NDPS – Acquittal - Arrest and Recovery of Morphine - Appellant Aasha Ram arrested with another individual, Jagram Kewat, by patrolling police party; around 150 grams of morphine allegedly recovered - Police testimonies from Constable Gopal Prasad Rana (PW-1), Makar Dhwaj (PW-2), and S.I. Dhaniram Verma (PW-3) form basis of prosecution case. [Paras 4, 15]

Procedural Compliance under N.D.P.S. Act - Appellant's counsel challenged the trial court's conviction, asserting non-compliance with Sections 50, 55, and 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act - Argued that no Gazetted Officer or Magistrate was involved during the search, and no public witness was present at the time of recovery in a public place - Relied on Supreme Court judgments in Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat and State of Rajasthan v. Parmanand for the argument. [Paras 12, 16-18]

Trial Court Conviction and Sentence - Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 8/21 of N.D.P.S. Act for two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine - Appellant pleaded not guilty and appealed the conviction. [Paras 6, 10]

High Court Judgment - High Court found the prosecution's failure to comply with Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act significant - Held the testimony of the police witnesses unreliable and observed serious lacunae in prosecution's case, including the absence of other eyewitnesses from the police party - High Court set aside the trial court's judgment and order, acquitting Aasha Ram. [Paras 20-24]

Criminal Appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. – Challenge against conviction for assault (Section 323/34 I.P.C.) based on an incident from 2000 involving a property dispute and physical assault [Paras 1-3, 11-12].

Investigation and Trial Proceedings – FIR lodged under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)X of S.C./S.T. Act – Charge sheet filed post-investigation – Trial court's conviction for one-year imprisonment [Paras 4-7, 11].

Defense's Argument for Probation – Appellant's plea for probation based on the delay of trial, absence of criminal antecedents, and the incident occurring 24 years ago – Reference to Uttar Pradesh First Offenders Probation Act, 1938, and Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 [Paras 13-14, 29].

Legal Framework on Probation – Discussion of Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and relevant Supreme Court rulings emphasizing reformative justice and the application of probation in appropriate cases [Paras 17-24, 26-28].

Court's Decision – Conviction maintained, but sentence modified to probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 – Appellants required to submit surety and personal bonds, with an undertaking for maintaining peace and good behavior for one year [Paras 30-32].

Taxation Law - Customs Law – Import Regulations – Obscenity –  issue of whether the import of body massagers, perceived as adult sex toys, contravened the Customs Act, 1962, and the Indian Penal Code. The Court evaluated the interpretation of the term 'obscene' and its applicability to the imported goods under Customs Notification No. 1/1964-Customs. [Para 2, 4-6, 11-13]

Interpretation of 'Obscene' under Customs Law – held – emphasized that the categorization of imported goods as obscene should not be based on subjective perceptions or potential alternative uses. The Court clarified that goods cannot be deemed obscene merely based on imaginative or potential misuse, underscoring the need for objective legal standards. [Para 12-13]

Application of Customs Notification and IPC – analyzed – the Court examined whether the goods in question fell under the prohibited category of 'obscene articles' as per Customs Notification No. 1/1964-Customs read with Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code. It was held that the interpretation by the Commissioner of Customs was based on personal views and not on legal standards. [Para 10, 13]

Decision – Import of Body Massagers – The High Court overturned the decision of the Commissioner of Customs and allowed the import of 'Caresmith Wave Body Massagers', ruling that they do not qualify as 'obscene articles' under the relevant customs and penal provisions. The Court emphasized that the legal framework should not be guided by subjective interpretations but by objective criteria. [Para 14, 16-17]

Decision – Directions to Customs Authorities – The Court directed the customs authorities to adhere strictly to legal definitions and objective standards while determining the obscenity of imported goods, avoiding subjective or imaginative assessments. [Para 14, 17]

Labor Law – Appropriate Government Determination – Autonomous Bodies – whether Tata Memorial Centre (TMC), an autonomous body, falls under the purview of the Central or State Government for the purposes of the Industrial Disputes Act, post-amendment of 2010. The Court scrutinized the administrative and financial control exerted by the Central Government over TMC. [Paras 2-3, 19-20, 26-32]

History of Tata Memorial Centre – Considered – The Court reviewed the establishment history of TMC, its funding, and administrative control transition from Sir Dorabjee Tata Trust to the Central Government. This historical context was vital in determining the 'appropriate government' under the amended definition. [Para 4-7]

Interpretation of 'Appropriate Government' Post-Amendment – Held – The Court interpreted the term 'appropriate government' in the light of the amended Section 2(a)(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act, distinguishing between 'under the control of' and 'controlled by'. It emphasized that an autonomous body controlled to some extent by the Central Government still falls under its purview. [Para 23-25, 31]

Evidence of Control by Central Government – Evaluated – The Court considered various pieces of evidence, including administrative and financial control, composition of the Governing Council, and compliance with Central Government directives, to conclude that TMC is an autonomous body controlled by the Central Government. [Para 27-30]

Decision – Central Government as Appropriate Authority for TMC – The Court overturned the decision of the Industrial Court, declaring that the Central Government is the appropriate authority for TMC. It held that complaints filed under the presumption of State Government control are not maintainable, directing the Tata Memorial Hospital Workers Union to initiate proceedings before the appropriate forum. [Para 32-34]

Service Law – Promotion and Service Matters – The petitioner sought promotion to the post of Chief Law Officer/Inspector General in BSF. The High Court examined the criteria for promotion, recruitment rules, petitioner’s medical category, and procedural delays in framing recruitment rules. [Para 2-4, 30-32]

Promotion Eligibility – held – eligibility for promotion is governed by recruitment rules and medical fitness standards. The Court observed that administrative procedures, including the framing of recruitment rules and assessing fitness, must be adhered to in service promotions. [Para 35, 43]

Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation – not applicable – The Court held that the doctrine of legitimate expectation does not entitle the petitioner to promotion, especially in the absence of a consistent past practice or specific assurance from the authorities. [Para 37]

Delayed Framing of Recruitment Rules – impact on promotion – The Court observed that delayed framing of recruitment rules, although administratively lax, does not entitle the petitioner to retrospective promotion, particularly when seniority is contested and the petitioner retired before the rules were framed. [Para 40-41, 46]

Decision – Petition Dismissed – The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner's claim for promotion to the post of CLO/IG for the year 2013-2014 was without merit due to non-fulfillment of eligibility criteria and procedural requirements. [Para 47]

Taxation Law – Income Tax Act – Section 148 Reassessment – The High Court of Delhi adjudicated the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated against Seema Gupta under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court examined the discrepancies between the reasons provided to the petitioner and those recorded by the respondent, as well as the overall legality and justification of the reassessment. [Para 1-15]

Validity of Section 148 Notice – upheld – The Court found that the minor discrepancies in language between the reasons communicated to the petitioner and those on record did not justify interfering with the notice issued under Section 148. It emphasized that the underlying material forming the basis of reassessment was consistently reflected in both communications. [Para 10-11]

Applicability of Precedents – distinguished – The Court distinguished the present case from the precedents cited by the petitioner, noting that in those instances, there were significant discrepancies in reasons or failure to disclose crucial allegations, unlike in the present matter. [Para 12-14]

Decision – Dismissal of Writ Petition – The Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the reassessment notices issued under Sections 148, 143(2), and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act. It left open the petitioner's rights to raise all contentions on merits during the assessment proceedings. [Para 15]

Eviction Suit – Rent Arrears and Mesne Profits – Order XV-A CPC Application - Court dismissed the petitioner's appeal against the Trial Court's rejection of an application under Order XV-A CPC for deposit of arrears of rent and user charges by the respondent. The court examined the relationship between landlord and tenant and the applicability of Order XV-A in cases where the tenant denies such relationship. [Paras 1-10, 23-24]

Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Denial by Respondent - The respondent denied any landlord-tenant relationship with the petitioner, making the application of Order XV-A CPC complex. The Court emphasized that mere denial does not exempt a tenant from depositing rent or mesne profits for the use and occupation of the property during litigation. However, in absence of any substantial evidence from the petitioner proving a landlord-tenant relationship, the respondent's denial held weight. [Paras 14-15, 22-23]

Order XV-A CPC – Applicability and Interpretation - Analyzed the scope and application of Order XV-A CPC, noting its purpose is to protect landlords from hardship due to long eviction suit durations by ensuring continued payment of rent or mesne profits. The court clarified that the provision applies even when there's a denial of an admitted landlord-tenant relationship, subject to credible evidence. [Paras 16-21]

Decision - Petition Dismissed – The Court upheld the Trial Court's decision, dismissing the petition due to the lack of evidence supporting the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship and the consequent applicability of Order XV-A CPC. [Para 24]

Service Law - Pension Eligibility – Computation of Service Period – Interpretation of Regulation No.18 of UCO Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 – Service of respondent (Chaman Singh) treated as 10 years by rounding up the 9 years 10 months & 5 days of service – Held eligible for pension under Regulation No.14 – Judgment of the learned Single Judge affirmed. [Para 1, 3, 3(i), 3(iv)]

Interpretation of Regulation No.14 and No.18 – Regulation No.18 allows rounding off service of more than six months as one complete year for pension eligibility – Proviso to Regulation No.18 cannot override this substantive provision – Applicable in the case of respondent to qualify him for pension. [Para 3(i), 3(ii), 3(iv), 3(v)]

Precedents from Apex Court and Rule 49(3) of CCS (Pension) Rules – Reference to Indian Bank Vs. N. Venkatramani and interpretation of similar provisions in CCS (Pension) Rules – Fraction of a year equal to three months and above treated as a completed half-year for qualifying service. [Para 3(ii), 3(iii)]

Appeal Dismissed – The appeal of UCO Bank challenging the eligibility of the respondent for pension is dismissed – Substantive provisions of the pension regulations affirm the respondent's qualification for pension. [Para 4]

Application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing order taking cognizance of offences under Sections 420, 409, 467, 120-B IPC - Background involves dispute in Society's management and allegations of embezzlement and forgery [Para 3].

Allegations of misappropriation of Society's funds amounting to Rs. 2,23,49,679/- and misuse of authority in managing Society's bank accounts and assets [Paras 4, 8].

Contentions raised regarding the locus of the complainant, as his resignation from Society was accepted - Court's analysis on who can set criminal law in motion [Paras 9, 13, 14, 18, 19].

Rejection of application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. doesn't prevent Magistrate from proceeding with complaint under Sections 200, 202 of Cr.P.C. [Para 17].

Civil dispute bearing criminal elements - Supreme Court's view on concurrent civil and criminal proceedings [Para 19].

Court's conclusion that allegations warrant criminal proceedings, dismissal of application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. [Paras 21, 22].