Fake Encounter – Acquittal – Appeal Against Acquittal – Prosecution Failure – Appellants, brothers of Sohrabuddin Shaikh, challenged the acquittal of respondent nos. 2 to 23 accused of murdering Sohrabuddin Shaikh, his wife Kausar Bi, and Tulsiram Prajapati in staged police encounters – Trial Court, after examining 210 witnesses (92 turning hostile), held that the prosecution failed to establish the charges of criminal conspiracy, fake encounter and murder – High Court, on re-appreciation, found no ground to interfere – Held: Judgment of acquittal does not suffer from perversity, manifest illegality or erroneous appreciation of evidence; appeals dismissed [Paras 3, 40, 42, 44].

Circumstantial Evidence – Broken Chain of Circumstances – Prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence – Key witnesses including bus passengers (PW-2, PW-3), cleaner (PW-7), drivers (PW-15, PW-30), and eyewitnesses at Vishala Circle (PW-15, PW-31) resiled from their prior statements and denied having witnessed the abduction or encounter – No prosecution witness identified any accused in the dock or established their presence at the scene – Held: Prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstances pointing exclusively to the guilt of the accused; every hypothesis consistent with innocence remains open [Paras 8, 13, 15, 16, 25, 35, 36, 40].

Hostile Witnesses – Evidentiary Value – 92 out of 210 prosecution witnesses turned hostile and flatly denied making any statement to the police – Court held that though the testimony of a hostile witness is not rejected in entirety, and portions consistent with the prosecution case or corroborated by other evidence may be relied upon, in the present case the cross-examination of hostile witnesses did not elicit any material incriminating circumstance – Statements under Section 161 or 164 Cr.P.C. cannot be used as substantive evidence [Paras 27, 28, 29, 30].

Medical Evidence – Postmortem Findings – Dr. Dharmesh Somabhai Patel (PW-34) conducted postmortem of Sohrabuddin Shaikh and found multiple firearm injuries – Absence of burn marks or smoke deposits at injury sites, and absence of cadaveric spasm, were noted – Trial Court held these findings ruled out close-range firing but did not affirmatively establish fake encounter – Firearms seized were not ballistically linked to the accused; cartridges were not examined against service weapons allotted to the accused [Paras 11, 12, 13, 40].

Criminal Conspiracy – Proof – Prosecution alleged a conspiracy between police officers and politicians to eliminate Sohrabuddin Shaikh and Tulsiram Prajapati – No material was placed to establish politician-police nexus, political or monetary motive, or that any accused received benefit – Witnesses who initially spoke of the nexus theory were found to have improved their version years after the incident – Held: Mere transmission of thought or a shared desire is insufficient; a clear, affirmative link establishing the agreement and its furtherance is necessary [Paras 4, 33, 37, 38].

Res Gestae – Dying Declaration – Section 6 and Section 32, Evidence Act – Appellants sought to treat statements allegedly made by Tulsiram Prajapati to co-inmates (PW-72, PW-96, PW-139, PW-174, PW-205, PW-207, PW-208) expressing apprehension of being killed as res gestae or dying declaration – Held: Statements do not relate to the cause of or circumstances leading to the death of Tulsiram Prajapati; they cannot be treated as dying declaration under Section 32; they do not constitute res gestae as they were not made contemporaneously with the transaction [Paras 32, 33].

Sanction for Prosecution – Section 197 Cr.P.C. – Public Servants – Twenty of the twenty-two accused were public servants not removable without government sanction – Trial Court held that the alleged offending acts were integrally connected with the discharge of their official duty and the Magistrate could not have taken cognizance without prior sanction of the appropriate government authority – High Court upheld this finding [Paras 26].

Burden of Proof – Section 106, Evidence Act – Appellants contended that the burden to explain how the victims parted company should shift to the accused – Held: Section 106 is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its primary burden of proof in a criminal case; it applies only to facts especially within the accused's knowledge and cannot be invoked to fill gaps in the prosecution case [Para 31].

Appeal Against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – High Court's power to reappreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal is a qualified power – Interference is warranted only when findings are perverse, manifestly unjust, or based on erroneous law – Where the trial Court's view is a possible and plausible view, the appellate Court cannot substitute its own view merely because another view is possible – Held: Trial Court applied correct legal principles; its conclusions are not contrary to the evidence on record; no ground for interference exists [Paras 41, 42].

Impleadment Application – Suppression of Facts – Interim Application No. 1172 of 2026 filed by a stranger seeking to challenge the discharge of A-16 Amit Anilchandra Shah was found to have suppressed material orders including a Supreme Court order dated 1st August 2016 dismissing a Special Leave Petition arising from an earlier challenge to the same discharge – Applicant had no nexus with the case and surfaced nearly two decades after registration of Crime No. 5 of 2005 – Held: Application filed with oblique motive and at the instance of a political adversary; disposed of accordingly [Para 43].

Decision: Criminal Appeal Nos. 641 and 656 of 2019 dismissed – Judgment of acquittal dated 21st December 2018 confirmed – Interim Application No. 1172 of 2026 disposed of.

Arbitration – Non-Arbitrability – Airport Premises – Eviction – Chapter-VA of AAI Act – Petitioners granted licenses for 7 years by AAI for running restaurant-cum-hangout format at Juhu Airport through a competitive tender process – AAI terminated licenses by notices dated 22 March 2025 alleging lack of authority in the executing officer and encroachment beyond allotted area – Petitioners filed Section 9 Petitions for interim stay and Section 11 Application for appointment of arbitrator – AAI opposed on the ground that disputes relating to eviction from airport premises are non-arbitrable under Chapter-VA of the AAI Act – Held: Disputes and differences relating to eviction and recovery of airport premises are non-arbitrable; Section 9 Petitions dismissed and Section 11 Application disposed of with liberty to file fresh application for disputes outside Chapter-VA [Paras 1, 2, 3, 52, 53, 54].

Arbitration Clause – Excepted Matters – Clauses 25.1 and 25.10 – The license agreement contained a dispute resolution clause (Clause 25) providing for mediation followed by arbitration for all disputes touching or concerning the agreement; however, Clause 25.1 excluded disputes to which the AAI Act and rules apply, and Clause 25.10 expressly excluded from arbitration all disputes for which eviction and recovery procedure is provided under Chapter-VA of the AAI Act – Held: The exclusion under Clauses 25.1 and 25.10 is express and unambiguous; excepted matters cannot be referred to arbitration and any reference made in respect thereof renders the proceedings, including any award, null and void [Paras 17, 18, 26].

Unauthorized Occupation – Section 28-A(f) of AAI Act – Upon issuance of termination notices dated 22 March 2025, the authority to occupy airport premises stood determined and petitioners automatically became unauthorized occupants within the meaning of Section 28-A(f) of the AAI Act – Eviction proceedings were initiated by the Eviction Officer by notices under Sections 28-C and 28-F on 11 June 2025 – Held: From the date of termination, disputes relating to occupation of airport premises by petitioners became non-arbitrable under Section 28-M of the AAI Act [Paras 33, 34].

Chapter-VA of AAI Act – Complete Code – Section 28-M – Bar on Jurisdiction – Chapter-VA of the AAI Act, inserted by Act 43 of 2003, constitutes a complete code for eviction of unauthorized occupants from airport premises – The Eviction Officer is empowered with powers of a Civil Court under Section 28-H – Section 28-M declares finality of orders of the Eviction Officer and bars jurisdiction of any court or authority including for grant of injunction in respect of actions taken or intended to be taken by the Eviction Officer under Chapter-VA – Held: Section 28-M read with Section 2(3) of the Arbitration Act makes disputes relating to eviction and recovery of airport premises non-arbitrable as a matter of public policy [Paras 19 to 25, 30, 31, 32].

Validity of Termination – Defense Before Eviction Officer – Not Arbitrable – Petitioners contended that the dispute about validity of the termination notices was arbitrable – Held: If petitioners believe the termination notices are illegal or invalid, such contentions can only be raised as a defence in eviction proceedings before the Eviction Officer; the issue of validity of termination cannot be separately adjudicated in arbitration [Paras 42, 49].

Interlocutory Order – Not Binding at Final Hearing – Earlier interlocutory order dated 23 June 2025 granting status-quo had recorded prima-facie observations that HLV Limited was distinguishable – Held: Prima-facie observations made at the stage of ad-interim relief do not bind the Court at the stage of final decision; such findings are not res judicata [Para 50].

Section 11 – Referral Jurisdiction – Hands-Off Approach – Petitioners urged that reference to arbitration be made leaving arbitrability to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16 – Held: Where the Court has arrived at a finding that disputes are non-arbitrable, there is no question of adopting a hands-off approach or making reference to arbitration; only disputes not covered by Chapter-VA of the AAI Act can be referred to arbitration and petitioners granted liberty to file fresh Section 11 application for such disputes [Paras 47, 52].

Decision: Commercial Arbitration Petitions (L) Nos. 13393 of 2025 and 12378 of 2025 under Section 9 dismissed; ad-interim measures vacated – Commercial Arbitration Application No. 38289 of 2025 disposed of; liberty granted to file fresh application for reference to arbitration only in respect of disputes to which Chapter-VA of the AAI Act does not apply – No order as to costs.

Murder – Section 302/34 IPC – Common Intention – Abatement of Appeal – Surviving Appellant – Deceased Laxman was allegedly assaulted with laathis by four accused-appellants on 15.06.1982 near a well, following suspicion that Laxman had informed the police about illicit liquor manufacture at the house of Raghuver – Trial Court convicted all four accused-appellants under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment – Appellants Raghuver, Hira and Idal died during pendency of appeal and their appeals stood abated – Appeal adjudicated solely in respect of surviving accused-appellant No. 4, Chhakki [Paras 2, 11].

Section 34 IPC – Common Intention – Requirement of Premeditation, Pre-plan and Pre-concert – Prosecution witnesses Viran PW-1, Ram Dayal PW-2 and Tulsi PW-3 made only general allegations against all accused persons collectively and attributed no specific motive, cause or enmity to surviving accused-appellant Chhakki – Motive for the crime was exclusively personal to Raghuver and his brother Hira, who suspected Laxman of informing the police – Chhakki was not a family member of Raghuver and no evidence disclosed any reason for his participation – Investigating Officer PW-8 deposed that no witness stated they had seen the accused emerging from the house – Tulsi PW-3 contradicted himself in cross-examination as to whether he had seen the accused persons going from the back of the house – Held: Prosecution failed to establish premeditation, pre-plan or pre-concert between surviving accused-appellant Chhakki and the other accused-appellants; trial Court did not discuss or record any finding on common intention with reference to Chhakki; conviction with aid of Section 34 IPC is unsustainable in absence of proof of prior meeting of minds [Paras 14–20].

Section 34 IPC – Common Intention – Settled Principles – For conviction under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, the prosecution must establish that all accused shared a pre-arranged plan and that the criminal act was done in furtherance of common intention – The plan may develop on the spot but must precede the act constituting the offence; a definite conclusion as to prior concert is essential – Trial Court merely relied on the nature and extent of injuries to infer intention to kill and did not address the requirement of premeditation and prior concert in respect of Chhakki – Held: This approach is not sustainable in law, particularly in a heinous offence like murder where every ingredient must be proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 18–20].

Decision: Criminal appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence of surviving accused-appellant Chhakki under Sections 302/34 IPC as passed by the Sessions Judge, Lalitpur on 03.10.1983 in Sessions Trial No. 147 of 1982 set aside – Chhakki acquitted – Already on bail; need not surrender; bail bonds cancelled and sureties discharged – Appellant to comply with Section 437-A CrPC.

Arbitration – Section 34 – Deposit of 75% of Award Amount – Withdrawal by Award Holder – No Objection by Award Debtor – Binding Effect – ONGC deposited 75% of the arbitral award amount before the Special Court pursuant to conditional stay granted by the Special Court during Section 34 proceedings – DIL filed I.A. No. 200 of 2023 seeking withdrawal and furnished undertaking to re-deposit as and when directed – ONGC, through its officer, filed counter expressly stating "No Objection" to withdrawal without security, citing DIL's ongoing contracts worth crores with ONGC as sufficient comfort – Special Court allowed withdrawal vide Order dated 08.05.2023 – In the appeal, ONGC sought to resile from the no-objection contending that the officer was not duly authorised and disciplinary action was being initiated – Held: The no-objection was given by ONGC in writing in a counter affidavit; the Order dated 08.05.2023 recorded the same and was never challenged before the Special Court or in any higher forum; ONGC cannot be permitted to take a contrary plea for the first time in the rejoinder affidavit in the application in appeal; the stand is an afterthought [Paras 24–25, 31].

Arbitration – Application to Re-deposit Withdrawn Amount or Furnish Security – Conditions for Grant – Changed Circumstances – ONGC sought direction to re-deposit or furnish bank guarantee on the ground that DIL had suffered a loss of Rs.78.76 crores in the financial year 2024-25 as against profit of Rs.125 crores in 2023-24, alleging precarious financial condition – DIL denied, submitting that the loss was attributable to a one-time non-cash exceptional accounting item on account of acquisitions of Kandla Energy and Dolphin Offshore Shipping, with no impact on liquidity or operational solvency; that DIL had active contracts with ONGC exceeding Rs.1,000 crores with ONGC itself holding substantial bank guarantees and making monthly running bill payments – Held: For direction to re-deposit or furnish security after withdrawal was permitted with the consent of the applicant-ONGC, a very strong case is required to be made out; disputed questions of financial capacity cannot be finally adjudicated in this jurisdiction; no case for grant of prayer made out at this stage [Paras 33–36].

Arbitration – Undertaking to Re-deposit – Survival After Dismissal of Section 34 Petition – DIL contended that the undertaking to re-deposit stood extinguished upon dismissal of CAOP No. 17 of 2022 under Section 34 – Held: An appeal under Section 37 is a continuation of the original proceedings; the undertaking given by DIL to re-deposit the amount when directed by the Court subsists in the appeal and DIL would remain bound by it if and when the Court directs re-deposit either consequent on the result of the appeal or otherwise; plea of extinguishment of undertaking rejected [Para 37].

Arbitration – No Objection to Withdrawal Without Security – Obligation to Challenge Order – ONGC contended the learned Special Judge erroneously recorded "no objection without security" – Held: If any statement in a court order is disputed as wrongly recorded, the appropriate course is to approach the same court; ONGC neither approached the Special Court nor challenged Order dated 08.05.2023 for over three years; such inaction also evidences that ONGC had no objection to withdrawal of the amount by DIL without security [Paras 30–31].

Decision: I.A. No. 2 of 2025 rejected – No direction issued to DIL to re-deposit the amount or furnish bank guarantee at this stage – DIL held bound by its undertaking to re-deposit if and when directed by the Court in the appeal – Pending miscellaneous petitions stand closed.

Commercial Courts – Order XI Rule 1 CPC – Leave to File Additional Documents – "Power, Possession, Control or Custody" – Certified Copies as Public Documents – The petitioners filed a commercial suit for specific performance of an oral agreement for sale of land – They subsequently filed I.A. No. 271 of 2025 seeking leave to place 133 additional documents on record including certified copies of sale deeds, Gram Panchayat resolutions, VMRDA challans, and Google map images – The learned Special Judge rejected the application holding that these documents could have been obtained with reasonable efforts at the time of institution of the suit – Held: Documents which could be obtained from public authorities cannot be deemed to be in "power, possession, control or custody" of a party unless actually obtained; the date of a document being prior to the institution of the suit does not automatically make it available in the power, possession, control or custody of the plaintiff at the time of filing; the finding of the Special Judge that documents could have been obtained with reasonable efforts is not a finding that they were in actual power, possession, control or custody and is therefore not sustainable [Paras 33–34].

Commercial Courts – Order XI Rule 1(1)(c)(ii) CPC – Documents Required in Answer to Defendant's Case – Exclusion of Entire Rule 1 – The defendants in their written statement disputed the quantum of sale consideration paid for the transferred land of Ac.79.89 cents and raised a plea inconsistent with the plaint – To answer this specific defence, the petitioners sought to file certified copies of sale deeds – Held: Once Order XI Rule 1(1)(c)(ii) is attracted i.e., documents relevant in answer to a case set up by the defendant subsequent to filing of the plaint – the entire Rule 1 including sub-rule (5) stands excluded; the expression "this Rule" in clause (c) refers to Rule 1 as a whole and not merely sub-rule (1); sub-rule (5) being in the nature of an exception to sub-rule (1) also stands excluded when clause (c)(ii) is attracted; application for leave cannot be rejected on the basis of sub-rules (1) and (5) in such cases [Paras 36–43].

Procedural Law – Handmaid of Justice – Reasonable Cause – Liberal Construction – Provisions of Order XI Rule 1 CPC as applicable to Commercial Courts are procedural in nature and must be construed liberally to advance substantial justice – Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of effective adjudication so long as the adverse party does not suffer serious prejudice – The expression "reasonable cause" for non-disclosure must be considered in correct perspective with a view to advance substantial justice – Procedural law is not to be a tyrant but a servant; not an obstruction but an aid to justice [Paras 27–28, 44].

Secondary Evidence – Certified Copies of Sale Deeds – Objection as to Admissibility – Stage of Raising – Leave to receive documents is distinct from admissibility of those documents at trial – Objections under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act as to production of secondary evidence without proof of loss of primary evidence are to be raised and considered at the appropriate stage before the learned Special Judge and do not bear on the question of grant of leave to file documents [Para 45].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 04.02.2026 rejecting I.A. No. 271 of 2025 set aside – Learned Special Judge directed to take the documents on record, subject to admissibility to be considered at trial – Pending miscellaneous petitions stand closed.

Criminal Law – Section 332 IPC – Voluntarily Causing Hurt to Public Servant – Section 504 IPC – Intentional Insult – Appellant Devanand entered the cabin of the informant (Dr. Pankaj Jawale, Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Osmanabad, belonging to Mahar caste) on 15.05.2007 and questioned him regarding non-issuance of a death certificate, hurled abuses questioning his competence and the absence of police protection, and assaulted him on the right side of his face and nose causing bleeding — Appellant Sunil @ Pintu and co-accused Anna Rochkari thereafter entered and participated in abusing and assaulting the informant — Accused by force compelled the informant to sign a death certificate, a job work bill and two blank cheques — Informant's evidence corroborated by medical evidence of P.W.9 Dr. Mustafa Palla who found bleeding from the right nostril and abrasion on the dorsum of right hand with injury age within 24 hours — Most other witnesses turned hostile or did not support the prosecution — Trial court acquitted all accused under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Atrocities Act and Section 506 read with Section 34 IPC but convicted under Sections 332 and 504 IPC — Held: Essential ingredients of Section 332 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt to a public servant discharging lawful duty with intent to obstruct) and Section 504 IPC (intentional insult and provocation) proved beyond reasonable doubt from the consistent oral evidence of the informant and corroborating medical evidence — Conviction and sentence upheld — Prosecution case proved even though eye witnesses did not support, as quality of evidence of informant and treating doctor sufficient [Paras 9–15, 18].

Sentence – Quantum – Hearing on Sentence – Procedural Irregularity – Appellant Devanand argued that he was not heard on the point of quantum of sentence as he was away for a marriage ceremony and returned after recess — Trial court in its sentencing observations made erroneous reference to other pending cases against him which resulted in acquittal due to hostile witnesses — Held: Such erroneous observations are not a ground for acquittal or reduction of sentence as the basis of conviction is the reliable oral and medical evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.9 and not the antecedents — No evidence that appellant was present in court after recess — One year's simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 332 IPC and three months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 504 IPC awarded to Devanand is just and proper — Fine of Rs. 15,000/- in default simple imprisonment for six months awarded to Sunil @ Pintu under Section 332 IPC is also just and proper — No interference warranted [Paras 14–17].

Decision: Both criminal appeals dismissed – Conviction and sentence of Devanand s/o Sahebrao Rochkari under Sections 332 and 504 IPC and of Sunil @ Pintu s/o Sambhaji Rochkari under Section 332 IPC upheld – Bail bonds and sureties of both appellants discharged from liability – Conviction warrant to be issued against appellant Devanand s/o Sahebrao Rochkari.

Land Acquisition – Requisition Without Subsequent Acquisition – West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 – Petitioner's land (RS Plot Nos. 452, 453, 527, 513 and 513/3862 totalling 29 decimals, Mouza Bural, PS Sabong, Paschim Medinipur) requisitioned under Section 3(1) of the 1948 Act in LA Case No. 255 of 1975–76 – Possession delivered to Requiring Body on 22.02.1978 – No notification under Section 4(1a) of the 1948 Act ever published – No award passed – No compensation paid – Held: In the absence of issuance of notice under Section 4(1a) of the 1948 Act, vesting under Section 4(2) never occurred – 1948 Act, being a temporary statute, expired by efflux of time on 31.03.1997 – With the expiry of the statute, requisition also came to an end – No notice under Section 9(3A) or Section 9(3B) of the 1894 Act was ever served during the lifetime of the 1894 Act – After repeal of the 1894 Act with effect from 01.01.2014, no further notice under Section 9(3A) could be issued – State possessing land forcibly and without authority of law – Petitioner entitled to fair compensation under the 2013 Act [Paras 37–59, 71–73].

Constitutional Law – Article 300A – Right to Property – Deprivation Without Authority of Law – No person can be deprived of property save by authority of law – Utilisation of private land for a permanent public purpose without initiating valid acquisition proceedings and without payment of compensation is violative of Article 300A – State, as a welfare State governed by rule of law, cannot arrogate to itself a status beyond what is provided by the Constitution – State cannot claim adverse possession over land of its own citizens – Held: Petitioner entitled to be compensated for deprivation of property without legal sanction [Paras 15, 57, 59, 73].

Delay and Laches – Land Acquisition – Distinction from Service Jurisprudence – State objected to maintainability of writ petition on ground of inordinate delay, possession having been taken in 1978–79 – Held: Doctrine of delay and laches cannot be invoked to defeat a land loser's claim for compensation where possession was taken without due process of law – Cause of action in such cases is continuous – Where the State deprives a citizen of property without sanction of law, shocks the judicial conscience, and no third-party interest is involved, delay cannot be a bar – Decisions in U.P. Jal Nigam and Rabindra Nath Bose, being cases of service jurisprudence, distinguished and held inapplicable – Discretion exercised in favour of petitioner to promote substantial justice [Paras 14–35].

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Applicability – Section 24 – State contended that the 2013 Act cannot apply retrospectively to acquisition initiated and possession taken under the 1948 Act and not the 1894 Act – Held: Section 24 of the 2013 Act is a saving section and saves acquisition proceedings from lapsing only to the extent indicated therein – Since no acquisition proceeding under the 1894 Act was ever initiated and no notice under Section 9(3A) was served during the lifetime of the 1894 Act, the only recourse available is initiation of acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act – Respondent authorities directed to initiate and complete acquisition proceedings including payment of compensation within four months [Paras 61–74].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Respondent authorities directed to initiate proceedings for acquisition of petitioner's land under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and to complete entire proceedings including payment of compensation within four months from receipt of a server copy of this order.

Civil Procedure – Impleadment of Party – Necessary Party – Privity of Contract – Tenants of Kamla Bhuvan filed writ petition seeking direction to comply with Regulation 33(7)(A) of DCPR-2034 for redevelopment – Sought impleadment of M/s. BS Lifespace as respondent on the ground that the new developer had actively participated in redevelopment activities and had received consent-cum-declarations from 62 tenants – Landlords (Respondent Nos. 3 to 5) opposed impleadment, stating no contract existed with the new developer – Held: Petitioners have no right to implead a party having no privity of contract with the landlords; impleadment would only enlarge and complicate the issues – Application dismissed with costs [Paras 4–8].

Abuse of Process of Court – Pressure Tactic – Coercion – No binding contract between M/s. BS Lifespace and existing landlords – Application found to be a back-door entry by the proposed respondent through the guise of an impleadment application – Court observed that the application was prima facie moved and financed by the proposed respondent to crystalize an unenforceable right against the landlords and original developers – Held: Courts cannot be used as tools to coerce or pressurize parties; such abuse of process cannot be countenanced – Application dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,00,000/- payable to Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa's Advocate Academy and Research Center within two weeks [Paras 5–8].

Tenants' Rights – Redevelopment – Settled Law – Court noted that rights of tenants in redevelopment matters are well-settled and elucidated in Chandralok People Welfare Association v. State of Maharashtra and Anandrao G. Pawar v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai – However, impleadment of a party with no contractual nexus with the landlord cannot be permitted under the guise of protecting tenant interests [Para 4.2].

Decision: Interim Application dismissed – Costs of Rs. 5,00,000/- imposed, payable to BCMG's Advocate Academy and Research Center – Writ Petition listed for compliance on 15/06/2026.

Juvenile Justice – Child in Conflict with Law – Bail – Section 12(1) Proviso – CCL tried as adult – Standard of Consideration – CCL/applicant, being tried as an adult in FIR No. 11/2024 (PS Badarpur) under Section 302/34 IPC for alleged murder of Gaurav @ Paggal by inflicting multiple stab injuries along with two other CCLs and two adult accused – Decision to try as adult not challenged – At the time of alleged offence, CCL was already on bail in FIR No. 489/2023 (PS Sarita Vihar) under Section 302/397/34 IPC – Also involved in FIR No. 542/2022 (PS Badarpur) under Section 394/34 IPC – Eye witness and CCTV footage available – Public witnesses yet to be examined – Held: In cases of CCL under proviso to Section 12(1) of the JJ Act, the court must consider whether release is likely to bring the CCL into association with any known criminal, or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or defeat the ends of justice – Manner of offence, seriousness of charge and antecedents, while not exclusively determinative, are relevant to the statutory inquiry – Present murder alleged while CCL was on bail in another murder case — five assailants involved in the present case — risk of association with known criminals not vague or speculative — apprehension that release would lead to witness intimidation well-founded — over-liberal approach not warranted merely because the applicant is a child being treated as adult — Court cannot be oblivious to the harsh reality that juveniles are increasingly used by organised criminal syndicates — bail refused [Paras 2–9].

Decision: Bail application dismissed – CCL not entitled to regular bail at this stage – Copy of order to be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for immediate conveyance to the CCL.