Civil Law - Leasehold Mortgage – Consent of Lessor – Mortgage Without Prior Permission – Not Void – MIDC challenged DRAT order affirming validity of mortgage executed by lessee BI in favour of UBI without MIDC’s prior consent – Court held: Though mortgage was in breach of lease condition (Clause 2(t)), it was not void ab initio; MIDC had remedy under Clause 4 (re-entry) which it failed to invoke – DRAT’s finding sustained [Paras 8.1–8.3].

Subletting Charges – No Statutory Authority – Levy Limited by Court Order – MIDC’s claim for subletting charges under 1975 Regulations and Circulars rejected due to lack of enabling legal provision – Held: DRAT rightly limited subletting charges to 18/08/2007–10/10/2008 based on facts and absence of challenge from auction purchaser KPPL – Beyond this period, levy was not justified [Paras 8.4–8.6].

Public Auction – Auction Purchaser’s Rights – Valid Title – KPPL, successful bidder in DRT auction, deposited full sale consideration and differential premium – Court held: Having paid as per auction terms, KPPL acquired valid leasehold rights – MIDC failed to act on lease breach and could not deny title to auction purchaser [Paras 7, 8.1, 8.7].

Fraud Allegation – Not Raised Before DRT/DRAT – Barred at Writ Stage – MIDC’s claim that the decree in favour of UBI was vitiated by fraud due to suppression of facts was raised for the first time in writ petition – Held: Mixed question of fact and law cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction without prior pleading in lower forums [Para 8.8].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – DRAT Judgment Upheld – Mortgage deed valid despite breach of lease clause – Subletting charges upheld for limited duration – Rights of parties to be adjudicated in pending civil proceedings – No costs awarded [Paras 9–11].

Arbitration – Limitation – Date of Cause of Action – Arbitral Proceedings Held Timely – Appellant argued claim was time-barred from 2006 due to early land handover – Court held cause of action arose only in 2010 when State confirmed concession period's end date, and arbitral proceedings commenced in same year – Held: Claim within limitation [Paras 5-11].

Contract Interpretation – Commencement Date – Full Site Possession Required – Respondent began construction on partial land handover in 2004 – Arbitrator treated 2006 as true commencement date when full possession was given – Court upheld this view as aligned with agreement definitions – Held: Arbitrator's interpretation plausible and within contract terms [Paras 12-15].

Arbitral Award – Patent Illegality – Compensation and Interest Beyond Contract – Arbitrator granted cash damages and compound interest due to delay in site handover and non-closure of railway crossing – Concession agreement lacked provision for such monetary compensation – Court held award contrary to contract and legal standards – Held: Award suffers from patent illegality and is liable to be set aside [Paras 16-22, 31].

BOT Contracts – Toll Collection vs. Cash Compensation – Court emphasized BOT model implies consideration via toll collection, not direct monetary award – Respondent had collected toll beyond 52-month limit due to extended concession period – Held: Additional cash compensation unjustified [Paras 18-20].

Interest on Interest – Arbitrator Granted Compound Interest – Arbitral award included interest on interest compounded quarterly – Court found no contract clause authorizing such interest – Held: Without explicit agreement, such grant is illegal [Paras 26-27, 34].

Partial Setting Aside of Award – Severability of Claims – Two claims under award were for toll retention and compensation for losses – Court held these were severable and independently assessable – Award partially upheld for toll retention; compensation and interest quashed [Paras 36-39].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Arbitral award modified – Claim for toll retention upheld – Compensation for losses, delay interest and compound interest set aside as contrary to concession agreement and vitiated by patent illegality [Paras 39-40].

Bail Application – Allegations of Sexual Assault by Guardian – Bail Granted – The applicant, a practising advocate and guardian of the alleged victims, was accused under Sections 376, 354, and 506 IPC based on an FIR lodged after a year’s delay – Victims were his daughter and niece, both minors at the time – Court noted inconsistencies in victim statements, no forensic evidence, and delayed FIR – Held: Considering pendulum-like testimonies, settled principles of bail, and explained antecedents, bail was justified [Paras 52-58].

Sexual Offences – Delayed FIR and Absence of Medical Evidence – Credibility of Allegations Weakened – FIR filed a year after alleged incidents without explanation – Victims refused medical examination – Court held that uncorroborated allegations without timely medical or forensic support reduced prosecutorial strength – Matter deemed triable rather than warranting custodial detention [Paras 14-15, 52, 57].

Minor Victims – Right to Autonomy vs. Parental Supervision – Sociocultural Conflict – Court observed tension between traditional family norms and modern autonomy of young adults – Noted that victims’ marriages against applicant’s will influenced events – Held: Guardianship does not extend to overriding lawful autonomy of near-major individuals [Paras 53-55].

Criminal History – Prior FIRs Explained – Not a Ground to Deny Bail – Applicant had prior criminal cases, but Court found explanations credible – No recurring criminal pattern established – Held: Past FIRs mainly involved guardianship duties and not persistent criminal behaviour [Paras 47, 52(i)].

Decision: Bail application allowed – Applicant Pradeep Soni to be released on personal bond and two sureties – Observations are prima facie and not to affect merits of trial [Paras 59-62].

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheques – Failure to Prove Debt – Acquittal Upheld - The complainant alleged a friendly loan of ₹8.5 lakhs was given and cheques were dishonoured – Respondent admitted signature on cheques but claimed they were issued in a different context – Court held that complainant failed to establish existence of legally recoverable debt – No documentary proof of loan or financial capacity – Presumption under Section 139 rebutted – Leave to appeal dismissed [Paras 6–25].

Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 N.I. Act – Nature and Rebuttal – Court clarified that presumption of consideration is rebuttable – Referred decisions emphasized that accused need not conclusively prove innocence but can rebut presumption by material creating reasonable doubt – Held: Onus was not discharged by complainant to prove foundational facts for invoking presumption [Paras 17–22].

Proof of Financial Capacity – Lack of Evidence – Burden Not Discharged - Complainant failed to provide any transaction date or reliable financial documents to show her ability to lend ₹8.5 lakhs – Bank statements failed to reflect such capacity – Court noted improbability of such a large loan without documentation – Complaint rightly dismissed [Paras 23–25].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Acquittal Affirmed - Leave to appeal was declined on the ground that the complainant failed to prove legally enforceable debt – Respondent's acquittal under Section 138 N.I. Act upheld [Para 26].

Family Law – Maintenance under Section 24 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955  – Justified Quantum – Respondent-wife filed application for interim maintenance during pendency of divorce proceedings – Family Court, based on income affidavits and records, assessed husband’s monthly income at ₹47,128 and granted ₹15,000 as maintenance (₹8,000 for wife, ₹7,000 for child) – Held: Assessment was reasoned and based on cogent evidence – No illegality in award [Paras 2, 6, 14, 22].

Family Law – Voluntary Financial Obligations – Not Deductible from Income – Appellant contended his disposable income was reduced due to EMI obligations and insurance premium – Court held only statutory deductions (like tax and PF) are permissible – Loan EMIs, insurance premiums, and other personal expenses not deductible when assessing income for maintenance – Reference made to Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar v. Raj Kumari, (1970) 3 SCC 129 [Paras 8, 15–18].

Maintenance – Capability to Earn vs. Actual Earning – Appellant argued respondent was qualified and should earn – Court held: Law is settled that education or potential earning capacity is not a ground to deny maintenance if actual income is absent – Reliance placed on Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain, (2017) 15 SCC 801 and Shailja v. Khobbanna, (2018) 12 SCC 199 – Held: Mere capacity to earn does not disentitle a spouse from maintenance [Paras 10, 19–20].

Women and Child Welfare – Medical and Care Responsibilities – Respondent-wife was responsible for care of minor child and also suffering from medical issues – Court held these constraints legitimately limit her ability to earn – Maintenance justified not just on unemployment but also on real-life limitations and caregiving burden [Para 21].

Judicial Review – Appellate Interference in Maintenance Orders – Appeal filed against interim maintenance order under Section 24 HMA – High Court found that Family Court’s conclusions were based on verified financial documents and in line with Supreme Court precedent (Rajnesh v. Neha, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 903) – No perversity or illegality found – Held: No interference warranted [Paras 23–24].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Interim maintenance order of ₹15,000/month upheld – Court affirmed statutory obligation of husband to support wife and child despite personal financial commitments or contractual employment status [Para 24].

Civil Writ - Land Transfer by Tribals – Validity of Rule 4(1)(a)(i), 1975 Rules – Challenge Dismissed – Petitioner challenged the prohibition on transfer of tribal land to non-tribals for agricultural use – High Court held that the restriction under Rule 4(1)(a)(i) requiring land to be used only for non-agricultural purposes post-transfer was constitutionally valid – Object of the rule is to prevent exploitation and preserve agricultural land with tribals – Rule found to be reasonable and not violative of Article 14 [Paras 17–19, 24–25].

Delegated Legislation – Reasonable Classification – Rule 4(1)(a)(i) Held Constitutional – Court observed that classification permitting tribal-to-tribal and tribal-to-non-tribal transfers only for non-agricultural use has intelligible differentia – It is in furtherance of Article 46, and thus a valid exercise of delegated legislative power – Long-standing implementation of the rule also weighed in favor of its validity [Paras 18, 19, 23].

Collector’s Discretion – Not Restricted Illegally – Section 36A Discretion Under Rule 4 – Discretion under Section 36A(2) to grant permission for transfer was not found to be curtailed improperly – Court held that discretion exists within the statutory framework and the Collector can only act within contingencies enumerated under Rule 4 – Hence, no excessive restriction on Collector’s powers [Paras 20–22].

Reading Down Rule – Not Permissible – Constitutionality Upheld – Petitioner’s plea to read down Rule 4(1)(a)(i) to allow agricultural use in exceptional cases rejected – Court held there was no need to read down the provision as it was constitutionally valid and reasonably connected to the object of preventing land alienation from tribals to non-tribals [Para 23].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Rule 4(1)(a)(i) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Rules, 1975 upheld – Petitioner not permitted to transfer occupancy to non-tribal for agricultural purpose – Rule discharged with no costs [Paras 24–25].

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Conviction – Sexual Assault - Delay in Lodging FIR – Explanation for Delay – Delay Justified - The delay of two days in lodging the complaint explained by attempts at village-level settlement – Court held that delay in lodging FIR in sexual offences is not fatal where explanation exists and the complaint was promptly filed after failure of settlement [Paras 8-9].

Victim’s Testimony – Credibility and Sole Reliance – Conviction Upheld - The testimony of the victim, despite inconsistencies in minor details, found reliable and sufficiently corroborated by other prosecution witnesses – Sole testimony supported by injury report and surrounding circumstances sufficient for conviction without mandatory corroboration [Paras 12-14, 16-18].

Applicability of Section 376/511 IPC – Attempt to Commit Rape – Ingredients Satisfied - Evidence of physical scuffle, disrobing, and injuries proved preparation and attempt to commit rape even though act was not consummated – Sufficient material to attract Section 376/511 IPC as held in light of Apex Court precedents [Paras 23-26].

Negligence of Investigation Officer – Impact on Prosecution Case – No Benefit to Accused - Lapses such as non-seizure of victim’s torn clothing and non-exhibition of injury report held not fatal – Court stressed that negligence by I.O. does not nullify credible prosecution evidence [Paras 15, 20].

Character of Victim – Irrelevant in Sexual Offence Trials – Accused’s Defence Rejected - Defence attempt to malign victim’s character disregarded as irrelevant in sexual offences – Court reaffirmed that previous character of prosecutrix immaterial where credible evidence exists [Paras 25-26].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction Affirmed - The conviction and sentence under Sections 354 and 376/511 IPC affirmed – Appeal dismissed and order of the Trial Court dated 25/04/2006 confirmed [Paras 27-28].

Limitation - Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 - Delay in Filing Appeal – Applicability of Section 13(1-A) of Commercial Courts Act – Appeal Time-barred – The appellants filed appeals against the judgment of the Single Judge dated 31.07.2023 with a delay of 55 days beyond the statutory 60-day period under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act – Held: Delay not condonable unless sufficient cause shown under Section 5 of the Limitation Act – Delay unjustified in facts of case [Paras 3, 8, 12, 42].

Re-Filing of Appeals – Delay of 226 Days – Abuse of Process – Appeals refiled only after dismissal of related SLPs by the Supreme Court – No steps taken to remove defects or notify court and respondents – Held: Delay deliberate, not inadvertent – Bonafides lacking – Condonation denied [Paras 15–21, 32–38].

Bona Fides and Judicial Discretion – Condonation of Delay – Leniency Not Warranted – Court held that discretion under Section 5 is not a license for strategic delay – Emphasized need for honesty and diligence in pursuing remedies – Factual matrix revealed calculated gamble by appellants – Delay fatal [Paras 24–30, 33–35].

Conduct of Litigants – Suppression of Facts and Fence-Sitting – Delay Not Innocuous – Appellants failed to disclose filing of their appeals during ongoing hearing of related appeals by respondents – Continued participating without disclosure before Division Bench or Supreme Court – Conduct considered egregious and manipulative [Paras 14, 23, 31, 36–39].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Delay Not Condoned – In absence of sufficient cause for delay in filing and re-filing, and in light of mala fide conduct, applications for condonation of delay dismissed – Consequently, the appeals also dismissed without adjudication on merits [Paras 42–43].

Facie Case Under Section 289 IPC – Quashing Denied – Complaint alleged attack by 10–12 unchained pet dogs resulting in injury to complainant – Petitioner disputed ownership and claimed possession of only one dog – Court held that allegations indicated potential negligent omission attracting Section 289 IPC – Charge-sheet based on witness statements including Nitesh Bansal supported prima facie case – Matter requires full-fledged trial [Paras 3–6, 17–21, 25–27, 39].

Injury Report – Absence of External Injury Not Fatal – ‘Probable Danger’ Sufficient Under Section 289 IPC – Injury report noted “No obvious external injury” but recorded subjective pain and advised X-ray – Court held actual grievous injury not necessary under Section 289 IPC – Complaint of attack leading to fall could constitute harm under IPC – Disputed facts to be assessed at trial [Paras 7, 22–24, 31, 36, 38].

Mens Rea – Negligence May Be Inferred – Question of Fact for Trial – Petitioner argued lack of mental element (mens rea) – Court noted negligence under Section 289 includes omission of reasonable care – Whether conduct was negligent is to be determined from evidence at trial – Not a ground for quashing [Paras 8, 25, 40].

Botched Investigation – Allegations Inadequate to Quash Proceedings – Defence to Be Proved at Trial – Petitioner alleged failure to collect CCTV, photos, or proof of ownership – Court held such deficiencies do not invalidate charge-sheet if prima facie case exists – Disputed questions including number of dogs and ownership must be tested through evidence [Paras 9, 26, 30, 35, 37].

Abuse of Process – High Threshold for Quashing – Allegations Not Patently Absurd – Court emphasized that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be used sparingly – Allegations in FIR not so improbable as to justify quashing – Trial is appropriate forum to determine truth [Paras 28–29, 32–34, 42–44].

Decision – Revision Application Dismissed – Trial Directed – Criminal proceeding not quashed – Trial Court directed to proceed with G.R. Case No. 4333 of 2022 expeditiously – Observations made not to influence trial on merits [Paras 45–47].