[1] - DOWRY DEATH ACQUITTAL

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 304B, Sec. 34, Sec. 30, Sec. 498A - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 162 - Evidence Act, 1872 Sec. 113B - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 Sec. 2 - Dowry Death Acquittal - Appellant convicted under Sec. 304-B and 498-A IPC for dowry death of wife - Prosecution relied on testimonies of PW-6 (mother) and PW-7 (brother) of deceased to prove harassment related to dowry demands - Appellant challenged conviction on grounds of contradictions in prosecution's evidence and lack of proof showing cruelty soon before death - Supreme Court noted significant omissions in prior police statements of witnesses, classifying them as contradictions under Sec. 162 CrPC - Prosecution failed to prove specific instances of cruelty or harassment satisfying essential ingredients of Sec. 304-B IPC or Sec. 498-A IPC - Presumption under Sec. 113-B of Evidence Act held inapplicable due to lack of evidence establishing dowry-linked cruelty before death - Appellant acquitted and prior judgments quashed - Appeal Allowed

Law Point : Presumption under Sec. 113-B of Evidence Act applies only when prosecution proves cruelty or harassment for dowry soon before death - Omissions and contradictions in testimony weaken case beyond reasonable doubt

Acts Referred:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 304B, Sec. 34, Sec. 30, Sec. 498A
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 162
Evidence Act, 1872 Sec. 113B
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 Sec. 2

[2] - PUBLIC VIEW REQUIREMENT

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 353, Sec. 294 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 482 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Sec. 3 - Public View Requirement - Appellant charged under Sec. 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC-ST Act for allegedly insulting complainant using caste name within office premises - FIR stated incident occurred within complainant's office chamber, with colleagues arriving after occurrence - Appellant filed petition under Sec. 482 CrPC to quash proceedings, arguing absence of essential ingredient "public view" - High Court dismissed petition without considering this contention - Supreme Court referred to precedents emphasizing distinction between "public place" and "place within public view" - Held incident within closed office chamber not within public view, thus allegations did not attract SC-ST Act offences - Charge-sheet and proceedings quashed - Appeals Allowed

Law Point : To invoke offences under Sec. 3(1)(r) or 3(1)(s) of SC-ST Act, public view requirement mandates presence of non-relatives or public during alleged insult - Private spaces without public presence do not satisfy criteria

Acts Referred:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 353, Sec. 294
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 482
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Sec. 3

[4] - DIVORCE AND ALIMONY

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 125 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Sec. 13, Sec. 12 - Specific Relief Act, 1963 Sec. 34 - Family Courts Act, 1984 Sec. 6, Sec. 9 - Divorce and Alimony - Respondent sought divorce citing cruelty and desertion - Alleged appellant left marital home and filed false cases - Family Court found cruelty established based on unfounded allegations of fraud, dowry demands, and aspersions on husband's character - High Court affirmed divorce decree - Supreme Court upheld divorce, noting breakdown of marriage and respondent's remarriage - On alimony, appellant contended respondent concealed income - Court determined respondent had multiple income sources - Awarded Rs.10,00,000 as one-time permanent alimony, covering pending and future claims - Appeal Partly Allowed

Law Point : Alimony should balance dependent spouse's needs and payer's capacity - Concealment of income undermines credibility - Court ensures reasonable protection without imposing excessive burden

Acts Referred:

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 125
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Sec. 13, Sec. 12
Specific Relief Act, 1963 Sec. 34
Family Courts Act, 1984 Sec. 6, Sec. 9

[5] - MANUFACTURING LICENSE VIOLATION

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 482 - Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 Sec. 18, Sec. 27, Sec. 3 - Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 Rule 65 - Manufacturing License Violation - Appellants challenged High Court's refusal to quash criminal proceedings initiated under Sec. 18(a)(vi) and Sec. 27(d) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act - Complaint alleged appellants sold Nitrous Oxide I.P. to a firm lacking requisite license - Appellants argued both entities held valid manufacturing licenses under Form 25 allowing sales for repackaging - Court found Form 20B unnecessary as Form 25 authorized wholesale sales - Trial Court's process issuance lacked reasoning and High Court misinterpreted licensing provisions - Quashed complaint and proceedings - Appeal Allowed

Law Point : Manufacturing license under Form 25 suffices for sale of drugs between manufacturers for further processing - Form 20B unnecessary when both parties hold Form 25 - Summons without application of mind invalid

Acts Referred:

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 482
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 Sec. 18, Sec. 27, Sec. 3
Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 Rule 65

[6] - DEFECTIVE DRUG COMPLAINT

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 482, Sec. 468, Sec. 202 - Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 Sec. 16, Sec. 32, Sec. 27, Sec. 18 - Defective Drug Complaint - Appellants faced criminal proceedings under Sec. 18(a)(i) and Sec. 27(d) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act for allegedly manufacturing and selling substandard drug MOXIGOLD-CV 625 - Complaint filed after expiration of limitation period under Sec. 468 CrPC - Appellants also contended violation of Sec. 202 CrPC - Supreme Court noted trial court's summoning order lacked reasoning and failed to reflect judicial application of mind - Quashed proceedings due to procedural lapses and non-compliance with established legal norms - Appeal Allowed

Law Point : Summoning order without sufficient reasoning or judicial application of mind renders proceedings invalid - Criminal complaints filed beyond statutory limitation periods violate procedural law

Acts Referred:

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 482, Sec. 468, Sec. 202
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 Sec. 16, Sec. 32, Sec. 27, Sec. 18

[7] - POLLUTION COMPENSATION

Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 Sec. 25, Sec. 24 - Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 Rule 6 - Pollution Compensation - Appellants sought recovery of compensation from polluting tanneries based on awards by Loss of Ecology Authority - High Court dismissed claims citing delays and partial compliance - Supreme Court emphasized continuing liability under polluter-pays principle - Reiterated importance of reversing ecological damage through sustained action - Court criticized failure to enforce sustainable practices despite financial aid and monitoring directives - Ordered recovery of unpaid compensation, evaluation of further damages, and stricter pollution controls - Appeals Allowed

Law Point : Under polluter-pays principle, liability for ecological damage is continuous until full restoration - Government aid, industry compliance, and judicial supervision necessary for sustainable remediation

Acts Referred:

Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 Sec. 25, Sec. 24
Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 Rule 6

[10] - DELAY IN FILING APPEAL

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Sec. 96, Sec. 100, Sec. 146, Or. 22R. 10, Or. 1R. 10, Or. 21R. 16 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Sec. 52 - Limitation Act, 1963 Sec. 17, Sec. 5 - Delay in Filing Appeal - High Court allowed condonation of 586 days delay in filing appeal by lis pendens purchasers despite their failure to challenge earlier rejection of impleadment application - Supreme Court held condonation of delay improper as purchasers lacked sufficient cause and did not act with due diligence - Rejected contention that purchase during injunction and pending litigation could justify appeal - High Court order set aside - Appeals Allowed

Law Point : Lis pendens purchasers must act diligently to protect rights - Condonation of delay requires sufficient cause and due diligence - Failure to challenge impleadment rejection limits scope of subsequent appeals

Acts Referred:

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Sec. 96, Sec. 100, Sec. 146, Or. 22R. 10, Or. 1R. 10, Or. 21R. 16
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Sec. 52
Limitation Act, 1963 Sec. 17, Sec. 5

[15] - DEATH SENTENCE APPEAL

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 392, Sec. 201, Sec. 366, Sec. 302, Sec. 376A, Sec. 397, Sec. 364, Sec. 376 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 313, Sec. 465 - Evidence Act, 1872 Sec. 65B, Sec. 106 - Death Sentence Appeal - Appellant convicted by Trial Court for offences including rape and murder under IPC and sentenced to death - High Court upheld conviction and sentence - Deceased last seen with appellant at railway station through CCTV footage - Prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence including CCTV footage, forensic reports, and last seen theory - Defence challenged authenticity of CCTV footage citing lack of compliance with Sec. 65B Evidence Act - Court found CCTV footage inadmissible due to absence of requisite certificate - Circumstantial evidence did not form a complete chain ruling out every hypothesis except guilt - Benefit of doubt given to appellant - Conviction and death sentence set aside - Appeal Allowed

Law Point : In cases relying on electronic evidence like CCTV footage, compliance with Sec. 65B of Evidence Act is mandatory for admissibility, failure of which renders such evidence inadmissible in court

Acts Referred:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 392, Sec. 201, Sec. 366, Sec. 302, Sec. 376A, Sec. 397, Sec. 364, Sec. 376
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 313, Sec. 465
Evidence Act, 1872 Sec. 65B, Sec. 106

[16] - COMMON INTENTION IN MURDER

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 34, Sec. 302 - Arms Act, 1959 Sec. 27 - Common Intention in Murder - Appellants acquitted by Trial Court in murder case involving police firing but convicted by High Court under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 IPC - Incident occurred when police personnel, including convicted co-accused, attempted to stop a vehicle suspected of smuggling - Co-accused fired at vehicle, causing death of occupant - Trial Court found no common intention among appellants to kill, citing absence of evidence showing pre-planned intent - High Court reversed acquittal solely on presence of appellants in same vehicle as co-accused - Supreme Court held prosecution failed to prove shared intent under Sec. 34 IPC - Reaffirmed legal principle that mere presence at crime scene does not establish common intention - High Court judgment set aside - Acquittal reinstated - Appeals Allowed

Law Point : Conviction under Sec. 34 IPC requires proof of prior meeting of minds and shared common intention, mere presence at crime scene with principal accused is insufficient

Acts Referred:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 34, Sec. 302
Arms Act, 1959 Sec. 27

[17] - LEGITIMACY AND PATERNITY DISPUTE

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Sec. 11, Sec. 151 - Evidence Act, 1872 Sec. 112 - Family Courts Act, 1984 Sec. 8 - Legitimacy and Paternity Dispute - Appellant challenged High Court decision upholding Family Court's revival of maintenance petition filed by respondent claiming appellant as biological father - Respondent's legitimacy established under Sec. 112 Evidence Act as child born during valid marriage of mother with another person - Civil Court dismissed respondent's suit for paternity declaration citing failure to prove non-access - Family Court later revived maintenance petition holding legitimacy distinct from paternity - Supreme Court held legitimacy determines paternity unless rebutted through evidence of non-access - Ruled Family Court lacked jurisdiction to reopen settled issue - Held revival of maintenance petition barred by res judicata - High Court and Family Court orders set aside - Appeal Allowed

Law Point : Under Sec. 112 of Evidence Act, legitimacy presumes paternity unless rebutted by proving non-access, and once legitimacy is conclusively decided, subsequent maintenance claims against third parties are barred by res judicata

Acts Referred:

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Sec. 11, Sec. 151
Evidence Act, 1872 Sec. 112
Family Courts Act, 1984 Sec. 8

[23] - BAIL APPLICATION

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 34, Sec. 394 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 439 - Bombay Police Act, 1951 Sec. 142 - Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 Sec. 3 - Bail Application - Applicant arraigned as Accused No.3 sought regular bail under Sec. 439 CrPC for involvement in robbery under IPC Sec. 394, Sec. 142 of Bombay Police Act, and MCOCA charges - Incident involved 4 accused intercepting and robbing complainant - Applicant apprehended on-site - Complainant and witnesses identified him in TI parade - Prosecution emphasized applicant's association with gang led by Accused No.1 and potential threat of recidivism - Defense highlighted applicant's age of 18 years and educational prospects, urging chance for reform - Court noted young offender doctrine, emphasizing reformation over prolonged incarceration - Considering age, lack of criminal antecedents, and educational impact, bail granted - Bail Application Allowed

Law Point : Juvenile or young offenders under 21 years require sensitive approach in bail matters with emphasis on reformation over punishment - Court prioritized applicant's potential for rehabilitation due to young age and educational disruption

Acts Referred:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 34, Sec. 394
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 439
Bombay Police Act, 1951 Sec. 142
Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 Sec. 3

[24] - MURDER CONVICTION APPEAL

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 34, Sec. 300, Sec. 302, Sec. 304 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 374, Sec. 313 - Murder Conviction Appeal - Appellant convicted under Sec. 302 IPC for murdering deceased found outside his house - Prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence including human blood on appellant's clothes, injuries indicating a scuffle, and motive arising from alleged illicit relationship - Appellant challenged conviction, arguing absence of direct evidence and failure to establish motive conclusively - High Court observed no evidence of premeditation, noting incident occurred during a sudden fight without undue advantage - Converted conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Sec. 304 Part-II IPC and sentenced appellant to imprisonment already undergone - Appeal Partly Allowed

Law Point : Offence downgraded to culpable homicide under Sec. 304 Part-II IPC if homicide occurs in sudden fight without premeditation or undue advantage - Circumstantial evidence insufficient for murder conviction without complete chain of proof

Acts Referred:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 34, Sec. 300, Sec. 302, Sec. 304
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 374, Sec. 313

[26] - NOTICE TO NON-EXISTENT ENTITY

Income Tax Act, 1961 Sec. 148, Rule 149, Rule 151, Rule 148A - Notice to Non-Existent Entity - Petitioner challenged reassessment notices issued under Sec. 148 IT Act after merger with Amanora Future Towers Pvt. Ltd - Department aware of merger but issued notices in name of non-existent entity citing technical glitches - Department argued approval included both names and requested notice validity - High Court rejected defense, holding notices to non-existent entities are substantive illegality, not procedural defect under Sec. 292B - Quashed notices but allowed issuance of fresh notices if law permits - Writ Petition Allowed

Law Point : Issuance of reassessment notices to non-existent entities due to mergers is a substantive illegality - Such defects cannot be cured under Sec. 292B IT Act - Fresh notices permissible following correct procedure

Acts Referred:

Income Tax Act, 1961 Sec. 148, Rule 149, Rule 151, Rule 148A

[27] - RESIGNATION WITHDRAWAL

Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 Sec. 29, Sec. 34 - Resignation Withdrawal - Petitioner, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, submitted resignation citing pressure but withdrew it during verification meeting - Collector declared vacancy and conducted new elections - Petitioner argued withdrawal negated resignation's effect - Respondents contended automatic resignation under statutory deeming provisions - Court upheld right to withdraw resignation if done during verification meeting, holding no vacancy occurred - Collector's order declaring vacancy and subsequent election of new Sarpanch set aside - Petitioner restored as Sarpanch - Writ Petition Allowed

Law Point : Withdrawal of resignation before or during verification meeting prevents resignation from taking effect - Statutory provisions allow inherent right to revoke unless explicitly barred

Acts Referred:

Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 Sec. 29, Sec. 34

[28] - DEVICE MARK REGISTRATION

Trade Marks Act, 1999 Sec. 9, Sec. 11, Sec. 17 - Device Mark Registration - Appellant challenged Registrar's refusal to register its device mark under Sec. 9(1)(b) of Trade Marks Act, claiming mark described product characteristics - Registrar argued constituent words lacked distinctiveness - Court held device marks must be considered as a whole under Sec. 17 - Existing registration for similar marks supported appellant - Court found sufficient material proving usage and intent - Registrar's reliance on constituent parts and disregard for presented evidence deemed erroneous - Refusal set aside and registration ordered - Petition Allowed

Law Point : Device marks should be evaluated as a whole under Sec. 17 of Trade Marks Act - Registration cannot be denied solely due to non-distinctive individual parts - Sufficient proof of usage justifies registration

Acts Referred:

Trade Marks Act, 1999 Sec. 9, Sec. 11, Sec. 17

[29] - INJUNCTION BREACH

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Or. 39R. 2A - Injunction Breach - Plaintiffs alleged willful disobedience by defendant of ad-interim injunction order restraining dissemination of confidential information and directed handover of electronic devices - Defendant admitted delay and deletion of data using anti-forensic software, citing apprehension about personal data - Forensic report found no evidence of data sharing - Court held defendant violated second limb of order by delaying handover of devices - Imposed penalty of Rs.5 lakhs with civil prison as alternative if unpaid - Application Allowed

Law Point : Deliberate delay in compliance with injunction orders and failure to immediately disclose data deletion attract punitive consequences - Proportional penalty imposed to uphold judicial authority

Acts Referred:

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Or. 39R. 2A

[30] - LAND ACQUISITION CHALLENGE`

Constitution of India Art. 300A, Art. 31, Art. 226, Art. 19 - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Sec. 3, Sec. 4, Sec. 6, Sec. 2, Sec. 11A, Sec. 11, Sec. 4 - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Sec. 25, Sec. 24 - Land Acquisition Challenge - Petitioners challenged land acquisition for sugar factory project citing violations of Sec. 6 Land Acquisition Act and lapsing of acquisition due to delayed declaration - Petitioners argued absence of public purpose and insufficient State equity participation - Court found acquisition valid as declaration indicated partial funding through public funds satisfying public purpose requirement - Petitioners' reliance on limitation under Sec. 6 and Sec. 25 rejected due to statutory exclusions from Court-imposed stay - Petition Dismissed

Law Point : Land acquisition involving partial public funding satisfies public purpose requirement - Statutory exclusions apply to limitation under Sec. 6 of Old Act and Sec. 25 of New Act preventing lapsing of acquisition proceedings

Acts Referred:

Constitution of India Art. 300A, Art. 31, Art. 226, Art. 19
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Sec. 3, Sec. 4, Sec. 6, Sec. 2, Sec. 11A, Sec. 11, Sec. 4
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Sec. 25, Sec. 24

[31] - DELAY CONDONATION

Income Tax Act, 1961 Sec. 119 - Delay Condonation - Petitioner challenged rejection of delay condonation application by Additional CIT under Sec. 119(2)(b) of Income Tax Act - Contended order invalid as it lacked approval from CBDT or its members - Court found no delegation of authority shown permitting Additional CIT to pass order - Followed earlier decisions holding CBDT orders must be passed by authorized members - Quashed impugned order and remanded matter to CBDT for fresh decision with reasoned order within three months - Petition Allowed

Law Point : Delay condonation applications under Sec. 119(2)(b) IT Act must be decided by CBDT or authorized members - Orders passed without proper delegation are invalid and liable to be quashed

Acts Referred:

Income Tax Act, 1961 Sec. 119

[32] - EVICTION FROM RAILWAY PREMISES

Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 Sec. 9, Sec. 5, Sec. 4 - Eviction from Railway Premises - Petitioners challenged orders directing eviction from railway shop premises occupied for over 30 years - Original lease granted to third party but petitioners continued possession based on partnership and subsequent agreements - Railway authorities issued eviction notice citing unauthorized occupation - Petitioners sought lease renewal which was initially considered but not finalized - Estate Officer ordered eviction without recording subjective satisfaction on necessity of eviction - Appellate Court refused stay, risking dispossession before appeal disposal - High Court held eviction orders lacked proper justification and violated principles of fairness and public policy - Eviction stayed till appeal decision - Appeals directed to be decided within three months - Petitions Allowed

Law Point : Eviction under Public Premises Act requires subjective satisfaction by Estate Officer not only on unauthorized occupation but also on necessity of eviction, ensuring fairness and adherence to public policy

Acts Referred:

Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 Sec. 9, Sec. 5, Sec. 4

[33] - DISQUALIFICATION OF SARPANCH

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Sec. 7, Sec. 7A - Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 Sec. 39 - Disqualification of Sarpanch - Petitioner disqualified from post of Sarpanch and Gram Panchayat member under Sec. 39(1) of Bombay Village Panchayats Act for disgraceful conduct - Allegation that petitioner's husband demanded illegal gratification for clearing contractor's payment under Mahatma Gandhi National Employment Guarantee Scheme - Anti-Corruption Bureau laid trap but failed, leading to FIR and arrest of petitioner's husband - Petitioner argued separation from husband and lack of involvement - Authorities found petitioner allowed husband's interference in Gram Panchayat affairs - High Court held sufficient evidence established misconduct and disgraceful conduct - Affirming disqualification - Petition Dismissed

Law Point : Sarpanch disqualification under Sec. 39(1) of Bombay Village Panchayats Act justified if evidence establishes misconduct or disgraceful conduct, including allowing unauthorized interference in official duties

Acts Referred:

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Sec. 7, Sec. 7A
Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 Sec. 39

[34] - NO CONFIDENCE MOTION

Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960 Sec. 73ID, Sec. 2 - Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Rules, 1961 Rule 57A - No Confidence Motion in Co-operative Societies - Petitioners challenged their removal as members of Managing Committee through no-confidence motion passed by Committee under Sec. 73-1D of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act - Argued that motion should be considered by electoral college that elected them, not Managing Committee - Court examined statutory provisions and held no-confidence motion must be requisitioned, considered, and passed in special meeting of Managing Committee as per Sec. 73-1D and Rule 57-A - Dismissed petitions challenging removal but allowed petition seeking to initiate no-confidence process wrongly rejected by Registrar - Petitions Challenging Removal Dismissed - Petition for Initiation Allowed

Law Point : No-confidence motion against members of a Managing Committee in a co-operative society must be considered and decided by Committee itself, not electoral college, as per Sec. 73-1D of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and Rule 57-A

Acts Referred:

Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960 Sec. 73ID, Sec. 2
Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Rules, 1961 Rule 57A

[35] - RES JUDICATA IN HANDWRITING EXAMINATION

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Or. 26R. 10, Sec. 151, Or. 26R. 10A - Res Judicata in Handwriting Examination - Petitioner challenged Trial Court order allowing second application under Or. 26R. 10 CPC for handwriting examination after earlier identical application was rejected - Respondents claimed signatures on agreement to sell were forged and sought scientific verification - First application rejected on grounds that direct witnesses to document existed - Respondents failed to examine available handwriting expert and later moved fresh application citing failed summons service - High Court held subsequent application barred by res judicata as issue was already decided - Order allowing second application quashed - Petition Allowed

Law Point : Once an issue regarding appointment of handwriting expert is decided and attesting witnesses are available, a subsequent application seeking same relief is barred by res judicata and cannot be entertained

Acts Referred:

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Or. 26R. 10, Sec. 151, Or. 26R. 10A

[36] - NO CONFIDENCE MOTION AGAINST SARPANCH

Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 Sec. 30, Sec. 35, Sec. 38, Sec. 3, Sec. 30A - No Confidence Motion Against Sarpanch - Petitioner challenged notice convening no confidence motion before completing two-year tenure as Sarpanch - Respondents argued immunity under Sec. 35(4) of Bombay Village Panchayats Act applied only to first elected Sarpanch, not successors - High Court interpreted statute literally, holding immunity applies to every Sarpanch elected during term, ensuring stability in governance - Court rejected contrary interpretation in Charushila case, emphasizing purpose of provision to prevent frequent leadership changes - Notice for no confidence motion quashed - Petition Allowed

Law Point : No confidence motion under Sec. 35(4) of Bombay Village Panchayats Act cannot be moved against any Sarpanch within two years of election, irrespective of whether they are first or subsequent incumbents

Acts Referred:

Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 Sec. 30, Sec. 35, Sec. 38, Sec. 3, Sec. 30A

[37] - TENANT STATUS DISPUTE

Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 Sec. 85A, Sec. 2, Sec. 4A, Sec. 70, Sec. 4 - Tenant Status Dispute - Defendants claimed tenancy over agricultural land - Civil Court referred issue to Tenancy Awal Karkoon under Sec. 85A of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act - Tenancy Awal Karkoon rejected tenancy claims - Sub-Divisional Officer reversed finding and upheld tenancy rights based on unchallenged mutation entries reflecting lawful cultivation since 1955 - Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal later set aside SDO's decision - High Court held tenancy status can be established through lawful cultivation without rent agreements or receipts - Tribunal erred in demanding documentary proof of tenancy beyond revenue records and in relying on delayed oral statements against continuous revenue entries - High Court restored SDO's order upholding Defendants' status as deemed tenants - Petition Allowed

Law Point : Lawful cultivation suffices to establish deemed tenancy under Sec. 4 of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act - Revenue entries indicating tenant status hold evidentiary value without requiring additional rent agreements or receipts.

Acts Referred:

Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 Sec. 85A, Sec. 2, Sec. 4A, Sec. 70, Sec. 4

[38] - EDUCATIONAL EQUIVALENCE

Educational Equivalence - Petitioner sought recognition of Uttama qualification as equivalent to SSC for employment in MSRTC - Court analyzed Government Resolutions dated 14/06/1999 and 28/02/2007 - Held equivalence restricted to subject 'Hindi' for appointing Hindi teachers in secondary schools - Rejected petitioner's claim, stating equivalence does not extend to general employment in MSRTC - Declared view taken in Vijay Rai as correct and overruled contrary judgments - Petition Dismissed

Law Point : Government Resolutions granting educational equivalence are to be interpreted restrictively as per their plain language - Equivalence for specific roles cannot be generalized for wider applications

Although every care has been taken to avoid errors or omissions, this publication is being sold on the condition and understanding that information given in this Magazine is merely for reference and must not be taken as having authority of or binding in any way on the Authors, Editors, Publishers and sellers who do not owe any responsibility for any damage or loss to any person, a purchaser of this publication or nor, for the result of any action taken on the basis of this work. The publishers shall be highly obliged if mistakes are brought to their notice for carrying out corrections.

---