Promotion Policy and LDCE Notification Challenge - Petitioner challenges circular dated 13.11.2023 on eligibility criteria for LDCE in DGM (E-4) Grade in Finance Cadre of IRCTC - Questions the arbitrariness of setting the cut-off date as 13.11.2023 instead of 01.07.2022 per IRCTC promotion policy - Argues for retrospective effect on promotion from 01.07.2022. [Paras 1-4, 14-15, 18-20]

Arguments for Retrospective Promotion - Citing delay in promotion notification and examination process - Petitioner contends eligibility for promotion should be from 01.07.2022, making him eligible for LDCE under the impugned circular. [Paras 4, 8-11, 14, 18-20]

Respondent's Counter and Supreme Court Precedents - Respondent counters citing specific rules on promotion, vacancy notification, and examination process - Relies on Supreme Court judgments emphasizing promotion from date of actual grant, not vacancy occurrence. [Paras 5-8, 14-17, 22-25]

Analysis and Findings - Court finds no merit in petitioner’s arguments - Holds that promotions are not to be granted retrospectively unless specifically allowed by rules - Dismisses petition, confirming that petitioner's promotion date does not entitle him to appear for LDCE under the impugned circular. [Paras 12-27]

Decision - Petition dismissed, no order as to costs - Pending application also disposed of. [Para 27]

Mutual Funds as Investment, Not Business – The Tribunal and CIT(A) held that transactions in mutual funds were investments, not stock-in-trade, based on factors like quantum, frequency, holding period, purpose, and disclosure in financial records. Gain on mutual fund redemption deemed as capital gain, not business income. [Paras 11-15]

Capital Contribution and Deemed Dividend – Capital contributions by KPFSE and KICIPL to respondent not deemed as loans or advances, thus not falling under Section 2(22)(e) for deemed dividend taxation. Tribunal upheld this view, citing the nature of the transaction and shareholding details of KPFSE and KICIPL. [Paras 16-21]

Non-Applicability of Section 150(1) Directions – Tribunal correctly decided that CIT(A)'s observations couldn't be treated as a direction under Section 150(1) of the Act for adding deemed dividend to Mr. Pradeep Wig and Mrs. Neera Wig’s income. [Paras 22]

Decision – Tribunal's decision upheld, no substantial question of law for consideration by High Court. Appeal disposed of without interference in Tribunal's order. [Paras 23-25]

NDPS  - Bail - Arrest and Charges – Petitioner arrested under Sections 21, 22, 29 of the NDPS Act for allegedly directing the procurement of drugs and possession of drug money – No criminal antecedents apart from an unrelated pending case under Section 379 IPC. [Para 1-2, 8]

Bail Plea and State's Opposition – Petitioner seeks bail, citing no objection to stringent conditions and arguing against the validity of the evidence, particularly the recovery of alleged drug money – State opposes bail, emphasizing the commercial quantity of contraband and petitioner’s supposed role in the drug trafficking. [Paras 3-8]

Court's Analysis and Reasoning – The Court notes the lack of direct evidence linking the petitioner to the drug sale proceeds and the absence of substantial proof of guilt – Considers parity with co-accused granted bail and deems petitioner's involvement based mainly on co-accused's disclosure. [Paras 9-10]

Application of Section 37 NDPS Act – Detailed discussion on the twin conditions under Section 37 for bail in cases involving commercial quantities of contraband – Court finds the petitioner satisfying these conditions. [Paras 12-13, 20, 21]

Bail Conditions – Detailed and stringent conditions imposed for bail, including financial bonds, personal identification details, restrictions on influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, limiting possession of prepaid SIMs, and surrendering firearms. [Paras 14-19, 23]

Decision – Petition allowed; the petitioner is granted bail under stringent conditions. [End of Document]

Additional Accused - Summoning Under Section 319 Cr.P.C. - Revision petition against order dated 13.11.2019 for summoning petitioner as additional accused in an FIR dated 28.04.2017 under Sections 308/34 IPC - Petitioner, Davinder Singh @ Kala, challenged his inclusion in the case, arguing improvements in the injured's statements and highlighting inconsistency with medical evidence showing only one injury attributed to another accused - The Court considered whether there were reasonable prospects of the petitioner's conviction [Paras 1, 8, 14].

Inconsistency in Witness Statements - Petitioner's argument based on variations in the injured's statements from FIR, under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and in court deposition - Originally accused of inflicting injuries while the victim was on the ground, later statements added that the petitioner caught the victim's wrist and inflicted blows - Improvements in statements noted by the Court [Paras 2, 3, 5, 6, 14].

Medical Evidence Analysis - Medical evidence (MLR) indicated only one lacerated wound on the victim, specifically attributed to co-accused Ravinder Singh @ Gogi - The Court found this incongruous with the allegations against the petitioner, suggesting possible false implication [Para 14].

Judicial Precedents on Section 319 Cr.P.C. - Reference to Supreme Court judgments including "Michael Machado vs. CBI" and "Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab" for principles governing the exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. - Emphasis on the need for reasonable satisfaction and higher degree of satisfaction for summoning additional accused compared to the original accused [Paras 11, 12, 13].

Decision - High Court quashed the impugned order dated 13.11.2019 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda - The Court found substantial merit in the petitioner's argument about inconsistencies and improvements in witness statements and lack of corroborative medical evidence - The petition was allowed, and the order summoning the petitioner was set aside [Paras 14, 15].

Background and Trial Court's Order – Marriage and Maintenance Claim – Revision application filed against order dated 20.05.2022 for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., where petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 5000/- per month to Nayana Kumari, claimed to be his wife – Trial court found them to be husband and wife for maintenance claim purposes, despite lack of strict legal recognition under the Hindu Marriage Act. [Para 1, 4]

Petitioner's Argument – Non-Legal Marriage and Maintenance Denial – Petitioner argues that Nayana Kumari was not his legally married wife, citing lack of marriage evidence and a temple certificate denying the marriage – Emphasized that valid marriage is essential for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Also contested the quantum of maintenance, citing lack of proof of his income. [Paras 5, 7, 8]

Respondent's Defence – Presumption of Marriage – Respondent (Nayana Kumari) defended the order, arguing that strict proof of marriage is not necessary under Section 125 Cr.P.C. if evidence shows cohabitation as husband and wife – Cited precedent in Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse (2014) and Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit (1999) supporting presumption of marriage in such cases. [Paras 9, 10]

Evidence and Witnesses' Testimonies – Conflicting Claims – Four witnesses from both sides testified – Evidence included testimonies supporting and denying the marriage, and conflicting claims about the petitioner's previous marriages – Photographs of the couple and testimonies indicating cohabitation were noted. [Paras 12, 13, 14]

Court's Analysis and Conclusion – Presumption of Marriage Upheld – The court held that in the absence of consistent evidence to rebut the presumption of marriage, and due to contradictory evidence regarding the petitioner's previous marriages, the presumption of marriage was not rebutted – The court rejected the petitioner's plea that Nayana Kumari was not his wife. [Para 15]

Quantum of Maintenance – Revised Assessment – On re-assessing the petitioner's income and considering his handicapped status and vague details about his earnings, the court estimated his income to be Rs 10,000-12,000 per month – Maintenance reduced to Rs. 3000/- per month. [Para 16]

Decision – Revision Petition Rejected with Modified Maintenance – Revision petition rejected, but maintenance amount ordered by the trial court modified to Rs. 3000/- per month. [Para 16]

Import of Guns for Entertainment Purposes - Petitioner's claim that imported guns, which do not release a projectile, should not be classified as "firearms" under Section 2(e) of the Arms Act, 1959, thus negating the need for a license [Paras 1-2].

Exemption Under Arms Rules, 2016 - Reference to exemption notification dated 18.07.2016 for “firearm replicas”, with the argument that the petitioner’s imported guns are akin to firearm replicas as they only fire blank cartridges emitting sound [Paras 3-4].

Representation to Ministry of Home Affairs - Court's suggestion for the petitioner to make a representation to respondent no.2, the Union of India through the Ministry of Home Affairs, for examination of the forensic report and related materials [Para 5].

Direction for Comprehensive Representation - Court instructs the petitioner to submit a detailed representation to respondent no.2, to be considered and responded to with a speaking order within eight weeks [Paras 6-7.1].

Disposal of Writ Petition - The writ petition is disposed of with directions for action based on the digitally signed copy of the order [Para 8].

Custody and Guardianship of Minor Child – Varunavi, a minor whose parents died in a road accident, became the subject of a guardianship dispute between the paternal grandfather (Appellant) and the maternal grandmother (Respondent) – Both filed petitions under the Guardians and Wards Act for appointment as guardian of the child's person and property. [Para 2]

Trial Court Decision – Custody of the child was granted to the maternal grandmother with the trial court allowing G.W.O.P. No. 8 of 2012 filed by the maternal grandfather and dismissing G.W.O.P. No. 9 of 2012 filed by the paternal grandmother. [Para 3]

High Court Ruling – Following an interim order and mutual agreement by both parties, the Court confirmed the interim order as final – The maternal grandparents are appointed guardians of Varunavi for both person and property, with specific conditions regarding custody and care arrangements – The paternal grandfather to hand over the child to the maternal grandparents every weekend and comply with certain conditions regarding the child's care. [Paras 4, 5]

Directions Issued – Conditions set for the care and custody of the minor child, including provisions for food and contingencies if the appellant cannot care for the child. [Para 4]

Appeals Disposed – Both Civil Miscellaneous Appeals disposed of with the above directions, and the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. [Para 5]

Writ - Seizure of Driving Licenses and Legal Arguments – Petitioners, drivers in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, had their licenses seized following accidents and subsequent registration of criminal cases under Section 304 (A) IPC – Petitioners argued that they were not convicted and no offence under the Motor Vehicles Act was committed – Respondent Police argued that licenses could be suspended for cognizable offences under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 21 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules – Petitioners approached the court without responding to show cause notices, leading to the contention that the writ petitions should be dismissed. [Paras 2-3]

Judicial Precedents and Legal Provisions – Examination of precedents and legal provisions regarding the authority’s power to revoke or suspend driving licenses – Discussion of the limitation of police power under Section 206 of the Motor Vehicles Act for specific offences – The court noted that the seizure of the license is not mandatory for action under Section 19 of the Act and that the police do not have the power to seize the license based solely on the registration of an FIR for offences other than those specified in Section 206. [Paras 6-8]

Decision and Directions – The court held that the respondent police cannot seize driving licenses and that it is not for the Regional Transport Authority to pre-judge the guilt of the petitioners before the filing of the final report in the criminal cases – Directed the respondent RTOs to return the driving licenses of the petitioners within one week and allowed the respondent Police to forward relevant materials to the RTOs post-filing of final reports for appropriate action under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act. [Para 9]

Decision: Petitions allowed – Respondent RTOs directed to return the driving licenses to the petitioners – Respondent Police can forward materials to RTOs for potential action under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act after filing final reports. No costs.

Criminal Law - Transfer of Criminal Case due to Health Condition – Dr. A. Paramasivan, accused in a disproportionate assets case under Sections 109 IPC and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, seeks transfer of his case citing a serious health condition (Adenocarcinoma) and inadequate opportunity to cross-examine witnesses due to rapid trial progression. [Paras 2, 3, 4, 7, 12, 14]

Previous Conviction and Ongoing Trial – Petitioner already convicted in another case (C.C.No.9 of 2015), currently facing trial in the present case with 22 witnesses examined between 6.4.2022 and 25.8.2023. Petitioner undergoing extensive medical treatment including surgery and chemotherapy. [Paras 3(iii), 3(v)]

Trial Court's Decision on Postponement Request – Trial court dismissed petitioner's request for case postponement (Crl.M.P.No.7718 of 2023), considering it a delaying tactic, despite petitioner's serious health condition. [Paras 3(vi), 8]

Legal Provisions for Postponement or Adjournment – Section 309 of Cr.P.C. discusses the postponement of proceedings, allowing it for reasons beyond the control of a party, balancing the need for speedy trial and fairness. [Para 10, 11, 13]

High Court's Decision – Considering the balance of convenience and fairness, the High Court ordered the transfer of C.C.No.6 of 2019 from VIII Additional District Sessions Judge, Court of Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai to XIV Additional Judge (Special Court for CBI Cases), Chennai. [Paras 14, 15]