Civil Procedure – Commercial Suit – Reopening of Evidence – Recall of Witness – Additional Documents – Plaintiff filed suit for return of 4,100 grams of 22 carat gold or payment of market value of Rs. 1,98,26,124/- along with interest – Pending suit, plaintiff filed applications to receive additional documents (FIR in Crime No. 238 of 2023 registered against the defendant on a complaint of cheating), to reopen evidence on plaintiff's side and to recall PW1 – Trial Court dismissed all applications holding no reasonable cause shown for filing additional documents – Respondent did not file any counter to the applications – Held: Plaintiff must be given an opportunity to prove the conduct of the defendant; dismissal of applications defeats the petitioner's valuable right to establish his case; impugned orders set aside [Paras 3-5].

Decision: Civil revision petitions allowed – IA Nos. 7, 8 and 9 of 2026 allowed – Liberty granted to respondent to cross-examine the witness – Trial Court directed to proceed with the matter – No costs.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Cheque Dishonour – Power of Attorney Holder as Witness – Competency – Cheque dated 05.03.2011 for Rs. 2,50,000/- issued by accused dishonoured – PW1, Power of Attorney Holder of complainant, examined as witness having direct knowledge of and having witnessed the transaction leading to execution of cheque – Trial court discarded his evidence solely on the ground that his name was not cited in the preliminary witness schedule filed with the complaint – Held: In a private complaint prosecution, omission to cite a witness in the initial witness schedule is not a reason to disbelieve his evidence when he was duly examined and his testimony remained unshaken in cross-examination — trial court's view was hyper-technical and erroneous [Paras 8–9].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Sections 118 and 139 – Presumption – Financial Capacity of Complainant – Burden of Proof – Trial court acquitted accused also on the ground that complainant did not prove his financial capacity to advance Rs. 2,50,000/- – Accused did not raise any challenge during trial as to complainant's financial incapacity – Held: Where accused does not dispute financial capacity of complainant during trial, no burden lies on complainant to prove the same — presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act arise in favour of complainant and were not rebutted by accused — finding of trial court on this point also erroneous [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal allowed — acquittal set aside — accused convicted under Section 138 of the NI Act — sentenced to imprisonment till rising of court and fine of Rs. 4,00,000/- with default imprisonment of six months — accused directed to appear before trial court on 10.04.2026.

POCSO Act – Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault – Section 6 – Conviction Upheld – Accused, the cousin brother and blood relative of the minor victim aged 14 years, subjected her to repeated forcible sexual intercourse from the time she was in 9th standard, taking advantage of the prohibited familial relationship and the victim's vulnerability as her parents were staying away in Coimbatore – Victim became pregnant; accused refused responsibility and directed her to give a false version of kidnap and rape – Held: Prosecution established the foundational facts; testimony of the victim is reliable, trustworthy and of sterling quality; conviction affirmed [Paras 18-40].

POCSO Act – Sole Testimony of Victim – Sterling Witness – Corroboration Not Required – Conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the victim in cases of sexual assault if the evidence is found trustworthy and of sterling quality – Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies do not constitute grounds to discard an otherwise reliable prosecution case – In the instant case, the victim was consistent in her complaint (Ex.P1), Section 164 statement (Ex.P2) and court deposition; withstood rigorous cross-examination; PW4 (independent witness) corroborated her version – Held: Corroboration not required; sole testimony sufficient [Paras 31-34].

POCSO Act – Statutory Presumption – Section 29 – Once foundational facts established that victim is a minor and has been subjected to sexual relationship, presumption under Section 29 POCSO Act arises – Accused offered no explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and adduced no evidence to rebut presumption – Held: Statutory presumption unrebutted; conviction justified [Para 35].

Evidence – Discrepancy – False Version of Kidnap Attributed to Accused's Instructions – Victim initially gave a version of kidnap and rape by one known and three unknown persons but retracted before the doctor stating she did so on the accused's instruction – Held: Discrepancy regarding kidnap and rape, explained by the victim's fear of shame and trauma of prohibited relationship, does not affect the core prosecution case of repeated sexual assault [Paras 34, 37].

POCSO Act – Delay in FIR – Sexual Assault by Blood Relative – Delay in lodging complaint in cases of sexual assault committed by a close blood relative in a prohibited relationship cannot be a ground to discredit the prosecution case, as the minor victim was under fear of shame and social stigma [Para 38].

Decision: Criminal appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of ten years RI under Section 6 POCSO Act affirmed – Trial Court directed to secure the accused and commit him to prison to undergo the remaining sentence.

Criminal Law – Bail – Section 69 BNS – Promise of Marriage – Sexual Exploitation – Pregnancy – Accused, the maternal aunt's son of the complainant, allegedly developed a physical relationship with her under repeated assurances of marriage, took her to an OYO room on 04.06.2025, and had physical relations with her – Complainant became seven months pregnant at the time of filing the complaint and subsequently gave birth to a baby boy on 18.02.2026 – Accused refused to marry her and denied paternity – DNA samples awaited as child had not yet attained the minimum age of two months required for collection – Petitioner in custody since 13.01.2026 – Held: Considering the period of incarceration and the facts and circumstances, bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 2, 6].

Decision: Criminal petition allowed – Bail granted on execution of personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of like amount – Petitioner to appear before the concerned SHO every Wednesday between 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM for eight weeks or till filing of charge sheet, whichever is earlier – Petitioner to abide by conditions under Section 483(2) BNSS.

Taxation – MVAT – Settlement of arrears under Amnesty Scheme – Adjustment of refund – Petitioner entitled to refund of ₹33,29,000 for tax period 2007–08 – Department adjusted said refund against alleged dues for tax period 2008–09 while issuing settlement order – Petitioner had already applied for settlement and paid requisite amount under the Maharashtra Settlement of Arrears of Tax, Interest, Penalty or Late Fees Act, 2023 – Held: Such adjustment defeats the purpose of the Settlement Act which aims to bring quietus to tax disputes and unlock revenue locked in litigation – Adjustment of refund not permissible [Paras 13–18].

Settlement Act – Nature and scope – Amnesty scheme introduced to reduce old pending tax litigation and enable settlement by payment of specified portion of arrears – Once assessee satisfies conditions of the scheme and pays the requisite amount, he is entitled to waiver of the balance liability and discharge of tax dues – Authorities cannot interpret the scheme in a manner defeating its object [Paras 13–16].

Refund adjustment – Section 50 MVAT Act – Applicability – Department sought to justify adjustment of refund under Section 50 of the MVAT Act – Held: Settlement Act is a separate statute and a self-contained code – Authorities acting under the Settlement Act cannot import provisions of Section 50 of the MVAT Act unless an independent order under MVAT Act is passed – Powers under different statutes cannot be intermixed [Paras 19, 22].

Computation of arrears – Settlement Scheme – Determination of outstanding arrears must be made year-wise on the basis of statutory orders relating to that specific financial year – Refund of another financial year cannot be adjusted while computing arrears under the Settlement Act in absence of express statutory provision – Each financial year constitutes a separate unit for settlement [Paras 21–22].

Principles of Natural Justice – Settlement order adjusting refund passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner – Section 13(2) of the Settlement Act requires opportunity before rejecting or adversely affecting settlement application – Impugned order vitiated for violation of natural justice [Para 24].

Taxation – Amnesty Scheme interpretation – Department cannot compel assessee to pay settlement dues under the scheme and simultaneously deny legitimate refund due to him – Such interpretation would defeat the legislative intent of encouraging settlement of disputes [Para 18].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Settlement order dated 18.04.2024 quashed – Settlement application for tax period 2008–09 to be accepted without adjustment of refund – Respondents directed to refund ₹33,29,000 for tax period 2007–08 with interest within two weeks.

Education Law – Recognition as Research Guide – Alleged submission of forged publications – Petitioner, an Associate Professor in Hindi, applied for recognition as Research Guide under Mahatma Gandhi University Ph.D Regulations, 2016 – Application rejected by the University on the ground that the petitioner had submitted forged and unauthentic journals along with the guideship application – University also initiated proceedings by constituting an Institutional Academic Integrity Panel under UGC Regulations 2018 – Held: When allegations relate to authenticity of academic publications and possible academic misconduct, the competent academic authorities must first complete the statutory proceedings – Court declined to interfere at the preliminary stage [Paras 16–17].

Judicial Review – Academic Matters – Limited scope of interference – Dispute involved verification of genuineness of academic journals and allegations of submission of forged publications – Held: Such issues fall within the domain of expert academic bodies and the University authorities, and the High Court should not interfere unless the decision is arbitrary or without jurisdiction – Academic bodies are competent to determine authenticity of publications and compliance with research regulations [Paras 16–17].

UGC Regulations – Academic Integrity and Plagiarism – Institutional inquiry – Where allegations of submission of forged or unauthentic publications arise in the context of recognition as Research Guide, proceedings under the UGC Regulations on Promotion of Academic Integrity and Prevention of Plagiarism, 2018 may be initiated – Held: Determination of the allegations should be made through the Institutional Academic Integrity Panel constituted under the Regulations [Para 16].

Decision: Writ Petition disposed of – Respondents directed to complete proceedings initiated under UGC Regulations 2018 within three months – Petitioner's application for recognition as Research Guide to be reconsidered on the basis of the outcome of those proceedings [Para 17].

Arbitration – Challenge to Arbitral Award – Scope of interference under Section 34 – Court reiterated that judicial intervention with arbitral awards is limited – Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own view merely because another view is possible – Interference permissible only on limited grounds such as perversity, violation of natural justice or conflict with public policy of India [Paras 37–39].

Insurance Claim – Surveyor’s Report – Evidentiary value – Arbitrator relied primarily on surveyor’s report which assessed damage to only 15 polyethylene sheets as against claimant’s claim of 90 sheets – Surveyor admitted during cross-examination that he did not calculate the total number of damaged sheets, prepared report on memory, prepared no inventory and conducted no measurements – Held: Surveyor’s report though important is only a piece of evidence and cannot be treated as sacrosanct or binding when it suffers from serious infirmities [Paras 48–50].

Arbitral Award – Perversity – Ignoring material evidence – Arbitrator relied solely on survey report while ignoring vital documentary evidence including stock registers and testimony of claimant’s witnesses showing replacement of 90 sheets – Award failed to analyse claimant’s evidence at all – Held: Award ignoring vital evidence and based on contradictory material amounts to perversity and is liable to be set aside under Section 34 [Paras 51–61].

Insurance Law – Notice of loss – Interpretation of “forthwith” – Insurance policy required insured to inform insurer “forthwith” and within 15 days of loss – Storm damage occurred on 02.06.1998 and 04.06.1998 and notice was given on 05.06.1998 – Held: Such notice constitutes substantial compliance with policy condition – Arbitrator erred in holding that replacement of sheets before intimation violated Clause 6(i) [Paras 65–68].

Insurance Claims – Emergency repairs – Damage to greenhouse required immediate repair to prevent further loss to plants – Replacement of sheets prior to survey inspection held to be reasonable conduct of a prudent insured and not a ground to doubt the claim [Para 68].

Arbitrator – Disclosure under Section 12 – Petitioner alleged arbitrator’s relationship with its Managing Director and sought recusal shortly before award – Court held petitioner had participated in proceedings for years without raising objection and raised issue only three days before award – Held: Allegation vague and belated – ground rejected [Paras 63–64].

Decision: Petition allowed – Arbitral Award dated 17.03.2012 set aside.

Constitutional Law – Statutory Right of Appeal – Validity of Conditions – Challenge to proviso (b) of Section 7 requiring surrender of possession before entertaining appeal – Held: Right of appeal is statutory and legislature can impose reasonable conditions – Condition not per se unconstitutional unless arbitrary, excessive or rendering remedy illusory [Paras 5, 22]

Interpretation of Statute – Reading Down – Expression “surrender of possession” – Literal interpretation requiring physical possession would render appeal harsh and unworkable – Court reads down provision to include constructive/symbolic possession – Provision upheld by purposive interpretation [Paras 16, 19, 20, 23-25]

Alternative Remedy – Maintainability of Writ – Availability of efficacious appeal under Section 7 – Writ petition under Article 226 not maintainable when statutory remedy exists – Petition dismissed on this ground [Paras 2, 26]

Property Law – Migrant Property – Object of Act of 1997 – Preservation and protection of migrant properties and prevention of distress sales – Custody vested in District Magistrate including deemed custody – Condition of surrender ensures protection of property during appeal [Paras 8-11, 15]

Possession – Scope and Meaning – Includes actual, constructive and symbolic possession – Determination depends on statutory context and purpose – For Section 7, symbolic possession sufficient compliance [Paras 18-19]

Eviction – Appeal Against Eviction Order – Requirement of surrender of possession – Held: Symbolic/constructive possession sufficient – Appellant may retain de facto possession while competent authority retains de jure custody pending appeal [Para 24]

Precedent – Division Bench Ruling – Symbolic possession recognized as compliance with Section 7 – Followed [Para 21]

Decision:

Writ Petition dismissed – Proviso (b) to Section 7 upheld subject to reading down – Petitioner relegated to statutory remedy of appeal – Four weeks’ time granted to file appeal – Status quo to be maintained for four weeks.

NDPS – Conviction under Section 21(c) – Recovery of Codeine-Containing Cough Syrup – Commercial Quantity – Four accused intercepted at a public place on the basis of secret information — 175 bottles of Codeine-containing cough syrup recovered from bags, plastic sacks and a ladies purse in their possession — FSL report confirmed presence of Codeine Phosphate and Chlorpheniramine Maleate — Trial Court convicted all four accused and sentenced each to 15 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,50,000/- — All three appeals dismissed and conviction affirmed [Paras 5-9].

"Public Place, Public Seizure" – Sections 42 and 43, NDPS Act – Applicability – Recovery effected at a place accessible to the public while accused were in transit — Held: Provisions of Section 42 apply to search of buildings, conveyances or enclosed places based on prior secret information; where recovery is made from a public place or during transit, Section 43 governs the situation and compliance with Section 42 is not required — Contention of non-compliance with Section 42 misconceived and rejected [Paras 44-55].

"Search of Bag Is Not Search of Body" – Section 50, NDPS Act – Personal Search Distinguished from Search of Baggage – Contraband recovered from bags and ladies purse carried by accused — Held: Section 50 is attracted only when the body of the accused is searched — Search of bag, briefcase, purse, container or article carried by accused does not amount to personal search — Contention of non-compliance with Section 50(4) regarding search of female accused also rejected on the same principle — Provisions of Section 50 not attracted [Paras 56-71].

Conscious Possession – Statutory Presumptions – Sections 35 and 54, NDPS Act – Accused found carrying bags containing contraband — Members of raiding party and Investigating Officer consistently deposed regarding recovery — Accused made only bald denial in examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and adduced no evidence — Held: Once possession established, burden shifts to accused to rebut presumption of conscious possession — Appellants failed to discharge said burden — Prosecution case proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 72-79].

Informant as Investigating Officer – No Per Se Bias – PW-10 was both informant and Investigating Officer — Held: Following Constitutional Bench in Mukesh Singh (supra), merely because informant and investigator are the same person does not vitiate investigation or trial — Question of bias depends on facts of each case — No material placed by appellants showing actual prejudice or motive for false implication [Paras 19, 29, 74-75].

Delay in Forwarding Samples – Safe Custody Established – Sealed samples initially forwarded to Drug Inspector, then resealed and forwarded to FSL — Seals found intact on receipt at FSL — Defence did not cross-examine PW-10 on delay or tampering — Held: Delay in routing samples through another authority does not vitiate prosecution case when chain of custody and link evidence are duly established — Contention of non-compliance with Rule 13 of NDPS Rules, 2022 raised for first time in appeal without cross-examination, not sustainable [Paras 81-86].

Decision: All three criminal appeals dismissed — Conviction under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act and sentence of 15 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,50,000/- affirmed — Appellants to serve remaining sentence — Registry directed to transmit copy of judgment to Superintendent of Jail and to inform appellants of their right to appeal before the Supreme Court and availability of free legal aid [Paras 92-97].