Bar on Divorce Petition Presentation within One Year of Marriage – Section 14, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Appeal allowed - The appellant argued that the divorce petition filed by the respondent was statutorily barred since it was presented within one year of marriage without seeking requisite court permission – Held: As per Section 14(1), a petition for divorce is barred within one year of marriage unless exceptional hardship or depravity is shown by application to the court, which was absent here – The bar is based on the date of petition presentation, not subsequent procedural actions – Accordingly, the lower court’s failure to address this statutory bar rendered the divorce proceedings procedurally flawed [Paras 12, 13].

Cruelty as a Ground for Divorce – Burden of Proof and Relevance of Conduct during Litigation – Section 13(1-A)(ii), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Appeal allowed - The court below erred in basing findings of cruelty on the appellant’s conduct during litigation rather than on specific incidents of cruelty during the marriage – Judicial scrutiny should be limited to behavior within the marital relationship – Mere litigious resistance by the appellant to divorce proceedings cannot constitute cruelty – Held: No evidence of cruelty in marriage justified a decree of divorce; therefore, the court’s findings were unsustainable [Paras 16-17].

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Not a Statutory Ground for Divorce – Scope of Relief under Hindu Marriage Act – Appeal allowed - The lower court’s reliance on irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a factor in granting divorce was erroneous, as such a ground is absent under the statutory framework of the HMA – Appeals are confined to statutory grounds, and courts lack authority to dissolve marriage solely based on breakdown without legislative provision – Finding of irretrievable breakdown was held irrelevant and set aside [Paras 18-19].

Costs and Refund Order – Cost Awarded to Appellant – The court awarded costs of Rs. 50,000 to the appellant, payable from the deposit made by the respondent in the court below – Remaining amount to be refunded to the respondent after satisfying any outstanding maintenance dues to the appellant [Para 22].

Taxation Law – Retrospective Cancellation of GST Registration – Validity of Show Cause Notice – The petitioner challenged the cancellation of his GST registration, arguing that it was cancelled with retrospective effect without valid reasons or proper notice – The court found that the Show Cause Notice issued on 06.02.2024 lacked essential details, such as the officer's name and the location of the hearing, thereby violating principles of natural justice – The court emphasized that at least three opportunities for a personal hearing must be provided as per the Master Circular dated 10.03.2017, which was not adhered to in this case – Held: The cancellation order dated 25.05.2024 is unsustainable due to non-compliance with procedural requirements [Paras 6-10].

Non-Existence of the Taxpayer – Temporary Suspension of Business – The petitioner’s business was alleged to be non-existent at the registered address, leading to cancellation – The petitioner explained that the business was temporarily closed due to health issues and travel, which did not warrant cancellation – Held: Temporary absence from the place of business does not justify the conclusion that the entity was non-existent – Cancellation order and subsequent rejection of revocation application are quashed [Paras 17-18].

Demand for Outstanding Penalty – Rejection of Revocation Application – The respondents rejected the petitioner’s application for revocation on the grounds of non-payment of a penalty of Rs. 24,38,232/- – The court found that the penalty demand, raised in a separate proceeding, was still pending adjudication and could not be used as a ground for rejecting the revocation application – The court held that penalty proceedings are independent of the cancellation of GST registration, and any dues can be recovered without linking them to the status of registration [Paras 14-16].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Both the impugned Show Cause Notices dated 06.02.2024 and 07.08.2024, as well as the cancellation orders dated 25.05.2024 and 27.08.2024, are quashed – The petitioner’s GST registration is directed to be restored – Respondents are, however, free to initiate fresh proceedings for tax recovery, if necessary, in accordance with the law [Paras 18-19].

Civil Law - Adverse Possession – Limitation for Filing Suit – The appellants contended that they had perfected their title over the disputed property through adverse possession, having resided on the property since 1984 – The trial court accepted this argument and dismissed the respondent's suit – However, the first appellate court overturned this finding, ruling that the appellants failed to prove adverse possession and the suit was filed within the statutory period – Held: The plea of adverse possession is inconsistent with the appellants' claim of joint ownership, and the appellants failed to establish uninterrupted, hostile possession for the requisite twelve-year period as required by law [Paras 16-20].

Possession and Title – Joint Ownership Claim – The appellants’ father claimed joint ownership of the property with the respondent, but failed to provide documentary evidence – Both the trial court and the first appellate court found that the sale deed exclusively favored the respondent – Held: The appellants' claim to joint ownership was rightly rejected by both courts, and the title rests solely with the respondent [Paras 11-14].

Second Appeal – Scope of Section 100 CPC – The court reiterated that the scope of interference under Section 100 CPC is limited to substantial questions of law – Held: The findings of fact by the first appellate court were neither perverse nor contrary to law, and no substantial question of law arose in the second appeal [Para 22].

Decision: Second appeal dismissed – The judgment of the first appellate court is affirmed, and the respondent's suit for declaration and possession is upheld [Para 23].

Criminal Procedure – Suspension of Sentence – Requirement of Pre-Deposit Under Section 148 NI Act – Petitioner challenged the Sessions Court’s order requiring a 20% pre-deposit of the fine for sentence suspension – Petitioner, a daily wage worker, claimed inability to comply due to financial constraints – Held: Courts have discretion to waive or modify the deposit condition if it unduly burdens the accused’s right to appeal, especially in cases of financial hardship; reliance placed on Supreme Court’s interpretation in Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation, allowing flexibility in exceptional cases [Paras 5-9].

Right to Appeal – Financial Constraints and Access to Justice – Petitioner argued inability to comply with pre-deposit conditions would bar her from pursuing her appeal, effectively denying her access to justice – Court agreed that requiring deposit from financially distressed appellants could prevent fair trial access and should be relaxed if undue hardship is proven – Held: Condition of 20% pre-deposit set aside in the interest of justice, allowing appeal to proceed without financial barrier [Paras 10-13].

Decision: The petition is allowed. The condition for a 20% pre-deposit of interim compensation is waived. The Sessions Judge is directed to hear the appeal on merits without insisting on the pre-deposit condition [Paras 14-15].
 

Maintainability of Writ Petition – Supervisory Role of RBI Over NBFCs – The petitioner, holding significant investments in Exclusive Capital Limited, an NBFC, sought RBI intervention alleging mismanagement, fund siphoning, and regulatory violations – Held: RBI’s role as regulator, under Chapter IIIB, involves oversight of NBFCs from inception to liquidation, authorizing judicial review in cases of supervisory lapses; the petition is maintainable [Paras 1-3, 16-20].

Financial Mismanagement and Regulatory Breach – Need for RBI Action – Section 45ID and RBI Master Directions, 2016 – The petitioner detailed alleged breaches, including excessive leverage, improper issuance of OCDs, and non-submission of audited accounts – Held: RBI is statutorily obligated to address NBFC financial misconduct; failure to oversee contraventions could lead to irreparable investor harm – Interim directions issued suspending Board and initiating special audit [Paras 10-15, 21-24].

Mandamus to Public Authority – Judicial Intervention in Regulatory Inaction – The Court observed that RBI’s supervisory powers are coupled with a duty to protect public and investor interests under the RBI Act; mandamus granted to ensure RBI intervention, directing appointment of an Interim Administrator and forensic audit under Sections 45MA and 45ID [Paras 25-34].

Decision: Petition allowed; respondent No.2’s Board of Directors suspended with Interim Administrators appointed, RBI directed to complete statutory audit and report back.

Civil Procedure – Impleadment of Third Party – Application Under Order 1 Rule 10 Denied - The petitioner sought to be added as a defendant, asserting interest based on a post-suit sale of property. The trial court denied this, citing lis pendens principles – Held: As per Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, the post-suit sale does not confer impleadment rights, rendering the application untenable. The petitioner’s remedy lies under lis pendens doctrine, binding the transferee to the suit outcome without direct participation. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as non-maintainable [Paras 3-5, 8-9].

Scope of Revision Under Section 115 CPC – Interim Orders Not Conclusive – Revision Denied - The High Court highlighted that Section 115 CPC bars revision for interlocutory orders unless they decide the primary dispute. Here, the rejection of impleadment is non-final and thus not eligible for revision – Reaffirmed: Legislative intent favors limiting revisions to avoid unnecessary litigation delays [Paras 6-7].

Decision - The petition was dismissed for lack of maintainability, with directives for parties to appear in trial court on 7/11/2024, and interim orders vacated [Para 10].

Writ - Debarment – Financial Proposal Error – Correction Sought – Bidder’s Fault – Petitioners challenged the debarment order issued by NHAI, alleging that an error in calculating their financial proposal was made by the Tender Evaluation Committee – Held: Petitioners themselves had submitted the financial proposal of Rs. 4.76 crores, which was accepted as the lowest bid – The error was on the part of the petitioner, not the authority – Request for revision was denied, and debarment for six months upheld as reasonable for failure to submit performance guarantee within the prescribed time [Paras 30-34, 40].

Show Cause Notice – Predetermined Decision Allegation – Natural Justice – Petitioners argued that the debarment was premeditated based on show cause notices – Held: The authority provided multiple opportunities for personal hearings and addressed the petitioner’s submissions, demonstrating compliance with principles of natural justice – Debarment order was not pre-determined, and due process was followed [Paras 35-37].

Judicial Review in Contractual Matters – Restraint in Interference – The court emphasized that in contractual matters involving technical and commercial issues, judicial interference should be limited unless there is clear evidence of mala fides or irrationality – The petitioner’s failure to comply with the contractual requirements justified the debarment, and interference by the court was not warranted [Paras 41-44].

Civil Writ - Mandamus – Admitted Liability – Subsidy Dispute – The petitioner sought reimbursement of Rs. 154.52 crores from the respondents for the procurement of RBD Palmolein Oil under the Public Distribution Scheme (PDS) – The petitioner contended that despite the Central Government having released the subsidy amount to the 2nd respondent, PEC Ltd., the latter failed to pay the petitioner – The respondent admitted the liability but cited financial constraints due to losses – Held: The writ petition is maintainable as the admitted liability does not require arbitration or alternative remedies – A writ of mandamus was issued directing the 2nd respondent to pay the admitted amount within 12 weeks [Paras 10-14].

Alternative Remedy – Rule of Discretion – The respondent argued that the petitioner should have invoked arbitration or the CPSE administrative mechanism for dispute resolution – The court held that availability of alternative remedies does not oust writ jurisdiction when there is admitted liability – In such cases, the court can exercise its discretion to issue a writ of mandamus [Paras 15-18].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – The 2nd respondent, PEC Ltd., is directed to pay Rs. 154,51,98,540/- to the petitioner within 12 weeks from the date of this order [Para 19].
 

Criminal Law - Suspension of Sentence Pending Appeal – Conviction Under IPC and MCOC Act – Applicant's Bail Granted – Applicant sought suspension of sentence pending appeal after being convicted by the Special Court for offenses under sections 302 read with 120B IPC, and sections 3(1)(i), 3(2), and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOC Act) – Applicant received four life sentences and a fine of Rs. 16,00,000 – Court found material discrepancies in evidence and reliance on prior judgments improper – Court granted bail, suspending the sentence pending appeal, citing lack of direct evidence against the applicant, reliance on inadmissible evidence from a prior case, and procedural lapses in evidence collection and sanction [Paras 1, 2, 13, 19, 25, 26].

Alleged Crime and Extortion Involvement – Circumstantial Evidence and Witness Testimonies – Prosecution alleged the murder of hotelier Jaya Shetty by an organized crime syndicate led by the applicant, for extortion demands unmet by the deceased – Witnesses (P.W.4, P.W.10, and P.W.22) provided testimonies on extortion calls and threats from applicant’s associate Hemant Pujari – Witnesses failed to confirm a direct nexus between the applicant and the extortion calls – Testimonies contained contradictions, and crucial witness Bala Shetty was not examined, leading to missing links in the chain of evidence, which weakened the prosecution’s case [Paras 4, 13, 18, 20, 23].

Inadmissible Evidence and Misuse of Prior Judgments – Special Court's reliance on a prior MCOC case (MCOC Special Case No.13 of 2001) and a confessional statement from co-accused Pramod Dhonde, recorded separately and inadmissible, was deemed erroneous by the High Court – The applicant was not jointly tried with Dhonde, making this confessional statement legally inapplicable – High Court cited Mydeen v. Assistant Commissioner of Customs, highlighting that such evidence could not be used against the applicant [Paras 14, 19].

Irregularities in Evidence Submission – Certified Copies and Tape Recordings – High Court noted that critical documents (Exhibits 39A-39C, 40A-40G) were certified copies of photocopies introduced post-prosecution evidence and were not authenticated originals – Tape recordings submitted as evidence were not validated by original sources, further compromising evidentiary standards – Court cited Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v. Brijmohan Ramdass Mehra, underscoring the inadmissibility of such unverified recordings in criminal proceedings [Paras 18, 24].

Issues with Prior Approval and Sanction under MCOC Act – Prior approval for prosecution under MCOC was ambiguous, referencing multiple accused but lacking specificity on the applicant’s involvement – Approval and sanction orders appeared to focus on other alleged syndicate members without clear evidence linking the applicant – This procedural ambiguity raised questions about the legal validity of the MCOC charges against the applicant [Paras 6, 25].

Decision – Bail granted, suspending sentence pending appeal – Court required the applicant to furnish a bond, provide contact details, and refrain from leaving the jurisdiction without permission – Conditions set for prosecution to seek bail cancellation if violated – Application allowed with specified conditions pending appeal outcome [Paras 26-28].