Criminal Law – Dishonour of Cheque – Section 138 NI Act – Appeal against Acquittal – Accused alleged to have taken Rs. 2,00,000/- as loan and issued two cheques which were dishonoured – Complainant served statutory notice and filed complaint upon non-payment – Trial Court acquitted the accused holding complainant failed to prove financial capacity and existence of legally enforceable debt – Held: Trial Court's findings justified – Accused rebutted presumption under Section 139 by raising probable defence – Complainant failed to prove specific date of loan transaction, failed to name lender friends, and produced no documentary proof of advancement of Rs. 2,00,000/- [Paras 2.1, 8, 11].

Negotiable Instruments – Presumption under Section 139 – Rebuttal – Accused claimed cheques were old, issued to his brother-in-law in 2000, and misused – No complaint filed by accused, but explanation consistent from notice reply onwards – Defence plausible – Once probable defence is raised, burden shifts to complainant to prove debt – Complainant earning Rs. 3000/- p.m., had dependent children, and gave no proof of loan capability or transaction – Held: Presumption rebutted on preponderance of probabilities – Trial Court rightly held complainant failed to establish foundational facts [Paras 8.1, 11].

Criminal Procedure – Appellate Review of Acquittal – Principles – High Court reappreciated evidence and found no perversity or legal error in Trial Court’s reasoning – Held: Interference not warranted when view of acquittal is plausible and supported by evidence [Para 12].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of accused confirmed – Bail bond cancelled – No interference warranted with Trial Court's judgment [Paras 12-13].

Civil Procedure Code – Rejection of Plaint – Cause of Action – Partition Suit Filed Without Challenging Gift Deed – Maintainability – Respondent (Plaintiff) filed suit for partition and possession without seeking declaration challenging the registered gift deed dated 02.12.2014 – Trial Court rejected plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(a) CPC, holding absence of cause of action – Lower Appellate Court reversed and remanded matter for trial – High Court held that meaningful reading of plaint (Paras 4 to 6) discloses cause of action based on fraud and misrepresentation – Memorandum of Understanding dated 10.11.2017 supports Plaintiff’s version of nominal transfer – Held: Relief of declaration not mandatory where fraud alleged and suit not barred at threshold – Trial and evidence necessary [Paras 15-17, 19]

Limitation – Article 59, Limitation Act – Commencement of Limitation in Case of Fraud – Gift deed executed on 02.12.2014 – Suit filed on 04.04.2019 – Allegation that Plaintiff unaware of gift nature and misled by Defendant – Memorandum of Understanding of 2017 supports Plaintiff’s case – Held: When fraud is pleaded, limitation begins when fraud is discovered – Plea of limitation is mixed question of fact and law – Rejection under Order 7 Rule 11(d) not justified [Paras 16, 18, 19]

Transfer of Property – Validity of Gift Deed – Alleged Misrepresentation – Whether Plaintiff’s failure to challenge gift deed fatal to claim – Plaintiff claimed gift was never intended and no consideration passed – Alleged misrepresentation by elder brother for loan purposes – Held: Suit not barred merely for want of declaratory relief when fraud alleged – Whether deed is void or voidable to be decided after trial [Paras 14, 16, 17]

Binding Precedents – Coordinate Bench Decision in Similar Suit – Civil Suit No. 108/2019 involving same parties upheld by Revisional Court and not interfered with by Apex Court – Respondent sought parity – High Court held that dismissal of SLP without reasons not binding precedent – Independently examined facts and law in this case – Held: Earlier decision not controlling [Para 26]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order of lower appellate court upheld – Suit to proceed on merits before Trial Court – Civil Application also disposed of.

Criminal Law – Sections 7 and 12 of PC Act - Discharge – Prima Facie Case – Application under Section 239 CrPC by public servant accused of abetting co-accused in demanding illegal gratification for unfreezing bank accounts – Applicant alleged to have prepared and shared Excel sheets containing account details of 300+ individuals, which were misused by co-accused – Trial Court rejected discharge application – Held: On basis of WhatsApp chats, statements of co-workers, and material showing destruction of evidence (mobile phone), prima facie case made out – Discharge rightly denied [Paras 8–9].

Criminal Conspiracy – Use of Official Position – Petitioner allegedly shared account data of hundreds of bookies via Excel sheet used by cybercrime officials to extort money – Evidence includes statements of former employee and digital communication – Held: Material on record sufficient to presume commission of offence under IPC Sections 120-B, 389, 385 and PC Act – No “groundlessness” as per Section 239 CrPC [Paras 7–9].

Scope of Discharge – Section 239 CrPC – Court reiterated that at discharge stage, detailed evaluation of evidence is not permissible – Material must merely disclose reasonable suspicion of guilt – Cited Supreme Court’s rulings in R. Soundirarasu, M.R. Hiremath, and Ashok Kumar Kashyap – Held: Trial court not expected to conduct a mini-trial; mere sufficiency of suspicion enough for framing charge [Paras 10–15].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope of Interference – Revisional power cannot be equated with appellate review – High Court can interfere only where charges are groundless or continuation of trial is legally barred – Held: No error in Special Judge’s reasoning – Interference unwarranted in absence of perversity or legal infirmity [Paras 16–17].

Decision: Criminal revision application dismissed – Discharge rightly rejected by Special Judge – No interim relief extended post-judgment [Paras 17–18 and Further Order].

Public Trusts – Suit for Possession – Consent of Charity Commissioner – Sections 50 and 51, Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 – Maintainability of Suit by Trustees – Trustees, as natural legal owners of trust property, are competent to sue for recovery of possession from trespassers without prior written consent of the Charity Commissioner – Section 50 is an enabling, not restrictive, provision conferring additional rights upon beneficiaries or the Charity Commissioner – Consent under Section 51 required only for “persons having interest in the trust,” not for trustees – Trustees’ common law right to protect trust property unaffected [Paras 25–29, 35].

Charity Commissioner – Jurisdiction – Section 80, Bombay Public Trusts Act – Scope – Charity Commissioner has no power to adjudicate on trespass or recovery of possession of trust property – Hence, civil court’s jurisdiction not barred – Suit for possession maintainable [Paras 36–39].

Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Rejection of Plaint – Non-joinder of Necessary Party – Housing Society not necessary party in a suit for possession against trespassers or co-owners – Non-joinder not a ground for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Para 40].

Interpretation – Distinction between Maharashtra and Gujarat Public Trusts Acts – Though Section 50 of BPT Act (Gujarat) refers to “any person including one holding adversely to the public trust,” it remains an enabling provision – Does not curtail trustees’ inherent power to sue trespassers – Consent requirement applies only to non-trustees or persons interested [Paras 19–21, 27–29].

Precedents – Reliance on Binding Authority – Division Bench ruling in Amirchand Tulsiram Gupta v. Vasant Dhanaji Patil (1992 SCC OnLine Bom 4) and Gujarat High Court decision in Nadiad Nagarpalika v. Vithalbhai Zaverbhai Patel (AIR 1980 Guj 161) followed – Trustees can maintain suit without Charity Commissioner’s consent – Earlier judgment in Shri Hari Ashram v. Khushalbhai Bhawan Kawa reaffirmed [Paras 22–26].

Decision: Application for rejection of plaint dismissed – Held that trustees can sue for recovery of possession of trust property without consent of Charity Commissioner – No bar under Section 80 of BPT Act – Non-joinder of Housing Society not fatal – Application misconceived and rejected [Paras 35, 39–42].

Anticipatory Bail – Sections 75, 79, 351(2), and 352 BNS - Allegation of Sexual Harassment – Guest Lecturer alleged that petitioner (Accused No.1), a University official, filmed her, used obscene language, and threatened job loss unless she complied with sexual demands – Accused Nos. 2 and 3 granted bail by Sessions Court – Petitioner’s bail rejected without reasons – Held: On parity and absence of direct evidence of mobile phone recovery or production, anticipatory bail granted with conditions [Paras 3, 6–9].

Criminal Law – Section 75 BNS – Abuse of Authority – FIR lacked corroboration that petitioner misused official position for sexual exploitation – Allegations stemmed from prior employment disputes and complainant’s removal from guest lecturer post – Held: Prima facie case of Section 75 BNS not made out at anticipatory bail stage – Other offences substantially bailable [Paras 6–8].

Parity in Bail – Accused Nos. 2 and 3, who were similarly placed and present during incident, granted anticipatory bail – No material distinction in allegations against petitioner – Held: Denial of anticipatory bail to petitioner unsustainable on parity grounds [Para 7].

Custodial Interrogation – Not Necessary – No evidence that complainant returned or surrendered mobile phone allegedly containing recording – No urgency for custodial interrogation – Bail granted with safeguards and liberty to investigating officer to approach Trial Court if required [Paras 6–9].

Decision: Petition allowed – Anticipatory bail granted in Cr. No. 393/2025 registered by Jnanabharathi Police – Petitioner to execute bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties – Directed to cooperate with investigation and refrain from influencing witnesses or committing similar offences [Para 9].

Civil Law - Intellectual Property – Trademark Infringement – Ex Parte Injunction – Plaintiff alleged infringement of its registered marks ‘GOBOLD’, ‘GOJOLT’, and ‘GOVO’ by defendant’s use of ‘GOBOULT’ – Commercial Court granted ad-interim injunction without notice – Defendant argued that 'GOBOULT' is a registered mark in its favour with substantial sales turnover and business investment – Held: Commercial Court’s injunction lacked adequate reasoning on urgency – Modified to permit defendant’s continued use of trademark subject to weekly account filings and final adjudication of interim injunction application [Paras 3, 5, 15–17]

Commercial Courts Act – Section 12-A – Pre-institution Mediation – Commercial Court dismissed plaintiff’s application under Section 12-A and directed referral to DLSA for time-bound mediation – Both parties agreed such hybrid course impermissible post-20.08.2022 – Held: Commercial Court’s direction was unsustainable – Plaintiff’s application under Section 12-A allowed – Direction to DLSA quashed [Paras 2, 6–8]

Civil Procedure – Balance of Convenience – Defendant demonstrated hardship and significant disruption to ongoing business and workforce due to ex parte injunction – Commercial Court’s assumption of no inconvenience to defendant unsupported by material reasoning – Interim order modified to balance equities – Commercial Court directed to decide interim injunction application expeditiously [Paras 10–17]

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Rejection of plaintiff’s Section 12-A application set aside – Direction to DLSA for mediation quashed – Defendant permitted to continue business under ‘GOBOULT’ trademark subject to filing weekly business accounts – Commercial Court directed to dispose of injunction application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC by 10.11.2025

Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Section 23(1) – Void Transfer – Gift Deed executed by senior citizen in favour of son and grandson declared void – Tribunal found that donees failed to maintain and provide necessities to the transferor – Held, express recital in gift deed that transferee shall maintain transferor not necessary – Such expectation is implicit when transfer made out of love and affection in evening of life – Non-maintenance attracts deeming fiction of fraud, coercion or undue influence – Gift rightly declared void [Paras 18–25, 33–36].

Maintenance of Senior Citizens – Condition Precedent under Section 23 – Two conditions must co-exist: (i) transfer of property by way of gift or otherwise subject to condition of maintenance, and (ii) refusal or failure to provide maintenance – Such condition can be implied from nature of relationship and surrounding circumstances – Execution of gift during senior citizen’s hospitalization for cancer showed vulnerability and coercion – Neglect thereafter established from record – Deeming fiction validly invoked [Paras 22–28, 33–35].

Interpretation – Beneficial Legislation – Senior Citizens Act to be liberally construed to protect aged persons from neglect and deprivation – Courts must adopt purposive construction advancing legislative intent of securing welfare and dignity of elders – Technical arguments regarding absence of recital or strict proof cannot defeat object of statute [Paras 24–25].

Procedural Fairness – Opportunity of Hearing – Petitioners’ claim that no sufficient opportunity was given before Tribunal rejected – Petitioners failed to produce material in initial proceedings and cannot later claim violation of natural justice – Summary procedure under Section 8 intended to ensure expeditious relief to senior citizens [Paras 29–31].

Execution of Order – Eviction of Transferees – Petitioners evicted from subject flat pursuant to Tribunal’s order – Petitioners allowed three weeks to remove their belongings – Tribunal’s execution order not arbitrary or excessive given proven neglect of senior citizen [Paras 35, 38].

Case Law Explained – Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1684 – Conditions for invoking Section 23(1) restated – Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit, applied – beneficial construction emphasised – Varinder Kaur v. Kaljit Kaur, Delhi High Court, followed – human conduct and implied obligation of care form foundation for invoking Section 23(1) [Paras 23–25, 32].

Decision:

Writ Petition dismissed – Orders of Maintenance Tribunal (06.05.2025) and Appellate Authority (14.08.2025) upheld – Gift Deed dated 24.08.2022 declared void – Senior citizen entitled to retain possession of flat – Petitioners granted three weeks to remove belongings – Rule discharged.

Family Law – Divorce – Ex Parte Decree – Special Marriage Act – Decree set aside – Marriage dissolved by Family Court based on unchallenged testimony of husband after wife failed to file written statement and remained absent – Held: Even in absence of contesting party, Family Court must assess evidence on merits and provide reasoned findings – Mere non-appearance or failure to file written statement not sufficient to decree divorce – Trial Court’s reliance solely on absence of wife without independent assessment of cruelty allegations rendered judgment perverse – Judgment set aside and matter remanded for fresh trial [Paras 10-16].

Civil Procedure – Duty of Court in Ex Parte Proceedings – Trial Court must scrutinize pleadings and evidence even when defendant is ex parte – Decree cannot be automatic – Reiterated that evidence must be evaluated independently and findings must be recorded with reasons – Failure to do so amounts to miscarriage of justice [Paras 11-12, 15].

Appellate Intervention – Remand Ordered – Matter restored to original file to allow appellant-wife to file written statement – Both parties granted opportunity to lead and test evidence afresh – Trial Court directed to complete proceedings within nine months [Paras 16-17].

Subsequent Remarriage – No Bar to Appellate Relief – Fact that respondent-husband remarried during pendency of appeal does not prevent appellate court from setting aside a perverse and unreasoned decree – Rule of law must prevail over subsequent developments [Para 18].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Decree of divorce set aside – Matter remanded to Family Court from the stage of written statement – Trial to proceed afresh – No costs [Paras 19-20].

Service Law – Public Employment – Merit-Based Selection – Appointment Denied Arbitrarily – Writ Allowed – Petitioner participated in counselling for post of Constable (General Duty) – Though he ranked higher in merit (sl.no. 1570), he was denied appointment on grounds of exhausting district-wise vacancies – Candidate ranked lower (sl.no. 1592) given appointment in different district – Held: Once State allowed higher-ranked candidates to choose among available districts, it could not deny that option to similarly placed petitioner – Discrimination and arbitrariness in State action – Petition allowed with directions to appoint petitioner [Paras 4–7].

Constitution of India – Articles 14 and 16 – Equality in Public Employment – Violation Established – State failed to maintain fairness by not following uniform criteria for counselling and allocation – Higher merit candidate deprived of opportunity given to lower merit candidate – Held: Action violative of Articles 14 and 16 – Constitutional guarantee of equal treatment breached [Paras 6–7].

Administrative Law – Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation – State Bound by Own Procedure – Once counselling mode was adopted and followed for prior candidates, petitioner acquired legitimate expectation to be treated similarly – State cannot arbitrarily alter stand mid-process without justification – Breach of procedural fairness [Para 6].

Constitutional Remedies – Writ of Mandamus – Issued to Secure Appointment – High Court issued mandamus directing respondents to offer appointment to petitioner in light of his merit and past conduct of State – Delay caused not attributable to petitioner – Directions issued for compliance within two months [Para 8].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Respondents directed to offer appointment to petitioner as Constable (General Duty) within two months – Appointment to be treated as fresh for all purposes – No back wages – Petitioner entitled to continuity for pensionary benefits if otherwise eligible – Pending applications disposed of.