Regular Bail – Grant of Bail in NDPS Case – Petitioner Akashdeep Singh seeks regular bail in FIR No.43 for offences under Sections 22 and later Section 29 of the NDPS Act – Petitioner implicated based on co-accused's disclosure, with no recovery from petitioner – Reliance on precedents highlighting grant of bail where accused named only in co-accused’s disclosure without corroborative evidence – Petitioner, a first-time offender, in custody since 29.06.2023 with none of the 10 prosecution witnesses examined. [Para 2-3]

Legal Precedents on Bail – Discussion of various judgments emphasizing bail in cases where the accused is named only in co-accused's disclosure – Reference to cases like Tofan Singh vs State of Tamil Nadu, Rakesh Kumar Singla vs Union of India, and others demonstrating similar instances of bail grants. [Para 3]

State's Opposition to Bail – Respondent-State's argument against bail citing serious allegations – Acknowledgement of petitioner being named only in co-accused's statement and lack of recovery from him – Admission of petitioner's status as a first-time offender and the status of the trial. [Para 4]

Judicial Reasoning for Bail Grant – Analysis of Supreme Court's stance in similar cases – Emphasis on the lack of corroborative evidence against the petitioner other than co-accused's disclosure – Recognition of delayed trial process and petitioner's continued custody. [Para 5-7]

Decision on Bail – Court's decision to grant bail, subject to conditions – Petitioner to furnish bail bonds, surety, appear at police station monthly, and deposit an FDR of Rs.1,00,000 with the trial court. [Para 9-11]

Civil Suit – Permission to examine sole witness – Petitioner seeks permission to examine its sole witness in a civil suit for ejectment and recovery of mesne profits – Matter pending at the stage of defendant evidence – Petitioner willing to pay costs and seeks a final opportunity – Respondent agrees to one final opportunity subject to legal costs and strict terms – Petitioner permitted to lead evidence of sole witness on the specified date – Limited right to lead evidence granted with conditions – No infirmity found in the Trial Court’s previous order – Petitioner bound to address final arguments after the conclusion of defendant evidence – Petition disposed of with directions. [Para 1-8]

Civil Contempt – Allegation of deliberate violation and non-compliance of a court order – Petitioner, the ex-daughter-in-law of the deceased testator, filed a contempt petition against respondent No.1/UCO Bank – Dispute regarding the release of funds from the deceased’s bank accounts as per his will – Court issued directions on 01.11.2019 for the release of funds – Contempt petition filed due to non-release of funds as per court directions – Respondent No.1/UCO Bank Imposed a lien on the released funds – Allegation of wilful disobedience of court directions by bank officials – Bank officials failed to comply with the court’s order, causing obstruction in the execution of the deceased’s will – Show cause notice issued to concerned Chief Manager of UCO Bank for appearing in person and justifying the non-compliance – Bank directed to release or vacate the lien on the funds and allow the executor to operate the bank account – Compliance report to be filed. [Para 1-19]

Maintenance – Grant of Maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC – Application filed by wife, Smt. Deepa, and minor son, Rohit, for maintenance against husband, Harish – Trial court allowed application, granting monthly maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- to wife and Rs. 4,000/- to son from July 2010 – High Court upheld trial court's decision, dismissing revisions filed by both parties. [Para 5, 26]

Assessment of Income and Maintenance Entitlement – Trial court assessed income of applicant wife to be Rs. 3,000/- per month and non-applicant husband's net income over Rs. 21,000/- per month – High Court found no error in trial court's assessment and entitlement of applicants to maintenance. [Para 5, 23, 26]

Res Judicata Principle Inapplicable – Earlier application u/s 125 of CrPC withdrawn, not decided on merits – High Court held principle of Res Judicata inapplicable in current maintenance application. [Para 15, 16]

Wife's Earning Capacity and Maintenance Claim – Wife, despite being educated and skilled, found to have limited earning capacity – High Court concurred with trial court's observation of her probable income around Rs. 3,000/- per month – Maintenance awarded considering wife's limited earning and husband's adequate income. [Para 22, 23]

Increased Maintenance Award Justified – Trial court awarded maintenance more than initially claimed – High Court upheld, citing increased income of husband and inflation, emphasizing duty of court to award just and reasonable maintenance. [Para 24, 25]

Judgment and Order Justified – High Court found no material irregularity or illegality in trial court's judgement and order – Both revision petitions dismissed, maintenance order upheld. [Para 26, 27]

Recruitment Examination – Non-conduct of scheduled recruitment exams for Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police during 2021 and 2022 – Petitioners, having become over-aged due to delay, seek interim relief to appear in the examination – Tribunal dismissed the interim relief – Petitioners' appeal for age relaxation and permission to participate in the examination. [Para 1-7]

Recruitment Rules – Challenge to the Tribunal's refusal to grant age relaxation – Reliance on the Delhi Police (Appointment & Recruitment) Rules, 1980 – Rules mandate annual recruitment in January; Rule 30 allows relaxation of Rules by the Administrator in necessary cases – Petitioners argue for a one-time age relaxation due to the exceptional circumstances of COVID-19. [Para 8-11, 26-28]

Age Relaxation – Discussion on precedents where age relaxation was granted due to administrative failures to conduct timely recruitment – Examination of whether petitioners are entitled to similar relaxation – Tribunal's conclusion against relaxation discussed. [Para 10, 17-21, 33-38]

Tribunal’s Order – Tribunal's rationale on not granting interim relief – Concerns over creating a separate class with vested age relaxation rights – Tribunal's decision upheld by the High Court, petitions dismissed. [Para 21-22, 29-32, 39]

Decision – High Court upholds the Tribunal's decision, denying interim relief to petitioners for age relaxation – Petitions dismissed due to lack of merit. [Para 39]

Trademark Infringement – Unauthorized use of ‘PATANJALI’ trademark in an advertisement for men’s undergarments – Allegations of the video being defamatory and disparaging to the brand ambassadors – Claim of revenue generation by the respondents from the video. [Para 3-5]

Jurisdiction – Dispute characterized as a commercial matter by the Trial Court, invoking the definition of ‘Commercial Dispute’ under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Trial Court’s decision to return the plaint for presentation in the appropriate court challenged. [Para 6-7, 10]

Intermediary Liability – Respondents’ claim of intermediary status under the Information Technology Act, 2000 – Exemption from liability discussed with reference to Section 79 of the said Act. [Para 8]

Trial Court Procedure – Non-compliance with Order VII Rule 10A CPC by the Trial Court – Appeal against the Trial Court’s decision to return the plaint without following due process. [Para 10-11]

Freedom of Speech – Respondents’ defense of parody content under fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression – No financial gain claimed by the respondents from the video. [Para 12]

Decision – Appeal allowed – Trial Court directed to rehear the matter and decide issues after fresh hearing – Parties to appear for hearing on 01.12.2023. [Para 13]

Contempt of Court – Initiation of contempt proceedings against respondents for willful disobedience of court's order – Petitioner alleges non-compliance with judicial precedents on primacy of perjury applications – Respondent No. 1's order in civil suit challenged for non-adherence to precedents – Contempt petition dismissed, liberty granted to petitioner to seek legal remedies against the impugned order. [Para 1, 24, 43]

Civil Procedure – Dismissal of suit for non-payment of cost – Examination of Section 35B of CPC – Supreme Court judgment cited for interpretation that non-payment does not automatically lead to dismissal – Court's discretion in extension of time for payment of costs acknowledged – Respondent No. 1's decision based on non-fulfillment of precondition for restoration of suit. [Para 25, 32]

Judicial Officers – Protection from litigation for acts done in good faith within judicial capacity – Reference to Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850 and Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 – Petitioner's contempt action against judicial officer deemed improper – Independence of judiciary underscored as a cornerstone for the rule of law. [Para 30, 33]

Professional Conduct – Role and independence of the bar in legal proceedings – Advocate's professional capacity and misconduct not grounds for contempt – Advocates Act, 1961 as the governing statute for professional misconduct – Petitioner's contempt allegations against Respondent No. 2 for representing Respondent No. 3 found unsustainable. [Para 38, 40]

Civil Suit Proceedings – Historical timeline of civil suit for possession of property – Multiple dismissals and restorations – Perjury applications filed by petitioner and subsequent orders for cost payments – Respondent No. 3's previous civil suit and petitioner's applications for waiving costs. [Para 3-19]

Judicial Precedence – Emphasis on precedence of criminal over civil proceedings – Supreme Court judgments cited by petitioner to establish precedence of perjury applications over civil matters – Petitioner's contention of trial court's order being contrary to established law. [Para 24]

Administration of Justice – Protection of judiciary's majesty and conduct of judges – Supreme Court's stance on protecting the administration of justice and maintaining public confidence – Petitioner's approach to seek contempt against judge viewed as an attack on judicial sovereignty – Contempt jurisdiction not to be misused to question judicial decisions. [Para 34, 35]

Employment Law – Voluntary Resignation – Petitioner's resignation accepted by the bank – Claim of coercion and ill health in resignation – Discrepancy in documents presented by petitioner and respondent – Petitioner's claim dismissed on grounds of incorrect documentation and delay in approaching the court. [Paras 8-9, 10, 15]

Medical Leave – Claim of suffering from Schizophrenia – Disputed claim, not corroborated by evidence – No coercion established from the bank's side – Petitioner's voluntary application for retirement not supported by evidence of mental health issues. [Paras 3, 15]

Delay and Laches – Petitioner approaching court after six years – Lack of plausible explanation for delay – Application of principles related to delay and laches in writ jurisdiction – Petition dismissed due to inordinate delay and absence of adequate explanation. [Paras 10-14]

Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 – Application of Section 47 – Disputed applicability in petitioner's case – Court's discretion in cases of delay and alleged infringement of rights under the Act – Petitioner's claim not upheld due to lack of evidence and procedural issues. [Paras 3, 4, 15]

Decision – Dismissal of petition on grounds of incorrect documentation, delay, and lack of substantiated claims – Petitioner's resignation upheld – No merit found in petitioner's claims against respondent bank. [Para 16]

Criminal Appeal – Conviction under POCSO Act and IPC – Appeal against life imprisonment and fine imposed by the trial court for offenses under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Appellant convicted for sexually assaulting his daughter. [Paras 2-5]

Evidence and Witness Credibility – Reliability of victim's testimony and corroborating evidence – Appellant's actions corroborated by victim's brother and other family members. Trial court's reliance on consistent and credible testimonies despite lapses in investigation. [Paras 6-24]

Medical Evidence – Absence of definitive medical proof of rape – Medical examination of the victim did not conclusively prove rape, but lack of physical evidence does not exonerate the appellant. [Paras 29-34]

Investigation Lapses – Inadequacies in the investigation process – Investigating officer's failure to record neighborhood statements and conduct forensic examination of seized clothes. However, these lapses deemed insufficient to dismiss the prosecution's case in light of victim’s credible testimony. [Paras 35-37]

Decision – Upholding of trial court's judgment by High Court – Appellant's appeal dismissed, with the High Court finding justification in the trial court's decision based on the overall evidence and circumstances. [Paras 38-39]