrity of investigation [Paras 24, 27-28].

Article 227 – Territorial jurisdiction – DRAT situs vs. DRT situs – Petition dismissed for want of jurisdiction – Petitioner challenged DRAT, Kolkata’s pre-deposit order (05.07.2024) and dismissal order (04.09.2024) arising out of DRT, Guwahati’s ex parte decree – Held: For challenges under Article 227 to orders of an appellate tribunal (interim or final) exercising jurisdiction over multiple States, the proper High Court is the one within whose territory the original Tribunal (DRT) is situated – Calcutta High Court lacks jurisdiction since the source DRT is Guwahati – Petition dismissed [Paras 1–3, 15, 19–21, 29–31, 45–47, 55–56].

Doctrine of Merger – Not determinative of Article 227 forum – Though original orders merge into appellate orders, situs of appellate forum does not confer Article 227 jurisdiction where the appellate forum spans multiple States – The doctrine cannot override the certainty-of-forum principle and the binding-precedent structure – Ambica Industries and ABC Papers applied [Paras 21–24, 29, 31, 35, 42–46].

Article 226(2) vs. Article 227 – Distinction in reach – Article 226(2) permits writ jurisdiction based on cause of action even beyond territorial seats – Article 227 superintendence is territorially tethered to courts/tribunals “throughout the territories” of the High Court – For appellate bodies covering multiple States, Article 227 control lies with the High Court where the adjudicatory source (DRT) is located [Paras 26–33, 38–40, 53–54].

Certainty of Forum – Prevention of forum shopping – When appellate tribunals cover several States, allowing dominus litis choice by relying on appellate situs would create uncertainty and inconsistent binding effect of precedents – Hence, only the High Court where the original adjudicating authority sits has supervisory jurisdiction – ABC Papers, Ambica Industries followed [Paras 29–31, 41–45].

Interlocutory Orders (Pre-deposit) – Same jurisdictional rule – Challenge to an interim pre-deposit direction and dismissal for non-compliance equally tracks the forum of the source DRT – Interference would revive the appeal and unsettle finality of the DRT’s order, rendering issues res sub judice – Therefore, Calcutta High Court cannot entertain even interlocutory challenges sourced from DRT, Guwahati [Paras 50–52].

Conflicting Coordinate Bench View – Sabbam Hari distinguished – Earlier order proceeded on “appellate order as part of cause of action” – In light of Ambica Industries, Calcutta Gujarati Education Society, Siddhartha S. Mookerjee and Navin Jain, Sabbam Hari is not a binding precedent on the jurisdictional point [Paras 48–50].

Decision – Application under Article 227 dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction – Liberty to approach the appropriate High Court within whose territory DRT, Guwahati is located – No order as to costs [Paras 55–57].

Tenancy Law - Eviction Petition – Bona fide Requirement – Section 14(3)(b)(i) Rent Act – Eviction Upheld – Landlord sought eviction to expand business and settle younger son; tenant resisted alleging harassment, sufficient income/pension, and alternate accommodation – Held: Landlord is best judge of his requirement; Court cannot dictate manner of expansion – Bona fide need established – Eviction decree justified [Paras 4, 8, 12, 14].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope under Section 24(5) Rent Act – Limited Interference – Following Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, (2014) 9 SCC 78, revisional powers cannot be equated with appellate jurisdiction; High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence but only examine legality/propriety of findings – No perversity found – Interference refused [Paras 9-11].

Plea of Alternate Premises – Section 14(3)(a)(i) Rent Act – Non-sustainable – Tenant raised plea that landlord had rented out another shop within 5 years – Held: Not pleaded earlier, no issue framed, and unsupported by evidence – Requirement is with respect to “such a building”; landlord proved need for adjacent shop as most suitable – Tenant failed to show otherwise [Para 13].

Harassment and Pension Income – Irrelevant to Bona fide Requirement – Allegations of harassment by landlord and sufficiency of pension income are immaterial; landlord’s family, including son, will not have pension after his death; bona fide need prevails [Para 14].

Decision – Revision Petition dismissed – Tenant directed to vacate premises by 31st October 2025 – No interference warranted [Para 16].

Criminal Law – Summoning of Additional Accused – Section 319 CrPC – Standard of Proof – Mother of minor victim sought summoning of grandmother and paternal aunts on the ground of alleged suppression and non-reporting of child sexual abuse – Trial Court rejected application noting that no new or compelling evidence had emerged during trial beyond what was already part of the charge-sheet – High Court concurred, holding that child witness’s testimony was vague, inconsistent and lacked corroboration – Held: Section 319 CrPC requires strong prima facie evidence suggesting possible conviction – Mere suspicion or general allegations insufficient [Paras 8-13, 18-19].

POCSO Act – Duty to Report – Section 21 – Knowledge of Crime – Allegations against grandmother and paternal aunts for failing to report child sexual abuse – PW-1 (minor victim) made broad claims about “family knowing” and “suppression” – Court held that such statements lacked specificity and did not establish actual knowledge or intent to suppress – Held: Section 21 not attracted in absence of clear, credible, and independent proof of knowledge or concealment [Paras 15-16].

Misuse of Process – Matrimonial Acrimony – Vindictive Prosecution – High Court found application was not filed in the child’s best interest but was a misuse of criminal law motivated by the mother’s personal disputes with her estranged husband – Held: Attempt to implicate elderly grandmother and aunts using the minor victim’s testimony amounted to arm-twisting and gross abuse of process – Court cautioned against converting child protection laws into tools for vengeance [Paras 9, 14, 19-22].

Costs – Deterrence Against Frivolous Litigation – Trial Court’s imposition of ₹20,000 in costs upheld – Additional ₹10,000 cost imposed by High Court – Held: Costs justified to curb misuse of judicial time and protect individuals from baseless criminal allegations arising out of personal vendetta [Paras 21, 23].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Trial Court order upheld – Additional cost of ₹10,000 imposed – Pending applications also disposed of.

Civil Law  – Specific Performance of Agreement to Sell New Tenure Land – Appeal Dismissed – Plaintiff sought enforcement of a 1980 agreement to sell land which was then classified as new tenure agricultural land – No permission under Section 43 of Gujarat Tenancy Act obtained – Both Trial Court and First Appellate Court rejected plaint under Order VII Rule 11 – Held: Agreement was void ab initio, barred by law – No cause of action arose – High Court dismissed Second Appeal, holding no substantial question of law arises [Paras 1-3, 15-17, 24-26].

Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Rejection of Plaint – Enforceability of Agreement Hit by Statutory Bar – Agreement to sell restricted land without Collector’s permission – Held: Agreement void under Section 43 of Tenancy Act – Plaint rightly rejected at threshold – Plaintiff's readiness and possession immaterial in face of statutory bar [Paras 15-17, 22-23].

Tenancy Law – Section 43 of Gujarat Tenancy Act – Agreement to Sell Without Sanction – Barred by Law – Held: Section 43(1) expressly prohibits agreement to sell new tenure land without Collector's sanction – Section 43(2) renders such agreements void – Plaintiff admitted land was new tenure at the time of agreement – Hence, no enforceable right accrued [Paras 14-17].

Specific Performance – Conditional Agreement – Land Not Converted at Time of Agreement – Held: Agreement subject to future conversion of land tenure – Sale unenforceable unless condition fulfilled and permission obtained – Suit filed decades later without evidence of compliance – No cause of action made out [Paras 10-11, 20-21].

Possession and Protection Under Section 53A TPA – Not a Ground to Sustain Invalid Agreement – Plaintiff claimed possession since 1980 – Held: Possession under invalid or illegal agreement not protected under Section 53A – Agreement void from inception due to statutory bar – Ancillary reliefs cannot be granted [Paras 13, 20].

Limitation – Cause of Action Claimed in 2012 – Agreement Dated 1980 – No Continuous Assertion of Right – Held: Plaintiff failed to establish readiness or communication for 32 years – Father of vendor died in 2009 – No demand till public notice in 2012 – Suit time-barred and barred by law [Paras 11, 23].

Substantial Question of Law – None Arising from Concurrent Findings – Enforceability of Void Agreement Not a New Legal Issue – Held: All legal issues settled by Full Bench and Supreme Court – No perversity or error in findings of Courts below – Appeal dismissed at admission stage [Paras 24-26].

Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – Civil Application Also Disposed – No error in rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 – Agreement held void and suit barred by law – No triable issue or substantial question of law made out [Paras 26-27].

Family Law - Maintenance – Enhancement under Section 127 Cr.P.C. – Increase Allowed – Revision Allowed – Petitioner sought enhancement of ₹10,000/month maintenance fixed in 2012 to ₹30,000/month citing increase in cost of living, medical needs, and respondent’s pension – Family Court had rejected plea stating no substantial change in circumstances – High Court held that increase in respondent’s pension from ₹28,705 (net salary in 2012) to ₹40,068 justifies enhancement – Maintenance enhanced to ₹14,000/month from date of revision petition [Paras 1, 7, 20-28].

Comparison of Net Salary and Pension – Faulty Reasoning by Family Court – Corrected by High Court – Family Court compared 2012 gross salary with current pension without considering that original maintenance was based on net salary – High Court found this comparison flawed and based enhancement on present net pension being substantially higher than net income in 2012 [Paras 14, 21].

CGHS Card Entitlement – Right of Legally Wedded Wife – Respondent Directed to Restore Wife’s Access – Respondent removed petitioner’s name from CGHS card despite ongoing maintenance – High Court held that as legally wedded wife, petitioner is entitled to CGHS benefits – Respondent directed to facilitate inclusion of her name on the card within two months [Paras 22-24].

Change in Circumstances – Interpretation – Includes Rise in Cost of Living and Health Needs – Court reaffirmed that “change in circumstances” under Section 127 Cr.P.C. includes not just income variation but also health issues, inflation, loss of family support, and deterioration of earning spouse’s health – Mere retirement doesn’t bar maintenance enhancement [Paras 17-18, 26-27].

Balancing Equities – Senior Citizens on Both Sides – Modest Enhancement Ordered – Both petitioner and respondent being senior citizens, Court adopted a balanced approach – Maintenance enhanced modestly to ₹14,000/month in view of respondent’s limited post-retirement income and petitioner’s medical needs [Paras 25-27].

Final Decision – Family Court’s order set aside – Maintenance enhanced to ₹14,000/month with effect from date of revision – Arrears to be cleared within six weeks – CGHS card to be restored within two months [Paras 28-29].

Civil Law - Motor Accident Claim – Liability of Registered Owner – Vehicle Uninsured – Compensation Liability Affirmed – Offending scooter involved in accident was admittedly uninsured – Registered owner argued that vehicle was taken by respondent-driver without authority and that driver had agreed to bear compensation liability – Held: Registered owner cannot evade liability under Section 2(30) of Motor Vehicles Act – Absence of insurance and failure to prove forcible taking of vehicle makes registered owner liable – Dismissal of appeals upheld by relying on Supreme Court rulings in Naveen v. Vijay and Brij Bihari Gupta v. Manmet – Registered owner may pursue independent remedy against the driver but remains liable to injured parties [Paras 5, 9-12].

Uninsured Vehicle – No Relief Against Compensation Liability – Affidavit by Driver Not a Ground to Discharge Owner – Registered owner relied on driver’s affidavit stating he would pay compensation – Held: Such affidavit does not affect liability of registered owner under the Act – Owner must satisfy award and may seek recovery from driver separately – Tribunal rightly held both owner and driver jointly and severally liable [Paras 5, 11-12].

Appeals Against Compensation – No Enhancement Sought by Claimants – Finding Limited to Owner’s Liability – No appeal for enhancement was filed by claimants – Scope of appeal confined to contest of liability by registered owner – Tribunal award upheld to the extent of holding owner liable – Appeals dismissed [Paras 4, 12].

Criminal Law - Appeal Against Acquittal – Principles of Double Presumption – Acquittal Upheld – The State filed an appeal against the acquittal of two accused charged under Sections 394/397/34/411 IPC for assaulting and robbing the complainant – The Trial Court acquitted the accused citing inconsistencies in identification, non-sealing of recovered items, and contradictory testimonies – High Court reiterated the principle of double presumption of innocence applicable after acquittal and found no compelling reason to interfere – Appeal dismissed [Paras 12-16].

Identification – TIP Refused – Delayed and Tainted Identification Not Reliable – Complainant identified accused in court more than a month after arrest, claiming he recognized them during court visit – Accused had refused TIP citing prior exposure in police station – High Court held such identification lacked evidentiary value due to procedural compromise and delay [Paras 6, 11, 14].

Recovery – Failure to Seal Recovered Items – Recovery Not Credible – Purse, PAN card, and ID card allegedly recovered from accused were neither sealed nor subjected to forensic testing – IO admitted inability to link currency notes to the complainant – Recovery held to be in open condition and devoid of evidentiary worth [Paras 9, 14].

Contradictions in Prosecution Evidence – Independent Witness Denied Presence of Accused – Defence witness DW6, an independent eyewitness and neighbor, stated that quarrel occurred between complainant and other persons and the accused were not present – Prosecution did not cross-examine the witness – DD entries and MLC also did not mention robbery – Held: Prosecution version doubtful [Paras 7-8, 14].

Appellate Review of Acquittal – Scope Limited – No Interference Without Perverse Finding – Citing precedents including Ravi Sharma v. State (2022) and Anwar Ali v. State of H.P. (2020), Court reiterated that appellate courts must be cautious in reversing acquittals – No perversity or illegality found in trial court’s assessment – Appeal dismissed [Paras 12-13, 15].

Final Decision – Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of respondent No.2 under Sections 394/397/34/411 IPC upheld – No interference warranted in well-reasoned judgment of Trial Court – Proceedings against respondent No.1 abated due to death during pendency of appeal [Paras 6, 15-16].

Civil Law - Title and Possession – Dismissal Confirmed – The appellants (plaintiffs) sought declaration of title, possession, and alternatively partition, over land alleged to be part of a tank acquired by their father – Trial Court and First Appellate Court concurrently found that the defendants were in possession for over 25 years, pursuant to a 1984 family partition, and plaintiffs failed to prove title or possession – Revenue records relied upon by plaintiffs were held insufficient to establish title – The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose under Section 100 CPC – Second appeal dismissed, confirming concurrent findings [Paras 1–3, 14–26].

Title Suit – Declaration and Possession – Plaintiffs Must Prove Their Own Title – Plaintiffs failed to establish legal ownership or entitlement over the suit land – Defendants proved possession under 1984 partition – Held: In a suit for declaration, plaintiffs must succeed on the strength of their own title and cannot rely on weakness of defendant’s case – Courts below rightly rejected claim [Paras 14, 18, 24].

Adverse Possession – Long Possession by Defendants – Suit Barred – Plaintiffs approached Court after over 25 years – Defendants in open, uninterrupted possession since 1984 – Held: Plaintiffs lost any right over suit land by efflux of time – Suit barred by limitation under Article 65 of Limitation Act [Paras 19, 21, 24].

Unregistered Partition Deed – Ex.B.3 – Admissible as Memorandum of Oral Partition – Partition deed though unregistered was treated as proof of earlier oral partition – Plaintiffs’ witnesses admitted to 1984 partition and continuous possession by defendants – Held: Courts below rightly relied on Ex.B.3 to establish family division [Paras 16, 18].

Co-ownership – Not Established – Plaintiffs and Defendants Not Co-heirs – Plaintiffs not entitled to claim partition or joint possession – Held: Presumption of joint possession or claim of co-heirship not applicable – Alternative relief of partition rightly rejected [Paras 22-23].

Revenue Records – Not Proof of Title – Exs.A1, A2, A6-A9 – Pattadar passbooks and adangals held insufficient to prove legal title or possession – Held: Such records do not confer ownership in absence of supporting title deed or consistent possession [Para 21].

Section 100 CPC – No Substantial Question of Law – Concurrent Findings Upheld – Courts below applied correct legal principles – Held: High Court cannot re-appreciate facts unless findings are perverse or legally flawed – No such error found – Second appeal dismissed [Paras 14-15, 25-26].

Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – Decrees of Trial Court and First Appellate Court confirmed – No costs awarded – Plaintiffs failed to prove title or possession after 25 years of inaction [Para 26].