Criminal Appeal – Modification of Conviction – Appellant convicted under Section 302 IPC for murder, sentenced to life imprisonment and fine – Appeal for converting conviction to Section 304 Part-I IPC based on facts and circumstances. [Para 1, 3, 4]

Dispute and Incident Description – Dispute over right of way leading to altercation and shooting – Appellant's involvement in firing during the spur-of-the-moment dispute resulting in death – Initial conviction under Section 302 IPC, request for reduction to Section 304 Part-I IPC. [Para 2, 7-9]

Evidence Review – Witnesses confirming the spontaneous nature of dispute and occurrence of firing – Admission of dispute over right of way and exchange of abuses prior to the incident – Investigating officers corroborating the nature of the dispute and sequence of events. [Para 7-9]

Legal Interpretation – Determination of applicable IPC section based on nature of incident – Spontaneous dispute and absence of premeditation leading to consideration for conversion from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-I IPC. [Para 8-10]

Judgment – Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside – Conviction under Section 304 Part-I IPC for culpable homicide not amounting to murder with 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine – Direction for release of appellant after completion of over 12 years in custody. [Para 11-12]

Parole – Rejection of temporary release on parole – Challenge against the Superintendent Jail’s order denying parole – Petitioner’s criminal antecedents and commission of offenses during parole considered – Petition for release on parole dismissed. [Paras 1, 14-15, 19]

Conviction – Serving life sentence – Conviction for multiple offenses including murder and Arms Act violations – Subsequent offenses committed during parole periods – Appeal dismissed by the High Court. [Para 2]

Legislation Interpretation – Interpretation of ‘hardcore convicted prisoner’ under the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 2022 – Offenses committed during parole leading to categorization as hardcore prisoner – No need for conviction in the committed offenses to fall under this category. [Paras 3, 16-18]

Criminal Justice – Conditions for temporary release on parole, furlough, emergency parole, and custody parole – Special provisions for hardcore convicted prisoners – Petitioner not entitled to regular parole under the statutory framework. [Paras 10-12]

Decision – No merit found in the petition – Petitioner’s criminal history justifies denial of parole – No writ issued for release on parole, petition dismissed. [Para 19]

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]

Public Interest Litigation – Efficient handling of Income Tax Appeals – Petition by All India Federation of Tax Practitioners for expeditious disposal of appeals by Commissioners (Appeals) and enhancement of their number and resources – Directions sought to adhere to time limits set by Section 250(6A) of the Income Tax Act and for chronological disposal of appeals. [Para 1]

Income Tax Act – Delay in appeal disposals by Commissioners of Income Tax (Appeals) – Impact on assessees and tax practitioners – Request for a policy to address backlog and ensure timely resolutions in line with statutory provisions. [Para 2]

Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) – Affidavit outlining measures for expeditious disposal of appeals – Adoption of a practical approach to manage pending appeals and compliance with action plans – Introduction of Faceless Appeals and proposal for additional Commissioner posts. [Para 4-5]

Administrative Efficiency – CBDT's steps to address the pendency of appeals – Sanctioning of additional posts for Commissioners (Appeals) and introduction of joint Commissioner/Additional Commissioners (Appeals) for lower threshold appeals – Consideration of increase in sanctioned strength to meet Central Action Plan objectives. [Para 8-10]

Litigation Management – CBDT's roadmap for appeal disposal and Union of India's role in augmenting administrative capacity – Implementation of measures to reduce appeal backlog and attention to assessees' interests as stakeholders. [Para 11-12]

Decision – Disposal of PIL based on adequate measures by CBDT and Union of India to streamline and expedite appeal processes under the Income Tax Act – No further adjudication required. [Para 13]

Criminal Appeal – Conviction under POCSO Act – Appeal against conviction for offences under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act – Appellant sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine by Trial Court – Alleged inconsistencies and material improvements in the victim's testimony – Appellant's conviction under Section 6 POCSO Act not proved beyond reasonable doubt, modified to Section 10 of the POCSO Act. [Paras 1-6, 16-34]

Evidence Analysis – Victim's Testimony – Various statements of child victim examined – Discrepancies noted in the description of the alleged assault – MLC and Section 161 CrPC statement mentioned touch through clothes, later statements and Trial Court deposition included finger insertion and threats – Trial Court's inference of insertion not concurred due to lack of medical corroboration and inconsistencies. [Paras 9-21]

Investigation Lapses – Unexamined Witnesses – Presence of other children during the incident not probed – Serious lapse in investigation highlighted, affecting the credibility of the prosecution's case. [Para 22]

Medical Evidence – Lack of Corroboration – Medical evidence did not corroborate the victim's later statements of being cut by the appellant's fingernails – No forensic examination conducted on accused's nails. [Paras 21, 23]

Hearsay Evidence – Testimonies of victim's parents – Both based on what the child victim reported, hence considered hearsay and not given substantial weight. [Para 24]

Legal Interpretation – Penetrative Sexual Assault – Analysis of POCSO Act provisions – Manipulation required for penetration not established – Simple touch does not amount to manipulation, separate offence under the Act. [Paras 26-29]

Delay in Filing FIR – Explained by victim's mother – Delay not considered a sole factor for discrediting prosecution's case. [Para 30]

Final Decision – Conviction Modified – Based on evidence and legal interpretation, appellant's conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act set aside, found guilty under Section 10 of the POCSO Act – Sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment with retained fine. [Paras 31-34]

Organ Transplantation – Assessment of Altruism in Organ Donation – Challenge to the order of the District Level Authorization Committee (DLAC) denying authorization for organ transplantation – Allegations of non-altruistic motives in organ donation between the petitioners – DLAC found inconsistencies in statements regarding the relationship and altruism between the donor and recipient – Court finds no inconsistency in statements and directs DLAC to reconsider the decision with emphasis on the “Certificate of Altruism.” [Para 1, 2, 5-10]

Legal Scrutiny of Organ Donation Process – Importance of assessing the voluntariness and altruism in organ donations, especially involving economically disadvantaged donors – DLAC’s role in preventing exploitation in organ transplantation – Court’s intervention in ensuring fairness and adherence to procedural safeguards in the organ donation process. [Para 3, 9, 10]

Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions – High Court’s power to review and set aside administrative decisions – Court’s directive for a fresh consideration by DLAC, highlighting the necessity of considering all relevant documents and statements, including the “Certificate of Altruism” – Emphasis on expeditious handling of the case due to the life-threatening situation of the recipient. [Para 10]

Decision – High Court sets aside the order of DLAC (Ext.P12) – Orders DLAC to issue a fresh decision after considering all relevant documents and statements, particularly the “Certificate of Altruism” – Stipulates the decision to be made within one week from the receipt of the judgment copy. [Para 10]

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) – Credentials and Public Interest Requirement – Dismissal 

The petitioner’s PIL, seeking demolition of an allegedly illegal structure due to land encroachment, was dismissed. The court found the PIL inadmissible as the petitioner did not satisfactorily establish his credentials as a social worker and failed to demonstrate substantial public interest, as required by the guidelines in State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal and others. [Para 5-7, 10]

Land Encroachment and Building Permissions – Evidence and Dispute Resolution 

The court stressed that disputes over land encroachment and revocation of building permissions necessitate a detailed evaluation of evidence. As the property title was disputed and evidence was necessary to establish encroachment, the court deemed it inappropriate to decide these matters in a PIL. [Para 11, 12]

Criminal Procedure – Permission to Travel Abroad – Petitioner, facing trial and granted anticipatory bail, sought permission to travel to the USA for personal reasons – Trial Court's denial on grounds of potential abscondment reversed – High Court allows travel, imposing strict conditions to ensure return and compliance with legal obligations. [Paras 1, 2, 10, 11]

Fundamental Rights – Right to Travel – Citing precedent, the Court acknowledges the fundamental right to travel, emphasizing its importance in the context of personal life and liberty – Conditions imposed to balance this right with the need to ensure legal proceedings are not evaded. [Paras 5, 6, 7]

Judicial Discretion – Granting Permission to Travel – High Court exercises discretion favoring the petitioner’s request to travel, referencing substantial ties to the community, political career, and family events – Contrasts with the trial court's caution against potential evasion of the law. [Paras 8, 9, 10]

Bail Conditions – Compliance and Assurance – Petitioner's compliance with previous bail conditions and his substantial societal ties considered – Assurance provided by return tickets and sureties, including petitioner's wife, deemed sufficient to grant permission to travel. [Paras 2, 11]

Anticipatory Bail – Pending Application – Acknowledgment of pending anticipatory bail application – Petitioner’s commitment to return before the next hearing date noted as a factor in granting permission to travel. [Paras 2, 10]

Equality Before Law – Co-accused Granted Permission – Reference to co-accused granted permission to travel abroad used as a supporting argument for non-discriminatory treatment and equality before the law. [Paras 3, 10]

Medical Negligence – Complaint against cardiologist for alleged negligence in treatment – Dismissal of the complaint by Delhi Medical Council and affirmation by High Court – Disciplinary Committee found prescription lacking but no negligence in treatment – High Court defers to the expertise of the medical panel. [Para 1, 2, 6-8]

Medical Expertise – High Court’s limitation in adjudicating matters of medical expertise – Professional can only be held liable for negligence if lacking requisite skill professed – Treatment in line with acceptable medical practice not negligence, even if alternatives exist. [Para 7]

Judicial Review – High Court's scope in judicial review of expert bodies' decisions – Interference only if the decision is perverse or unconscionable – The decision of Delhi Medical Council not found to be perverse or unconscionable by the High Court. [Para 7, 8]

Delhi Medical Council's Decision – Advice for greater care in future prescriptions to cardiologist – No substantial negligence found in the treatment provided – High Court upholds Delhi Medical Council’s findings and dismisses the Writ Petition. [Para 6, 8]