Bail – Robbery and Criminal Trespass – Section 483 of the BNSS – Grant of Bail - The petitioners were charged with committing robbery by breaking into a jewellery shop and stealing silver ornaments and watches worth Rs.1,596,000 – The petitioners claimed innocence, stating they were unaware of the charges until they were arrested – Held: The petitioners had been in judicial custody for over 90 days, the investigation was complete, and the charge-sheet had been filed – Decision: Bail granted.

Previous Criminal Record – Risk of Tampering with Evidence - The prosecution opposed the bail, citing the petitioners' involvement in similar crimes and the risk of tampering with evidence – Held: Despite the prosecution's concerns, bail was granted on the basis of the petitioners' prolonged judicial custody and completion of the investigation – Decision: Bail granted with conditions.

Principle of Bail – Bail is the Rule, Jail is an Exception - The court reaffirmed the principle that "bail is the rule, jail is an exception," citing precedents such as Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement and Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India – Decision: Bail granted in light of established legal principles.

Writ Petition – Maintainability – Constructive Res Judicata – Petitioners arrested by NIA sought habeas corpus in an earlier writ petition, which was dismissed as withdrawn – Petitioners filed a fresh writ challenging their arrest and remand orders – NIA raised the plea of constructive res judicata, arguing the present writ was not maintainable – Held: The withdrawal of the earlier petition did not bar the present writ petition as liberty to “agitate the same issues before Competent Court/Forum” was granted by the Division Bench – The principle of constructive res judicata does not apply when liberty has been expressly granted by the court, and issues concerning personal liberty require a liberal approach – Petition maintainable ​.

Habeas Corpus – Challenge to Arrest and Remand – Petitioners contended that their arrest by the NIA and subsequent remand to custody were illegal – The arrest was challenged on the ground of non-compliance with the Supreme Court’s guidelines in D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. – Held: The petition raised serious issues of personal liberty, including the illegality of the arrest under Articles 14, 21, and 22 of the Constitution – The matter was admitted for arguments on merits ​.

NIA Act – Appellate Remedies – Petitioners argued that no statutory remedies under the NIA Act were available to challenge the remand orders as they are interlocutory in nature – Held: Section 21 of the NIA Act does not provide for an appeal against interlocutory orders, such as remand orders – Therefore, the petitioners’ only remedy is through writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution ​.

Res Judicata – Withdrawal of Writ Petition – NIA argued that withdrawal of the earlier writ without specific permission barred the petitioners from filing a fresh writ – Held: The Supreme Court’s decision in Sarguja Transport Service was considered, but it was clarified that personal liberty cases, such as habeas corpus petitions, are outside the strict application of res judicata principles – The earlier withdrawal did not preclude the present writ petition ​.

Decision: Preliminary objection by NIA rejected – Writ petition held maintainable – Matter listed for arguments on merits.

Indian Succession Act – Probate and Letters of Administration – Will Dispute – Appellants challenged the grant of probate for the Will dated 30th July 1956, executed by deceased Ibrahim in favor of his grandson (Respondent) – The Trial Court granted probate despite the non-production of the original Will – Appellants argued that the Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances, excluding other heirs, and the original Will was not produced – The High Court found the Trial Court erred in granting probate because the Will did not appoint an executor as required under Section 222 of the Indian Succession Act – Held: Respondent entitled to Letters of Administration with Will annexed, not probate [Paras 52-55].

Secondary Evidence – Admissibility of Certified Copy of Will – Appellants contended that secondary evidence should not have been allowed, as there was no proof the original Will was lost – The High Court held that secondary evidence is admissible under Section 65(c) of the Indian Evidence Act if the original document is lost or untraceable – Respondent proved that the original Will was not found despite search – Certified copy from the Sub-Registrar’s office was accepted as secondary evidence [Paras 43-45].

Execution of Will – Proof and Attestation – The Respondent called the son of the scribe and the daughter of one attesting witness to prove the Will’s execution – As one attesting witness was deceased and the other could not be traced, the High Court applied Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, allowing proof of the handwriting of one attesting witness when both witnesses are unavailable – The Court held the execution of the Will was sufficiently proven [Paras 46-48].

Suspicious Circumstances – Exclusion of Other Heirs – Appellants alleged that the exclusion of other legal heirs, including the testator's wife and grandchildren, was suspicious – The High Court noted that only some properties were bequeathed to the Respondent, while other properties remained for other heirs – The delay in bringing the Will to light was explained by the Respondent, who discovered the Will only after his father’s death in 2005 – No suspicious circumstances were found [Paras 49-51].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The Trial Court’s order granting probate was set aside – Letters of Administration with Will annexed granted to Respondent – Status quo to continue for six weeks [Paras 52-55].

Excessive Demand for Final Payment – Validity of Sale Deed Terms – Declaration Rejected - The appellant sought a declaration that VUDA's demand for Rs.533,275.37 was excessive and arbitrary – Held: The sale deed explicitly provided that the price mentioned was tentative, and the appellant agreed to pay any excess amount upon final determination of compensation – The appellant cannot contest these terms after signing the agreement – Decision: Declaration denied.

Civil Court Jurisdiction – Suit for Declaration and Injunction – Maintainable - The appellant contended that the civil court lacked jurisdiction – Held: Civil courts have jurisdiction over civil matters unless expressly excluded, and the relief sought is within the civil court's authority – Decision: Civil court has jurisdiction, suit is maintainable.

Permanent Injunction – Consequential Relief Denied - The appellant sought a permanent injunction to prevent VUDA from collecting the alleged excess amount – Held: Since the primary relief of declaration was denied, the consequential relief of permanent injunction cannot be granted – Decision: Injunction denied .

Final Price of Plots – Bound by Terms of Sale Deed - The appellant argued that the final price was arbitrary – Held: The sale deed clearly states that the price was tentative and subject to adjustment based on land acquisition proceedings – The appellant agreed to these terms – Decision: Appellant bound to pay the final price.

Non-Lodging of FIR – Remedy Available under Section 156(3) CrPC – Writ of Mandamus Denied

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to compel the police to lodge an FIR regarding a complaint dated 25.09.2024, as no action had been taken by the authorities. The court referred to the judgment in Lalita Kumari vs. Government of U.P., which emphasizes the duty of the police to register an FIR if a cognizable offence is disclosed. However, the court held that since the petitioner had an alternate remedy under Section 156(3) CrPC or Section 200 CrPC, a writ of mandamus could not be granted unless the exceptions outlined in Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks applied. The court directed the petitioner to pursue remedies available under CrPC – Petition dismissed.

Criminal Law – Quashing - Forgery and Cheating – Non-compliance with mandatory provisions – Section 156(3) of CrPC – Quashing of Proceedings - Petitioners challenged the criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 469, and 471 of the IPC, arguing non-compliance with Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of the CrPC during the filing of the complaint under Section 156(3) – Held: The mandatory requirements of prior applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) were not met, as required by the precedent set in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. – Thus, the criminal proceedings were quashed for non-compliance with these provisions [Paras 1-3, 8-10, 20-21].

Affidavit Requirement under Section 156(3) CrPC – Legal Compliance - The Court reiterated that applications under Section 156(3) must be supported by a sworn affidavit, as highlighted in Priyanka Srivastava – In the present case, no such affidavit was filed, leading to the quashing of the complaint [Paras 15, 18-19].

Retrospective Application of Priyanka Srivastava Guidelines – Clarification - The petitioner’s counsel argued that the Priyanka Srivastava guidelines do not apply retrospectively – Held: The provisions in question were codified long before the petition was filed, and the judgment merely reaffirmed existing requirements – Hence, the argument of non-retrospective application was dismissed [Paras 12-14, 16].

Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Abuse of Process - The Court found that continuing the proceedings without compliance with the statutory provisions would amount to an abuse of process – Thus, the criminal proceedings were quashed [Paras 22-23].

Constitutional Law – Right to Life – Infringement – Petitioner sought assistance for the installation of electricity at a rented garage space for a commercial venture – Private respondents obstructed the installation in violation of the Executive Magistrate’s order under Section 144(2) Cr.P.C – The Court held that such actions infringed upon the petitioner’s fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, which includes access to essential services like electricity – Police authorities were negligent in failing to act on the Magistrate's directive, thereby further violating the petitioner’s rights .

Contempt of Court – Obstruction of Essential Services – The private respondents incited other residents to prevent the installation of the electric meter, directly violating the Magistrate’s order – The Court observed that this conduct amounted to contempt of court – Directed the police to ensure full compliance with the order and to provide protection to the CESC personnel during the installation process, without any further interference from the respondents .

Civil Dispute – Lease Agreement and Usage – The private respondents contended that the petitioner’s use of the garage for commercial purposes violated the terms of the lease agreement, which was intended for garage use only – The Court held that such claims were unrelated to the issue of electricity installation and should be resolved in a separate forum – Regardless of the civil dispute, the obstruction of essential services was deemed unlawful .

Decision: Writ petition allowed – The Court directed the police authorities to assist in the immediate installation of the electric meter and ensure there is no further obstruction by the private respondents.

Tenancy Rights – Section 5(11)(c) Bombay Rent Act – Claim of Tenancy by Family Member – Plaintiff’s Status as Tenant Rejected – The applicant claimed tenancy rights under the Bombay Rent Act as a family member of the deceased original tenant, Ms. Dinamai Rustomji Master, asserting residence since 1974 – The trial court accepted the claim, but the Appellate Bench reversed this decision, concluding that the applicant had not proved either a close familial relationship or residence in the suit premises over a substantial period – Held: The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of being a family member or residing with the deceased tenant for a significant duration, as required under Section 5(11)(c) of the Bombay Rent Act – Mere entry in ration card and the codicil were insufficient to prove tenancy rights [Paras 19-27, 32-35].

Family Definition under Rent Control Legislation – Broad vs. Narrow Interpretation – The applicant’s contention for a broad interpretation of "family" under Section 5(11)(c) was dismissed – The court clarified that distant relatives must provide substantial evidence of residence and family ties to claim tenancy rights under the Act – A distant relation or brief stay shortly before the tenant’s death does not suffice [Paras 30-34, 37].

Failure to Prove Close Relationship – Inconsistent Evidence – The applicant’s claim of being a nephew of the deceased tenant was found inconsistent and unsupported by evidence – The court observed that the relationship was revealed late in cross-examination, weakening the credibility of the applicant's assertions – Held: The onus to prove a family connection was not discharged, and the claim of tenancy was deemed an attempt to inherit tenancy rights contrary to legislative intent [Paras 25-29, 40-41].

Legislative Intent – Protection of Immediate Family from Eviction – The court emphasized that the Bombay Rent Act's provisions aim to protect immediate family members from homelessness after the tenant's death, not to facilitate the transmission of tenancy rights to distant relatives or unrelated individuals through strategic residence claims [Paras 42-45].

Decision: Civil Revision Application was dismissed – The court upheld the decision of the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, denying the applicant’s claim of tenancy – The Civil Application was also disposed of accordingly [Paras 50-52].

Specific Performance – Validity of Sale Agreement – Exhibit A1 - The appellants contended that Exhibit A1 (the sale agreement) was forged and fraudulently created using signed blank papers handed over to the plaintiffs as security in a loan transaction – Held: The appellants did not dispute the execution of Exhibit A1 or the receipt of Rs.700,000/- as part of the sale consideration – The alignment of signatures on the agreement suggests that the appellants’ claim of signing blank papers is improbable – Decision: The court found no reason to doubt the validity of Exhibit A1 [Paras 10-15, 18].

Advance Sale Consideration – Plaintiffs' Payment of Rs.5,200,000 - The plaintiffs paid Rs.5,200,000/- as advance consideration towards the purchase of the property, but the defendants failed to perform their part of the contract – Held: The plaintiffs’ payments were sufficiently evidenced, and the court dismissed the defendants’ claim that the payments were made for a different transaction – Decision: The payment of Rs.5,200,000/- was valid [Paras 16-19].

Attachment of Property – Sale Deed Execution Refused by Sub-Registrar - The defendants claimed that the sale deed could not be registered due to the property being under attachment – Held: The defendants' appeal against the Sub-Registrar’s refusal to register the deed further supports the plaintiffs' case that the sale deed was prepared for valid consideration – Decision: The refusal by the Sub-Registrar does not affect the plaintiffs' claims for the return of advance consideration [Paras 20-22].

Counterclaim Dismissed – Fraudulent Creation of Agreement – Rejected - The defendants’ counterclaim that the sale agreement was fraudulently created was rejected by the trial court, and there was no challenge against this dismissal – The appellate court also found no valid grounds to disturb the trial court's findings – Decision: Counterclaim dismissed, trial court’s judgment upheld [Paras 24-26].