Criminal Law – Murder – Acquittal - Circumstantial Evidence – Standard of Proof – Held: In cases resting purely on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be complete and point irresistibly to the guilt of the accused, excluding any other hypothesis. Where the prosecution failed to prove the accused and deceased were last seen together, and witnesses had only hearsay knowledge of their cohabitation, the chain is broken. [Paras 13, 56, 60-62].

Criminal Law – Motive – Significance in Circumstantial Evidence – Held: While absence of motive may not be fatal in cases of direct evidence, it is fatal in cases based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution failed to allege or prove any motive for the appellant to murder the deceased, with whom he was allegedly in a live-in relationship. [Paras 45-47, 63].

Criminal Law – Recovery of Evidence – Section 27 of Evidence Act – Held: The recovery of the iron lever (MO-7) and wooden logs (MO-8) was not legally proved where the independent witness (PW18) did not support the recovery mahazar and stated he was standing on the road during the alleged seizure. [Paras 57-58].

Criminal Law – Benefit of Doubt – Two Views Theory – Held: Following the principle in Kali Ram v. State of H.P., if two views are possible on the evidence adduced—one pointing to guilt and the other to innocence—the view favourable to the accused must be adopted. The trial court erred in overlooking missing links regarding the accused's presence and the lack of flight after the incident. [Paras 59, 62].

Decision: Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted. [Para 63].

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Held: The power to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 is circumscribed by the averments in the plaint alone. The Court cannot embark upon a fact-finding exercise, look at the defense, or rely on external material at this stage. The Single Judge erred in recording a factual finding that the ancestor (Horam) never constituted a Joint Hindu Family (JHF) and that the property was self-acquired, which are matters for trial. [Paras 21-25].

Civil Procedure – Partial Rejection of Plaint – Held: A plaint cannot be rejected in part. Where the plaintiff asserted possession over a portion of the suit property and sought a permanent injunction, the rejection of the plaint without examining this prayer independently was contrary to settled legal principles. [Para 33].

Hindu Law – Coparcenary – Burden of Proof at Threshold Stage – Held: The Single Judge’s requirement for the plaintiff to produce documents showing contribution to reconstruction or to file affidavits regarding employment at the Order VII Rule 11 stage amounted to an impermissible appreciation of evidence. Issues regarding blending of property and existence of a JHF nucleus require trial. [Paras 26-27].

Decision: Appeal allowed. Impugned Judgment set aside. Suit restored to original number. [Para 34].

Taxation Law - GST – Export of Services – Clinical Trials / Pharma R&D Services – Place of Supply – Services rendered by Indian pharma company to foreign recipients – Recipient located outside India – Held: Clinical trial and R&D services qualify as “export of services” under IGST Act when recipient is situated in non-taxable territory [Paras 5, 8–10].

Integrated GST – Section 13(3)(a) – Applicability – Goods made physically available – Samples provided by foreign clients for clinical trials not “goods” requiring physical availability in terms of Section 13(3)(a) – Such samples consumed in process and not marketable commodities – Held: Section 13(3)(a) not attracted to clinical trial services [Paras 6–8].

Notification No. 04/2019–IGST dated 30.09.2019 – Nature and Effect – Notification issued pursuant to 37th GST Council Meeting clarifying place of supply of pharma R&D and clinical trial services – Clarificatory and declaratory in nature – Held: Notification operates retrospectively and applies to period prior to 30.09.2019 [Paras 6–10].

Statutory Interpretation – Retrospective Operation – Clarificatory Amendments – Amendments, notifications or circulars which clarify existing legal position or remove ambiguity are retrospective in nature – Reliance placed on Vatika Township, Suchitra Components and Mysore Electricals Industries [Paras 9–11].

GST Demand – Validity – Adjudication and Appellate Orders – Authorities erred in treating Notification No. 04/2019–IGST as prospective – Levy of GST for period April 2018 to March 2019 held unsustainable – Demand contrary to statutory scheme and GST Council clarification [Paras 5, 10–11].

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed – Impugned appellate order dated 25.02.2025 under Section 107(11) and adjudication order dated 28.03.2024 set aside – GST demand quashed – Petitioner held not liable to GST on clinical trial services rendered to foreign recipients [Final Order].

Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Competent Authority - Jurisdiction to Award Damages - Execution of Orders - Section 24(2) of the Rent Act - The Competent Authority under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, has jurisdiction not only to order eviction but also to determine and award damages at double the license fee against an overstaying licensee- Such orders are executable as if they were decrees of a Civil Court, and the transfer of such orders for execution to a Civil Court is permissible-

Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Section 24(2) - Execution of Decree - Damages for Overstaying Licensee - The appellant challenged the execution of an order by the Competent Authority under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, which awarded damages at double the license fee against him for overstaying in licensed premises- The appellant contended that the Competent Authority lacked jurisdiction to award damages, that its order was not a "decree" under CPC, and that execution was barred by limitation- The High Court, affirming the Single Judge's decision, held: The Competent Authority has the power to determine and award damages under Section 24(2) of the Rent Act, which is incidental to its power to evict- Such orders are executable as if they were decrees of a Civil Court- The legislative intent behind Section 24(4) is to deter overstaying licensees and prevent delays- The appellant's arguments, including those on nullity and limitation, were rejected as dilatory tactics aimed at frustrating the decree holder- The appeal was dismissed with exemplary costs- Paras [2-45]

Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Section 24(2) - Interpretation - Legislative Intent - Held: Section 24(2) of the Rent Act, providing for double damages against an overstaying licensee, is a deterrent provision- The legislative intent is to provide an expeditious remedy to licensors and prevent licensees from exploiting legal delays- An interpretation that would require separate civil suits for damages would undermine this objective- Paras [23, 24, 25, 26]

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Execution of Orders - Competent Authority - Held: Orders passed by the Competent Authority under the Rent Act, including those awarding damages, are executable as if they were decrees of a Civil Court- The transfer of such orders for execution to a Civil Court is permissible, and arguments against such transfer based on the inapplicability of CPC provisions are misconceived- Paras [33, 34]

Execution Proceedings - Delay - Abuse of Process - Held: Unreasonable delay in the execution of a decree frustrates the fruits of success for a litigant- Judgment debtors should not abuse the process of the Court to defraud creditors- Raising contradictory pleas and dilatory tactics to delay payment, especially for a modest sum, constitutes an abuse of process- Paras [6, 42, 43]

Limitation - Execution of Orders - Held: The argument that execution proceedings were barred by limitation was rejected, as the appellant appeared to be indulging in speculative litigation to create hurdles- The Court found no facts to support the application of a limitation bar in this case- Paras [40]

Decision: Appeal dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/- - Directions issued for compliance report and discharge of bank guarantees - Paras [45, 49, 51].

Criminal Law – Quashing - Municipal Law – Octroi Evasion – Vicarious Liability – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Pune Municipal Corporation filed complaint alleging non-payment of octroi on import of gold bullions/coins by Bank – Summons issued against Bank and its senior officers including CEO, Deputy MD, Legal Officer and Branch Manager – Petitioners sought quashing on ground of absence of specific role attributed to individual officers – Held: Mere designation or official position insufficient to attract vicarious liability [Paras 1–6, 17].

Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 – Sections 398 and 401 – Ingredients of Offence – Section 398 requires import of goods liable to octroi, non-payment of octroi and intention to defraud Corporation – Section 401 creates vicarious liability only when specific role of director or officer is pleaded – In absence of averments demonstrating intention to defraud and active role of officers, prosecution against them unsustainable [Paras 9–11, 17].

Criminal Liability of Company Officials – Requirement of Specific Averments – Complaint contained only general and omnibus allegations against Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 – No pleading showing how or in what manner they were in charge of and responsible for conduct of business at relevant time – Held: Criminal prosecution against company officials cannot continue without specific and unambiguous allegations [Paras 6, 11, 17].

Interpretation of Vicarious Liability – Parity with Negotiable Instruments Act – Court held that principles governing vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are pari materia with Section 401 of the BPMC Act – Reliance placed on Supreme Court precedents holding that vicarious liability must be pleaded and proved and cannot be inferred merely from designation [Paras 12–16].

Criminal Process – Abuse of Process – Continuation of proceedings against officers without foundational pleadings amounts to abuse of process of law – Summons issued by JMFC based on conjectures and without prima facie material against officers – Liable to be quashed under writ jurisdiction [Paras 6, 17–19].

Partial Quashing – Distinction Between Company and Officers – Complaint and proceedings quashed only qua Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 – Proceedings against Petitioner No.1-Bank permitted to continue – All contentions left open before Trial Court insofar as Bank is concerned [Paras 19–21].

Decision: Criminal Writ Petition partly allowed – Complaint in Criminal Case No. 236 of 2009 and summons dated 20.11.2009 quashed and set aside against Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 – Complaint against Petitioner No.1-Bank to proceed – Rule made partially absolute [Paras 19–21].

Criminal Law – Murder of Police Officers – Extremist Ambush – Conviction – Appellants part of Maoist group that ambushed and killed six police personnel including SP, Pakur – Testimony of injured eye-witnesses PW-30 (bodyguard) and PW-31 (driver) found credible and corroborated by prompt FIR and medical evidence – Held: Injured eye-witnesses identified appellants in court and were present at scene – Conviction under Sections 302, 307, 333, 353, 396, 427 read with Section 149 IPC, Section 27 Arms Act and Section 17 CLA Act affirmed [Paras 36–64].

Criminal Law – Identification of Accused – No TIP Conducted – Validity – Court held that in-court identification by injured witnesses was trustworthy and credible despite no test identification parade – TIP is not substantive evidence, and identification in court supported by surrounding facts including contemporaneous FIR naming accused – Held: Dock identification reliable in present facts [Paras 58–60].

Criminal Law – Discrepancies in Witness Testimony – Appreciation – Minor contradictions in testimony of injured police witnesses regarding precise movement and positions during attack – Court held such inconsistencies are natural in high-stress ambush situation and do not undermine core prosecution case – Testimonies had “ring of truth” and supported by injuries and corroborative facts [Paras 47–50, 59].

Criminal Law – Section 120B and 109 IPC – Distinction – Court found no evidence of pre-conspiracy or instigation attributable to appellants – Held: Conviction under Section 120B and 109 IPC unsustainable where appellants actively participated in crime – Conviction altered accordingly [Para 62–63].

Sentencing – Death Penalty – Commutation – Appellants originally sentenced to death by trial court – One judge of Division Bench dissented and acquitted – Held: Due to split opinion and absence of rarest of rare circumstance threshold being met conclusively, death penalty commuted to life imprisonment – Death reference declined – Sentence under Sections 302 and 396 IPC modified accordingly [Paras 65–68].

Decision: Conviction of both appellants under Sections 302, 307, 333, 353, 427, 396 IPC, Section 27 Arms Act, and Section 17 CLA Act affirmed – Conviction under Sections 120B and 109 IPC set aside – Death sentence commuted to life imprisonment – All life sentences to run concurrently – Appeals dismissed with modification in sentence – Death Reference No. 04 of 2018 dismissed.

Service Law – Disciplinary Action – Second Marriage – Bigamous Conduct – CISF constable married another lady constable while first marriage subsisted – Disciplinary authority imposed penalty of compulsory retirement – Writ petitioner contended family pressure led to second marriage and sought leniency – Single Judge remanded matter directing imposition of lesser penalty – Division Bench held: Second marriage during subsistence of first violates Rule 21 of CCS (Conduct) Rules and Rule 18(b) of CISF Rules – It constitutes grave misconduct in a disciplined force – Compulsory retirement not disproportionate [Paras 16–18, 21].

Judicial Review – Scope of Interference – Quantum of Punishment – Court cannot substitute penalty unless it shocks conscience – High Court cannot fix cap on punishment while remanding matter to disciplinary authority – Judicial review is limited to examining whether punishment is so disproportionate as to warrant interference – Held: Direction of learned Single Judge to impose lesser punishment not sustainable in law [Paras 13, 18, 19, 21].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Standard of Proof – Second Marriage without Divorce – Departmental inquiry held – No procedural infirmity or violation of natural justice – Statements and documents established charge – Petitioner failed to prove divorce – Held: Penalty of compulsory retirement supported by material evidence and well within bounds of proportionality [Paras 14–17].

Public Employment – Conduct in Personal Life – Impact on Service – Member of disciplined force expected to adhere to conduct rules – Second marriage without legal separation adversely affects institutional discipline – Absence of criminal prosecution irrelevant to departmental misconduct – Held: Personal conduct in contravention of service rules warrants disciplinary consequences [Paras 16, 17].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of learned Single Judge dated 05.03.2024 in W.P. No. 14766 of 2018 set aside – Orders of disciplinary, appellate, and revisional authorities imposing compulsory retirement on writ petitioner restored and confirmed – Held: Penalty of compulsory retirement is not disproportionate and is justified in light of proven misconduct [Paras 21–22].

Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail – Maintainability Before High Court – Concurrent jurisdiction of Sessions Court and High Court – Applicant directly approached High Court without first applying before Sessions Court – Applicant not residing within jurisdiction of Sessions Court where FIR lodged – Held: Petition maintainable under Clause 26(B) of Full Bench decision in Ankit Bharti v. State of U.P. [Paras 2–4]

Freedom of Speech – Social Media Posts – Applicant’s tweets following Pahalgam terror attack criticized Government’s response and Prime Minister’s political rally – FIR alleged tweets incited communal disharmony and defamed the nation – Applicant argued protection under Article 19(1)(a) – Held: Freedom of expression subject to reasonable restrictions – Tweets posted during a sensitive national crisis and widely circulated internationally, including in Pakistan – Cannot claim blanket protection under Article 19(1)(a) [Paras 5–10, 17–18]

Criminal Law – Sedition-like Offences under New Law – Applicant charged under Section 152 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (replacing repealed Section 124A IPC) – Held: Prima facie assessment of charges not permissible at bail stage – Supreme Court has granted liberty to raise all defences at stage of framing of charge – High Court bound by Article 141 not to interfere [Paras 7–10, 20]

Judicial Discipline – Binding Effect of Supreme Court Orders – Applicant’s SLP challenging rejection of writ petition dismissed by Supreme Court with liberty to raise issues at appropriate stage – Held: High Court bound by Supreme Court’s direction and cannot pre-emptively assess merits of FIR or charges [Paras 11–12, 20]

Investigation – Non-Cooperation by Applicant – Despite specific directions by High Court and opportunity given by Investigating Officer, applicant failed to appear and evaded investigation – Police reports indicated frequent change of residence – Held: Applicant’s conduct shows lack of bona fides and disentitles her to discretionary relief of anticipatory bail [Paras 13, 19]

Decision: Anticipatory bail application rejected – Court held it is not a fit case for granting relief under Section 482 BNSS – Applicant at liberty to apply for discharge or raise objections at the stage of framing of charge, as directed by Supreme Court [Para 21]

Criminal Law – Common Intention – Acquittal – Appellant Raj Bala convicted under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC for allegedly firing at injured Kailash during a group assault where another accused had fired fatal shot – Trial court relied on ocular evidence but injury report (Exh. Ka-20) showed no firearm injury – Medical evidence inconsistent with prosecution’s version – Held: Common intention not proved – No evidence of premeditation, meeting of minds or active participation by appellant – Conviction under Section 34 IPC unsustainable [Paras 14–20, 25–30]

Evidence Law – Contradiction between Medical and Ocular Evidence – Medical report by PW-7 showed injuries were simple, caused by hard and blunt object – No X-ray report submitted for injury kept under observation – Doctor not certain about firearm involvement – Court held this contradiction casts serious doubt on prosecution’s case and undermines charge of firing by appellant [Paras 19–21, 26]

Presumption of Guilt – Mere Presence at Scene – Trial court erred in holding appellant guilty solely on her presence at the crime scene and alleged relationship with co-accused – Supreme Court precedents cited (Surendra Singh, Chandra Pratap Singh) reiterate that presence alone, without proven common intention, is not enough to invoke Section 34 IPC [Paras 15, 24, 27–30]

Benefit of Doubt – Acquittal – Court found prosecution failed to establish key ingredients for vicarious liability under Section 34 IPC – Absence of overt act, lack of evidence of firearm use by appellant, and doubt regarding motive led to acquittal – Court set aside conviction and sentence, extended benefit of doubt to appellant [Paras 33–38]

Decision: Criminal appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence of appellant Raj Bala under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Bail bond cancelled – Sureties discharged [Paras 36–39]