Lease Agreement and Eviction – Petitioner leased property from respondent with condition to vacate on one-month notice; petitioner failed to vacate after lease term, leading to eviction proceedings. [Para 1]

Defence of Petitioner – Claim of forcible eviction and inability to deposit rent due to external factors (Samaikhya Andhra Bandh). [Para 2]

Trial Proceedings – Rent Controller ordered petitioner to vacate, which was upheld by Appellate Authority; petitioner's failure to vacate led to the current revision petition. [Paras 3-4]

Petitioner's Livelihood and Accommodation – Argument that petitioner, a hairdresser, relies on property for livelihood and lacks alternative accommodation. [Para 5]

Court's Observation – Petitioner overstayed lease without extension; dismissal of O.S.No.68 of 2011 removed legal barriers to eviction. [Para 7]

Default in Rent Payment – Petitioner failed to prove non-wilful default in rent payment; burden of proof not discharged. [Para 8]

Decision – Civil Revision Petition dismissed, upholding orders of Rent Controller and Appellate Authority. No interference warranted in their decisions. [Para 9]

Order on Costs – No order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed. [Para 10]

Partition Suit – Entitlement to Partition and Separate Possession – Trial court's decision favoring the plaintiff for partition and separate possession of schedule properties affirmed. The plaintiff, a daughter in a Hindu joint family, sought partition of ancestral properties including item No.5, contested as self-acquired by defendants. [Paras 2, 13, 14, 24]

Ancestral Property Determination – Item No.5, claimed as self-acquired by the first defendant, proven to be ancestral property. Contradictory statements by the first defendant and lack of documentary evidence to support self-acquisition claim led to the conclusion that item No.5 is ancestral. [Paras 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22]

Family Debts – Liability for Debts – Defendants' claim of loans taken for joint family benefit and the plaintiff's liability to discharge her share of debts not established. Evidence from DW3 and DW4 found unreliable, with admissions undermining defendants' claims. [Paras 23, 24]

Decision – Appeal Suit dismissed. Trial court's decree and judgment, granting partition of all plaint schedule properties to the plaintiff, upheld. No order as to costs. [Para 25]

Service Law – Writ - Quashing of Penalty Order and Proceedings – Denial of Petitioner’s Requests – Petitioner Shashank Jain seeks quashing of penalty order for ‘Removal from service’, and orders rejecting his appeal and review petitions, along with reinstatement with benefits and treating suspension period as duty. He argues arbitrary decision-making, harsh punishment, and personal medical condition influencing the incident. [Paras 1, 7, 8]

Circumstances of Disciplinary Action – Gross Negligence – Petitioner, a CISF Sub-Inspector, was found guilty of leaving his post and service pistol unattended in a CCTV control room, leading to a fellow officer’s suicide with the petitioner’s pistol. Disciplinary action, departmental inquiry, and subsequent orders by higher authorities upheld this finding. [Paras 2-4, 5, 6]

Defense of Petitioner – Medical Condition and Unforeseeability – Petitioner claims medical ailment (Ankylosing Spondylitis) caused him to leave his post and behave negligently. He denies foreseeing the deceased’s act of suicide and contends his actions did not directly cause the death. [Paras 8, 9]

Respondents’ Argument – Appropriate Punishment – Respondents argue the punishment is proportionate to the negligence displayed, considering the petitioner’s role in a disciplined force and the consequent loss of life. [Para 11]

Court’s Observations – Unpardonable Negligence – Court finds the petitioner’s actions as gross negligence, especially considering his role in CISF and the sensitivity of his post. His medical condition and arguments do not absolve him of his duty to maintain discipline and vigilance. [Paras 13, 15, 16, 21]

Judicial Review and Final Decision – The Court, limited by its jurisdiction under Article 226, cannot re-appreciate evidence or act as an appellate authority. Finding no merit in petitioner’s arguments and considering the gravity of negligence, the petition is dismissed. [Paras 19, 20, 21, 22]

Matrimonial Law - Paternity Test Refusal Upheld - Appellant/husband's appeal against Family Court's refusal for a paternity test dismissed – Family Court's decision based on continuous cohabitation of the couple and the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Evidence Act upheld – The child's interest considered paramount, with the Court emphasizing that the child cannot be used as a pawn in marital disputes. [Paras 2, 6-8]

Background of Marriage and Dispute - The marriage took place in 2008 and the child was born in 2014 – Divorce petition filed in 2020 based on cruelty, with later amendments in 2022 to include the husband's claims of azoospermia and doubts about paternity. [Paras 3.1-3.5]

Medical Condition of Azoospermia - Court acknowledges the medical condition of azoospermia (absence of sperm in ejaculate) but notes that it does not conclusively rule out paternity due to possibilities like IVF or sperm retrieval. [Paras 5-5.1]

Cruelty and Adultery Allegations - The central issue of the divorce petition involves allegations of cruelty and adultery – The Court notes the possibility of addressing these claims through trial without necessitating a paternity test. [Paras 6-7]

Child's Legitimacy Presumed Under Law - Court reiterates the legal presumption of a child's legitimacy during an ongoing valid marriage, emphasizing the importance of a child’s right to identity and protection from marital conflicts. [Para 8]

Decision - Appeal dismissed with a focus on the child's welfare and rights, and the pending application declared inefficacious. [Para 9]

Criminal Appeal – Circumstantial Evidence and Last Seen Together Doctrine – Appeals against conviction under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC for murder, based on circumstantial evidence and the 'last seen together' doctrine – Appellants challenge the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli in Sessions Trial No. 45 of 2010. [Para 1, 5, 19-25]

Evidence – Reliability and Credibility of Witnesses – Discussion on the reliability of witnesses, particularly PW7, who claimed to have seen the deceased last with the appellants – Doubts raised regarding the credibility and circumstances of PW7's testimony. [Para 19-23]

Medical Evidence – Post-Mortem Report – Medical evidence indicating homicidal death due to asphyxia, strangulation, and head injuries, with the time of death established as 16 hours before post-mortem. [Para 15]

Discovery and Seizure of Evidence – Recovery of deceased's belongings and other articles at the instance of appellants – The credibility of discoveries under scrutiny, given the articles were recovered from places accessible to all and the inconclusive reports of the Chemical Analyzer. [Para 26]

Acquittal of Co-Accused – The State's and PW1's applications for leave to appeal against the acquittal of co-accused dismissed, as the prosecution failed to establish charges against them. [Para 31]

Decision – High Court allows the appeals, setting aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants – Appellants acquitted of the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC, citing insufficient evidence to conclusively establish their guilt and a failure to form a complete chain of circumstances pointing to their guilt. [Para 32]

Allegations of Sexual Exploitation Under False Promise of Marriage – Applicant accused of establishing physical relations with the victim on the promise of marriage - Victim later married another individual - FIR lodged following applicant's engagement with another woman - Applicant claimed relations were consensual and due to a love affair. [Para 3, 6]

Consent Obtained Under Misconception – Prosecution's argument that the victim's consent was obtained under a false promise of marriage, thereby constituting an offence under Section 375 IPC. [Para 7]

Analysis of Evidence – Court observed that the physical relationship between the applicant and the victim evolved from a consensual love affair and wasn't solely based on the promise of marriage - WhatsApp chats indicated the victim initially refused marriage. [Para 8, 12]

Distinction Between False Promise and Breach of Promise – Supreme Court precedents cited, distinguishing between false promise and non-fulfillment of promise - Lack of evidence that the applicant never intended to marry the victim. [Para 9, 10, 12]

Application of Ch. Bhajan Lal Guidelines – The case fell under guidelines for quashing proceedings where allegations don't constitute an offence and continuation of proceedings is an abuse of the law. [Para 14]

Decision – Impugned order of learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside - Applicant discharged from all charges under Sections 376(2)(n) and 417 IPC. [Para 16]

Domestic Violence - Petitioner's Allegations Against In-Laws and Marital Harassment – Petitioner Bhawna Grover married to Sh. Nishant Grover, facing harassment from in-laws and respondents who are sister and brother-in-law of petitioner's husband - Allegations of dowry demands, deceit regarding husband's educational qualifications, and continuous harassment - FIR No. 130/2012 registered for offenses under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC [Paras 2-4].

Proceedings and Discharge of Respondents No. 2 and 3 – Chargesheet filed against accused including Respondents No. 2 and 3 - Discharge of Respondents No. 2 and 3 by learned Mahila Court challenged in present petition - Petitioner seeks restoration of witnesses dropped by trial court and further examination of a witness [Paras 4-8].

Arguments on Maintainability and Delay – Respondents argue non-maintainability due to delay of over 900 days in filing the petition against the discharge order dated 17.08.2020 - Petitioner's failure to challenge previous orders noted [Paras 9-10].

Analysis of Trial Court's Orders – High Court finds no illegality in Mahila Court's order dated 17.08.2020 discharging Respondents No. 2 and 3 - Observations on the role of Sessions Court and Mahila Court in framing charges [Paras 11-18].

Dropping of Witnesses and Examination of PW-2 – High Court sets aside order dated 29.03.2023 dropping two prosecution witnesses (CAW Cell) - Directs re-examination of PW-2, Inspector Bharat Bhushan, who had conducted the initial investigation [Paras 19-27].

Conclusion and Directions – Petition disposed of with directions to re-call witnesses for examination - Emphasizes that observations should not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case [Paras 28-30].

Petition by CBI for Documents – Writ petition filed by CBI for obtaining certified copies of documents from court records for investigating a case of disproportionate assets – CBI's application initially dismissed by Special Judge [Paras 1-2, 5].

Importance of Authentic Documents – CBI emphasized the necessity of acquiring documents directly from court records for ensuring authenticity in legal proceedings – Ensures unimpeachable source of documentation, mitigating potential prejudice [Para 7].

CBI (Crime) Manual Provisions – Reference to Rule 14.16 (now Rule 9.9) of CBI (Crime) Manual – Importance of photographing/videographing scene of crime/trap/search proceedings in investigations [Para 8].

Investigation Mandate for Disproportionate Assets – CBI's investigation in disproportionate assets cases requires thorough examination of documents as per CBI manual [Paras 9, 10].

Court's Decision – High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the order of the Special Judge – Directed the Trial Court to supply documents mentioned in "ANNEXURE-E" and permitted CBI to prepare an investigation copy from the Court Compact Disc [Para 10].

Judicial Review – Mandamus – Reinstatement and Back Wages – Petitioner seeking mandamus for enforcement of earlier High Court order for reinstatement and back wages – Earlier judgment partly allowed reinstatement with modified punishment, not back wages – Petitioner's claim for back wages unsustainable due to limited scope of the petition. [Para 1, 6-7, 16-17]

Employment – Disciplinary Proceedings – Termination of Service – Petitioner's service terminated along with four others for negligence – Labour Court's negative award for petitioner – High Court's modification of punishment and reinstatement with reduced benefits – No entitlement to back wages or service benefits for period out of service. [Para 2-3, 10, 16]

Administrative Law – Implementation of Court Orders – Respondent Corporation's compliance with High Court's order – Reduction in punishment to lower scale and proportionate recovery – Petitioner deemed reinstated and retired, with no back wages or other service benefits during out-of-service period. [Para 6, 8, 16]

High Court – Powers and Limitations – Relief not claimed in pleadings cannot be granted – Petitioner's failure to challenge specific part of order precludes claim for back wages – Court's inability to grant relief beyond the scope of petition and pleadings. [Para 16, 17]

Dismissal – No further relief granted to petitioner due to limitations in the scope of the petition and finality of certain aspects of the order. [Para 17]