Concealment and Misrepresentation Allegations - Applicant, Kamdhenu Enterprises Ltd. And M/s Jads Services Pvt. Ltd., allege non-applicant Yashovardhan Birla concealed material facts and misrepresented information – Challenges the maintainability of Birla’s petitions filed for quashing complaint cases under Section 138 of NI Act. [Paras 4.1-4.9]

Background of Earlier Petitions and Withdrawal: Non-applicant had previously filed and then withdrawn similar petitions under Section 482 CrPC, with liberty to raise issues before the trial court – This fact was not disclosed in the current petitions, leading to allegations of concealment. [Para 4.1]

Material Suppression Arguments by Non-Applicant: Non-applicant’s counsel argues that the non-disclosure of earlier petitions was an inadvertent error, not a deliberate concealment – Asserts this non-disclosure does not constitute material suppression affecting the merits of the case. [Para 5.3]

Court’s Analysis and Decision: The court finds that the non-disclosure of previous petitions and their subsequent withdrawal does not amount to deliberate concealment by the non-applicant – The court emphasizes the necessity of deliberate and conscious false statements for initiating proceedings under Section 340 CrPC – Applications by the applicant for dismissal of Birla’s petitions on grounds of fraud are dismissed. [Paras 12, 20-23]

Defamation Suit Against Media Publication – Allegations of Libel and Reckless Journalism – Plaintiff, a high-ranking civil servant, sues 'The Wire' & others for defamation over an article suggesting improper conduct in a land compensation case. Allegations include publishing defamatory content recklessly and without due diligence, causing damage to the plaintiff's reputation. [Paras 1-5]

Content of Disputed Article – Enhancement of Land Compensation – Article accused the plaintiff of influencing enhanced compensation in a land acquisition case for the Dwarka Expressway project, linking him to the beneficiary. The arbitral award enhancing compensation was later set aside by the High Court. [Paras 6-7, 12-14, 20-21]

Claims of Conflict of Interest and Impropriety Refuted – Court finds the allegations of conflict of interest and impropriety against the plaintiff in the arbitral award process baseless, emphasizing the quasi-judicial nature of the award and its subsequent annulment. [Paras 12-14, 19-21]

Injunction Granted on Defamatory Publications – Court orders removal of the impugned article and related social media posts, citing immediate and irreparable damage to the plaintiff's reputation. Emphasis on the balance between freedom of speech and protection of reputation. [Paras 28-31]

Legal Precedents Cited – Judgments cited include Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. L.K. Ratna, Lakshmi Murdeshwar Puri v. Saket Gokhale, Vinai Kumar Saxena v. Aam Aadmi Party, and Hanuman Beniwal v. Vinay Mishra, underscoring the impact of defamation on reputation and the need for immediate injunctive relief. [Paras 23-27]

Future Proceedings Scheduled – Compliance affidavit ordered; replies and rejoinders scheduled; next hearing dates set. Observations made are prima facie, subject to further orders. [Paras 32-36]

Eviction Petition – Bonafide Requirement of Landlord – Eviction order passed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for Shop No. 1, Green Park, New Delhi – Landlord sought eviction for starting consultancy and boutique for his wife – Eviction upheld as bonafide requirement established. [Paras 1, 7-9, 42-44, 72]

Landlord and Tenant – Bonafide Need – Landlord’s bonafide need for premises – Requirement for a consultancy and a boutique for landlord and his wife – Assessment of bonafide need not to be dictated by tenant. [Paras 30, 52]

Alternative Accommodation – Suitability for Landlord – Consideration of landlord's subjective choice in alternative accommodation – Front shop in market chosen over other available premises for better visibility and suitability for intended businesses – Court not to substitute its wisdom for landlord's choice. [Paras 46-48, 50-53, 59-61]

Property Law – Estoppel against Tenant – Tenant estopped from disputing landlord's ownership when rent paid to and accepted by landlord – Tenant admitted paying rent to respondent, establishing landlord-tenant relationship. [Para 8]

Evidence – Cross-Examination and Admissions – Tenant’s admission in cross-examination that rear portion of property not suitable for commercial purposes – Importance of such admissions in determining suitability of alternate accommodation. [Paras 54-55]

Revisional Jurisdiction – High Court – Scope of revisional powers under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act – High Court to ensure order of Rent Controller is according to law without reappreciating evidence. [Paras 35-39]

Conclusion – Eviction order for Shop No. 1, Green Park, New Delhi upheld – Respondent's bonafide need and unsuitability of alternative accommodation affirmed – Petition dismissed. [Paras 72-75]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; Section 482 – High Court’s power under Article 226 and Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Scope and Jurisdiction – High Court to consider broad probabilities, total effect of material on record, and any basic infirmities in the case for quashing order framing charges – Strong suspicion based on material sufficient to maintain charge but must be founded on evidence that can be translated at trial. [Paras 38, 42]

Public Servant; Prosecution Sanction – Requirement of Sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. – Necessity to examine whether acts committed by public servant fall within discharge of official duties – Prosecution for offences under IPC against public servant requires scrutiny for necessity of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C., in addition to Section 19 of PC Act. [Paras 50, 54, 55]

Criminal Conspiracy – Conspiracies hatched in secrecy – Evidence of

conspiracy to be established during trial – Suspicions must be grave and founded on material evidence. [Paras 48, 49]

Judicial Review – Quashing of Charges – High Court to assess whether prima facie case exists against accused – Absence of key documents and evidence leading to lack of strong suspicion can result in quashing of charges. [Paras 44, 45, 56]

Bail Application – Rejection of Interim Bail in Murder Case – Petitioner, Varun, accused under Sections 302/307/34 IPC, sought interim bail for attending PHD classes at University of Gujarat – Application dismissed due to the serious nature of the allegations and potential threat to the complainant and witnesses. [Para 1, 4, 6-7, 11]

Comparison with Other Cases – Reliance on Kerala High Court and Delhi High Court orders for interim bail – Distinct facts and circumstances in the current case, where the petitioner is accused of a serious offence and is in judicial custody, unlike the cases cited where facilities like video conferencing were utilized. [Para 8]

Education Rights versus Judicial Custody – Emphasis on the gravity of the offence over the right to education – Question raised on the decision of the petitioner to enroll in full-time coursework while in judicial custody, when other educational options are available. [Para 9-10]

Decision – Application for interim bail denied based on the nature and gravity of the offence and the accused's situation in judicial custody – Case listed for arguments on charge in the trial court. [Para 11]

Kidnapping for Ransom – Conviction of Two Accused Upheld, One Acquitted – Appellants Sukhjinder Singh and Sukhdev Singh convicted for kidnapping minor for ransom – Prabhjot Singh acquitted due to insufficient evidence – Victim kidnapped on 18.01.2014, recovery and arrest details substantiated – Conviction under Sections 364-A and 365 read with Section 120-B IPC upheld for Sukhjinder and Sukhdev, but acquitted under Section 25 of Arms Act. [Paras 11, 31-34]

Evidence and Witness Credibility – Inconsistent Testimonies and Unproven Allegations – Inconsistencies in witnesses' testimonies regarding kidnappers' identity and role – Victim's inconsistent statements about kidnappers – Insufficient evidence to link Prabhjot Singh to the kidnapping, leading to his acquittal. [Paras 16-28]

Phone Surveillance and Ransom Demands – Establishing Kidnapping for Ransom – Phone surveillance and recorded calls used to establish ransom demands – Expert testimony and call records implicated Sukhjinder Singh in ransom negotiation – Victim's recovery from custody of Sukhjinder Singh and Sukhdev Singh corroborates kidnapping for ransom. [Paras 32-34]

Acquittal of Accused under Arms Act – Lack of credible evidence linking Sukhjinder Singh and Sukhdev Singh to illegal possession of firearms – Acquitted under Section 25 of Arms Act, but conviction for kidnapping upheld. [Paras 29, 35]

Decision – Prabhjot Singh acquitted due to lack of convincing evidence – Sukhjinder Singh and Sukhdev Singh's convictions for kidnapping upheld, but acquitted of Arms Act charges – Appeals of Sukhjinder and Sukhdev partly allowed, Prabhjot's appeal fully allowed. [Para 35]

Petitioner’s Appointment and Subsequent Cancellation – Petitioner appointed as Patwari following advertisement dated 17.1.2020 – Appointment cancelled due to past criminal convictions revealed during police verification – Petitioner convicted in two cases under IPC sections 147, 149, 447, 323, 325 but given probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. [Para 1-2]

Legal Challenge to Cancellation – Petitioner argued that mere conviction should not be a disqualification for appointment, citing the Rajasthan Revenue (Land Records, Settlement and Colonization) Subordinate Service Rules, 1970 – Relied on Supreme Court judgments in Pramod Singh Kirar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. and Ashok Ram Parhad & Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. [Para 3]

Respondents’ Defence – Respondents cited circulars by the Department of Personnel, specifying ineligibility for government service for candidates with certain offences – Referenced a similar case (Bhinya Ram Jajra Vs. State of Rajasthan) where the court upheld the employer's right to consider suitability for employment based on government orders/instructions/rules. [Para 4]

Court’s Analysis and Decision – The Court referenced guidelines from Supreme Court in Avtar Singh case regarding the employment of candidates with criminal antecedents – Concluded that the petitioner’s past offences fall within the prohibited categories as per the circulars dated 15.7.2016 and 4.12.2019 – Upheld the respondents' decision to cancel the petitioner's appointment. [Para 5-7]

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 - Application for Termination of Pregnancy - Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India along with Section 482 of the CrPC and the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 - Applicant-victim, a minor aged about 16 years seeking termination of pregnancy resulting from rape - Application includes offences under Sections 376(2)(j), 376(2)(n) IPC and Sections 6, 10, 18 of the POCSO Act. [Para 2]

Medical Examination and Report - Court's order for medical examination by Civil Hospital, Bhavnagar's Medical Board - Medical Board's report indicating pregnancy of 27 weeks and 04 days with a viable fetus, suggesting possible methods for termination and highlighting potential risks. [Paras 4, 7, 8]

Victim's Consent and Psychological Evaluation - Court's interaction with victim to ascertain her will - Victim's firm decision to terminate pregnancy after being apprised of medical report - Assessment of mental and psychological preparedness as per guidelines. [Para 5]

Legal Precedents and Guidelines for Termination of Pregnancy - Reference to Supreme Court decisions and MTP Amendment Act, 2021 - Emphasis on the pregnant woman's autonomy and right to bodily integrity - Consideration of mental health and dignity of rape victims in allowing termination of pregnancy beyond standard legal limits. [Paras 10-14]

Direction for Termination of Pregnancy and Responsibilities - Court's directions for termination of pregnancy by senior medical professionals - Emphasis on safety and care during pre- and post-termination - Provisions for DNA sampling for investigation purposes - State's responsibility for the child if born alive and unclaimed by the victim, in adherence to Juvenile Justice Act, 2005. [Paras 14-16]

Conclusion - Petition disposed of with directions for immediate action and care for both the victim and potential child. [Para 17]

Specific Performance Suit – Sale of Property – Appeal against trial court’s judgment declining specific performance and ordering return of advance sale consideration – Original suit involved an agreement (Ext.A1) for sale of property, with the plaintiff alleging defendant’s evasion of performance. [Para 2]

Readiness and Willingness to Perform – Key issue in the appeal – Whether the plaintiff demonstrated readiness and willingness to perform the agreement terms, crucial for specific performance – Trial court found plaintiff lacking in proving continued readiness and willingness. [Paras 5, 7]

Evidence Analysis – Consideration of Ext.A2 (notice), Ext.A3 (defendant’s willingness), Ext.B2 (defendant’s presence at Sub Registry Office), and Ext.A4 (plaintiff’s bank passbook) – Evidence indicated defendant’s readiness but not plaintiff’s. [Paras 6-7]

Financial Capacity – Plaintiff’s inability to show sufficient funds for balance sale consideration – Reliance on oral statement about land acquisition compensation, without supporting evidence. [Para 7]

Interest on Advance Sale Consideration – Modification of trial court’s order – Interest rate increased to 12% per annum from agreement date to filing of suit, then 9% per annum till realisation, considering the defendant’s use of the amount and banking rates during the relevant period. [Para 9]

Decision – Appeal partially allowed – Judgment modified regarding interest rate, upheld in other aspects.