Common Issue and Petitioners' Background – Consolidation of three petitions with similar issues – Petitioners, former apprentices under the 1961 Act with National Fertilizers Limited, sought regular employment based on their training completion from 1999 to 2001 and a 2018 job advertisement – Petitioners lacked the required B.Sc. or Engineering diploma qualifications for the advertised posts [Para 1-3].

Petitioners' Argument – Cited Supreme Court's judgment, emphasizing the duty of employers to prefer trained apprentices over direct recruits – Alleged intentional exclusion by the respondent in setting qualifications for advertised posts – Petitioners expressed willingness to work in any capacity, including as laborers [Para 4].

Respondents' Counterargument – Pointed to Section 22 of the 1961 Act, highlighting no obligation to employ apprentices post-training – Respondents had relaxed age criteria but maintained educational qualifications due to a policy decision favoring B.Sc./Diploma holders for specific roles [Para 5].

Court's Analysis – Noted a 17-year gap between apprenticeship completion and job advertisement – Acknowledged respondents' policy changes and shifting technological demands – Recognized respondents' decision to prioritize specific qualifications and reduce manual labor roles [Para 6-8].

Applicability of Section 22, 1961 Act – Clarified that employment of apprentices post-training is not mandatory under the Act – No condition in the contract between parties obligated the employer to offer employment post-apprenticeship [Para 9-10].

Petitioners' Delay and Acquiescence – Lack of employment claim from 2001 to 2018 indicated petitioners' acquiescence to their release post-apprenticeship – The Court cannot mandate employers to alter qualification criteria, as it falls within the employer's discretion [Para 11].

Court's Interpretation of Supreme Court Judgment – The Apex Court's judgment does not entail mandatory employment for apprentices in every case – Employers are not required to tailor eligibility criteria to suit apprentices – Section 22 of the 1961 Act is explicit in not obliging employers to provide employment post-apprenticeship [Para 11-12].

Decision:

The petitions were dismissed due to lack of merit, with any pending applications also disposed of – However, the dismissal does not prevent the respondent-organization from considering the petitioners for employment in the future if they meet the required criteria [Paras 12-14].

Petition Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Quashing of criminal complaint No. 489 dated 25.01.2012 filed against the petitioner involving various charges under IPC, along with the summoning order dated 20.07.2012 and revision order dated 29.10.2015 – Complaint pertains to the alleged forced eviction and theft from a shop in PGIMS, Rohtak. [Para 1]

Allegations and Response – Complainant alleged forced eviction and theft of goods worth Rs.80/90 lacs by the petitioner and others – Petitioner, as Estate Officer, acted under orders of competent authority – Compliance with lawful procedures for eviction emphasized. [Para 2, 4]

Comparison with Co-accused – Petitioner's case paralleled with co-accused whose complaints were previously quashed by the Court in separate petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C., highlighting similar grounds and circumstances. [Para 3]

Need for Sanction Under Section 197 Cr.P.C. – Emphasis on requirement of sanction before prosecuting a public servant – Petitioner's actions considered within official capacity and in good faith – Reference to prior judgments underscoring the necessity of sanction for legal proceedings against public servants. [Para 4, 5]

Quashing of Proceedings – Court finds complaint, summoning order, and revision order against the petitioner to be quashed, aligning with decisions in similar cases involving co-accused – Recognition of petitioner’s compliance with official duties and absence of malice in actions. [Para 6]

Criminal Law - Arrest and Detention - Illegality and Non-Compliance with Statutory Provisions - The High Court of Bombay examined the legality of the arrest and detention of the petitioners, Chanda Deepak Kochhar and Deepak Virendra Kochhar, under the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), in light of the statutory requirements of Sections 41, 41-A, and 60-A, and constitutional protections. The Court scrutinized the arrest memos and the procedure followed by the investigating agency, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), in arresting the petitioners. [Para 8-8.26]

Application of Section 41 and Section 41-A Cr.P.C. - Held - The Court observed a significant departure from the compliance of Sections 41, 41-A, and 60-A of Cr.P.C. in the arrest of the petitioners. The arrest reasons, as stated in the arrest memos, did not satisfy the necessary conditions under these sections, leading to a conclusion that the arrests were not in accordance with the law. [Para 8.11-8.14, 8.18-8.22]

Right to Personal Liberty and Protection from Arbitrary Arrest - Reinforced - The High Court emphasized the importance of personal liberty and the need to protect individuals from arbitrary arrest. It was held that the mere ability to arrest does not justify the act of arrest without proper legal basis and adherence to procedural safeguards. [Para 8.23]

Decision - Grant of Bail - In view of the non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Cr.P.C. and the directions of the Supreme Court, the Court held that the petitioners' arrests were illegal. Consequently, the Court ordered the release of the petitioners on interim bail, setting specific conditions for their release. [Para 9]

Bail Application – Allegation of Assault – Petitioner accused of participating in an assault with other co-accused, giving lalkara and kick blows – FIR No.70 under Sections 307, 323, 324, 506, 148, 149 IPC – Co-accused granted bail in related cases. [Paras 1-3]

Legal Principles for Bail – Citing "State of Rajasthan V. Balchand alias Baliay", 1977 AIR 2447, and "Nikesh Tarachand Shah V. Union of India", (2018) 11 SCC 1 – Emphasis on bail as a rule and jail as an exception, presumption of innocence, and the right to speedy trial. [Paras 5-7]

Petitioner's Incarceration – Faced incarceration for 10 months and 3 days – Co-accused who inflicted more serious injuries already granted bail. [Paras 4, 10]

Final Order – Petitioner granted bail based on the principle of parity and the nature of the allegations – Directed to furnish bail and surety bond to the satisfaction of the concerned court. [Para 11]

Conditions and Future Conduct – Warning against involvement in similar offences in the future – State's liberty to seek cancellation of bail in case of repeat offences. [Para 12]

Challenge Against SSRB Decision - Rejection of Application for Premature Release - Petitioner, wife of a life convict, contests the SSRB's decision, questioning its constitution and the grounds of rejection not aligning with higher courts' views. [Para 1]

Supreme Court Precedent - Emphasis on Reformative Punishment - Reference to the case of Rajo alias Rajendra Mandal vs. The State of Bihar, highlighting the Supreme Court's view on reformative goals of imprisonment. [Para 2]

Factors for Premature Release - Considerations Beyond Crime Nature - The court highlights necessary factors like the convict's potential for future crimes, socio-economic conditions, familial relationships, reintegration possibility, remission earned, educational qualifications acquired in custody, and overall human development. [Para 3]

SSRB Decision-Making Process - Non-reliance on Judge or Police Reports - The SSRB should not solely depend on the presiding judge or police reports for decision-making. [Para 4]

High Court Precedents - Consistent Views on Premature Release - Reference to Gopal Sarkar vs. State of West Bengal and other judgments supporting the Supreme Court's stance on reformative justice. [Para 5]

Inadequate Consideration of Convict's Conduct and Potential - Lack of evidence regarding the convict's behavior in custody and involvement in productive activities or further education. [Paras 12-13]

Unfounded Opposition and Economic Conditions - Opposition to release not supported by solid reasons; poor socio-economic condition of the convict's family. [Para 16]

Right to Dignity under Article 21 - The petitioner's right to live with dignity should not be compromised due to past conviction. [Para 18]

Call for Proper SSRB Constitution - Need for reconsideration of the premature release request by a properly constituted SSRB. [Para 20]

Court’s Decision - Direction to SSRB to reconsider the premature release request, adhering to indicated yardsticks, within one month. [Para 21]

Income Tax – Delay in Filing Form 10 – Condonation of Delay – Petitioner sought quashing of order by Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) and for directions to accept Form No.10 with condoned delay. Amendments in Income Tax Act and rules leading to inadvertent delay acknowledged. Comparison with similar condonation in AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19 highlighted. [Para 1, 2, 3]

Administrative Oversight – Lack of Awareness of Amendments – Delay due to lack of awareness of officials about amendments in Income Tax Act. CBDT Circulars emphasizing liberal approach in condonation of delays for mitigating genuine hardships of assessees considered. [Para 5, 7]

Judicial Reasoning – Discretion in Condonation of Delay – Court observed absence of valid reasons in impugned order for non-condonation of delay. Emphasis on understanding the motive behind delay and the principle of mitigating genuine hardship. [Para 6, 9]

Decision – Quashing of Impugned Order and Condonation of Delay – Impugned order set aside. Delay in submission of Form 10 for AY 2016-17 condoned. Form-10 to be accepted with necessary consequences. [Para 10]

Commercial Appeal – Suit for recovery of dues – Dismissal of suit by the Commercial Court on the grounds of limitation and existence of an arbitration agreement – Appellant challenges the impugned order – Jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit not affected by the existence of an arbitration agreement – Suit barred by limitation for certain claims, but not all – Claim for Labour Escalation, Hiring Charges, Supervision Charges, Watch and Ward Expenses, Material Escalation, Loss of Material, and Interest on Late Payment barred by limitation – Appellant’s admission of delay in filing suit not conclusive – Appeal dismissed on grounds of limitation.

Cheque Bounce - Criminal Appeal – Leave to appeal against the acquittal in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Petitioner, the complainant, seeks leave to appeal against the impugned order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court – The impugned order dated 29.06.2022 acquitted the respondent of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act – Dispute over a dishonored cheque – Examination of evidence and legal aspects. [Para 1-5]

Proof of Legally Enforceable Debt – The complainant is duty-bound to establish the basic ingredients of Section 138 of the NI Act – Complainant failed to prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt due from the respondent – Failure to establish a clear link between the cheque amount, the relationship with the petitioner, and the surrounding circumstances – The burden to establish these elements lies on the complainant. [Para 11]

Material Contradictions in Testimony – Material contradictions in the testimony of the complainant – Inconsistent statements and variations in the complaint and cross-examination – Inability to establish crucial facts related to the rented property and the rent amount – Caution and prudence required while making a complaint in interconnected cases. [Para 12]

Lack of Evidence on Amount Breakup – Failure to provide evidence or explanation regarding the breakup of the amount mentioned in the cheque – Absence of evidence supporting the inclusion of electricity charges in the cheque amount – Inadequate proof of the debt claimed by the complainant. [Para 13]

Successful Rebuttal by the Respondent – Respondent successfully discharged the burden under Section 139 of the NI Act by rebutting the contentions of the complainant – Consistency in the respondent’s stand – Police complaint by the respondent regarding the loss of the cheque – Complainant’s failure to establish her case beyond reasonable doubt. [Para 14]

Plausible View of the Trial Court – No new grounds or illegality established by the petitioner – The learned Trial Court’s order deemed plausible and requiring no interference – Present petition dismissed as lacking merit. [Para 15-16]

Divorce Appeal – Hindu Marriage Act – Section 13(1)(ia) (ib) – Appellant's appeal against dismissal of his divorce petition by Family Court – Allegations of cruelty and desertion by respondent-wife. [Para 1, 5, 10]

Allegations of Cruelty – Insufficient Details and Lack of Specific Incidents – Family Court's dismissal based on vague and generalized allegations without specific incidents or evidence of cruelty. [Para 8, 13, 14, 16-18]

Desertion – Absence of Concrete Efforts to Reconcile – Appellant failed to demonstrate efforts to bring respondent back to matrimonial home – Respondent’s absence of response or reconciliation attempts deemed as desertion. [Para 19-23]

Judicial Approach to Matrimonial Disputes – Emphasis on mutual trust, respect, and adjustments in marital relationships – Courts to avoid straightjacket application of "irretrievably broken marriage" for divorce. [Para 21, 22]

Decision – Grant of Divorce on Grounds of Desertion – Despite insufficient evidence of cruelty, court finds respondent's consistent absence and lack of response as sufficient for desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Marriage dissolved. [Para 24, 25]