Daily Judgments of 02 July
Delhi High Court
RC.REV.-95/2014
Parties: MRS MADHURBHASHANI & ORS vs RANJIT SING
Judge(s): JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
Area of Law: Tenancy Law
The High Court held that the Additional Rent Controller's findings on the petitioners' bona fide requirement were based on incorrect legal principles. The Court noted that the Rent Controller cannot dictate the terms of use of the premises to the landlord and that the landlord's financial well-being or the tenant's financial status are not relevant considerations for deciding an eviction petition on the ground of bona fide requirement.
The High Court further observed that the Rent Controller had selectively appreciated the evidence and erred in concluding that the petitioners did not have a bona fide requirement, ignoring the petitioners' statement that they could operate a food take-away or delivery joint from the premises. The Court also noted that the issue of availability of suitable alternate accommodation for the petitioners was not properly examined by the Rent Controller.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the Rent Controller's judgments and allowed the eviction petitions, holding that the petitioners were entitled to evict the respondent tenants from the premises in accordance with law.
RC.REV.-126/2017
Parties: NEERAJ KUMAR JOLLY vs RAGHU NATHRAKHEJA
Judge(s): JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
Area of Law: Tenancy Law
The High Court dismissed the tenant's revision petition, upholding the Rent Controller's eviction order in favor of the landlord. The court held that the landlord had established his bona fide requirement of the leased premises to run a fast-food business, and the tenant's arguments regarding the landlord's other available premises were factual issues that had been appropriately considered and decided by the Rent Controller. The court refused to interfere with the Rent Controller's findings in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
CM(M)-3768/2024
Parties: MS. NAINA HARPALANI vs RAVI KUMAR
Judge(s): JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
Area of Law: Commercial Law
The High Court set aside the judgment and decree passed in the summary suit, holding that the suit could not be decreed solely based on stale cheques that were never presented for encashment. The court found that the defendant was properly served with the summons for judgment when her counsel appeared before the trial court and accepted the summons orally. However, the court noted that a summary suit cannot be maintained solely on the basis of stale cheques without any additional supporting evidence.
The court directed the trial court to treat the matter as an ordinary suit, and allowed the defendant time to file the written statement. The court also directed the trial court to dispose of the matter expeditiously, with the cooperation of both parties.
CRL.M.C.-3870/2025
Parties: MOHAN LAL & ORS. vs STATE OF NCT DELHI & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court allowed the petition filed by the petitioners to quash the FIR registered against them under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, based on a settlement reached between the parties. The court recognized the need for amicable resolution of disputes and held that continuation of criminal proceedings would be contrary to the interest of justice when the parties have put the dispute to rest through a compromise and settlement. The court noted that the parties had also obtained a mutual divorce decree from the Family Court, and all the previous complaints and litigations had been withdrawn. The court, in the interest of justice, quashed the FIR and all the consequential proceedings emanating from it.
CRL.M.C.-2914/2025
Parties: VIMLESH ANDHIWAL AND ORS. vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court allowed the petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash FIR No. 0718/2015 registered under Sections 420, 468, 471, and 34 of the IPC, along with the related charge sheet and proceedings. The Court found that the parties had amicably resolved their long-standing property dispute through a Compromise/Settlement Deed and that continuing the criminal proceedings would be contrary to the interest of justice. The High Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, which recognized the need for amicable resolution of disputes, and concluded that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal case.
W.P.(CRL)-614/2024
Parties: GULSHAN BABBAR ADVOCATE vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court held that the petitioner lacks the requisite locus standi to maintain the series of writ petitions filed, as he is not a person aggrieved and the petitions are not in the nature of public interest litigation. The court further held that judicial supervision over the ongoing investigation by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) is not warranted, as the investigation is already underway and does not suffer from any illegality. The court also noted that the petitioner made false declarations and misrepresented the contents of previous court orders, exhibiting an abuse of the court's process. Accordingly, the court dismissed all the writ petitions filed by the petitioner and imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on him for each petition.
MISC. APPEAL(PMLA)-24/2025
Parties: SHIV MURAT DWIVEDI vs DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Judge(s): JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court upheld the attachment of the appellant's properties as proceeds of crime under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), despite the properties being acquired before the scheduled offences were registered in 2010.
The court relied on the Supreme Court's interpretation that the offence of money laundering is a continuing one, and the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof to show the properties were not derived from his criminal activities related to immoral trafficking and organized crime. The court noted the appellant's long-standing involvement in criminal activities since 1997 and the lack of legal sources of income to explain the acquisition of the attached properties.
The court dismissed the appellant's appeal, finding the Appellate Tribunal's decision to uphold the attachment of the properties justified based on the material on record and the legal principles established by the Supreme Court regarding the PMLA.
W.P.(C)-15518/2024
Parties: PACE DIGITEK LIMITED vs BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED
Judge(s): THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
Area of Law: Administrative Law
The High Court held that:
1. The BSNL was bound to consider the letter dated 13.10.2024 issued by Reliance confirming the details of the work experience certificate (WEC) submitted by the petitioners, as it was addressed to the competent authority and also forwarded by the petitioners through proper channel.
2. The court found that the BSNL had acted in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner by not considering the letter dated 13.10.2024 from Reliance, while entertaining similar clarificatory documents submitted by other bidders post the stipulated deadline of 20.09.2024.
However, the court ultimately dismissed the writ petition, as interfering in the tender process at that stage would have a rippling effect across the 16 packages involved and may not be in the larger public interest, given that the project was of national importance and other bidders had already been awarded contracts and commenced work.
CRL.A.-263/2025
Parties: NEELAM RANOLIA ALIAS NEELAM PRAJAPAT ALIAS NEELAM AZAD vs STATE NCT OF DELHI
Judge(s): JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court held that while the accused's choice of the Parliament as the venue for their protest was highly deprecable, the facts of the case do not prima facie attract the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The court found that the activities of the appellants, who did not enter the Parliament, amounted more to political dissent rather than a terrorist act intended to threaten the unity, integrity or sovereignty of India. The court granted bail to the appellants on various conditions, noting that the degree of satisfaction required under UAPA for rejecting bail is lighter than the standard of "not guilty" under other special enactments. The court clarified that it has not made any observations on the merits of the case, which would be decided at the trial stage.
Bombay High Court
WPL/19422/2025
Parties: VIKAS PREMISES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED Vs BRIHANMUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
Judge(s): JUSTICE G. S. KULKARNI, JUSTICE SHRI ARIF S. DOCTOR
Area of Law: Urban Planning Law
The High Court held that the Vikas Premises Co-op Soc Ltd. building was in a highly dangerous and dilapidated condition, posing an imminent risk of collapse.
The Court noted that despite multiple structural audit reports highlighting the building's unsafe condition, the petitioner had failed to take any remedial measures. The Court found that the municipal authorities were justified in issuing notices to immediately vacate and demolish the building to prevent any disaster.
The Court dismissed the petition, observing that public safety takes precedence over procedural disputes or commercial considerations when a building is in such an evidently precarious state. The Court imposed costs of Rs. 5,00,000 on the petitioner to be deposited with the Cancer Ward of the KEM Hospital, Mumbai.
The ratio decidendi was that when a building poses an immediate threat to life and property, the municipal authorities are duty-bound to take prompt action, including demolition, to avert a disaster, notwithstanding any procedural delays or disputes over repair versus redevelopment.
WP/3468/2017
Parties: GIMA MANUFACTURING PVT. LTD. HINGANGHAT, THR. DIRECTOR OMPRAKASH BHIKMCHANDJI JOSHI AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE AND FORERST DEPARTMENT, MUMBAI AND ANR
Judge(s): JUSTICE NITIN W. SAMBRE, JUSTICE SACHIN SHIVAJIRAO DESHMUKH
Area of Law: Property Law
The High Court held that the government resolution dated 23/12/2015, which created a distinction between Nazul lease holders who had renewed their leases and those with pending renewals, is not unconstitutional or discriminatory. The court reasoned that the government has the authority to frame financial policies, including on lease renewal fees, and the courts should be slow to interfere in such executive domain decisions, unless they are completely arbitrary or unreasonable. The court found that the 2015 policy's objective of facilitating the renewal of pending Nazul leases is legitimate, and the distinction between renewed and pending leases is reasonable to achieve this. The court relied on precedents to hold that the classification made in the 2015 policy satisfies the twin tests of intelligible differentia and rational nexus with the objective.
Calcutta High Court
CRA/424/2019
Parties: M/S MAA DURGA TRADING CO. VS SUJEET KUMAR JAISWAL
Judge(s): JUSTICE AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court held that for the partners of a firm to be held vicariously liable under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it is a prerequisite that the firm itself must be found guilty of the offence under Section 138. Since the partnership firm M/S Shiva Steels was acquitted by the trial court and that acquittal has attained finality, the partner Sujeet Kumar Jaiswal (respondent) cannot be convicted on a vicarious basis. The court also held that the judgment of acquittal should not be interfered with lightly, and the complainant failed to show any illegality or perversity in the appellate court's decision to acquit the respondent.
CRA/674/2018
Parties: SRIKANTA BASKEY VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Judge(s): JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, JUSTICE APURBA SINHA RAY
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court held that while the sole eyewitness PW1 had categorically deposed about the appellant committing the murder, the prosecution failed to dispel the doubt regarding the enmity between the families and the involvement of one of PW1's relatives in the prior murder of the deceased's husband.
The court found flaws in the investigation, including the failure to properly establish the recovery of the offending weapon as per the accused's statement, the lack of an FSL report, and the inadequate examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
Considering the totality of the circumstances, the High Court concluded that the guilt of the appellant was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, and accordingly set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant.
CRA/742/2019
Parties: KISHAN KUMAR MORE (HUF) VS AMIT MANPURIA
Judge(s): JUSTICE AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE
Area of Law: Banking Law
The High Court held that the evidence and documents submitted by the appellant/complainant clearly established the existence of a legally enforceable debt, in relation to which the accused/respondent had issued the dishonored cheque.
The Court found that the accused had acknowledged receiving the loan of Rs. 6,50,000 from the complainant, and had also made partial interest payments, as evidenced by the documents. The Court rejected the accused's contention that the cheque was issued as "security", holding that even if a cheque is issued as security, it can still be presented and the drawer can be held liable under Section 138 if it is dishonored.
The High Court set aside the trial court's order of acquittal and convicted the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 12 lakhs, which if paid, will be given to the complainant as compensation. In default, the accused will suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months.