Petroleum Retail Outlet – Withdrawal of LOI – Rural vs. Regular Classification – LOI revived – BPCL invited applications for Rural Outlet at specified location; petitioner complied, invested, and nearly completed setup – Later LOI withdrawn citing site being on State highway – Held: Misrepresentation, if any, was by respondent company itself; cancellation arbitrary; LOI revived subject to petitioner paying difference of fees applicable to Regular Outlet [Paras 18-21, 37-43].

Oil Companies – Clause 22 (False Information) – Inapplicable – Respondents sought to invoke Clause 22 of Dealer Selection Brochure – Court held petitioner had not misrepresented; location itself advertised as Rural by respondents – Clause 22 cannot be used against applicant when mistake lies with company [Paras 26-29].

Woman Entrepreneur – Protection from Arbitrary Action – Article 15(3) – Court emphasized need to interpret actions in light of constitutional protection for women entrepreneurs – Arbitrary withdrawal of LOI after investment and NOCs caused undue hardship – Relief granted in writ jurisdiction [Paras 31-33].

Decision – Petition allowed – Impugned cancellation letter dated 25.01.2023 quashed – LOI revived in petitioner’s favour for outlet at Kaijgaon to Tarwade Kh, Jalgaon – Subject to deposit of ₹11,02,000 (difference for Regular Outlet) within six weeks – Respondents directed to operationalize outlet thereafter [Paras 41-45].

Matrimonial Law - Maintenance – Enforcement of Order – Section 125 CrPC – Look Out Circular – Jurisdiction of Family Court – Family Court issued LOC against husband for non-payment of maintenance – Held: Family Court has no power or jurisdiction to issue Look Out Circular while executing maintenance order under Section 125 CrPC [Paras 1, 6].

Criminal Procedure – Section 125(3) CrPC – Mode of Recovery – Section 421 CrPC – Enforcement of maintenance order restricted to attachment of property, levy of fine, warrant of arrest and civil imprisonment – Proviso to Section 421 bars arrest or detention for recovery of fine – LOC not contemplated under CrPC for recovery of maintenance dues [Paras 2, 6].

Personal Liberty – Article 21 – Look Out Circular – LOC intended to prevent accused/offenders from evading criminal process – Issuance of LOC in civil maintenance proceedings held illegal – Continuation of LOC despite court order amounts to violation of fundamental right to personal liberty and contempt of court [Paras 6–7].

Judicial Discipline – Compliance with Court Orders – LOC Suspension – Duty of Requisitioning Authority – Failure to withdraw LOC after court’s suspension order deprecated – Directions issued to Director General of Police to ensure immediate withdrawal of LOC upon court orders and to fix responsibility on erring officers [Paras 7–8].

Precedent – Matrimonial and Maintenance Proceedings – Reliance on Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P. and Rajnesh v. Neha – Enforcement measures in maintenance cases must be exercised within statutory framework and as a last resort – Extra-statutory coercive measures impermissible [Paras 2, 6].

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed – Impugned order dated 30.10.2024 passed in Crl.MC No.45/2022 by Principal Judge, Family Court, Mangaluru set aside – Directions issued to Registrar General to circulate judgment to all courts dealing with Section 125 CrPC and to Director General of Police – All pending interlocutory applications closed [Paras 8, Order].

Civil Writ - PIL – PMFBY – Crop insurance dispute under PMFBY for Kharif 2021 - Clause 21.5.10.1 ROG – MLR Code Sections 2(16), 2(19), 168–186 – Localized rains 23.09.2021–10.10.2021 – CCEs commenced 17.09.2021 – “Normal harvest” means actual harvest – Loss assessment on 50:50 sample survey and CCE – CCE showed actual yield > threshold in all 42 circles – No further liability – Writ allowed – PIL dismissed [Paras 7–16, 77–99, 124–140, 157–159]

Recovery Proceedings – Invocation of MLR Code – Sections 2(16), 2(19), 168–186, 180 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code – Orders quashed – The State sought to recover alleged dues of crop insurance from the petitioner insurance company as arrears of land revenue – Basis of recovery was that “land” includes benefits arising out of land and crops are such benefits – Held: Insurance claims are contractual obligations payable to individual farmers, not to the State – Payments under PMFBY MOU are credited directly into farmers’ accounts – Neither ROG, GR dated 29.06.2020 nor the MOU provide recovery as land revenue – Section 180 attachment and freezing of insurer’s bank accounts unsustainable – Orders set aside [Paras 77–99].

Maintainability of Writ – Disputed Questions of Fact – Writ Petition Maintainable – The State argued disputed facts barred writ jurisdiction – But CCE data, harvesting commencement date (17.09.2021) and calamity period (23.09.2021 to 10.10.2021) were undisputed and derived from State’s own documents – Controversy turned solely on interpretation of Clause 21.5.10.1 of the ROG – High Court under Article 226 competent to decide – Relying on A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation (SC), writ maintainable [Paras 100–104].

Crop Insurance – Role of Crop Cutting Experiments (CCE) – CCEs integral to PMFBY – ROG repeatedly stresses reliance on CCE data for calculating threshold yield, assessing losses and finalizing claims – Even in add-on covers like mid-season adversity and post-harvest losses, upfront payments are adjusted against CCE yield data – Ignoring CCE would defeat the scientific foundation of the scheme – State’s contention that localized calamity claims must be based solely on sample survey rejected [Paras 111–123].

Localized Calamity – Clause 21.5.10.1, ROG – Interpretation of “Normal Harvest” – Clause 21.5.10.1 has two components: (i) intimation allowed till “harvest date as notified” and (ii) assessment of losses occurring within 15 days of “normal harvest” – “Normal harvest” not defined in ROG – Distinct from notified crop calendar – Held: “Normal harvest” means actual commencement of harvesting – Undisputed State records show harvesting of Soyabean in Osmanabad began on 17.09.2021 – Since unseasonal rains struck between 23.09.2021 and 10.10.2021, losses occurred within 15 days of normal harvest – Hence Clause 21.5.10.1 applies requiring assessment on 50:50 basis between sample survey and CCE – State’s attempt to equate “normal harvest” with crop calendar dates (15.10.2021–15.11.2021) rejected [Paras 124–134].

Insurance Liability – Application of CCE Data – No Further Liability – Insurer already paid Rs.374.61 crores based on sample survey (50% component) – CCE data supplied by the State itself showed actual/average yield of Soyabean in all 42 circles of Osmanabad exceeded threshold yield – Farmers did not suffer compensable loss under CCE component – With 50:50 weightage, liability of insurer exhausted – No basis for State’s demand of additional payment of similar amount – Indemnity under PMFBY arises only for actual shortfall – No further amount payable [Paras 135–140].

Grievance Redressal Mechanism – Jurisdiction – District Grievance Redressal Committee has pecuniary limit of Rs.25 lakhs – Aggregate claims here exceeded Rs.374 crores – Committee’s jurisdiction doubtful – Divisional Level Committee created by GR of 29.06.2020 not contemplated in ROG – However, since case decided on merits, issue rendered academic – Findings recorded for completeness [Paras 141–143].

Alternative Remedy – Not Bar to Writ – State argued insurer had remedy before STAC and higher committees – Court held STAC could only decide yield or loss computation, not interpret clauses of ROG – Only Union of India under Clause 35.1.17 ROG competent to interpret provisions – Insurer had in fact sought Union’s intervention but was redirected to STAC – Hence remedy not efficacious – Rule of prudence, not bar – Writ properly maintainable [Paras 144–146].

Administrative Communications – Binding Effect – State relied on internal letters to support its interpretation – Court held such communications cannot override scheme interpretation – On the contrary, Union of India’s letter dated 25.07.2025 clarified that if harvesting had begun prior to notified date, Clause 21.5.10.1 applies – Union’s affidavit in this case also confirmed same – Union’s interpretation binding as per ROG – Supports insurer’s case [Paras 147–149].

Earlier PIL Distinguished – PIL No. 91 of 2021 involved farmers’ failure to intimate loss within 72 hours – Present dispute concerned applicability of Clause 21.5.10.1, meaning of “normal harvest”, and reliance on CCE – Different issues altogether – Adverse order in earlier PIL against insurer irrelevant here [Paras 150–151].

Insurance Contract – Full Premium Received – Still No Further Claim – Respondent State argued insurer acted unfairly having received full premium – Court held PMFBY is a contract of indemnity – Liability depends on actual loss under agreed formula – Since CCE showed no loss, insurer not liable for further claims – Already complied by paying on sample survey basis – No default or bad faith shown [Paras 152–154].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Orders dated 31.05.2022, 20.09.2022, 12.10.2022, 26.10.2022, 02.11.2022, and 16.11.2022 quashed – Held: Clause 21.5.10.1 ROG applicable – No further liability as CCE yield exceeded threshold yield – Public Interest Litigation No. 38 of 2023 dismissed – Rule made absolute [Paras 157–159].

POCSO – Child Rape – Conviction Upheld – Appellant convicted for aggravated penetrative sexual assault on 9-year-old neighbour – Victim’s consistent testimony supported by parents’ depositions – Delay in FIR explained as due to absence of father and social stigma – Medical report noting possibility of penetration and absence of hymen corroborated – Negative FSL report immaterial – Section 29 POCSO presumption applied as foundational facts proved – Defence plea of false implication over quarrel rejected – Conviction and sentence affirmed, appeal dismissed [Paras 7-15, 18-21].

Child Witness – Reliability – Court reiterated law that conviction can rest on sole testimony of a child if found competent and trustworthy – No signs of tutoring or contradictions – Victim’s evidence detailed and credible, sufficient without corroboration – Supreme Court precedents in Dattu Ramrao Sakhare, Ranjeet Kumar Ram, Balveer Singh applied [Paras 8-10].

Medical Evidence – Absence of Injuries – Not Fatal – Hymen absent, penetration possible – Law does not mandate injuries or semen detection for conviction – Corroboration rule is prudential, not mandatory – Victim’s credible testimony sufficient – Supreme Court rulings in Ranjit Hazarika and Satyapal followed [Paras 15-17].

Presumption under Section 29 POCSO – Once prosecution establishes foundational facts (identity, age, act of penetration), presumption of guilt operates – Accused failed to rebut presumption through cross-examination or defence evidence – Mere allegation of quarrel insufficient – Conviction sustained [Paras 18-20].

Decision – No error in Trial Court’s judgment – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Section 6 POCSO and Section 363 IPC upheld [Paras 21-22].

Trademark – Passing Off – Prior Use – Interim Injunction – Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC - Plaintiff (Hi Tech Arai Pvt Ltd) established use of “HTA” from 1985 through technical drawings, invoices, purchase orders, packaging since 1997 and substantial sales turnover (~₹600 crores in 2022-23) – Defendants’ claim of use since 1977 unsupported; their first TM application in 2007 claimed use only since 1994 – Later change of user claim to 1977 held manipulative – Prima facie held: Plaintiff prior adopter and user – Injunction granted [Paras 31-39, 67-71].

Fabricated Documents – Doctored Photographs & Brochures – Defendants produced manipulated photographs in earlier litigation, inserting “HTA” into trade fair banners originally bearing “Paul Components” – Wayback Machine evidence confirmed fabrication – Brochures with impossible mobile numbers (issued only post-2009) and incorrect Auto Expo editions (2008/2020 misrepresented) filed – Held: deliberate fabrication to falsely show earlier use; documents unreliable [Paras 44-57].

Bad Faith Adoption – Copying of Plaintiff’s Marks & Packaging – Defendants failed to justify adoption of “HTA” (only claiming “H” stood for Harinder Kaur, with no explanation for “T” and “A”) – Also applied for plaintiff’s licensed marks “ARS” and “ARAI” without basis, and copied plaintiff’s packaging by shifting from violet to black/yellow to resemble plaintiff’s trade dress – Defendants also applied for well-known third-party marks like “JCB”, “Cummins”, “Hino Prime”, “Meritor” – Held: dishonest intent and mala fide adoption established [Paras 72-87].

Trademark Law – Passing Off Despite Registration – Court reaffirmed principle that action for passing off under Section 27(2) of the Trade Marks Act is unaffected by registration; common law rights of prior user prevail even against registered proprietor – Observed: deception and confusion likely since both sell identical products (oil seals) in identical channels [Paras 26-30].

Decision – Plaintiff made out strong prima facie case of passing off – Balance of convenience and irreparable injury in its favour – Defendants restrained till final adjudication from (i) using “HTA” mark; (ii) using concentric circle logos deceptively similar; (iii) using plaintiff’s trade dress for packaging – Suit listed for further hearing on 04.11.2025 [Paras 88-93].

Civil Revision – Transfer of Suits – Section 24 CPC – Transfer Allowed – Applicants sought transfer of defamation suits from Ponda, Goa, to Maharashtra citing threat to life and fair trial concerns – Court held: Bombay High Court, being common High Court for Maharashtra and Goa under Article 231, has jurisdiction to entertain inter-State transfer under Section 24 CPC – Apprehensions of threat reasonable given history of murders of rationalists, chargesheets linking accused to Respondent No.1, and overwhelming presence of Respondent’s followers in Goa – Transfer justified in interest of justice [Paras 28-45, 64-70].

Maintainability – Section 24 vs. Section 25 CPC – Objection Overruled – Respondent contended only Supreme Court could transfer suits between States under Section 25 CPC – Held: When both transferor and transferee courts are subordinate to a common High Court, Section 24 CPC applies – Applications before Bombay High Court maintainable – Rule 3 of Appellate Side Rules does not bar Principal Seat from hearing [Paras 28-36].

Fair Trial – Apprehension of Threat – Reasonable – Applicants included son of Dr. Narendra Dabholkar and journalists critical of Respondent – They cited chargesheets in Dabholkar, Pansare, Kalburgi, and Gauri Lankesh murder cases showing involvement of Respondent’s followers – Court held such apprehension of threat to life and denial of fair trial at Ponda not illusory – Balance of convenience favoured transfer [Paras 43-49].

Dominus Litis – Plaintiff’s Right vs. Ends of Justice – Respondent argued prejudice and inconvenience if suits shifted – Court reiterated plaintiff’s right to choose forum is subject to overriding principle that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done – Where atmosphere threatens fairness, transfer necessary despite inconvenience to plaintiff [Paras 38-42].

Decision – Applications under Section 24 CPC allowed – Special Civil Suits Nos. 14/2017, 15/2017, 35/2018, 25/2018, and 26/2018 pending before Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ponda, Goa, transferred to competent courts at Mumbai – Ordered accordingly [Paras 70-73, Order].

Civil Law - Stamp Duty Refund – Failure of FDI Transaction – Limitation under Section 48 – Refund Allowed – Petitioner entered into Share Purchase Agreement requiring Government approval under Press Note No.3 (2020 series) – On rejection of approval, SPA became void and refund was sought under Section 47 – Application rejected by authority as time-barred under Section 48 – Held: Delay was due to government procedure; rejection solely on limitation offends equity – Refund allowed with interest [Paras 1–23].

Statutory Right vs. Procedural Technicalities – Substance Over Form – SPA rendered void due to denial of FDI clearance – Though Application was styled under incorrect statutory provision and filed beyond limitation, Court held substance of claim matters more than its form – Mere technicalities should not defeat a legitimate right to refund where underlying transaction failed [Paras 16–17].

Equity and Natural Justice – No Unjust Enrichment by State – Application could not be filed within six-month limitation as approval process was pending – Held: State cannot retain stamp duty when transaction fails – Rejection based only on limitation is against equity and fairness – Refund directed with interest [Paras 8–10, 21–22].

Condonation of Delay – Applicability of Limitation Act – Section 5 Not Barred – Court held that Stamp Act does not expressly exclude Section 5 of Limitation Act – Hence delay can be condoned in appropriate cases where refund claim is otherwise justified – Petition allowed [Paras 14–15].

Decision – Rejection Order Quashed – Refund Directed – High Court quashed impugned order dated 09.10.2023 rejecting refund application – Directed Respondents to refund ₹1,17,08,200 with 4% simple interest within four weeks [Para 22].

Civil Law - Stamp Duty – Lease Deed – Article 36(ii) vs. 36(iii) – Lease period held nine years only – Indenture of Lease dated 19.12.2014 provided for initial three-year term with two automatic renewals aggregating to nine years – Clause 3C merely contemplated option for further renewal on fresh mutually agreed terms or right to match third-party offers – No automatic renewal or agreed rent for post-nine-year period – Held: Lease is for nine years, not eighteen – Stamp duty payable under Article 36(ii) only – Demand under Article 36(iii) quashed [Paras 25-31, 35-41, 61].

Renewal Clause – Construction – “With a renewal clause contingent or otherwise” under Article 36(ii)/(iii) applies only where subsequent rent and terms are fixed within same instrument – Where future renewal is left to mutual agreement or contingent on third-party offers, it is merely an agreement to enter into lease, not a present demise – Such renewal cannot be reckoned for stamp duty [Paras 24-29, 45].

Explanation II to Article 36 – Scope – Renewal period is part of present lease only when expressly provided and terms agreed in same deed – Not attracted where post-term renewal is dependent on fresh agreement – Respondents’ reliance on Explanation II rejected [Para 43].

Subsequent Conduct – Fresh Lease Executed – Parties executed fresh lease on 11.12.2023 for five years and paid duty under Article 36(i), duly accepted by authorities – Confirms intent that 2014 lease was for nine years only – Supports petitioner’s case [Para 44].

Precedents – Distinction between Renewal and Extension – Cited authorities, including Union Bank of India v. State of Maharashtra, Lalji Tandon, and Allahabad High Court rulings, reaffirmed that renewal requires a fresh deed, whereas extension continues existing lease – Since 2014 lease envisaged renewal on fresh terms, Article 36(iii) inapplicable [Paras 47-52, 57-58].

Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed – Orders dated 10.01.2017 and 20.01.2020 demanding deficit duty of ₹64,75,500/- set aside – Lease covered by Article 36(ii) – Rule made absolute in both petitions – No liability under Article 36(iii) [Paras 62-65].

Contract Law - Recovery Suit under LoC – Rejection of Goods by Importer – Time Not Essence – Appeal Dismissed – In a dispute arising from the appellant’s refusal to accept goods under an irrevocable Letter of Credit, the Court upheld the Trial Court’s decree awarding Rs. 7,89,840/- with interest to the exporter (Respondent No. 1) – It held that the minor delay in shipment did not justify rejection, discrepancies raised by the issuing bank could not be relied upon by the buyer, and time was not the essence of the contract – Application to lead additional evidence was also dismissed – Held: No illegality or perversity in Trial Court’s judgment – Appeal and pending applications dismissed [Paras 1–2, 36–39, 53–59].

Letter of Credit – Separate Contract Doctrine – Buyer Cannot Refuse Delivery Based on Bank’s Objection – Appeal Dismissed – The Court reiterated that obligations under an LoC are independent from those under the sale contract – Appellant’s reliance on discrepancies raised by issuing bank to justify non-acceptance was misplaced – Held: Discrepancies did not impact buyer-seller contract; LoC rejection irrelevant to buyer’s liability [Paras 45–49].

Time of Shipment – Time Not Essence – Delay of Two Days Not Fatal – Conduct Shows Waiver – Appellant had accepted previous late shipments and failed to raise prompt objection upon receipt of goods – Held: Minor delay in shipment of third order did not justify cancellation – Contract did not treat time as essence – Performance deemed within reasonable time [Paras 27–44].

Additional Evidence – Negligence of Counsel Not a Ground – Application under Order XLI Rule 27 Rejected – Appellant’s plea that its previous counsel failed to conduct cross-examination or file affidavit was not accepted – Court found no exceptional circumstance warranting additional evidence at appellate stage – Corporate litigant expected to be vigilant [Paras 53–55].

Electronic Records – Section 65-B Certificate – Procedural Requirement Curable at Appellate Stage – Objection to admissibility of emails raised for first time in appeal – Respondent furnished Section 65-B certificate during hearing – Held: Certificate admissible; appeal being continuation of suit, defect was cured [Paras 50–52].

Standard of Review – No Interference Where Findings are Plausible – Appellate Court's Scope Limited – Trial Court’s findings based on evidence and consistent with legal principles – Held: No perversity or illegality warranting interference – Appeal dismissed [Paras 56–57].

Final Relief – Appeal and Applications Dismissed – Decretal Amount to Be Released – No merit found – Appellant’s deposit to be released to Respondent No. 1 with accrued interest – All pending applications also dismissed [Para 59].