Electricity Supply - Charging of electricity consumption for lawyers' chambers in court premises - Applicability of rate schedule - Whether legal profession constitutes a commercial activity - Distinction between profession and trade/business - Discrimination in charging electricity rates for similar premises within the same State - Writ petition filed for clarification and uniformity in charging - Interpretation of rate schedules and relevant legal provisions - Precedents on the nature of the legal profession and its exclusion from commercial activities - Analysis of the Electricity Act, 2003, and U.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2005 - Consideration of specific rate schedules and their scope - Conclusive ruling that the legal profession is non-commercial and should be charged under domestic rate schedule - Direction to respondents for uniform application of rate schedule LMV-1 for electricity consumption in lawyers' chambers located within court premises in the State. Writ Allowed. (Para No.2,10,15, 22, 25, 28, 30, 37)

Constitution of India – Article 226 – Writ of Certiorarifiled Mandamus – Impugned order quashed – Appointing authorities rejected petitioner’s candidature for post of Grade II Police Constable on basis of alleged involvement in criminal case – Petitioner participated in protest organized by students against NEET examination – Criminal case filed under Sections 143, 188, 353, 295 and 297 of I.P.C – Crime quashed by High Court – Benefit extended to petitioner – Court held that petitioner’s right to protest for common cause is fundamental right – Relying on judgment in Sathish Chandra Yadav case, court noted employer’s right to consider antecedents despite truthful disclosure of concluded criminal case – Court observed that acquittal doesn’t automatically entitle candidate to appointment – Held: Impugned order quashed, petitioner entitled to appointment – Judgment relied upon by appointing authorities inapplicable – Fundamental right to protest does not imply criminal implication for job application – Order for appointment issued.

(Para 4, 5, 8, 9, 10)

Criminal Appeal – Murder and Kidnapping - Acquittal– Appeal against the conviction and sentence – Appellant convicted for offences under Sections 364 and 302 of the IPC – Issues raised regarding sufficiency of evidence, contradictory testimonies, and unreliable recovery – Consideration of medical reports, disclosure statement, and recovery memo – Extortionate messages exchanged from recovered mobile phone – Lack of evidence supporting a homicidal cause of death – Credibility of the recovery questioned – Appellant’s motive for extortion rather than murder – Messages’ dates not mentioned – Insufficient evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt – Appellant acquitted of charges. [Para 1]

Medical Evidence – Post-mortem and pathological reports – Absence of evidence suggesting homicide – Mild congestion in the lungs indicating a natural cause of death – No signs of strangulation or fatal assault – Lack of conclusive cause of death – Death likely due to lung infection – Natural cause of demise, not homicidal. [Para 16]

Disclosure Statement and Recovery – Contents of the appellant’s disclosure statement and recovery memo – Purported extortionate messages – Lack of mention of dates in messages – Unclear circumstances of mobile phone recovery – Mobile phone registered under another name – Absence of evidence linking the deceased to the mobile phone – Questions raised about the authenticity of the recovery – Lack of conclusive evidence – Doubts about the genuineness of recovery and messages. [Para 27]

Insufficient evidence to establish appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt – Lack of credible evidence suggesting a homicidal cause of death – Doubts raised about authenticity of recovery and messages – Appeal allowed, appellant acquitted of charges. [Para 28]

Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Eviction of children from property – Authority of the Tribunal – Summary procedure – Competing claims – Right to maintenance and protection – The Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 may have the authority to order eviction as an incident of the enforcement of the right to maintenance and protection, but this remedy can only be granted after considering the competing claims in the dispute. (Para 22)

PWDV Act, 2005 – Application alongside Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Special legislation – Gender discrimination – Shared household – Equitable ease in obtaining rights in law – In deference to the dominant purpose of both the legislations (Senior Citizens Act and PWDV Act), it would be appropriate for a Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 to grant remedies of maintenance that do not result in obviating competing remedies under other special statutes, such as the PWDV Act, 2005. Section 3 of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 cannot be deployed to override and nullify other protections in law, particularly that of a woman’s right to a ‘shared household’ under section 17 of the PWDV Act, 2005. (Para 22)

Summary procedure under the Act – Protection of senior citizens – Avoiding harassment – Purpose and objects of the Senior Citizens Act – The Act is enacted for the benefit and protection of senior citizens from their children or grandchildren. The summary procedure should not be used to defeat legitimate claims of the parties and should protect the interests and welfare of senior citizens. (Para 24)

Quashing of ex parte order – Remand for fresh adjudication – Due process – Failure to consider vital aspects – The court quashed an ex parte order and remanded the matter back to the lower court for fresh adjudication, directing the parties to file their objections and written statements. The lower court was given a timeline to hear the parties and pass an order afresh. Failure to adhere to the timeline could lead to an ex parte proceeding. (Para 25)

Dissolution of marriage on ground of cruelty - 13(1)(ia) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Appellant-wife alleged cruelty by respondent-husband, including demands for dowry, physical and verbal abuse, neglect during pregnancy, and insistence to leave female child with appellant's parents - Respondent denied allegations and filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights - Family court dismissed appellant's petition without considering merits - High Court found appellant's assertions of cruelty uncontroverted and proved - High Court allowed appeal, set aside family court's judgment, and granted decree of divorce.

Brief Facts: Petitioners were charged under the NDPS Act for involvement in drug trafficking and were seeking bail (Para 1-3). Allegedly caught with significant quantities of drugs based on secret information, they have been in custody since 04.05.2020, and their trial has made slow progress (Para 3).

Issues: Whether the petitioners can be granted bail based on the circumstances of their case (Para 2, 4).

Held: The Court granted bail to the petitioners (Para 9), citing precedents where bail was granted due to extended pre-trial detention and slow trial progress (Para 6,7). The Court took into account that the accused are first-time offenders, and only a fraction of the prosecution witnesses have been examined thus far (Para 8).

Observation of the Court: The petitioners are entitled to the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution (Para 8). The Court allowed bail without commenting on the merits of the case, imposing conditions such as monthly police station visits, a declaration of non-involvement in other crimes, and the deposit of a fixed amount with the trial court (Para 9-11).

Service Law - Jurisdiction - Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) - Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 - Writ Petition NO.9407 of 2023 - The petitioner challenges the dismissal of his Original Application (O.A.) by the CAT on grounds of lack of jurisdiction (Para 2).

Deputation - Effect on Employment - The petitioner's appointment as a Registrar with the Armed Forces Tribunal was on deputation for a specific period - Court emphasizes the continuity of the petitioner's employment with the armed forces despite deputation (Para 18).

Previous Decisions - Distinguishing Precedents - Reference to Supreme Court's ruling in Lieutenant Colonel Vijaynath Jha case and Tribunal's decision in Lt. Co. R.K. Purohit case - Explanation of why these precedents did not aid the petitioner's position on jurisdiction (Para 16).

Conclusion - Merit of the Petition - Summary rejection of the writ petition on the basis of the Court's finding that the CAT's decision on jurisdiction was correct (Para 19).

Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction - Framing of Additional Charge - Accused charged under Sections 302, 498-A, 120-B of IPC - Prosecution alleges abetment of suicide - Additional charge framed under Section 306 IPC - Challenge to the framing of the additional charge. (Para No. 1, 4, 5, and 8)

Jurisdiction of Trial Court - Power to alter or add charges - Section 216 of Cr.P.C. - Additional charge framed at any stage before judgment is pronounced - Examination of evidence to ascertain if charge is supported by facts on record. (Para No. 19, 20, and 22)

Conviction for an offense not explicitly charged - Sections 222 and 464 of Cr.P.C. - Accused charged with different offenses including Sections 302 and 498-A of IPC - Conviction for an offense not specifically charged permissible if evidence supports it - Failure of justice to be considered before conviction not expressly charged. (Para No. 20, 22, and 23)

Evidence Supporting Charge - Abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC - Evidence indicating victim's ill-treatment and suspicious death - Accused's defense of victim's suicide - Framing of additional charge under Section 306 justified. (Para No. 19, 20, and 24)

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 9 – Injunction – Mandatory Injunction – Withholding of documents and exercise of lien – Consignor’s liability for payment of charges to port authorities – Locus standi of the plaintiff consignor – Demurrage charges – Absence of a general lien under Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Inter-se rights and liabilities of parties in contract – Prima facie liability of defendant no.3 – Grant of mandatory injunction. (Para 78)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 39 – Mandatory Injunction – Withholding of documents and exercise of lien – Release of consignment – Demurrage charges – Prima facie liability of defendant no.3 – Grant of mandatory injunction in favor of plaintiff – Restraining defendant no.3 from obstructing release of consignment at port of discharge. (Para 95)

Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Section 171 – Lien – Withholding of documents and exercise of lien – Absence of general lien – Specific categories with statutory right of lien – Lien can be exercised only with express contract. (Para 86)

Liability of Consignor – Bills of Lading – Responsibility for payment of charges to port authorities – Endorsed bill of lading in favor of consignee – Consignor not absolved of liability – Privity of contract between consignor and consignee. (Para 83)

Inter-se Rights and Liabilities – Privity of contract – Liabilities between parties in contract – non-transferability of appellant’s claim to other parties. (Para 91)

Release of Goods – Exercising lien in respect of charges referable to goods – Withholding of documents – Impermissibility under law – Mandatory injunction to release consignment - defendant no.3’s actions of withholding the requisite documents/bills of lading and exercising “lien” were impermissible under the law, and it warranted a mandatory injunction to protect the plaintiff’s interests. (Para 94).

Demurrage Charges – Liability – Prima facie liability on defendant no.3 for demurrage incurred – Plaintiff directed to bear demurrage charges in interest of early release of goods.- Suit Allowed .(Para 97)