Public Interest Litigation – Quo Warranto – Judicial inquiry into the legitimacy of the appointment of the Director of the Morarji Desai National Institute of Yoga – Petitioner alleges lack of requisite qualifications and fabricated employment record of the respondent – Court finds the respondent met the essential criteria at the time of appointment. [Para 1, 20-22]

Appointment and Qualifications – Director of MDNIY – Allegations of forged academic credentials and service record – Respondent's qualifications and experience as per the recruitment rules assessed – Court concludes the respondent’s qualifications and experience fulfil the essential criteria. [Para 3.2, 9, 12-14]

Tenure of Office – MDNIY Director’s tenure beyond the stipulated period – Examination of policy documents and appointment terms – Petition’s claim unsubstantiated, respondent’s appointment deemed in compliance with due process. [Para 3.3, 15-16]

Medical Fitness – Respondent's medical fitness for the role of Yoga Instructor questioned due to past medical discharge from Air Force – Court finds no cogent evidence to investigate the claim further. [Para 17]

Vigilance Complaints – Lack of action on complaints lodged with CVC against the respondent – Court accepts Respondent’s explanation as per CVC guidelines, dismissing the complaints as 'pseudonymous.' [Para 18]

Performance as Director – Allegations of respondent’s ineffectiveness in expanding opportunities for Yoga teachers – Court determines such claims fall outside its evaluative authority under Article 226. [Para 19]

Decision – Petitioner’s allegations found unsubstantiated, respondent’s appointment and tenure confirmed as legitimate – Writ petition and associated applications dismissed. [Para 20-24]

Regular Bail – Denial of Regular Bail – Petitioner's repeated absconding and non-cooperation in the investigation – Petitioner declared a proclaimed offender twice – Bail application dismissed due to potential obstruction of a fair trial and risk of absconding. [Para 10-14]

Criminal Procedure – Fair Trial and Bail Considerations – Importance of ensuring a fair trial for both the accused and the prosecution – Conduct of the accused obstructing the trial deemed a valid ground for denying bail – Supreme Court precedents on bail considerations emphasized. [Para 7, 11]

Proclaimed Offender – Impact on Bail Application – Petitioner's history of absconding affecting the bail decision – Court emphasizes the necessity of the accused's presence for a fair trial – Miscommunication with counsel not accepted as a valid excuse for non-appearance. [Para 12-13]

Decision – Petitioner's bail application for regular bail rejected – Court finds no merit in the petitioner's reasons for absconding and non-compliance with legal proceedings – Observations made in the judgment solely for the purpose of this petition and not affecting the merits of the case. [Para 14-15]

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]

Taxation – Challenge against the lower deduction of tax certificate issued under Section 197 of the IT Act – Petitioner, a company in e-commerce retail, sought to challenge the certificate permitting the deduction of TDS at 0.5% instead of 0.01% requested – The court found the order to be non-speaking and mechanically issued, lacking proper reasoning – Impugned actions set aside with directions for a fresh determination. [Para 1, 6, 15-16]

Judicial Review – Application of Rule 28AA of the IT Rules – The court emphasized the need for a speaking and reasoned order, referring to Supreme Court’s decision in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr. – Orders cannot be validated by reasons added later, such as through affidavits – Respondent No. 1’s reasons found to be broad generalizations, indicative of non-application of mind. [Para 13-15]

Procedure – Remand for fresh determination of the application – The case remanded back to Respondent No. 1 for a fresh determination of the Petitioner’s application for lower TDS deduction in accordance with the law – Directed to be conducted as expeditiously as possible. [Para 16-17]

Eligibility for District Judge Appointment – Practising Advocate Requirement: Challenge to interim order precluding appellant, a Munsiff-Magistrate trainee, from participating in viva-voce for District and Sessions Judge appointment. Legal scrutiny of whether such training status affects eligibility as a practising advocate. [Paras 1, 4, 5, 6]

Judicial Service vs Advocate Practice – Professional Status: Examination of the professional status of a Munsiff-Magistrate trainee in relation to the definition of a practising advocate. References to precedent decisions to understand the impact of judicial training on the practice of law. [Paras 7, 9, 10, 12]

Advocate Eligibility under Article 233(2) – Interpretation: Analysis of the term “practising advocate” for eligibility as District and Sessions Judge. Emphasis on the necessity of uninterrupted legal practice for qualifying. [Paras 8, 11, 13]

Appeal Dismissal: The appeal and writ petition were dismissed, establishing that a Munsiff-Magistrate trainee does not qualify as a practising advocate for direct recruitment to the post of District and Sessions Judge. [Para 13]

Cheque Dishonour – Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Conviction upheld by the appellate court for dishonour of cheque issued by revision petitioner – Substantive sentence modified to imprisonment till rising of court and fine of Rs. 4 lakh. [Paras 1, 5, 7]

Borrowed Money – Claim of Rs. 4 lakh loan by respondent substantiated with bank statements and testimonies – Revision petitioner’s contention of blank cheque given as security for vehicle loan found unsubstantiated. [Paras 10-12, 16]

Presumption under Section 139 of N.I Act – Accused’s responsibility to rebut presumption that cheque was for debt discharge – Failure of revision petitioner to provide cogent evidence against presumption. [Paras 14, 15, 17]

Section 313 Cr.P.C – Non-confrontation of accused with certain discrepancies in prosecution evidence not a ground for trial vitiation – Accused’s failure to dispute signature on cheque and dishonour due to insufficiency of funds. [Paras 18-23]

Final Decision – Dismissal of revision petition – Revision petitioner directed to surrender and comply with sentence and fine payment by the trial court. [Para 25]

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]

Arbitration Agreement – Enforceability against Judicial Proceedings – Suit decreed by ADJ despite the existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties – Appellants objected to the maintainability of the suit citing the arbitration clause and Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – The objection was raised at the earliest possible instance in the application under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) CPC and reiterated in the written statement – ADJ erred in disregarding the objection on the basis that it was not raised before the submission of the first statement of defense – The Commercial Court’s approach in deciding the suit on merits in light of a valid arbitration agreement was incorrect – Impugned judgment and decree quashed – Dispute referred to arbitration as per the agreement. [Paras 1, 2, 25-27, 29, 37-39, 45, 54-59]

Jurisdiction – Waiver of Objection to Jurisdiction – The appellants’ consistent objection to jurisdiction based on the arbitration agreement negates any waiver of the right to arbitrate – The Civil Court’s continued proceedings after the Section 8 objection were coram non judice and beyond jurisdiction – Participation in proceedings without raising a Section 8 objection would be submission to the court’s jurisdiction, however, a timely objection under Section 8 immediately strips the court of jurisdiction – No issue of acquiescence arises when the Section 8 objection is raised appropriately and maintained throughout proceedings. [Paras 45, 47-51]

Civil Procedure – Issue Framing – Non-framing of an issue regarding Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not preclude the Civil Court from referring parties to arbitration upon such an objection being raised – Issues framed in a suit are for matters to be decided if the suit were to proceed and are not determinative of a jurisdictional challenge based on an arbitration agreement. [Paras 49-50]

Decision – The High Court allowed the appeal and quashed the judgment and decree of the learned ADJ dated 15 July 2019 – The dispute between the parties is to be referred to arbitration in accordance with the agreement and the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. [Paras 56-59]

Writ Petition – Invalidating Answer Paper – Petitioner's essay answer invalidated in Combined Civil Services Examination-II Group-II Services by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission – Invalidation challenged as illegal, seeking re-evaluation and consideration for appointment. [Para 1]

Eligibility and Examination Performance – Petitioner, successful in preliminary test and main examination, attended interview and counselling – Not selected due to invalidated essay answer paper in Part-B, leading to total score below cut-off. [Para 3-5]

Invalidation Grounds – Respondent's invalidation of answer paper based on impertinent remarks – Petitioner's conclusion in essay with "Jai Hind, Let us live united with nature" deemed irrelevant by respondent. [Para 8, 16]

Legal Contention – Petitioner argues relevance of concluding remarks to essay topic, challenging invalidation as illegal – Respondent justifies invalidation based on examination instructions prohibiting irrelevant remarks. [Para 5, 11, 17-18]

Judicial Analysis and Decision – Court finds petitioner’s conclusion in essay relevant and appropriate, not impertinent – Invalidation by respondent deemed illegal, unjust, and arbitrary, violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. [Para 19-25]

Directions Issued – Respondent directed to validate and award marks to petitioner's answer paper – If qualifying marks achieved, petitioner to be appointed within four weeks from order receipt. [Para 26]