Administrative Law – Jurisdiction – Powers under Special Statutes – Rehabilitation Act – Sale Permission – Jurisdictional Error – Divisional Commissioner revoked a sale permission granted under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Rehabilitation Act, 1999 after the transaction was completed via a registered sale deed – Held: The Rehabilitation Act does not confer appellate or revisional powers to the Divisional Commissioner in respect of such permissions – The officer granting permission under the Act acts under special statutory authority, not as a revenue officer under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code – Sections 247 and 257 of the Code are inapplicable [Paras 12-15].

Civil Procedure – Limitation – Appeal Without Condonation – Respondents filed a delayed appeal without obtaining condonation – The Divisional Commissioner proceeded to hear the matter on merits without deciding the delay application – Held: Jurisdiction must be established before adjudication – Proceedings vitiated for lack of jurisdiction and procedural irregularity [Para 16].

Property Law – Transfer of Property – Agreement to Sell – Rights – Respondents claimed through an un-enforced 1995 agreement to sell – No suit for specific performance filed – Held: Mere agreement to sell does not confer ownership or right to object to transfer – Respondents lacked locus and were not “aggrieved persons” under Section 12 of the Act [Paras 17-18, 22].

Administrative Law – Functus Officio – No Power of Review – Once permission was acted upon by execution of sale deed and possession transfer, the authority under the Act became functus officio – There is no power to review or recall such permission under the Act – Cancellation after completion is illegal [Para 19].

Fraud – Allegations Based on Non-Disclosure – Alleged non-disclosure of prior agreement did not amount to fraud – No enforceable rights arose from said agreement – Non-disclosure of an irrelevant fact does not constitute fraud under law [Para 22].

Constitutional Law – Alternative Remedy – Not a Bar – Availability of appeal or revision under Land Revenue Code does not bar writ petition where jurisdiction is wrongly assumed – The petitioner cannot be forced to pursue an alternative remedy under an inapplicable statute [Para 21].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Impugned order dated 1 August 2014 set aside – Sale permission dated 13 December 2010 restored – Registered sale deed held valid – No costs [Paras 24-25].

Public Premises – Unauthorised Occupation – Expiry of Licence – Definition under Section 2(g) of the Public Premises Act – Licence granted up to 31.03.2011 not renewed thereafter – Mere acceptance of licence fee after expiry does not amount to implied renewal – Continued occupation after expiry of licence held unauthorised – Eviction under Section 5(1) justified [Paras 18–27].

Public Premises – Eviction Proceedings – Compliance with Procedure – Estate Officer issued notice under Section 4 – Opportunity of hearing and evidence afforded – Findings recorded after considering oral and documentary evidence – No violation of principles of natural justice – Eviction order upheld by appellate authority under Section 9 – No interference warranted under Article 227 [Paras 22–30].

Constitution of India – Article 227 – Scope of Interference – Supervisory jurisdiction maintainable against appellate order under Section 9 of the Public Premises Act – Interference limited to jurisdictional error, perversity or violation of law – Orders of eviction found legal and proper [Paras 17, 28–30].

Public Premises – Recovery of Licence Fee – Arrears – Petitioner liable to pay licence fee at agreed rate with annual increment of 5% till date of sealing of premises – Acceptance of licence fee by authority does not regularise occupation – Order for arrears upheld [Paras 35–36].

Damages – Assessment under Section 7(2) – Requirement of Evidence – Damages must be assessed on basis of cogent evidence of market rental value – Mere reliance on internal policy insufficient – No evidence led regarding prevailing market rent or comparable properties – Award of damages held unsustainable [Paras 39–40].

Shop Policy, 2014 (BHEL) – Applicability – Industrial Premises – Policy not incorporated into licence by execution of fresh deed – No renewal under policy framework – Without contractual adoption of policy, damages cannot be mechanically levied on its basis – Order granting damages under Shop Policy set aside [Paras 36–38, 40].

Damages – Exorbitant Levy – Judicial Scrutiny – Damages enhanced from ₹3,718 per month to ₹3,84,820 per month – Increase more than 100 times – Held arbitrary, excessive and without authority of law – Estate Officer exceeded jurisdiction [Para 40].

Enforcement – Removal of Belongings – Section 6 – Conditional Right – Petitioner permitted to remove temporary structures and articles subject to payment of arrears – Failure to pay arrears entitles authority to recover dues by auction [Para 41].

Decision: Eviction order under Section 5(1) upheld – Order for arrears of licence fee upheld – Order directing payment of damages under BHEL Shop Policy, 2014 set aside – Petitions partly allowed – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Cognizance Order – Appellant not named in FIR alleging fraudulent transfer of agricultural land allotted in 1997 – Cognizance/summoning order passed mechanically without specific role or prima facie material – Held: Cognizance order dated 20.03.2023 suffers from non-application of mind and is liable to be quashed [Paras 20, 22, 23, 24]

Criminal Law – IPC Offences – Cheating, Forgery, Criminal Conspiracy – Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 384, 120-B IPC – No evidence of dishonest intention at inception or use of forged documents by appellant – Allegations vague and omnibus – No mens rea or overt act established – Held: Basic ingredients of offences not satisfied – Criminal prosecution cannot rest on assumptions or conjecture [Paras 12, 18, 24]

SC/ST Act – Section 3(1)(f) – Applicability – FIR silent on caste-based motive – No specific allegation that act was committed because of the victim’s SC status – Land dispute not sufficient to invoke the Act – Held: Invocation of SC/ST Act provisions mechanical and legally unsustainable [Paras 13, 19, 30]

Investigation – Fabricated Evidence – Witnesses shown in charge sheet had died before investigation – IO shown to have recorded statements of deceased persons – Held: Investigation tainted, unfair and unreliable – Material irregularity vitiating entire proceedings [Paras 8, 24]

Delay – FIR lodged in 2022 for land transactions of 1997 – Unexplained delay of over two decades – No civil or revenue proceedings initiated for cancellation of allegedly fraudulent pattas – Held: Inordinate and unexplained delay fatal to prosecution case – Criminal proceedings afterthought and abuse of process [Paras 11, 26, 27, 32]

Civil vs. Criminal Dispute – Predominantly revenue and civil dispute regarding pattas and land transfers – No foundational adjudication or evidence of criminality – Held: Dispute of civil nature cannot be converted into criminal prosecution – Proceedings quashed [Paras 5, 17, 25, 31]

Parity – Co-accused granted similar relief in earlier proceedings – Role of appellant not distinguishable – Held: Appellant entitled to same benefit – Prosecution against appellant discriminatory and arbitrary [Paras 25]

Abuse of Process – Continuing proceedings would result in miscarriage of justice – Held: Criminal proceedings amount to abuse of process and are liable to be quashed [Paras 33–34]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Cognizance/summoning order dated 20.03.2023, charge sheet dated 06.02.2023, and entire proceedings in Sessions Trial No. 364 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 280 of 2022 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 384, 120-B IPC and Section 3(1)(f) of the SC/ST Act quashed – Criminal proceedings held to be abuse of law.

Election Law – Interlocutory Application – Dismissal of Election Petition – Non-filing of Form-25 Affidavit – Section 83(1)(c) Proviso – Section 86(1), Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Res Judicata and Constructive Res Judicata – Respondent sought dismissal of election petition on ground that allegations of corrupt practice were not supported by affidavit in Form-25 as required under Rule 94A of the Conduct of Election Rules – Similar interlocutory applications seeking dismissal under Section 86(1) earlier dismissed by High Court and affirmed by Supreme Court – Held: Present application not maintainable as issue arose from same pleadings already adjudicated and attained finality – Plea barred by constructive res judicata – Liberty granted by Supreme Court to file future applications cannot be construed as permission to reopen concluded issues [Paras 7–14].

Election Petition – Corrupt Practice Allegations – Requirement of Affidavit – Directory vs Mandatory – Finality of Earlier Adjudication – Earlier order of High Court considered allegations relating to suppression of criminal antecedents, assets and liabilities and declined dismissal of election petition – Supreme Court expunged certain observations but affirmed operative conclusion – Held: Expunging of observations does not reopen or unsettle findings on maintainability – Court becomes functus officio on issues finally decided – Subsequent application raising same foundational objections impermissible [Paras 8–11].

Civil Procedure – Res Judicata – Constructive Res Judicata – Application at Different Stages of Same Proceeding – Principle of res judicata applies not only between two separate proceedings but also at different stages of the same litigation – Grounds which might and ought to have been raised earlier are deemed to have been decided – Respondent having failed to raise Form-25 objection in earlier applications cannot raise it subsequently – Reliance placed on Forward Construction Co. v. Prabhat Mandal and Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorajin Debi [Paras 8–10].

Judicial Discipline – Liberty to Mention / File Further Applications – Scope and Limitation – Liberty granted by higher court to file further applications is general in nature – Cannot be used to indirectly seek review or reconsideration of issues already finally decided – Entertaining such application would amount to impermissible collateral review – Reliance placed on Kewal Chand Mimani v. S.K. Sen [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Interlocutory Application dismissed as not maintainable – Election Petition directed to be listed for settlement of issues.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 – Scope of Interference – Challenge to arbitral award on grounds of perversity and patent illegality – Court reiterated that reappreciation of evidence is impermissible under Section 34 – Arbitral Tribunal is the master of evidence – Interference warranted only where findings are perverse, arbitrary, capricious or based on no evidence – Mere possibility of a different view no ground to set aside award [Paras 32–33, 47].

Arbitration – Termination of Contract – Operating and Services Agreement – Safety Audit –Respondent stopped operations at railway siding pursuant to Oil Industry Safety Directorate (OISD) audit report – OISD recommended partial/full shutdown and declared continuation of operations unsafe – Tribunal held stop work notice to be justified and prudent – Termination of contract by petitioner solely on ground of stoppage at siding held wrongful and illegal – Finding upheld [Paras 30–31, 36–40, 46–47].

Arbitration – Contractual Interpretation – Arbitrator’s Domain – Interpretation of terms of Operating and Services Agreement and Stop Work Authority circular undertaken by Tribunal – Court held that a plausible interpretation by arbitrator cannot be substituted under Section 34 – No rewriting of contract or travel beyond its terms established [Paras 15, 41].

Arbitration – Safety Obligations – Effect of Government Safety Audit – OISD, a statutory authority, flagged serious safety hazards at railway siding – Respondent’s reliance on safety audit could not be treated as voluntary abandonment of contract – Prior knowledge of siding condition at tender stage held irrelevant once statutory authority declared operations unsafe [Paras 34–37, 39–40].

Arbitration – Alleged Inconsistencies – Indenting of Rakes – Respondent placed railway indents after issuance of stop work notice – Tribunal accepted explanation that time was taken to assess implications of OISD report – Minor inconsistencies not affecting ultimate conclusion do not render award perverse [Paras 42–43].

Arbitration – Composite Contract – Partial Performance – Argument that OSA was a composite contract incapable of partial performance rejected – Respondent stopped only railway siding operations while continuing other depot activities – Stoppage of one mode of transportation did not amount to frustration or abandonment of entire contract [Paras 18, 45].

Arbitration – Loss of Profit – Proof – Claim for loss of profit awarded on basis of unchallenged oral and documentary evidence and conservative calculations – Tribunal’s findings held neither speculative nor perverse – No interference warranted [Paras 19, 28].

Arbitration – Counterclaims – Effect of Illegal Termination – Counterclaims towards penalty, differential transportation cost and placement cost rejected – Once termination held illegal, counterclaims automatically failed – Rejection upheld [Paras 21, 28–29].

Arbitration – Bank Guarantee – Wrongful Invocation – Invocation of bank guarantee pursuant to illegal termination held wrongful – Award directing refund with interest upheld [Paras 27–29].

Interest and Costs – Arbitral Discretion – Award of interest at 13% p.a. and costs of arbitration upheld – No arbitrariness or excessiveness shown [Paras 6–7, 27].

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Quashing of FIR – Scope of Section 482 CrPC – Applicants sought quashing of FIR registered under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC alleging that mere utterance of insulting words does not amount to “abetment” – Court examined statutory scheme under Sections 306, 107 and 108 IPC and settled principles governing “instigation” and “mens rea” – Held: At the stage of quashing, the Court is required to see prima facie material and not conduct a mini-trial [Paras 6–14].

Abetment – Meaning of Instigation – Mens Rea – “Instigation” implies goading, provoking, inciting or encouraging a person to commit an act – For offence under Section 306 IPC, there must be intention and active role of the accused either by direct or indirect acts – Mens rea can be inferred from circumstances and conduct of accused – Each case depends on its own facts and no straight-jacket formula can be laid down [Paras 11–14].

Humiliation and Attack on Character – Proximate Cause – Allegations disclose that applicants, under influence of liquor, entered the deceased’s house, abused her in filthy language, publicly referred to her as a “prostitute” and humiliated her in presence of villagers – Such repeated utterances attacking the character of the deceased affected her self-respect and mental equilibrium – Held: Prima facie material shows proximity between acts of humiliation and the suicide committed immediately thereafter [Paras 15–21].

Evidence at Quashing Stage – Prima Facie Satisfaction – Statements of informant, father-in-law and independent villagers consistently disclose public humiliation and character assassination – Whether such acts finally amount to abetment is a matter for trial – At this stage, material is sufficient to infer intention and indirect incitement – Interference under Section 482 CrPC declined [Paras 15–22].

Decision – Criminal Application dismissed – FIR and charge-sheet under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC not quashed – Proceedings to continue in accordance with law [Para 22].

Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 – Compounding of Offence – Section 41 FCRA – Effect of Compounding – The petitioner received foreign contribution without prior permission, which was a technical contravention of the FCRA – The offence was subsequently compounded by the Ministry of Home Affairs upon payment of a compounding fee – Once an offence is compounded under Section 41 of the FCRA, the slate is wiped clean, and the contravention cannot be cited as an adverse ground for rejecting a registration application – To disqualify an applicant on this ground after compounding would be disproportionate and a failure to consider relevant material – The authority failed to clarify that compounding would only shield from prosecution but lead to disqualification under Section 12(4)(a)(vii) – The impugned order is set aside on this ground [Paras 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 19].

Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 – Religious Organization – Section 11(1) FCRA – Interpretation of "definite cultural, economic, educational, religious or social programme" – The respondent rejected the application stating the petitioner-organization "appears to be religious" based on its engagement in imparting Bhagavad Gita and Vedanta – Section 11(1) allows religious organizations to receive foreign contributions if registered – The authority must form a "definite" conclusion based on materials, not a tentative one – Bhagavad Gita and Vedanta are not confined to a specific religion but are part of Bharatiya civilization and moral science, as held in 2007 SCC OnLine All 1301 (Shyamal Renjan Mukherjee v. Nirmal Ranjan Mukherjee) and 2014 SCC OnLine All 15395 (Indian Academy of Naturopathy and Yoga v. State of UP) regarding Yoga – The petitioner is also registered as a charitable organization under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is a relevant material – The impugned order is set aside on this ground [Paras 5, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19].

Writ Jurisdiction – Alternative Remedy – Article 226 Constitution of India – Section 31(2) FCRA – Maintainability of Writ Petition – Despite the availability of an appeal under Section 31(2) of the FCRA to the High Court, a writ petition is maintainable if there is a fundamental breach of natural justice or the impugned order suffers from disproportionality – The Supreme Court in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1129 (Rikhab Chand Jain v. UOI) held that while refusal to entertain a writ petition is the rule when the alternative forum is the High Court itself, it can be an exception in cases of fundamental breach of natural justice or disproportionality – The impugned order in this case suffers from both, making the writ petition maintainable [Paras 17, 18].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order set aside – Matter remitted to the second respondent for fresh consideration within three months, taking into account all relevant materials and observations made in this order, after issuing a fresh notice to the petitioner regarding the alleged transfer of FC funds [Paras 19, 20].

Customs Law – Smuggling – Penalty – Section 112 – Procedural Lapses – Revenue appeals against CESTAT’s order setting aside penalties of up to ₹15 crores imposed for alleged gold smuggling based on statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act – Held: Penalties under Section 112(a) and (b) cannot be simultaneously imposed – CESTAT rightly found contradiction in statements and lack of direct evidence – No gold was seized in prior alleged instances, and seizure in the present case involved unrelated individuals – Appeals dismissed [Paras 5–6, 18].

Evidence – Section 108 Customs Act – Admissibility – Compliance with Section 138B Mandatory – Statements recorded under Section 108 cannot be used as evidence unless conditions of Section 138B are fulfilled – Held: No witness who gave statements was examined; hence statements inadmissible – Reliance on untested statements violates principles of natural justice – Reiterated by reliance on Suresh Kumar & Co. Impex Pvt. Ltd. [2025 KHC Online 6762], Jindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd. [(2016) 340 ELT 67], and Its My Name Pvt. Ltd. [(2021) 375 ELT 545] [Paras 14–18].

Natural Justice – Right to Cross-Examine – Section 122A and 124 – Tribunal's view upheld that opportunity to cross-examine witnesses is part of fair hearing under Sections 122A and 124 – Statements not meeting Section 138B test cannot be relied upon without cross-examination – Tribunal was right in discarding them [Para 22].

No Adverse Inference – Failure to Give Statement – Failure of accused to give statement under Section 108 does not amount to guilt or waiver of defence – Statute does not permit adverse inference solely on that basis – Revenue's contention rejected [Paras 20–21].

Burden of Proof – No Direct Evidence – No Recovery – Except for statements, no direct or corroborative evidence was found linking respondents with seized gold – Tribunal found no link between respondents and alleged smuggling in past incidents – Cash and gold seized from others had been released for lack of nexus [Paras 5–6].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – No question of law arises – Tribunal’s order upheld – Penalties imposed under Sections 112(a) and (b) found unsustainable due to evidentiary defects and procedural violations [Final Para].

Execution of Decree – Confirmation of Possession – Recovery of Possession Permissible – Decree holder obtained decree for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction – After finality of decree, judgment debtor forcibly entered into possession – Held: Such conduct amounts to obstruction – Executing Court rightly directed eviction to enforce decree – A decree of confirmation of possession, once violated, can be enforced by removal of obstruction [Paras 6, 8, 17–18]

Civil Procedure – Section 47 CPC – Repeated Applications – Judgment debtor filed multiple applications under Section 47 CPC on same grounds after rejection of earlier ones – Held: Such repeated objections barred by principle akin to res judicata – Supreme Court’s directions in Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi followed – Frivolous objections to execution to be sternly dealt with [Paras 5, 14–15]

Limitation – Execution of Decree – Applicability of Article 136 – Petitioners contended execution was barred by limitation – Court held decree also involved permanent injunction, and thus not governed by 12-year limitation under Article 136 – Execution was within time as obstruction occurred post-second appeal – Held: Enforcement of perpetual injunction not time-barred [Paras 8–9, 19]

Interpretation of Decree – Executing Court’s Role – Judgment debtor contended that eviction not permissible as decree lacked specific direction for possession – Court held: Executing Court can interpret decree to determine its enforceability, especially when decree holder’s possession was confirmed and later obstructed – Relief sought does not go beyond decree but seeks its enforcement [Paras 21–22]

Abuse of Process – Judgment Debtor’s Tactics – Repeated filing of objections and technical pleas by judgment debtor seen as an attempt to delay and frustrate decree – Held: Courts cannot allow decree holder to be driven to file fresh suit when earlier decree has attained finality – Conduct of judgment debtor amounted to abuse of process [Paras 1, 17–18, 23]

Decision: Civil Miscellaneous Petition dismissed – Executing Court’s and Revisional Court’s orders upheld – Decree holder entitled to recover possession in enforcement of decree confirming possession and restraining interference – Executing Court directed to conclude proceedings within two months.