(A) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S. 166 - Compensation - Assessment - Notional income of deceased child was assessed as per Minimum Wages Act - 40% increase had been adopted for future prospects - Multiplier of 15 was applied - One-half deduction was made towards personal expenses - Assessment was made towards loss of dependency, loss of estate, loss of consortium, medical expenses, funeral expenses and compensation towards pain and suffering - Compensation was enhanced. (Para 7, 8, 9)

(A) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S.166 - Accident claim - Grant of compensation - Monthly income - Accident occurred when deceased was driving a vehicle which was hit by another vehicle driven at a very high speed and in rash and negligent manner - Insurer stated that monthly income was without any basis as no income tax returns were produced by claimants - Deceased was a reputed transporter and owner of two trucks but no income tax returns were filed, which was fatal to the claim of income exceeding taxable limit as per Income Tax Act - Deceased being reputed transport contractor there would be no difficulty in continuing the business after his death - Death of deceased would not have put a stop to the income that could be generated from his business as he would have been engaging a driver to run at least one truck out of the two - Compensation amount was reduced accordingly. (Para 7, 8, 9)

(A) Contempt of Courts Act (70 of 1971), S. 2 (c) - Criminal contempt - Slandering judicialry - Denial to accept unconditonal apology - Appellant-contemnor issued a contemptuous circular titled 'How Democracy is being crushed by Judicial System' - High Court imposed sentenced her to one week of simple imprisonment and a fine for issuing such "contemptuous circular" - Appellant had tendered unconditional and unqualified apology in her reply-affidavit filed promptly after receiving the show-cause notice - Circular issud by appellant satisfied essential ingredients of criminal contempt - Rejection of apology was based on observation by High Court that remorse of appellant was merely perfunctory and not genuine - Court has ample power to remit punishment if satisfied that apology offered was bona fide - High Court however failed to exercise its contempt jurisdiction with due circumspection and ought to have considered remitting sentence once appellant expressed sincere and unconditional remorse at earliest opportunity - Appellant-contemnor had, from the very outset, expressed genuine remorse - Sentence was remitted. (Para 8, 8.1, 8.4, 9, 9.2, 9.4, 9.5, 9.6)

(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations (2016), Regn.33(2)(d) - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (31 of 2016), S.35, S.240 - Sale of assets of corporate debtor - Forfeiture of payment of sale consideration - Legality - Appellant purchased assets under liquidation and made payment towards commitment advance - As appellant failed to deposit entire sale consideration, stakeholders decided to enforce forfeiture of entire payment made by appellant - NCLT in its order clearly directed appellant to pay balance sale consideration and categorically recorded that appellant should strictly comply with timelines and any deviation from same would result in forfeiture of entire amount paid by appellant - Sale in question was private sale that requires prior permission of NCLT - Forfeiture condition stipulated by NCLT while granting extension of time cannot be equated with forfeiture clause in contract under S.74 of Contract Act providing compensation for breach of contract - Once appellant had accepted forfeiture clause in NCLT order and sought for extension of time for making payment, later it cannot approbate and reprobate by assailing order of NCLT - Appellant filed writ petition before High Court, suppressing fact that it had already filed appeal before NCLAT against same order indicating lack of its bonafides - It also reflected abuse of process of law, thus disentitling appellant from seeking relief - Forfeiture of payment of sale consideration was justified. (Para 16, 18,19, 20)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S. 482 - Quashing of FIR - Prima facie case - Offences of corruption, forgery and racial abuse - Allegation that accused-Officer conspired with co-accused to interfere with possession of land owned by informant, which they attempted by fabricating documents and informant was also abused using caste name - Accused had validly acquired land through a sale deed in 2020 - This was followed by a confirmation of title for predecessors of his vendor by Deputy Collector in 2012 - FIR was lodged simultaneously with a civil suit, but allegations in the FIR were unbelievable and contradictory to plaint - Offences of racial abuse was not made out, as there was no allegation of wrongful dispossession or alleged casteist slur occurred within public view - FIR was a clear abuse of the process of law given significant contradictions with concurrently filed civil suit and existing sale deed - FIR was quashed (Para 6 to 10)

(A) Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules (1972), R.36, R.26, R.48 - Constitution of India, Art.309 - Denial of pension - Forfeiture of service on resignation - Effect of - Employee was appointed as conductor in Trasnport Corporation - R.48 provides for about eligibility or grant of pension on completion of 30 years of qualifying service - Deceased employee had not completed 30 years of service but certainly had more than 20 years service to his credit - Admittedly employee resigned from service on 07.08.2014, which was accepted by competent authority on 19.09.2014 - Withdrawal of resignation after acceptance was declined by competent authority on 28.04.2015 - It was clear that employee had resigned from service and his withdrawal from resignation was not accepted - R.26 stipulates resignation from service entails forfeiture of past service - On resignation by employee, past services of employee stood forfeited - Denial of pension was justified. (Para 9.1, 9.3, 10.2)

(B) Payment of Gratuity Act (39 of 1972), S.4, S.5 - Gratuity and leave encashment - Denial of - Employee who was working as conductor claimed for release of his retiral benefits such as gratuity and leave encashment - Transport Corporation rejected employees claim on ground that he had resigned from service - S.4 provides that even in case of retirement or resignation from service, employee who had rendered not less than five years of service will be entitled to payment of gratuity - Deceased employee had completed more than 20 years of service - Undisputedly, no notification was issued by appropriate government exempting Transport Corporation from application of 1972 Act - Once it could not be established by corporation that 1972 Act does not apply to Corporation, claim of employee for release of gratuity cannot be denied even if he had resigned from service - Hence, LRs of deceased employee were entitled to receive gratuity in terms of provisions of 1972 Act for service rendered as well as amount towards leave encashment of deceased employee. (Para 9.2, 9.3, 10.1, 10.2, 12)

(A) U. P. Revenue Code (8 of 2012), S. 30 - Correction of map - Prayer for - Admittedly, after ownership and possession of plots owned by appellant and private respondents were settled, respondents moved application seeking correction of map pertaining to plot owned by one of the respondents - Application was dismissed on ground that Collector had clearly recorded that as per Commission's report appellant was in possession of plot - Said order attained finality - Maps were already made final - After purchase, effort made by respondents to get revenue map corrected had failed - More than 17 years later, respondents could not be permitted to raise same issue - It was not case where any error was found in revenue record which deserved correction u/S. 30 - Rather, effort of private respondents to change location of plot purchased by them, which may be more valuable, was an effort to re-open settled issue which was not permissible - Order of High Court remanding matter for consideration afresh was set aside. (Para 8, 9, 10, 14)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act (26 of 1996), S. 11(4) - Appointment of Arbitrator - Jurisdiction of Referral Court - Reference of dispute to arbitration - Invocation of arbitration clause by veritable party - Contractor, after obtaining contract from employer had independently engaged sub-contractor for supply, installation, integration, testing, commissioning and warranty/post-warranty services - Sub-contractor failed to establish even prima facie that it was a veritable party to contract between employer and contractor - Employer had no privity whatsoever with sub-contractor - Settlement agreement was also only between contractor and sub-contractor and their inter se arrangement for transfer of contractor's receivables from employer did not create or evidence an arbitration agreement between employer and sub-contractor - Parties operated in separate orbits and no intention to bind sub-contractor to employer-contractor contract was shown - Referral Court not bound to refer absolute strangers to arbitration mechanically - High Court's order appointing arbitrator held erroneous. (Para 30, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40,)

(A) Jharkhand Self-Supporting Cooperative Societies Act (2 of 1997), S.5(7) - Stamp Act (2 of 1899), S.9A (Bihar amendment) - Registration of document - Exemption from stamp duty - Additional recommendation of Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Society as pre-condition - Legality of administrative direction - Appellant, a co-operative society registered under S.5 acquiring status of body corporate, challenged memo issued by Secretary of Department of Registration mandating additional recommendation of Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society of the existence of a Cooperative Society, as a pre-condition for registration of a document on ground of being arbitrary and unreasonable - As per S.5, certificate of registration obtained by any registered cooperative society in Jharkhand is conclusive evidence of its existence - State and its instrumentalities are bound by certificate of registration issued under S.5 and no further question should arise about existence or authenticity of cooperative society - In lieu of certificate granted by Registrar of Cooperative Society, further requirement of recommendation by Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society was superfluous, unnecessary and irrelevant consideration leading to illegality in action - Requirement was further disruptive of ease of transaction, without any value addition to integrity of transaction - Also, such condition was clearly superfluous and in fact, unnecessary - Thus, memo issued by Principal Secretary was set aside on ground of illegality. (Para 12, 13, 14, 15)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 309 - General Provident Fund (Central Services) Rules (1960), R. 33 - General Provident Fund (GPF) - Release of - Respondent mother was nominee on record at time of death of deceased - R.33 of GPF(CS) Rules of 1960 and Note 2 to Rule 476 (V) of Official Manual (Part V) for CDA (Funds) stipulated that upon acquiring family(marriage), nomination would become invalid - Nomination in favour of mother became invalid in 2003 when deceased married appellant wife - Even in view of fact that deceased had not made changes to nomination for GPF, earlier nomination cannot be held to be valid - Nomination itself would not give mother a better claim over total GPF amount than wife - GPF of deceased would be equally distributed between wife and mother. (Para 8, 9, 10)

(A) Hindu Marriage Act (25 of 1955), S. 13(1)(ia) - Decree of divorce - Grant of - Parties were residing separately for more than 13 years and no substantial or meaningful effort was made in restoring their matrimonial relationship - It was evident from material on record that relationship had become deeply embittered and acrimonious over years - They had a 17 year old daughter whose well-being, care, and future stability must remain paramount - There was no purpose in perpetuating a legal bond that had long ceased to have any substance - Continuing marital tie would serve neither spouses nor their child - Rather, it would only prolong hostility and impede their ability to move forward with dignity - Marriage had broken down beyond repair, and that dissolution was in interest of justice and in welfare of all concerned - Decree of divorce granted by High Court was upheld. (Para 4, 6, 7, 13)

(B) Hindu Marriage Act (25 of 1955), S. 25 - Permanent alimony - Enhancement of - Decree of divorce - Respondent husband was a serving Judicial Officer holding a responsible public position and was, therefore, under a heightened obligation to ensure fair, adequate, and dignified financial security for his wife and daughter - Appellant wife, who was presently not engaged in legal practice, was entitled to maintain a standard of living broadly commensurate with what she enjoyed during subsistence of marriage - Child, now 17 years of age and soon to pursue higher education, would also require continued financial support and stability - Considering income, status, and future prospects of husband, and to ensure that wife was placed in a position of reasonable financial independence, amount of permanent alimony of Rs.30,00,000/- as awarded by High Court was enhanced to Rs.50,00,000/-, which shall be paid by husband to wife - Order of High Court giving directions relating to permanent alimony was modified. (Para 8, 9, 13)

(A) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S. 168 - Compensation - Enhancement of - Claimant was 21 years old at time of accident - Considering loss of monthly income, 1/3rd of salary was added as future loss of income, totalling to Rs. 8,667/- - Multiplier of 16 applied - Further taking note of requirement of a personal attendant, Court awarded lump sum amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- instead of 6,000/- as awarded by High Court - Compensation towards other heads such as, transport to hospital Rs. 10,000/-, extra nourishment Rs. 15,000/-, Damage to clothing Rs. 1,000/-, medical expenses Rs. 60,617/-, loss of amenities Rs. 5,000/-, pain and suffering Rs. 30,000/-, loss in marital and social status Rs. 10,000/- awarded by High Court was reasonable - Award was modified accordingly. (Para 11, 12)

(A) Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act (13 of 2017), S. 6 - Exemption from tax - Benefit of - Availability - Entry No. 13 of Notification No. 9/2017- Integrated Tax (Rate) Dt. 28.06.2017 issued by Central Govt. provides unconditional exemption to renting of a residential dwelling to any person when same was used for residence - Entry 13 did not mandate that lessee must use residential dwelling as its own residence - Giving Entry 13 a narrow interpretation by holding that it was available only when property so rented was used by service recipient themselves would ultimately lead to legislative intent being defeated as exemption was extended to cases wherein residential dwelling was rented out and ultimately used as residence, irrespective of person using it - Legislative intent behind this exemption clause was that a rented property, that was used as residence should not suffer 18% GST or IGST - Exemption envisaged under Entry 13 was an activity specific exemption and not person specific exemption - Khatha Extract and layout plans would reveal that suit property was residential dwelling - Said property was taken on rent only for use as a residence for hostel accommodation - If 18% GST was levied on this transaction between owner and lessee, same would be passed on to students and working professionals which would ultimately lead to a situation where legislative intent behind granting exemption for residential use was defeated - All conditions of exemption notification were satisfied - Benefit of exemption from GST was rightly granted in favour of owner. (Para 39, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 53, 55, 58, 61, 62, 63, 68)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S.482 - Quashing of proceedings - FIR, charge sheet, and witness statements specifically alleged that accused induced complainant to undertake substantial construction work without payment, and these claims could not be termed inherently improbable - Plea that matter was purely civil could not be accepted, as civil and criminal liability may coexist where allegations disclose ingredients of a criminal offence - Disputed No-Dues Certificate, alleged by complainant to be fabricated, raised factual questions fit for trial and could not form basis for quashing - Material relied upon by accused did not meet threshold for quashing and did not fall within any of limited categories for quashing mentioned in case of Bhajan Lal - Order of High Court refusing to quash proceedings for offences under Ss.420, 344 and 506 of Penal Code was proper. (Para 23-28,30-34)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S. 319 - Summoning of additional accused - Rejection of application - Accused had allegedly fired at his wife resulting in her death - Prosecution had sought to implead respondents, relatives of accused as additional accused - Brother of deceased deposed that deceased was harassed by respondents for giving birth to three daughters and his niece had informed him that her father had shot deceased at provocation of respondents - His deposition cannot be construed as an improved only due to omission of names of respondents in FIR, when his testimony was consistent with overall narrative - His statement had prima facie indicated active participation of respondents - Minor daughter of deceased in her statement and deposition had named respondents as instigator of crime - Whether she was tutored or not were matters of trial - Deceased had given two statements during her treatment - Both statements were inconsistent inter se, since first one did not name respondents whereas second did - Mere omission of names of respondents in first statement, or lack of Magistrate's presence while recording statement or mental fitness certificate of deceased to give statement did not undermine relevance of statements - Two statements of deceased, would fall within ambit of S. 32(1) of Evidence Act - Moreover, S. 32 of Evidence Act did not contain any limitation - High Court had erred in holding that statements of deceased cannot be treated as dying declaration merely because death of deceased occurred after a substantial lapse of time from their recordings - Sufficient ground to exercise power under S. 319 of Cr.P.C. - Order of High Court rejecting application to summon respondents as additional accused was quashed. (Para 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.226, Art.14 - Termination of services - Legality - Advertisement for post of Monitoring and Evaluation Consultant prescribed minimum academic qualification a PG Degree in Statistics from a Govt. recognised University with at least 60% marks or equivalent grade - Appellant appointed on contractual basis held M.Com. and studied as part of curriculum Business Statistics and Indian Economic Statistics as principal subjects - No Govt. university in Madhya Pradesh offers a PG course titled "M.Com (Statistics)" or any standalone PG programme exclusively titled "Statistics" - Hence, expression "PG degree in Statistics" must be understood contextually and purposively - Termination of his services after he served for nearly one year , on basis of report of 8-member Inquiry Committee without providing opportunity of hearing was not justified and violative of principles of natural justice - Expert authority, after examining his marksheets and curriculum, categorically opined that he satisfied requirement as per advertisement and recommended continuation of his services - Similarly placed candidates were retained - No reasonable classification or intelligible differentia for singling him out - Termination was set aside, with direction to reinstate him. (Para 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 43, 44, 45)

(A) Fundamental Rules, R. 56(a) - Constitution of India, Art. 309 - Central Civil Services Pension Rules (1972), R. 5(2) - Assam State Electricity Board and its Successor Companies Revised Pay Rules (2017), R. 32 - Revised pay scale - Claim for - Rules of 2017 specifically provided for benefit of pay revision to all employees who were in service on 31.03.2016 and those who had been appointed on or after 01.04.2016 - Employees by virtue of FR 56(a), though attained age of retirement prior to 31.03.2016, having attained age of retirement only in March 2016 will have their date of superannuation extended to 31.03.2016 - FR does not provide for such extension to be merely for purpose of pay and allowances nor can there be deemed legal termination of employer-employee relationship be found on date of attaining age of 60 years - Rule of superannuation is clear and unambiguous that any person who attained age of superannuation in month will retire only on last day of that month - Further by virtue of R. 5(2) of CCS (Pension) Rules, on 31.03.2016 employees were in service - Employees were entitled to pay revision brought in by Rules of 2017. (Para 14, 16)

(A) Contempt of Courts Act (70 of 1971), S.2(b) - Civil contempt - Willful disobedience of Court's order - Predecessor of appellants sought completion of acquisition proceedings along with other reliefs including the relief of seeking possession - Four other petitioners had also filed separate writ petitions - Common order was passed containing clear and categorical directions regarding delivery of possession and payment of compensation - High Court erred in treating order as ambiguous and in failing to consider specific grievance of petitioner regarding non-compliance despite directing production of records - Matter was remanded for fresh consideration. (Para 9, 10, 11)

(A) Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act (1 of 1996), S. 33 - Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Civil Services Examination - Provision of Screen Reader Software - To visually impaired candidates - Court addressed grievances related to accessibility of public examinations for visually impaired candidates - Substantial part of the grievances had been duly alleviated because UPSC, had taken a conscious, progressive policy decision to extend facility of Screen Reader Software to visually impaired candidates across various examinations, recognizing their rights to equal opportunity - However, while policy decision was in place, mechanism and modalities for its effective implementation remained un-streamlined and un-operationalized - Laudable objective of accessibility must be translated into practical reality - Specific directions were issued to UPSC to ensure that its decision is effectively translated into action and rights of candidates belonging to the PwBD/PwD category are fully safeguarded. (Para 9, 10, 11)

Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act (28 of 1971), S. 14, S. 3D(c)(i) - Writ of mandamus - Issuance of - Appellant-developer sought a direction to State to acquire land in its favour for completion of slum-rehabilitation scheme - Original owner after purchasing said property said to have entered into MoU with predecessor-in-interest of appellant to redevelop it, which the appellant relied upon to plead that owner was not interested in redeveloping land herself and had waived any preferential right long ago - Land was reserved statutorily as Recreational Ground - Statutory scheme had conferred a preferential right of redevelopment on owner or lawful transferee, thereby restricting compulsory acquisition under S.14 unless such right stood lawfully extinguished - Order of CEO-SRA had merely recorded substantial implementation of the scheme and recommended acquisition, but did not divest owner of preferential right nor create any vested right in favour of appellant -Subsequent sale of land by original owner to respondent-developer and redevelopment proposal by such transferee constituted a valid exercise of preferential right, barring compulsory acquisition - Appellant, having already received equivalent saleable area and FSI as compensation, was not entitled to further relief - Court directed preservation of the Recreational Ground and restrained construction thereon - Writ of mandamus for acquisition of land in the instant case could not be issued. (Para 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 75, 76, 77)

(A) Delhi Rent Control Act (59 of 1958), S.14(1)(c), S.14(5) - Eviction - Ground of change of use of subject premises - There was nothing on record to suggest that landlord consented to change in use of subject premises from electrical goods shop to stocking inflammable material like thinners, tarpin and sanitary and paints shop - Landlord issued legal notice whereby tenant was called upon to stop misuse of tenanted premises - There was nothing on record to show that after service of said notice, tenant had stopped misuse of subject premises - Plea by tenant that eviction petition was liable to be dismissed on account of concealment of previous notice was rejected, as said notice was quit notice, based on which earlier civil suit was filed by landlord while in present eviction proceedings, foundational notice required by law was not quit notice but eviction notice stipulated under S.14(5) - Eviction was proper. (Para 13, 14, 15)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.226 - Temporary status and subsequent regularisation - Rejection of claim - Petitioners, causal workers were employed by employer - Employer BSNL formulated and circulated scheme namely Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme of Department of Telecommunications, 1989 - As per scheme, casual workers who have completed 240 days of work in particular year within prescribed cut-off date are entitled to benefit of temporary status and subsequent regularisation - Undisputedly petitioners were engaged as casual workers against available work and continued uninterruptedly for several years - Petitioners discharged their primary evidentiary burden by producing contemporaneous records demonstrating their continuous engagement - Where records demonstrating continuous engagement were produced even in photocopy form by petitioners, onus shifted to employer, custodian of original service record, to show that such documents never existed or that petitioners did not work for period claimed - Once employer admited engagement and continuation of petitioners as casual workers till date, burden shifts to employer to justify why benefit of Scheme, 1989 should be denied - When employer did not deny period of engagement of petitioners, plea that original documents were not traceable in office cannot defeat substantive rights of petitioners flowing from regularisation scheme - Petitioners were clearly entitled to benefit of permanent status as well as regularisation under scheme - Rejection of claim was erroneous. (Para 17, 18, 21, 23, 25, 29)

Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O.41, R. 27 - Production of additional evidence - Jurisdiction of Appellate Court - Suit for declaration and possession dismissed for failure to prove title and for want of territorial jurisdiction - Plaintiff sought to produce post-decree survey and boundary map prepared by competent authority showing location of suit land - Application for additional evidence allowed by first appellate court to decide jurisdictional issue - Appellate court had jurisdiction to permit such evidence as it was necessary for proper adjudication of issue arising in appeal. (Para 3, 4, 5)

(A) University Grants Commission Act (3 of 1956), S.26 - University Grants Commission (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal of Sexual Harassment of Women Employees and Students in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations (2015), Regn.8 - Constitution of India, Art.226 - Dismissal from service - Challenge against - Petitioner, a Dean, was dismissed after Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) found allegations of sexual harassment to be proved and recommended departmental proceedings - In subsequent inquiry, multiple violations of natural justice occurred - Complainant was examined behind petitioner's back with no notice or chance to cross-examine - Enquiry Officer, who was also Vice-Chancellor and the Disciplinary Authority, acted both as prosecutor and judge, giving rise to clear bias - No second show-cause notice or copy of the ICC report was supplied before the departmental charge, thereby depriving petitioner of his statutory right of appeal under S.18 of the 2013 Act and Regn.8 of the UGC Regulations, 2015 - Departmental inquiry relied almost entirely on the ICC findings, without proving allegations independently through admissible evidence - Principles of natural justice were violated at every stage and bias was evident - Dismissal order, departmental inquiry, and departmental proceedings were set aside, and directions were issued for reinstatement, and liberty was granted to petitioner to file appeal against the ICC report, after which, if respondent institution chooses, a fresh departmental proceeding may be initiated. (Para 11,12,14,15-20,21,23,25,26)

(A) Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act (45 of 1963), S.11 - Conveyance deed - Grant of - Challenge against - Applicability of MOFA - The Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act (MOFA) clearly applies to transaction, as every agreement executed between developer and purchasers of buildings B and C expressly states that development and sale of units are governed by MOFA - Cl.26 of each agreement reinforces this by declaring that agreement shall "always remain subject" to MOFA, indicating parties' deliberate and continuing submission to statutory regime - Since promoter drafted these agreements and benefited from them, it cannot now deny MOFA's applicability - With no allegation that these clauses are illegal or void, contractual relationship between petitioner as promoter and the flat purchasers is fully governed by MOFA. (Para 20)

(B) Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act (45 of 1963), S.11 - Conveyance deed - Grant of - Effect of the "Special Patron Member" Description - Petitioner pleaded that MOFA did not apply because flat purchasers were described as "Special Patron Members" and ownership of land remained with petitioner-company, contending that S.11 of MOFA, requiring conveyance to association of flat takers, was therefore inapplicable - Plea was rejected as real nature of transaction must be examined, not merely labels used - Evidence showed that purchasers acted as flat buyers, they paid for units, took possession, and bore associated responsibilities but had no genuine rights as corporate members - Nominal "Special Patron Member" status could not negate statutory protections under MOFA - Ss.10 and 11 of MOFA applied, granting flat purchasers right to form a society and seek conveyance, regardless of petitioner's claimed corporate membership designation. (Para 21,22,23)

(C) Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act (45 of 1963), S.11 - Conveyance deed - Application for - Maintainability - Petitioner/owner of land pleaded that application for deemed conveyance was not maintainable because land remained in company's name and purchasers were merely "Special Patron Members" - According to petitioner, the land always stood in name of petitioner-company, and because the purchasers were described as Special Patron Members of that company, they could not demand conveyance from the very same company - Under S.11 of MOFA, statutory right to form an association of flat takers and seek conveyance arises once a promoter constructs flats and sells them under MOFA-governed agreements, regardless of corporate labels or promoter retaining title - Evidence showed purchasers acted as flat takers with no genuine company membership rights, while petitioner owner company and respondent developer functioned as promoters - As statutory period for voluntary conveyance had expired, society had a statutory right to apply for deemed conveyance, which Competent Authority lawfully entertained - Application was therefore held maintainable. (Para 24,25,26)

(D) Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act (45 of 1963), S.11 - Conveyance deed - Petitioner/owner pleaded that society was not a valid entity, claiming that flat purchasers were already "Special Patron Members" of petitioner-company and could not form a separate co-operative society - Plea was rejected as purchasers had no actual membership rights, voting power, or control over company and were effectively outsiders - Their formation of society in 2002 was a lawful exercise of statutory rights under MOFA, which allows flat purchasers to constitute a society if promoter fails to do so - Petitioner, aware of society's formation, did not challenge its registration under relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and acquiesced for over a decade while society managed property and undertook administrative responsibilities - Principles of acquiescence and Estoppel prevent belated challenges, and society was validly formed and functioning as representative body of flat purchasers. (Para 27-30)

(E) Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act (45 of 1963), S.11 - Conveyance deed - Grant of - Plea of violation of natural justice - Petitioner owner of land pleaded that deemed-conveyance order violated natural justice, claiming that society provided a wrong address, notices were sent to a defunct address, and public notice was vague - Claims were rejected as service was effected at registered office declared by petitioner-company, which law treats as valid service - Petitioner's failure to update statutory records or respond to notices meant no real prejudice occurred - Public notice was a supplementary measure, and petitioner's deliberate absence did not amount to a denial of right to be heard - Allegations of fraud or surreptitious conduct were unfounded, and service and proceedings were lawful. (Para 31-34)

(F) Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act (45 of 1963), S.11 - Conveyance deed - Grant of - Effect of the ULC Exemption Order and Its Continuing Operation - Petitioner pleaded that S.20 exemption under the Urban Land Ceiling Act prevented conveyance to Respondent society, claiming land could only be used for its members and not transferred to outsiders - Exemption order remains valid even after repeal of the Act but held that its conditions were intended to prevent commercial exploitation, not to deny rights to flat purchasers who had paid for and occupied premises - Flat purchasers, organized as a co-operative society under MOFA, are intended beneficiaries and not outsiders - Therefore, exemption order does not bar conveyance to society, and transferring land to it aligns with both MOFA and purpose of exemption. (Para 35-39)

(G) Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act (45 of 1963), S.11 - Conveyance deed - Grant of - Conduct of Parties and Equitable Considerations - Considering long-standing conduct of parties and fact that society had, for over a decade, effectively managed and maintained buildings, paid taxes, and discharged all responsibilities of ownership, while petitioner remained inactive and silent - Such prolonged inaction and acquiescence undermined petitioner's later objections - MOFA governs project, society is a valid association of flat purchasers, and petitioner qualify as promoters - Society's right to seek conveyance arose upon its registration and promoter's failure to act within statutory period - S.20 ULC exemption does not bar conveyance, and allegations of non-service or violation of natural justice were rejected - Consequently, there was no basis to set aside deemed-conveyance order, and equitable considerations favour society. (Para 46-49)

(H) Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act (45 of 1963), S.11 - Conveyance deed - Grant of - Deemed-conveyance order issued to Respondent society was fully in compliance with S.11 of MOFA - The society, properly registered and representing flat purchasers in possession of their units, had performed all ownership responsibilities, while promoter failed to execute conveyance within statutory period - Service of notice was valid, and petitioner's absence did not invalidate proceedings - No procedural or jurisdictional defects were found, and Competent Authority acted lawfully - Consequently, deemed-conveyance order upheld, and petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 50,000 in costs to the society. (Para 50-55)

Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Family pension - Claim by widowed daughter - Rejection of - Petitioner, younger widowed daughter of deceased pensioner, applied for family pension after death of mother but her claim was rejected on ground that elder widowed sister had prior claim - Elder sister was already receiving family pension on account of service of her late husband and her income exceeded Rs.9,000/-, rendering her ineligible for family pension from service of father - Consequently, right accrued to petitioner to receive family pension upon furnishing pension statement of elder sister and her 'No Objection' - Order rejecting family pension to petitioner was invalid . (Para 6, 7, 8, 9)

(A) Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act (23 of 1956), S.433 - Madhya Pradesh Nagarpalika (Colony Development) Rules (2021), R.28 - Building permission - Application under repealed 1998 Rules - No steps were taken by petitioner subsequent to 2005 after lay out plan was sanctioned by Town and Country Planning Department and application was submitted by it before respondents for grant of permission and mortgage of part of plots - A civil litigation was also pending in respect of land and elected body of petitioner was also superseded - Petitioner itself not having carried out development work cannot insist upon respondents for grant of building permission on the basis of application preferred by it in the year 2003 - Rules, 1998 stood repealed by virtue of 2021 Rules - Application of petitioner remained undecided under provisions of Rules, 1998 for no fault on part of respondents - Petitioner was required to make an application under new rules - Rejection of application, was proper. (Para 12, 13, 14, 15)

(A) Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O.7, R.11(d) - Rejection of plaint - Suit for declaration and permanent injunction - Suit was purely founded on enforcement of contractual obligations between private parties - Plaintiff sought declaration only on the validity of agreement of sale and Power of Attorney and sought injunction against defendants and not against the Bank - Subject matter therefore does not arise out of any "measure" undertaken under S.13(4) of SARFAESI Act and consequently does not fall within the scope of jurisdiction of DRT under S.17 - Order rejecting plaint by Trial Court was unsustainable - Suit was restored. (Para 14, 15, 18, 20)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act (26 of 1996), S. 36 - Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O.21, R. 32 - Arbitral award - Execution of - Proceedings arise from a long-standing dispute between two groups of the Hamdard family regarding administrative control of Hamdard Institute of Medical Sciences and Research (HIMSR) - Under Family Settlement Deed, Hamdard National Foundation (HNF) had been divided into two independent committees, HECA controlled by judgment debtors and MREC controlled by decree holders, with HIMSR placed under MREC's exclusive control and this arrangement formally adopted by Jamia Hamdard (JHDU) - Disputes arose when JHDU group interfered with HIMSR's functioning and withdrew Consent of Affiliation (CoA), leading the National Medical Commission (NMC) to withdraw 150 MBBS seats - Arbitrator had directed JHDU to maintain HIMSR's status, cooperate with decree holders and extend full support for restoration of seats, yet JHDU withheld the NMC-mandated CoA citing UGC Regulations, 2023 - This defence was rejected as CoA was only an assurance for medical degree recognition, not UGC affiliation and JHDU had issued identical CoAs for over a decade, consistent with national practice confirmed by NMC - Withdrawal was unjustified, contrary to binding arbitral directions - Consequent withdrawal of NMC approval flowed solely from JHDU's conduct and amounted to impermissible "legal hurdle" - It was not driven by any statutory compulsion - Intent behind withdrawal was to frustrate the arbitral process and the ongoing admissions cycle - Held, therefore, withdrawal was unlawful - JHDU was directed to re-issue CoA within seven days, failing which decree holders could revive enforcement proceedings. (Para 39 to 43, 48 to 52)

(A) Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules (2014), R.74 - Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act (24 of 1961), S.73, S.165(1) - Management of affairs of society - Order directing managing committee not to convene meeting or pass resolution till conducting of fresh elections - Challenge against - After series of resignations, committee was left with only twelve elected members which was below legally required minimum of thirteen members - Once elected strength falls below statutory threshold, stalemate situation occurres and committee stops being validly constituted managing committee - Under such situation, courts and authorities must step in to provent misuse of power and to preserve democratic character of society - Appellate Court acted correctly by granting protective relief and stopping weakened committee from taking important decisions - Order was consistent with purpose of law and with facts admitted by both sides - Challenge was unsustainable. (Para 63, 64)

(B) Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules (2014), R.74 - Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act (24 of 1961), S.154B-19, S.154B-22, S.165(1) - Managing Committee - Constitution and management of reserved seats - Elucidated.

(C) Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules (2014), R.74 - Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act (24 of 1961), S.165(1) - Filing of casual vacancies - Exercise of co-option - Role and limit - Discussed.

(D) Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act (24 of 1961), S.154B-19, S.154B-22 - Management Committee - Constitution of Committee - Can be examined at any point in time whenever the question arises and not only when results of election are declared. .

(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.3 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S.376AB - Rape - Proof - There were material contradictions and inconsistencies in testimonies of prosecution witnesses regarding delay in reporting incident - Sequence of events following alleged incident of rape was inconsistent as victim's mother stated that she and her husband confronted accused next morning, victim contended that it happened the same night, while victim's father asserted that it occurred 2-3 days later - Non-examination of other natural witnesses namely victim's two brothers and grandmother residing in same house, further weakened prosecution case -Medical evidence failed to corroborate prosecution case - Moreover, admitted prior enmity between families over boundary dispute provided plausible motive for false implication - Material contradictions in witness statements, unreliability of sole testimony of victim, lack of corroborative medical evidence, and inconsistencies in alleged timeline, non-examination of natural witnesses, and motive for false created reasonable doubt in prosecution's case - Conviction was set aside. (Para 24, 25, 26, 28)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.226 - Promotion - Claim for - Post of Shirestadar - Employee found guilty in departmental proceedings due to gross misconduct, insubordination, dereliction of duty, gross negligence and forging certificates in two departmental proceedings, and had been suspended earlier - Plea that adverse ACR remarks were never communicated was untenable, as, no such pleading was raised before Writ Court - Grant of MACP does not imply fitness for promotion as MACP merely provides financial upgradation to address stagnation and does not involve actual promotion - Rejection of claim was proper. (Para 8, 10, 11)

(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act (26 of 1996), S.34, S.43, S.21 - Arbitral award - Setting aside of - Leave and license agreement between appellant lessor and respondent bank - Lessor sought for setting aside of arbitral award on ground of limitation - Plain reading of clause of lease agreement indicated that lessor was liable to refund security deposit to bank on or before expiry of ninety-day notice period - Termination notices were issued by bank expressly stating that possession of premises would be handed over lessor - S.43 provides that arbitration shall be deemed to have commenced on date referred to S.21 i.e. date on which notice invoking arbitration was received by bank - S.43 further provides that Limitation Act, 1963 would apply to "arbitrations as it applies to proceedings" - Undisputably, notice issued under S.21 commencing arbitral proceedings, was issued beyond period of three years from date of cause of action, same being date on which bank became entitled to receive security deposit in terms of Lease Agreement - In terms of S.3 of Limitation Act, 1963, Arbitral Tribunal was required to reject claim notwithstanding that limitation had not been set up as defence - Bar of limitation excluded remedy available to bank - Failure of Arbitral Tribunal to reject claim on said ground was foundational and vitiated award by patent illegality on face of record - Thus, arbitral award directing lessor to award sum to bank along with costs was set aside. (Para 23, 26, 27, 29, 32, 37, 38)

(A) Hindu Marriage Act (25 of 1955), S.11 - Family Courts Act (66 of 1984), S.7 - Suit for declaration of marriage as null and void - Non-consideration of evidence of husband's father - Effect - In civil proceedings, standard of proof is preponderance of probability - Family Court reached on finding on basis of consideration of different exhibits and oral evidences, found preponderance of probability in favour of husband - As matrimonial suit was decided based on preponderance of probabilities, minor contradictions in oral evidence shall not help wife for challenging grant of decree in decreed in favour of husband. (Para 8)

(B) Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S.34 - Family Courts Act (66 of 1984), S.7(1) - Suit for declaration of marriage as null and void - Maintainability - S.7(1) Explanation clearly states that suit or proceedings for declaration as to validity of marriage or to matrimonial status of person is maintainable before Principle Judge of Family Courts - S.20 of the Act further provides that provisions of Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything therein contained in any other law for time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this act - Matrimonial suit seeking declaration of marriage as null and void is maintainable. (Para 10, 11, 12)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.226 - Pension Scheme - Rejection to switch over from Contributory Provident Fund Scheme to General Provident Fund-cum-Pension Scheme - Challenge against - Petitioners had worked as Teacher (Mechanic-B), Instrumentation Engineer (Chemical Engineering) respectively in respondent-Institute - Government of India had issued Office Memorandum dated 01.05.1987 on subject "Change over of Central Government employees from Contributory Provident Fund Scheme to Pension Scheme - Same was adopted by institution on 11.09.1987 - Petitioners had given option to stay with CPF Scheme not only once but twice, despite they had opportunities to shift to GPF Scheme - They were granted third opportunity after 15 years of their respective services, still they had not come over to GPF Scheme, therefore, they had failed to exercise their right - OM was not automatically adopted by respondent-institution rather it was adopted by independent act with specific timeline that options could be exercised by 30.12.1987 if they wanted to remain in CPF Scheme - Petitioners had given option to remain in CPF, therefore, they were bound by said option - Question of non-est would not be applicable in given circumstances of case - Rejection of application was proper. (Para 17, 18, 19, 21)

(A) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S.166 - Compensation - Contributory negligence - Rider of motorcycle was riding on left side of road and at the same time, offending vehicle had come from opposite direction and dashed against motorcycle on its right side - Due to impact, rider sustained grievous injuries and died and pillion rider had sustained injuries - Insurer had neither examined any witness nor produced any evidence to establish contributor negligence on part of deceased or rider of motorcycle - Driver of offending vehicle was charged for offences of rash and negligent driving and causing death by negligence - There was negligence only on part of driver of offending vehicle. (Para 12, 13)

(B) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S.168 - Injury claim - Grant of compensation - Challenge against - Tribunal awarded compensation to tune of Rs.18,29,700/- with interest @7.5% - At the time of the accident, injured was running readymade garments Shop and earning Rs.45,000/- p.m. - Due to accident, he was not able to run shop for entire year - Tribunal rightly awarded compensation under head of loss of income - He also suffered 60% partial disability and as such, Tribunal rightly awarded compensation under said head - Based on medical bills, compensation was rightly awarded towards medical expenses - Considering his 51 days of inpatient treatment and continued treatment for nearly year, Tribunal rightly awarded compensation under head of pain and suffering - Tribunal had rightly awarded compensation to injured. (Para 13, 14)

(C) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S.168 - Death claim - Grant of compensation - Challenge against - Tribunal awarded compensation to tune of Rs.21,70,000/- with interest @7.5% - Deceased died in accident at age of 44 years - Income was rightly fixed at Rs.15,000/- p.m. - Tribunal rightly deducted one-third towards personal and living expenses - Tribunal had rightly awarded compensation to claimants. (Para 14)

(A) Border Security Force Act (47 of 1968), S. 141 - Border Security Force Rules (1969), R. 22 - Dismissal from service - Unauthorised absence - Petitioner Constable did not join his service after initial leave period had expired - Record produced by respondents authorities showed that notices were sent to petitioner through registered post at his address, but notices were returned undelivered with report 'not known/insufficient address' - It cannot be stated that respondents had failed to follow procedure prescribed under BSF Act and rules or principles of natural justice - Reason assigned by petitioner for overstaying his leave was not convincing - There was nothing to show that petitioner had undergone hospitalization in connection with his treatment - Fact that petitioner approached respondents after more than six years of his leaving place of posting showed that his approach was careless and casual towards his duties - Giving an opportunity to petitioner to present his case before respondents would be a wastage of time, as same would not alter position that petitioner was guilty of unauthorized absence from duty for more than six long years - Order of dismissal was proper. (Para 12, 13, 14, 15)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.226 - Selection - Eligibility criteria - Post of Dental Assistant/Junior Dental Technician -
Medical Education Dept. had clarified that candidates possessing Diploma in Dental Hygienist were eligible for appointment as Dental Assistant/Junior Dental Technician - Earlier judgment granting such benefit had already been implemented by the State - Appellants failed to show any distinguishing feature to deny identical benefit to similarly situated writ petitioners - State's conduct in selectively implementing one judgment while challenging another based on identical facts amounts to arbitrary pick-and-choose, violating fairness and equality - Filing intra-court appeals by appellant after six years, solely to protect lower-merit candidates excluded in revised select list, constitutes abuse of process, especially when revised list was prepared and earlier judgment was accepted - Petitioners were rightly held to be eligible - Appeals were dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- per private respondent in revised select list. (Para 11, 12, 14, 15, 16)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Dismissal from service - Challenge against - Ground of violation of principles of natural justice and fair play - Entire action culminating in delinquent's removal was founded solely upon a preliminary enquiry conducted behind his back by CSP, wherein statements of material witnesses were recorded without permitting delinquent employee either to participate or to cross-examine them - Even enquiry officer acted as presenting officer and simultaneous functioning of enquiry officer as presenting officer was impermissible in law, as same violates doctrine of fairness in disciplinary adjudication - Delinquent employee was deprived of enquiry report before order of punishment was passed, which constitutes a mandatory requirement in law - Order dismissing service of delinquent employee was not proper. (Para 13, 14)

(A) Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act (46 of 1981), S. 3 - Permanent status - Conferment of - Challenge against - Private respondents workmen were working for petitioner Management since 2003 onwards - EPF records showed that EPF accounts of private respondents were shifted to account of licensed contractor by allotting separate codes - They also showed that private respondents were working in petitioner prior to March 2017, and petitioner had not produced any document to substantiate its claim that they were outsourced employees working only from March 2016 or March 2017, particularly when their initial engagement was admitted to be prior to said period - Thus, private respondents were direct employees of petitioner Management, having worked for more than 480 days in preceding 24 calendar months - Arrangement between petitioner and licensed contractor, entered into after March 2016 or March 2017, was merely a camouflage adopted to deny private respondents benefit of permanent status - Such an arrangement was sham and nominal and cannot be enforced against private respondents - Conferment of permanent status to private respondents was proper. (Para 24, 25, 29)

(A) Forest Act (16 of 1927), S.52A - Confiscation of vehicle - Vehicle in question was involved in transportation of resin - Petitioner was owner of vehicle - Property is to be owned by State Government to attract provisions of S.52A of Act - Case of petitioner was that third party claimed ownership of resin and he hired vehicle of petitioner for transportation of resin - Authorised Officer specifically noted that third person was registered contractor and resin belonged to said person was not established on record - Nothing on record to show that resin being transported by petitioner was not government property and resin belonged to third person - Hence, confiscation order was proper. (Para 9,11)

(A) Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O.39, R.1, O.39, R.2 - Temporary injunction - Grant of - Restraining defendants from alienating suit land - Agreement for sale of developed land was allegedly executed between parties - Plaintiff paid Rs.1 crore as part consideration - Defendants denied agreement, alleging loan transaction and misuse of blank signed papers - Signatures on agreement were admitted - Dispute as to nature of transaction being question of fact, cannot be decided at interim stage - Agreement contained Khasra numbers, total area and ownership details - Prima facie case was made out - Grant of injunction in favour of plaintiff, was proper. (Para 12, 18)

(A) Maharashtra Public Trusts Act (29 of 1950), S. 50 - Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O. 7, R. 11(d) - Rejection of plaint - Bar of law - Plaintiff Trust had filed suit for recovery against defendant - From contents of suit plaint and Exhibits referred to, it was prima facie evident that defendant was described and considered as Trustee/permanent Trustee of plaintiff Trust for invoking action against him for recovery of compensation for his occupation of suit properties belonging to Trust during contentious period - Once plaintiffs had described defendant as a Trustee/permanent Trustee in suit plaint itself as also on basis of supporting documents referred to and relied upon in suit plaint, then suit filed by plaintiffs was on behalf of plaintiff Trust for recovery of compensation from defendant in his capacity as erstwhile Trustee of plaintiff Trust and he having occupied suit properties - Defendant was described and addressed to as Trustee/permanent Trustee/erstwhile Trustee in suit plaint pleadings by plaintiffs - Plea of plaintiffs that defendant was a rank trespasser should only be considered as a sequitur and hence defendant would be covered by later part of S.50(2) was untenable - Suit plaint was rejected. (Para 14)

(B) Maharashtra Public Trusts Act (29 of 1950), S. 50, S. 51 - Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O. 7, R.11(d) - Rejection of plaint - Bar of law - Plaintiff Trust had filed suit for recovery against defendant - It was prima facie clear and evident from suit plaint that suit was filed by plaintiffs for recovery of compensation from defendant in respect of Trust properties which were occupied by defendant in his capacity as a Trustee during contentious period - Once such a case was made out in suit plaint that defendant was a Trustee/ permanent Trustee/erstwhile Trustee of plaintiff Trust in occupation of suit properties and plaintiffs desiring recovery of compensation from defendant for his occupation of suit properties as a Trustee/permanent Trustee/erstwhile Trustee, then suit filed by plaintiffs was amenable to provisions of S.50 of MPT Act and consent of Charity Commissioner was required and without that having been obtained, there was non-compliance of provisions of S.50 read with S.51 of MPT Act by plaintiffs - Suit ought to have been filed only after obtaining permission of Charity Commissioner under Ss. 50 and 51 of MPT Act - Suit plaint was rejected. (Para 15, 18, 19)

(A) Hindu Marriage Act (25 of 1955), S. 13(1)(i-a) - Divorce - Ground of cruelty - Wife alleged extra-marital relations of husband with his female co-worker - Neither any call details nor any material was filed in support of it - Some photographs were filed by wife - Court had considered these photographs and found that based on it, extra-marital relations were not established - Those photographs were group photographs of many co-workers and did not suggest that husband had any relation with girl, who was visible in photograph, although there were many girls in photograph- Wife had written to superior officers of husband regarding those allegations, but they were all unsubstantiated - Said unsubstantiated allegation of extra-marital relations levelled by wife in itself amounts to cruelty, which she had committed on husband - Wife had also levelled allegation of rape, etc. on family members of husband and filed FIR, which amounts to cruelty - Decree of divorce passed in favour of husband for dissolution of marriage between parties was proper. (Para 23, 24, 25)

(A) Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O.7, R.11(d) - Rejection of plaint - Suit for specific performance of contract - Suit was filed by plaintiff/defaulted borrower to enforce One-Time Settlement proposal - Plaintiff was admitted defaulter - Purpose of suit was to compel Bank to accept lesser amount to settle debt - OTS is policy decision within commercial wisdom of Bank - Bank had twice consciously rejected OTS proposals as unacceptable - Bank cannot be compelled to accept lesser amount, especially when proposal was non-feasible - Plaintiff submitted that its offer for OTS was not under any statutory scheme but on its own pursuant to discussions and negotiations held with Bank - There was no right created in favour of plaintiff to enforce said OTS by way of specific performance or otherwise - Suit for specific performance was not maintainable - Plaint was rejected. (Para 24, 27)

(A) Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules (1965), R. 10 (2) - Constitution of India, Art.309 - Suspension - Review of - Petitioner while serving as Professor was suspended consequent upon his arrest by CBI - Contention of petitioner was that 90 days had been elapsed after and continuation thereof, without review was arbitrary and illegal - R.10 (6) of Rules of 1965 mandates that order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under Rule, shall be reviewed by authority competent to modify or revoke suspension before expiry of 90 days from effective date of suspension - No review was done till date in case of petitioner - Hence, by operation of law, petitioner was entitled to be reinstated into service as suspension could no longer held to be valid. (Para 6)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Termination of services - Challenge against - Services of 20 ad hoc Assistant Linesmen were terminated with immediate effect - Thereafter, another employee was also terminated - Writ petition challenging termination order was filed - Single Bench neither acceded to prayer of writ petitioners nor negatived same - On contrary, single bench had directed respondents to consider claims of petitioners - Additional prayer made by petitioners for parity qua respondents who according to petitioners were regularized had not been considered - Other rival contentions were also not considered - Matter was remanded leaving open all questions. (Para 6, 7)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.226 - Appointment - Challenge against - Post of Ayush Doctors of Homeopathy - Appointments of respondents were made as per Govt. resolution providing reservation for disabled quota category - Petitioners challenged appointments of respondents claiming that respondents who belong to Disabled Quota category should have been appointed against their category - Clause 1 of resolution made it absolutely clear that if person belonging to disabled quota category as also reserved category for example of S.C. or S.T. or E.B.C. or B.C., if on merits, he is empanelled for selection under General/Unreserved category - Clause 2 of Govt. resolution provides that candidates belonged to disabled quota category would be selected under General/ Unreserved category - Selection of respondents were duly made as per Govt. resolution - Challenge was unsustainable. (Para 12, 13)

(A) Hindu Marriage Act (25 of 1955), S. 13(1)(ia) - Divorce - Cruelty - Suit by husband - Allegation against wife that she left matrimonial house since long back and subjected husband to cruelty - Record showed that husband and his father after assaulting wife, brought her to Mahila P.S. and, thereafter, they fled away, thus wife did not left matrimonial house voluntarily, but under compulsion - It was practically impossible for wife to lead conjugal life with husband in such circumstances - Husband and his family members ousted wife from her matrimonial home after subjecting to cruelty and torture to her in connection with demand of dowry and she was living at her matrimonial home along with her minor son -Cruelty flowed from husband to wife even though wife was ready to lead her conjugal life with her husband - Husband had not discharged burden of proving cruelty and desertion against wife even with extent to preponderance of probabilities while wife discharged her burden of proving reasonable excuse for her separate living - Dismissal of suit for divorce was proper. (Para 48, 50, 51, 52)

Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Temporary contractual appointment - Cancellation - On ground of embezzlement - Petitioner appointed as Subject Matter Specialist on purely temporary, scheme-based, two-year honorarium post - Appointment expressly terminable without claim to permanency - On complaint and enquiry revealing serious irregularities and embezzlement by officials , District Magistrate approved termination - District Agriculture Officer issued cancellation order - Held, petitioner had no substantive right to post - Termination of purely temporary, contractual engagement did not attract full-fledged natural justice - Action taken per departmental guidelines - Cancellation of appointment was proper. (Para 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)