Civil Law - Contempt of Court - Contempt of Courts Act 1971 - Unauthorized recording - Respondent caught recording court proceedings on mobile phone without permission and attempting to delete footage upon apprehension - Court invoked provisions regarding sanctity and discipline of judicial proceedings - Held - Unauthorized recording of court proceedings constitutes serious interference with administration of justice and prima facie case for criminal contempt is made out - [Paras 1-12].

Writ Law - Court Procedure - High Court Rules - Recording of proceedings - Rules 9.2 and 9.3 of Rules governing Live-Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings - Express bar on recording court proceedings without prior written authorization - Held - Adherence to rules and norms within courtrooms is mandatory to maintain solemnity and sanctity of judicial process - [Paras 4-11].

Evidence Law - Digital Evidence - Recovery of deleted data - Mobile handset seized by court staff and examined by IT Department revealing deleted video files of court proceedings - Held - Act of attempting to delete recording establishes knowledge of the prohibition and deliberate violation of court decorum - [Paras 2-8].

Decision: Respondent directed to deposit costs of Rs. 10,000/- with High Court Legal Services Authority - Mobile handset confiscated and data therein to be wiped in presence of Respondent - Compliance report ordered for

Civil Law - Execution of Decree - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 21 Rule 32 - Violation of injunction - Petitioner challenged the Executing Court order for attachment of property based on allegations of construction in violation of a permanent prohibitory injunction decree passed in 2015 - High Court found that the local commissioner's report was insufficient to establish whether the construction was raised post-decree - Held - Remanded to Executing Court with directions to appoint an expert to determine the age of the construction to ascertain if the violation occurred subsequent to the finality of the decree - [Paras 1-12].

Civil Law - Burden of Proof - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 151 - Expert evidence - Necessity in execution proceedings - Where a decree holder alleges violation of an injunction through construction the onus lies on the party to prove the construction post-dates the decree - Executing Court cannot rely on generic revenue reports without expert analysis - Held - Expert evidence is mandatory to verify the age of construction in proceedings under Order 21 Rule 32 - [Paras 10-11].

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 14.06.2022 set aside – Matter remanded to the learned Executing Court for fresh adjudication with a direction to appoint an expert and decide the execution petition within four months – Parties directed to appear before the Executing Court on 26.10.2026.

Writ Law - Caste Certificate - Maharashtra Act 2000 - Section 10 - Regulation of Issuance and Verification - Petitioner challenged invalidation of Kunbi caste certificate by Scrutiny Committee - Scrutiny Committee originally sought Vigilance Cell report which was initially favorable but later ordered re-examination of Form 14 birth record upon finding overwriting and fabrication - Committee concluded petitioner tampered with genealogy by including a stranger as a paternal uncle - Court held Scrutiny Committee has inherent power to direct re-examination of documents as Vigilance report is only for internal assistance - Held - Writ petition dismissed as petitioner did not come with clean hands and relied on fabricated documents - [Paras 1-56].

Writ Law - Appellate Remedy - Maharashtra Act 2000 - Section 6B - Appellate Authority - Petitioner argued for remand based on new pre-Constitution documents - Court observed that while appellate remedy is available under Section 6B the absence of operational SoPs and independent machinery prevents effective reliance on this provision at present - Held - Court declined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 due to conduct of petitioner in fabricating evidence - [Paras 50-55].

Civil Law - Election Law - Maharashtra Act 2000 - Section 10 - Disqualification - Deeming provision - Upon invalidation of caste certificate the election of the person stands terminated retrospectively from the date of election - Held - Petitioner cannot continue as Councillor - [Paras 55-56].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law - Contempt of Court - Contempt of Courts Act 1971 - Section 12 - Advocates threatening Judicial Officer - Respondents-advocates obstructed judicial proceedings by shouting and threatening the Magistrate after he refused to cancel a non-bailable warrant in the absence of the accused - Respondents also threatened the Magistrate with complaints of corruption and administrative action to coerce a favorable order - Court observed that such conduct constitutes criminal contempt by scandalizing the court and interfering with the administration of justice - Held - Respondents guilty of criminal contempt - Imposed fine and costs along with reference to the Bar Council for disciplinary action - [Paras 1-26, 34-36].

Criminal Law - Apology - Contempt of Courts Act 1971 - Section 12 - Sincerity and Timing - Respondents tendered an unconditional apology only after being repeatedly directed by the Court and following the framing of formal charges - Apology was a calculated strategy rather than an act of real contriteness - Held - Apology rejected as a hollow paper apology since it was not tendered at the earliest opportunity and lacked genuine remorse - [Paras 8-10, 21-23].

Professional Ethics - Advocates - Advocates Act 1961 - Section 35 - Conduct in Court - Advocates as officers of the court are expected to maintain decorum and dignity - Threatening a judge or browbeating the court to secure favorable orders is antithetical to the noble profession of advocacy - Held - Conduct of respondents being President and member of Bar Association warrants strict disciplinary action by the Bar Council - [Paras 11, 14, 26, 34].

Decision: Respondents found guilty of criminal contempt - Each respondent directed to pay a fine of Rs 2000 and costs of Rs 50000 - Proceedings referred to the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa for initiation of appropriate action.

Writ Law - Public Interest Litigation - Maintainability - Public Interest Litigation Rules 2010 - Rules 2 and 6 - Petitioner-Advocate sought investigation into corruption in high public office - State challenged maintainability questioning petitioner's credentials citing pending personal litigation and prior failed PILs - Court held that prior dismissal of unrelated PILs as premature does not bar current petition - Held - Petitioner is a public-spirited person whose credentials and the vital public importance of the cause override preliminary objections - [Paras 12-52].

Criminal Law - Investigation - Registration of FIR - Prevention of Money-Laundering Act 2002 - Section 66(2) - Jurisdictional police failed to register FIR for two months despite ED sharing voluminous material indicating cognizable offences - State claimed material was illegible and preliminary inquiry was ongoing - Court found the State's response showed lack of bona fide and attempt to shield high-ranking officials - Held - Upon receipt of information disclosing cognizable offences under Section 66(2) PMLA, the jurisdictional police is duty-bound to register an FIR and cannot avoid this obligation through indefinite preliminary inquiries - [Paras 58-103].

Criminal Law - Independent Investigation - Transfer of probe to CBI - Criminal Procedure - Allegations of corruption against State administration and subsequent vindictive demolition action against the petitioner post-filing of PIL - Court observed that State police actions were marked by undue hot-haste and lack of transparency - Held - To ensure fair and impartial investigation in a case involving high-ranking public officials and potential destruction of evidence, the probe is entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) with directions to file a status report - [Paras 86-103].

Decision: Petition allowed – Investigation entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) – CBI directed to register FIR and conduct investigation – Status report to be submitted to the Court within two months – Matter listed for 07/12/2026.

Civil Law - Res Judicata - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 47 - Execution of decree - State alleging fraud and collusion to challenge a decades-old eviction decree affirmed up to the Supreme Court - Court held that once a decree is affirmed by the Apex Court and the allegation of fraud has been rejected in previous litigations, the State cannot re-litigate the same in execution proceedings as it amounts to an abuse of process and violates the principle of finality of litigation - Held - Orders passed in revision permitting such challenges are set aside - [Paras 17-21].

Civil Law - Pleadings - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 6 Rule 4 - Fraud - Requirements of particularity - Allegations of fraud against judicial decrees must be specific and detailed to be maintainable - General or sweeping allegations of collusion are insufficient to constitute a cause of action or to re-open final decrees - Held - State failed to plead specific particulars of fraud and attempted to use the plea to retain possession of private land - [Paras 16-18].

Civil Law - Jurisdiction - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 7 Rule 11 - Rejection of plaint - Institution of fresh suits to challenge the validity of an earlier final decree on the ground of fraud is barred when such allegations are vexatious and meritless - Held - State's attempts to thwart lawful execution through fresh suits or applications under Section 151 CPC are impermissible - [Paras 16-22].

Evidence Law - Collusion - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 44 - Admissibility of evidence - Evidence of collusion is not a tool to bypass the doctrine of res judicata once the merits of the case have been adjudicated through multiple levels of the judiciary including the Apex Court - Held - No evidence of collusion exists as the State contested the matter at every stage up to the Supreme Court - [Paras 18-20].

Decision: Petitions filed by petitioners (12514 and 12515 of 2023) allowed; Petitions filed by State of U.P. (12516, 12517, and 12518 of 2023) dismissed - Executing Court directed to conclude execution within 3 months and Trial Court to conclude pending Suit No. 108 of 1991 within 4 months.

Criminal Law - Bail - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Section 20(b)(ii)(B) - Petitioners sought regular bail for alleged transportation of 11.100 kgs of ganja - Accused Nos 1 to 3 possessed significant criminal antecedents including prior NDPS and IPC offences and rowdy sheets - Investigation regarding Accused Nos 1 to 3 remains pending - Court denied bail to Accused Nos 1 to 3 citing gravity of antecedents and stage of investigation - Accused Nos 4 and 5 had no prior adverse antecedents and investigation against them was substantially complete - Held - Bail granted to Accused Nos 4 and 5 subject to stringent conditions - [Paras 5-8].

Criminal Law - Judicial Discretion in Bail - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Sections 480 and 483 - Factors for consideration - Court held that while evaluating bail pleas for NDPS offences the presence of criminal antecedents and the specific stage of investigation against individual accused are material factors - Accused with clean records and completed investigation against them are entitled to different treatment than those with active criminal history and pending investigation - Held - Petitioners Accused 4 and 5 enlarged on bail with specific conditions - [Paras 5-7].

Decision: Criminal Petition partly allowed - Bail granted to Petitioners/Accused Nos. 4 and 5 subject to furnishing bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties each and adherence to weekly reporting and non-interference conditions - Bail rejected for Accused Nos. 1 to 3.

Civil Law - Motor Accident Claims - Motor Vehicles Act 1988 - Enhancement of Compensation - Tribunal awarded Rs 3,94,490 for grievous injuries involving multiple fractures and seven surgeries - Claimant challenged assessment of income and failure to account for future prospects - High Court re-evaluated evidence of medical disability and loss of earning capacity - Court applied multiplier method and included 40 percent towards future prospects in line with Pranay Sethi - Enhanced compensation to Rs 9,68,700 holding that tribunal erred in fixing daily wages at a nominal rate and failing to award adequate non-pecuniary damages - Held - Appeal allowed - [Paras 1-13].

Civil Law - Motor Accident Claims - Evidence - Burden of Proof - Respondent failed to examine driver of offending vehicle despite being best person to testify - Absence of rebuttal evidence and reliance on police charge sheet - Held - Evidence of claimant supported by First Information Report and Charge Sheet sufficient to establish rash and negligent driving - [Para 10].

Civil Law - Quantum of Compensation - Future Prospects - Permanent Disability - Determination of just compensation - Court reaffirmed that tribunals must award adequate compensation for physical injury, loss of earning capacity and inability to lead a normal life - Held - Compensation for pain and suffering, loss of amenities and attendant charges must be assessed based on societal circumstances rather than strict mathematical formulae - [Para 11].

Decision: Appeal allowed - Compensation enhanced from Rs 3,94,490 to Rs 9,68,700 with interest at 7.5% per annum - Respondents directed to deposit balance within one month.

Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - CISF Act 1968 - Section 18 - CISF Rules 2001 - Rule 36 - Jurisdiction of disciplinary authority - Respondent-Constable dismissed for gross misconduct involving collection of money from civilians by promising recruitment into CISF - Single Judge set aside dismissal relying on precedents holding that Section 18 requires the complainant to be a co-employee - Division Bench held that collecting money for jobs in the Force constitutes grave misconduct and moral turpitude directly related to service and attracts the provisions of Section 18 of the Act - Held - Disciplinary authority empowered to initiate inquiry under Rule 36 of CISF Rules - Single Judge erred in law and fact - Appeal allowed - [Paras 1-11].

Service Law - Judicial Review - Scope of interference - Disciplinary proceedings - Reliance on inapplicable precedents - Learned Single Judge misapplied judgments concerning domestic disputes between private parties or non-service related conduct - Division Bench observed that the present charge of job racketeering involving Force recruitment falls squarely within the scope of discipline mandated by the CISF Act - Held - Order of Single Judge set aside and dismissal order confirmed - [Paras 8-11].

Decision: Writ Appeal allowed – Order of the Single Judge dated 02.12.2019 set aside – Dismissal order dated 12.02.2007 and appellate order dated 04.05.2007 restored