Petition for Summoning Records at Time of Charge - Challenging the dismissal of application for summoning records and directing authorities to report on drug issuance - Petitioner alleged wrongful implication in recovery of drugs under NDPS Act, asserting that drugs were delivered to others and not recovered from his premises. [Para 1, 4, 6]

Sting Operation & Allegations - Sting operation conducted under PNDT Act at Patiala Hospital, Patran - Petitioner and wife accused of conducting sex determination tests, with recovery of narcotic drugs and illegal abortion equipment. [Para 2]

Charges Under NDPS and IPC - Initially charged under PNDT Act, later provisions of NDPS Act and Section 120-B IPC also invoked - Challans submitted under these sections. [Para 3]

Trial Court's Order and Petitioner's Argument - Trial Court dismissed petitioner's application for record summoning - Petitioner argued for his right to invoke Section 91 Cr.P.C. at the stage of framing charges, citing cases Nitya Dharmananda alias K. Lenin and Brijesh Kumar & 3 others. [Para 6-7]

Supreme Court & High Court Precedents - Reference to Supreme Court and Allahabad High Court judgments emphasizing the court's power to summon material with crucial bearing on framing of charge, even if not part of the charge sheet. [Para 9]

Quashing of Impugned Order & Remand for Fresh Adjudication - High Court found merit in the petition, quashed the impugned order, and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits. [Para 11]

Bail Petition and Criminal Background – Petitioner seeking bail under Section 439 CrPC – Involved in a corruption case with FIR No. 22 dated 26.05.2023 – Accused of embezzlement and fund transfers for personal gain – Previous criminal antecedents include FIR Nos. 23 and 29, both dated 2023, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. [Paras 1-2, 9]

Case Facts and Investigation Details – Allegations of transferring funds from ICDP, Rewari to personal accounts and purchasing property – Co-accused involved in the case – All accused admitted involvement during interrogation. [Paras 3, 5-7]

Legal Precedents and Bail Considerations – Reference to various Supreme Court judgments on bail criteria – Consideration of criminal history, nature of allegations, and potential for reform – Bail granted with stringent conditions. [Paras 6-10, 12-14, 17-19]

Bail Conditions – Personal bond of Rs. 10,000 and surety of Rs. 25,000 or alternative financial arrangements – Strict compliance with investigation and court appearances – Restrictions on communication tools and conditions against influencing witnesses or committing further offenses. [Paras 11, 13-17, 19-20]

Rights of the Petitioner and Investigation – Rights to modify bail conditions if found violating fundamental rights – Continuation of investigation rights for police – Applicability of bail order to any additional sections added to the FIR. [Paras 21-24]

Civil Procedure – Repairs to Property – Permission for Repairs Granted: Petition under Article 227 - Constitution challenge to Trial Court's order denying roof repair permission. High Court sets aside Trial Court order - allows petitioner to repair property damaged due to MCD's demolition actions on upper floor. Mutual NOCs for regularisation/compounding applications to MCD agreed by parties. [Paras 1, 3, 7, 8]

Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) – Demolition and Repairs: MCD confirms demolition on Respondent No.1's property - no current proceedings against petitioner's property. MCD policy permits independent applications by both parties for regularisation or compounding of unauthorised constructions. [Paras 3, 4]

Agreement between Parties – Schedule for Repairs: Detailed schedule for repairs agreed by parties - includes timeframe, supervision arrangements. Petitioner bears costs for repairs on Respondent No.1's property - no rights to recover these costs. Parties undertake not to obstruct each other's repair works - respect future MCD permissions for construction. [Paras 8, 8.8]

Court Directions – Compliance and Cooperation: MCD directed to promptly consider applications for compounding and regularisation. Petitioner can approach Trial Court for impediments in order implementation - MCD to extend cooperation for direction compliance. [Paras 9, 10]

Decision – Trial Court’s Order Overturned: Impugned order dated 24.05.2022 set aside - petition disposed of with directions. Decision made with mutual consent of parties. [Para 11]

Majibullah Mohammad Haneef challenges his extradition to Oman on allegations of murder involving an Omani national and his family - Arrest under Section 34-B of the Extradition Act, 1962 - Formal extradition request from Oman - Inquiry by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi - Magistrate concludes dual criminality principle satisfied, prima facie case against petitioner - Authentication of documents from Requesting State, offence non-political, fair trial expected in Oman - Petitioner argues false implication, concerns over document authentication, and fair trial in Oman - Court validates Magistrate's inquiry and conclusions - Extradition Treaty obligations met - Documents duly authenticated - Assurances of fair trial from Oman - High Court upholds Magistrate's recommendation for extradition - Petitioner's concerns addressed, fair trial assurances deemed adequate.

Writ Petition – Quashing of Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) and Related Proceedings – Petitioner's plea for quashing of proceedings initiated through ECIR/09/HIU/2019 following compounding and quashing of predicate FIRs – Partly allowed, with continuation of ECIR based on a subsequent FIR. [Paras 1-3, 36-37]

Predicate Offences – Compounding and Quashing of FIRs – Impact on PMLA Proceedings – FIRs No. 16/2018 and 49/2021 compounded and quashed, leading to cessation of proceedings under PMLA in connection with these FIRs against the petitioner – Continuation of ECIR/09/HIU/2019 valid due to existence of subsequent FIR No. 55/2023. [Paras 3, 25, 36]

Money Laundering – Independent Nature of Offence under PMLA – Clarification that offence under Section 3 of the PMLA is independent and continues despite quashing of predicate offences, subject to the existence of subsequent related FIRs. [Paras 32, 34-36]

Jurisdictional Facts – Requirement for Continuation of PMLA Proceedings – Emphasis on the existence of a predicate offence as a jurisdictional fact for PMLA proceedings – Quashing of initial FIRs renders related PMLA proceedings unsustainable, while subsequent FIRs can sustain ongoing ECIR. [Paras 20-21, 34]

Criminal Procedure – ECIR and its Relation with FIRs – ECIR, an internal document for administrative purposes under PMLA, distinguished from FIR under CrPC – ECIR's continuation based on subsequent FIRs held valid despite quashing of initial FIRs. [Paras 28-32, 36]

Decision – Partly allowing the writ petition – Proceedings under ECIR/09/HIU/2019 in relation to FIRs No. 16/2018 and 49/2021 quashed due to their compounding and quashing – Continuation of ECIR based on FIR No. 55/2023 held legitimate. [Paras 36-37]

Infringement of Trade Mark – Conflicting Trade Marks in Different Classes – Plaintiff holding registered trade marks in Class 5 for pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations, aggrieved by defendants' use of similar marks in different classes and subsequent usage in Class 5 for whey protein without valid registration – Prima facie case established against defendants for infringement of plaintiff's trade marks. [Para 1-5, 17-27]

Registration and Use of Trade Marks – Defendants' registration of similar marks in Classes 29 and 30, irrelevant to their use for whey protein in Class 5 – Plaintiff's registration in Class 5 being properly used, whereas defendants' use in Class 5 unauthorized, demonstrating prima facie infringement. [Para 5-6, 28]

Deceptive Similarity and Likelihood of Confusion – Marks "ABZORB" and "ABBZORB" phonetically identical, leading to likelihood of consumer confusion – Phonetic identity sufficient for prima facie finding of infringement, irrespective of visual or price differences between products. [Para 10, 22-24]

Defendants' Awareness of Plaintiff's Prior Mark – Defendants, after being made aware of plaintiff's similar mark in Class 5 through a First Examination Report, proceeded to use a deceptively similar mark for whey protein, indicating mala fide intent and disregard for plaintiff's registered mark. [Para 34-35]

Interim Injunction Granted – Defendants restrained from manufacturing, selling, or dealing in products under infringing marks "ABBZORB," "ABBZORB NUTRITION," or any deceptively similar mark to plaintiff’s "ABZORB" in related goods, pending final disposal of suit. [Para 37]

Plea of Non-entitlement to Registration Rejected – Defendants' contention that plaintiff’s mark "ABZORB" was not entitled to registration due to being a common English word held unavailing, as mark not descriptive of the goods and defendants themselves applied for similar mark registration. [Para 29-33]

Quashing of FIR – Section 482 of Cr.P.C. – Serious Allegations of Extortion and Assault: The High Court declined to quash FIR No. 384/2021 - involving offences under Sections 323/341/384/506/34 IPC - in a case where the accused allegedly assaulted and extorted the complainant. Despite a compromise between parties, the Court found the allegations too serious - emphasizing the societal impact of such offences. [Para 1, 7, 16]

Settlement Between Parties – Insufficient for Quashing FIR in Serious Offences: The petitioners sought quashing of the FIR citing a compromise with the complainant. However, the Court held that allegations of extortion and assault - against the society at large - cannot be quashed merely based on a private settlement. [Para 3, 7]

Nature of Allegations – Criteria for Quashing of FIR: Analyzing the case's merits, the Court applied guidelines from the Supreme Court's Bhajan Lal case. It concluded that the allegations of extortion and assault in the FIR warranted further investigation - not fitting the criteria for quashing. [Para 8, 9, 11]

Supreme Court Guidelines on Quashing FIR – Application in Present Case: The Court, referring to Supreme Court precedents, underscored the careful exercise of power in quashing FIRs, especially in cases with serious allegations like the present one - where prima facie a cognizable offence is disclosed. [Para 10, 12-14]

Investigation Continuance – Importance in Serious Allegations: Emphasizing the importance of completing investigations in serious cases, the Court decided against quashing the FIR at the current stage - allowing the police to continue their inquiry into the serious charges alleged. [Para 15, 16]

Dismissal of Petition – Observations for Investigative Purposes Only: The petition for quashing the FIR was dismissed, with the Court clarifying that its observations were prima facie for the petition's purpose and should not influence the case's merits. [Para 17, 18]

Challenge to Trial Court's Decision – Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India – Impugning order dated 14.10.2023 by ADJ-05, South West District, Dwarka Courts in CS No. 673/2019 – Dismissal of application under Section 151 CPC seeking dismissal of partition suit for concealment by plaintiff. [Paras 1-1.4]

Contention of Petitioner – Petitioner (defendant no.3) contends Trial Court failed to appreciate multiple orders by DV Court, restraining respondents from dispossessing or visiting the suit property – Argued that the partition suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff is not in actual or constructive possession of the property. [Paras 2-2.7]

Reliance on Judicial Precedents – Petitioner cites various High Court decisions to support the argument that a plaintiff must be in actual or constructive possession of property for partition suit to be maintainable. [Para 2.4]

Trial Court's Analysis – Dismissal of Section 151 CPC application by Trial Court – Considered defendant no.3's admission of plaintiff’s title to the property, ongoing EMI payments for the mortgage, and the nature of DV Court orders as interim protective measures. [Paras 5-7.5]

High Court's Observation – High Court unable to accept defendant no.3’s contention – Finds no infirmity in the Trial Court’s order – References Supreme Court decision in Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja, holding that DV Act proceedings do not impede civil proceedings. [Paras 8-11]

Conclusion and Dismissal – High Court dismisses petition, upholding Trial Court’s decision – Pending applications disposed of. [Para 13]

Dissolution of Company – Section 481 of the Companies Act, 1956 – Application moved by the Official Liquidator for dissolution of M/s Amrit Worldwide Ltd. – Company in liquidation since 17.05.2000 with final winding up order dated 10.08.2004 – No assets procured for liquidation or realization. [Para 1-2]

Application under Sections 542 & 543 of the Companies Act – Aimed at fixing personal liability on Ex-Directors – Dismissed by Court due to demise of Ex-Directors and lack of actionable claims. [Para 3]

Absence of Company Assets – Registered office and other properties not belonging to Company – No funds available to disburse to creditors – Liquidator unable to proceed further. [Para 4]

Legal Provision for Dissolution – Invocation of Section 481 of the Companies Act, 1956 – Circumstances of the case justifying dissolution of the company. [Para 5]

Reference to Supreme Court Principle – Citing Meghal Homes(P) Ltd. v. Shree Niwas Girni K.K. Samiti & Ors. for dissolution of company when winding up process cannot proceed. [Para 6]

Decision – Approval of application for dissolution of M/s Amrit Worldwide Ltd. – Official Liquidator relieved and permitted to close company's books of accounts – Direction to communicate judgment to Registrar of Companies. [Paras 7-9]