Employment Contract – Restrictive Covenants – Non-Competition Clause – Section 27 Contract Act – Appeal against refusal of ad interim injunction – Clause restraining employee from joining competing business for two years post cessation – Held, once employee ceased to be in service upon resignation, post-employment non-compete clause is prima facie void under Section 27 – Section 27 applies to partial as well as absolute restraints – Trial Court rightly refused injunction restraining respondent from joining rival concern [Paras 26-35, 51-54, 67-69].

Employment – Continuation in Service – Implied Contract by Conduct – Though confirmation letter dated 01-03-2024 doubtful and probation extended – Respondent continued to draw salary and tendered resignation on 08-10-2025 – By conduct, continuance of service till resignation established – However, resignation as probationer not invalid for want of 30 days’ notice since no penal consequence stipulated in Clause 15 – Employment ceased on resignation – Section 27 attracted post resignation [Paras 37-46, 48-52].

Non-Solicitation Clause – Distinction from Non-Compete – Clause restraining ex-employee from soliciting employer’s employees does not restrain employee from exercising his own profession – Section 27 not attracted to such covenant – Prima facie apprehension of “poaching” made out from contemporaneous communications – Ad interim injunction justified restraining respondent from soliciting or inducing appellant’s employees [Paras 53-55, 60-63, 70].

Confidentiality and Trade Secrets – Enforceability – Confidentiality clause and Non-Disclosure Agreement not hit by Section 27 – Company entitled to protect trade secrets, proprietary data and confidential information – Negative covenant enforceable under Section 42 Specific Relief Act – Imminent apprehension of disclosure sufficient at ad interim stage – Injunction granted restraining use or disclosure of confidential information [Paras 32-33, 56, 59-63, 70].

Injunction – Damages – Distinct Reliefs – Trial Court erred in holding damages to be adequate remedy in blanket manner – Claim for liquidated damages under Clause 15.3 distinct from reliefs enforcing confidentiality and non-solicitation covenants – Loss from disclosure of trade secrets and employee poaching not readily quantifiable – Monetary compensation not adequate substitute [Paras 57-63].

Appellate Interference – Ad Interim Stage – Appellate Court ordinarily confines itself to materials before Trial Court – No gross suppression established – Prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury satisfied in respect of non-solicitation and confidentiality, but not non-compete – Order modified accordingly [Paras 64-67, 70-71].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Impugned order modified – Respondent restrained till disposal of temporary injunction application from (i) soliciting or inducing employees of appellant to leave service and (ii) using or disclosing confidential information or trade secrets of appellant – Refusal to restrain respondent from joining or continuing with rival company upheld – Observations tentative – CAN 1 of 2025 disposed of – No order as to costs.

Banking Law – Fraud Classification – RBI Master Directions – Declaration of account as “Fraud” during pendency of writ petition – Petitioners challenged show cause notices dated 28-02-2025 alleging non-supply of Forensic Audit Reports and relied upon documents – During pendency and after conclusion of hearing, bank issued letters dated 15-01-2026 declaring account as “fraud” – Held, action of bank in passing impugned orders without supplying requested documents and without considering petitioners’ request violates principles of natural justice – Orders dated 15-01-2026 set aside and quashed – Bank directed to furnish documents/allow inspection and thereafter proceed afresh in terms of law [Paras 1, 10, 16-21].

Natural Justice – Audi Alteram Partem – Supply of Forensic Audit Report – Petitioners contended that show cause notices were issued mechanically on basis of KPMG and Saxena & Saxena Forensic Audit Reports without furnishing copies thereof or underlying documents – Held, where FAR forms basis of show cause, effective opportunity of reply requires supply of relevant documents sought – Non-supply renders subsequent declaration unsustainable [Paras 4-9, 16-18].

RBI Master Directions – Summary Procedure – Balance between Speed and Fair Hearing – Respondent relied on earlier decision in Hemant Kanoria v. Bank of India – Court reiterated that though fraud classification is summary in nature and time-bound, principles of natural justice must be read into the process – Procedure laid down in earlier judgment regarding issuance of show cause, furnishing of documents, inspection and supplementary reply to be followed – Mechanical adherence to speed cannot defeat fair opportunity [Paras 12-15, 17-20].

Judicial Review – Post-Hearing Developments – Bank’s action in declaring account as fraud after matter reserved for judgment – Held, passing adverse order during pendency of writ petition without addressing grievance regarding non-supply of documents amounts to arbitrary exercise of power – Writ court justified in setting aside such action and issuing procedural directions [Paras 1-2, 10, 17].

Decision: Impugned letters dated 15-01-2026 declaring petitioners’ account as “fraud” set aside – Respondent directed to supply documents specified in para 14 within two weeks or permit inspection if voluminous – Petitioners to file reply within two weeks thereafter – Bank to pass reasoned order within two weeks of receipt of supplementary reply – Writ petition and connected application disposed of.

Habeas Corpus – Illegal Arrest – Non-supply of Written Grounds of Arrest – Arrest memo merely mentioning crime number and sections without disclosing specific grounds – Separate sheet of “grounds of arrest” not forming part of arrest memo and not attested as required under Section 36 BNSS – Held: Non-compliance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution and mandate of Mihir Rajesh Shah (2026) 1 SCC 500 – Arrest and consequential remand rendered illegal – Petitioner entitled to release [Paras 20-26, 33-34].

Constitution of India – Article 22(1) – Communication of Grounds of Arrest – Constitutional safeguard not a procedural formality – Grounds must be furnished in writing in a language understood by arrestee – Failure to supply written grounds within stipulated time vitiates arrest and remand – Remand order cannot cure foundational illegality of arrest – “Once the edifice goes, the superstructure collapses” [Paras 19-23, 27, 33].

Criminal Procedure – Remand under Section 187 BNSS – Mechanical Remand – Magistrate obliged to apply judicial mind to legality of arrest and compliance with statutory safeguards – Failure to notice non-conformity of arrest memo and absence of duly attested written grounds – Remand held to be passed in a mechanical manner – Habeas corpus maintainable notwithstanding remand [Paras 28-30].

Maintainability – Habeas Corpus after Judicial Remand – Writ lies where remand order suffers from absolute illegality or is passed mechanically – Distinction between judicial review remedies and writ of habeas corpus – Habeas corpus is writ of right granted ex debito justitiae in case of unlawful detention – Petition maintainable despite pendency of criminal proceedings [Paras 28-32].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Arrest of petitioner declared illegal – Remand order dated 29.01.2026 set aside – Petitioner directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case – Liberty granted to respondents to proceed in accordance with law.

PIL - Constitution of India – Art. 226 – Judicial Review – Policy Decision – Scope of Interference – Petitioner challenged the closure of fresh registrations and the fixation of age-related eligibility criteria (21 to 60 years) under the Mukhyamantri Ladli Behna Yojana, 2023, alleging arbitrariness and violation of Art. 14 – Held: Judicial review of a policy decision is limited to examining its legality, not its wisdom. Courts do not substitute their opinion for that of experts in policy matters. A policy decision can only be interfered with if it is unconstitutional, arbitrary, malafide, or dehors the provisions of a statute. The fixation of the date for commencement and closure of a scheme, as well as the determination of the age of entitlement, falls squarely within the executive domain of the State. The court found no arbitrariness in the State’s exercise of discretion regarding the implementation and continuation of the policy. [Paras 9, 10, 11]

Constitution of India – Art. 14 – Equality before Law – Hostile Discrimination – Allegation of arbitrary exclusion of newly eligible women from a welfare scheme – Held: The State has the discretion to decide the implementation period and the scope of beneficiaries for a welfare policy. Stoppage of fresh registrations from a specific date does not, per se, constitute hostile discrimination. The fixation of minimum and maximum age limits for entitlement is a policy matter within the domain of the State Government and does not warrant judicial interference unless proven to be manifestly arbitrary. [Paras 10, 11]

Public Interest Litigation – Maintainability – Locus Standi – Enhancement of Financial Benefits – Petitioner sought a direction to enhance the amount provided under the scheme as per alleged promises – Held: The petitioner is admittedly neither an aspirant nor a beneficiary of the scheme. Claims regarding the enhancement of financial benefits under a social welfare scheme cannot be entertained at the instance of a third party in a PIL. Such matters pertain to the discretionary executive functions of the State. [Para 12]

Ratio Decidendi: The Court’s power of judicial review over executive policy is restricted to assessing whether the policy is unconstitutional, contrary to statutory provisions, or ultra vires the powers of the delegatee. The determination of eligibility criteria, including age limits and registration timelines for a welfare scheme, is a matter of administrative policy within the State's domain and does not attract judicial interference under Art. 226 unless it is demonstrated to be palpably arbitrary or malafide.

Decision: The Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Anticipatory Bail – Section 482 BNSS – Murder Case – Allegation of Instigation by MLA – Petitioner (Accused No.5) alleged to have instigated co-accused in fatal assault resulting in death of informant’s son – Prior written complaint by deceased naming petitioner and alleging threats to life – Prima facie material including CDRs and photographs requiring confrontation – Held: Not a fit case for anticipatory bail – Petition rejected [Paras 22-26, 35, 41, 45].

Interim Anticipatory Bail – No Vested Right to Confirmation – Interim protection granted earlier by Vacation Bench – Court held that interim anticipatory bail does not create a vested right for regular anticipatory bail – Court entitled to independently assess merits after hearing prosecution – Interim order discharged [Paras 14-16, 46].

Custodial Interrogation – Necessity and Scope – Prosecution contended petitioner misled investigation and feigned ignorance regarding co-accused despite contrary material in CDRs – Court observed custodial interrogation qualitatively different from interrogation under protection of anticipatory bail – Effective confrontation of material required – Accused cannot dictate manner of interrogation – Custodial interrogation justified [Paras 35-39, 41-42].

Influence of Accused – Political Position – Petitioner a sitting MLA and former Minister – Court held social and political stature relevant while considering likelihood of influencing investigation or witnesses – Investigation transferred from local police to CID – Possibility of hampering fair investigation cannot be ruled out [Paras 18-20, 44].

Scope of Judicial Interference in Investigation – Court reiterated that investigation must ordinarily be left to investigating agency – Courts should not interfere in manner or course of interrogation – Relied on State rep. by CBI v. Anil Sharma and P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement – Anticipatory bail to be granted only in exceptional circumstances [Paras 38, 40, 43].

Statement under Section 164 CrPC – Fear of Witness – Court perused Section 164 statement of deceased’s mother – Prima facie explanation to allegations regarding naming of petitioner found – Prosecution’s contention that witness was under fear found to have substance [Paras 31-33].

Decision: Criminal Petition dismissed – Interim anticipatory bail granted on 26.12.2025 discharged – Petitioner not entitled to anticipatory bail.

Partition Suit – Death of Plaintiff – Claim of Legatee – Substitution under Order XXII CPC – Original plaintiff died issueless during pendency of suit – Alleged Will executed in favour of nephew – Application filed for substitution as legal representative – Trial Court, upon direction of High Court, conducted inquiry and held Will not proved – Substitution rejected – Suit dismissed for want of legal representative – Appellate Court affirmed – Held: No perversity in findings [Paras 8–10, 22–23].

Proof of Will – Suspicious Circumstances – Attesting witness examined – Contradictions regarding presence of parties, drafting, typing and thumb impressions – Difference in thumb impressions on pages – Non-registration and absence of scribe/advocate particulars – Trial Court and Appellate Court found evidence not credible – Finding of fact not liable to be re-appreciated under Article 227 [Paras 21–23].

Order XXII Rule 5 CPC – Nature of Inquiry – Though inquiry is summary and findings do not operate as res judicata inter se rival claimants, Court must be satisfied prima facie about legal representation – Where evidence found unreliable, Court justified in rejecting substitution – Detailed evaluation already undertaken – No requirement of repetitive proof [Paras 14–15, 22].

Article 227 – Scope of Interference – Supervisory jurisdiction confined to jurisdictional error, patent perversity or manifest failure of justice – High Court cannot act as Court of appeal or re-appreciate evidence – Reliance placed on Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil – No ground for interference made out [Paras 24–25].

Transposition in Partition Suit – Interchangeability of Plaintiff and Defendant – Though in partition suits parties may be transposed, claim must be legally sustainable – In absence of valid substitution as legal representative, continuation of suit not permissible [Paras 12–13 (argument), 23].

Non-production of Original Will – Only copy filed – Petitioners failed to establish authenticity and due execution – Courts below justified in rejecting claim of legal representation [Paras 18, 23].

Decision: Miscellaneous Petition dismissed – No interference under Article 227 warranted – Liberty reserved to petitioners to file fresh partition suit, if so advised.

Unauthorized Structure – Public Street – Section 314 BMC Act – Appellant sought injunction restraining demolition of structure allegedly existing since 1986 – Structure found situated on municipal footpath/public street – No permission or approval from BMC – Held: Encroachment on public street can be removed without notice under Section 314 – Action lawful [Paras 22–25].

Title and Equity – Unregistered Agreement – Public Land – Agreement dated 12.09.1986 unregistered and pertaining to open space – No transfer of structure or lawful title – Electricity bills, shop licence, tax receipts do not confer ownership or regularisation – Held: No title, no right, no equity – Injunction rightly refused [Paras 16–18].

Assessment to Property Tax – No Regularisation – Mere levy of municipal tax on structure does not change its unauthorised character – Does not amount to deemed regularisation – Reliance placed on Sidharam M. Yanagandul and Laxmi Gopinath Shetye – Assessment irrelevant to legality [Para 26].

Public Street – Definition – “Street” under Section 3(w) and “Public Street” under Section 3(x) includes footpath and areas over which public has right of passage – Land acquired for public purpose is public place – Encroachment removable under Sections 313 and 314 – Reliance on Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay v. Premnagar Zopadpatti Committee Society [Paras 23–24].

Abuse of Process – Lack of Clean Hands – Litigant seeking protection of unauthorised structure on public land not entitled to equitable relief – Suppression and attempt to legitimise unlawful occupation deprecated – Reliance placed on Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. – Courts must deny relief to litigants approaching with tainted hands [Paras 19–21].

Statutory Non-Compliance – Suit without Notice – Suit filed without compliance of Section 527 BMC Act – Statutory remedy not availed – Civil action vulnerable at inception [Para 29].

Contempt – Partial Demolition Despite Status Quo – BMC demolished portion during general drive – Explanation of miscommunication unsatisfactory – However, structure reconstructed and unconditional apology tendered – Held: Contempt closed with stern warning – Future violation to invite strict consequences [Paras 32–33].

Municipal Accountability – Longstanding Illegal Structure – Structure existed for over two decades behind municipal chowki – Court directed Municipal Commissioner to conduct inquiry and fix responsibility – Failure to curb illegal constructions undermines rule of law [Paras 34–35].

Exemplary Costs – Abuse of Court Process – Appeal dismissed with costs of ₹5,00,000 payable to Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund – Interim relief vacated – Stay refused [Order i, vi, 37].

Decision: Appeal dismissed with costs of ₹5,00,000 – Impugned order dated 07.05.2024 upheld – Contempt Petition dismissed with warning – Municipal Commissioner directed to initiate inquiry against responsible officers – Interim relief vacated – Matter listed for compliance [Order i–viii].

Motor Vehicles Act – Fatal Accident – Grievous Head Injuries – Death after prolonged treatment – Deceased sustained severe head injuries and multiple fractures and underwent three major surgeries – Continuous hospitalization till death – Held, death directly attributable to injuries sustained in accident and not due to intervening cause – Medical expenses rightly awarded and confirmed [Paras 12].

Contributory Negligence – Non-wearing of Helmet – Absence of Driving Licence – Vehicle without Registration and Insurance – Admissions by P.W.1 and Ex.A4 Motor Vehicle Inspector’s Report established violations – Though accident primarily caused by rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle, non-wearing of helmet had direct nexus with fatal head injuries – Fixing 25% contributory negligence on deceased held just and reasonable [Paras 13, 14].

Compensation – Pain and Suffering – Survival of Claim – Claims for pain, suffering and personal injuries do not survive upon death of injured – Award of Rs.2,00,000/- under said head set aside – Tribunal’s award modified accordingly [Para 15].

Quantum of Compensation – Loss of Income – Medical Bills – Filial Consortium – Funeral Expenses – Attender Charges – Tribunal’s assessment under various heads except pain and suffering confirmed – Total compensation reduced from Rs.33,57,696/- to Rs.31,57,696/- – After 25% deduction towards contributory negligence, compensation reduced from Rs.25,18,272/- to Rs.23,68,272/- [Para 16].

Appeal and Cross Objection – Insurer’s Appeal Partly Allowed – Award Modified – Cross objection seeking enhancement rejected – No order as to costs [Para 17].

Decision: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal partly allowed – Award modified by deducting Rs.2,00,000/- granted towards pain and suffering – Total compensation payable fixed at Rs.23,68,272/- with applicable interest – Cross Objection dismissed – No order as to costs.

Arbitration – Section 11 – Existence of Arbitration Agreement – Flat purchase agreements between Developer and individual flat purchasers contained identical arbitration clauses – Flat purchasers subsequently formed Cooperative Housing Society – Society challenged gift deeds in favour of Temple Trust and denied privity to arbitration agreement – Held, prima facie arbitration agreement exists and Society is a veritable party as its very formation was contemplated in agreements containing arbitration clause – Reference to arbitration warranted [Paras 21-31, 37].

Non-Signatory – Person Claiming Through or Under – Temple Trust beneficiary of registered gift deeds executed by Developer and Original Owner – Gift expressly disclosed and acknowledged in each flat purchase agreement – Trust invoked arbitration claiming through Developer – Applying Cox and Kings, held that Temple Trust prima facie falls within category of persons claiming through or under a signatory – Issue of final determination left to Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16 – Trust entitled to participate in arbitration [Paras 36-41].

Scope of Section 11 Court – Prima Facie Examination – Court must confine itself to examining existence of arbitration agreement and whether parties are prima facie bound – Issues of subject-matter arbitrability, cancellation of gift deeds, effect of deemed conveyance and jurisdictional objections fall within domain of Arbitral Tribunal – Doctrine of competence-competence reaffirmed [Paras 32-35, 40, 51].

Society as Veritable Party – Cooperative Housing Society formed by all flat purchasers who were signatories to identical arbitration clauses – Formation of Society expressly contemplated in agreements – Rights and obligations of members flow into and continue in Society – Society cannot evade arbitration by asserting separate juristic identity – Prima facie finding that Society inherited arbitration obligation [Paras 27-31, 34, 44].

Section 8 Order and Pending Writ Petition – City Civil Court allowed Section 8 application referring parties to arbitration – Writ Petition challenging Section 8 Order pending – Held, pendency of challenge does not bar Section 11 reference – Section 8(3) permits arbitration to commence notwithstanding pendency of proceedings – Contention that Section 11 reference renders writ infructuous rejected [Paras 12-18, 47].

Invocation Notice – Adequacy – Objection that invocation notices lacked particulars rejected – Disputes clearly evident from record and prior litigation – Purpose of invocation is notice of dispute which stood satisfied [Paras 45-46].

Appointment of Arbitrator – Named arbitrators declined mandate – Court appointed Justice (Retd.) Akil Kureshi as Sole Arbitrator – All disputes and differences between parties referred to arbitration – Liberty granted to raise jurisdictional objections before Tribunal under Section 16 – Costs to be shared equally in first instance [Paras 24, 50-52].

Decision: Section 11 Applications allowed – Sole Arbitrator appointed – Disputes between Developer, Temple Trust and Society referred to arbitration – All objections on merits and arbitrability kept open for determination by Arbitral Tribunal.