Petroleum Retail Outlet – Dispute over establishment and operation of fuel station – Petitioner's objection based on alleged guideline violations for distance requirements – Claims of insufficient distance from intersection and inadequate space for service road challenged. [Para 1]

Regulatory Compliance – NOC granted by Deputy Commissioner for the establishment of respondent No.10’s petrol station – Compliance with Rule 144 of Petroleum Rules, 2002, after obtaining clearances from various departments – Petitioner’s failure to utilize the appellate remedy under Rule 149 of the 2002 Rules. [Para 2]

Competition and Merit – Petitioner, a competitor to respondent No.10, alleged to be raising issues to avoid competition – State Agencies found no infirmity in the operation of the respondent’s petrol station over three years – Petition lacking merit on grounds of competition and regulatory compliance. [Para 3]

Judicial Intervention – Court’s refusal to set aside the NOC issued by the Deputy Commissioner at this advanced stage – The petrol station operating smoothly without any reported issues – Dismissal of the petition due to lack of merit and absence of infirmity in the respondent's operation. [Para 3]

Final Decision – Dismissal of the petitioner's claims against the respondent’s petrol station – Affirmation of the NOC validity – Dismissal of any pending applications related to the case. [Para 3]

Family Court Appeal – Appeals against dissolution of marriage and denial of restitution of conjugal rights allowed – Erroneous application of law and misinterpretation of facts by the Family Court corrected – Marriage dissolution set aside, restitution of conjugal rights granted. [Para 38]

Cruelty and Desertion – Insufficient evidence to support claims of cruelty and desertion by the husband – Appeals allowed due to lack of concrete evidence. [Paras 20, 27, 34]

Judicial Conduct – Misconduct in legal proceedings by the husband’s father, a judicial officer, using his position to influence the case – Consequences of such actions on the case outcome. [Paras 18-19, 25]

Evidence and Admissibility – Family Court’s decision based on assumptions without substantial evidence – High Court finds in favor of the appellant (wife) based on evidence and readiness to reconcile. [Paras 21-22, 28-29]

Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Recognition of the wife’s continuous efforts to rejoin the husband, leading to the allowance of her petition for restitution of conjugal rights. [Para 38]

Revision Petition – Sections 397/401 and 482 of CrPC – Challenge to appellate and trial court decisions – Petitioner seeks to set aside order dated 27.03.2017 and judgment dated 17.03.2016 along with order on sentence dated 15.07.2016 pertaining to FIR no.151/2009 under sections 279/337, later added 304A of IPC, at PS Mandawli Fazad Pur, following a fatal accident. [Para 1-2.2]

Relevant Facts – Accident occurred on 10.04.2009 involving a bus driven by petitioner and a rickshaw, resulting in death of rickshaw driver – Petitioner convicted under sections 279/304A IPC by trial court, affirmed by appellate court – Challenged on grounds of discrepancies in eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, and non-inclusion of other public witnesses. [Para 2-3]

Eyewitness Testimony – PW3/complainant’s testimony core to prosecution’s case, depicting petitioner’s rash, negligent driving leading to fatal accident – Despite defense arguments, courts find PW3/complainant’s testimony trustworthy, reliable – Testimony of other prosecution witnesses like PW5, PW7, and PW11 corroborate PW3/complainant’s account, affirming petitioner’s negligent driving. [Para 4-5.1]

Legal Arguments – Petitioner argues against reliance on PW3/complainant, cites lack of other public witnesses, improbability of prosecution’s accident narrative – Respondent/State emphasizes sufficiency of PW3/complainant’s testimony to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. [Para 6-6.1]

Judicial Consideration – Courts underscore importance of eyewitness testimony, rejecting petitioner’s arguments against PW3/complainant’s credibility – Reference to precedent highlights principle of quality over quantity of evidence, affirming that reliable, singular eyewitness testimony can uphold conviction. [Para 7-7.1]

Sentencing – Petitioner sentenced under sections 279 and 304A IPC – Sentencing viewed as key to deterrence, prevention of future crimes – Court references Supreme Court rulings emphasizing proportionality, deterrence in sentencing, especially in cases of rash, negligent driving leading to fatal accidents. [Para 9-9.2]

Decision – Courts uphold conviction and sentencing of petitioner based on reliable eyewitness testimony, corroborative evidence, and established legal principles concerning negligent driving causing death – Appeals for revisiting judgments and sentencing rejected, affirming trial and appellate courts’ decisions as justified, not warranting interference. [Para 8-8.1]

Second Appeal – Admissibility of Second Appeal – Consideration of substantial questions of law raised by appellant – Assessment of whether the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court are vitiated due to non-framing and deciding the appropriate points for determination required under Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC. [Para 5, 11]

Property Possession – Unauthorized Possession – Trial Court’s direction for appellant to hand over possession upheld by First Appellate Court – Trial Court’s decree based on sufficient reasoning on the issues – Appellant’s claim of lawful possession and authority disputed. [Para 3, 10]

Appellate Procedure – Requirement for Independent Assessment – First Appellate Court’s duty to independently assess evidence, with mandatory reasons for its decision on each point – Apex Court’s guidelines on the scope of Order 41 Rule 31 and need for detailed evidence consideration by the first Appellate Court emphasized. [Para 7, 12, 13]

Decision – First Appellate Court’s approach in concurring with the Trial Court without detailed reasoning – First Appellate Court’s judgment and decree challenged for lack of independent assessment of evidence and insufficient reasoning – Matter requires further consideration in Second Appeal. [Para 8, 12]

Multi-State Cooperative Society - Fresh Elections of Board of Management - Stalemate due to expired term of the existing Board - Need for conducting fresh elections for the proper administration of the society - Peculiar facts of the case warrant consideration - Authority to conduct elections under the Amended Act not yet established - Appointment of Returning Officer suggested by respondent No.1 society or any other suitable person - Doctrine of necessity and law not contemplating a vacuum - Request for interim measures to protect the members' interests and coordination with agencies. [Para 11-21]

Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 - Role of Central Registrar and Central Government in conducting elections - Amendments to the Act - Establishment of Cooperative Election Authority (CEA) for conducting elections - Applicability of Section 45(5) and proviso in the unamended Act - Special General Body Meeting (GBM) contemplated under Rule 29 of the Bye-laws - Doctrine of necessity and law not contemplating a vacuum applied to conduct fresh elections in the absence of CEA. [Para 35-39]

Functioning of Cooperative Societies - Autonomy and accountability to members - Role of the Board and Chief Executive in day-to-day management - Business matters and powers of the Board - Interpretation of relevant sections of the Act of 2002. [Para 50-52]

Corporate Governance – Dissolution and Election of Board of Directors (BoD) – Petitioners seek dissolution of the current BoD of a society and fresh elections under the oversight of the Central Registrar or a retired judge. The tenure of the current BoD, elected in 2018, was challenged and declared null and void, leading to a legal tussle over the validity of the elections and the authority to conduct new ones. The court considers the bye-laws, the Co-operative Society Act, and recent amendments therein for guiding the election process. [Para 59-71]

Election Procedures – Conduct of Fresh Elections – The court reviews relevant legal provisions and submissions from both sides, acknowledging the necessity of fresh elections following the end of the BoD's tenure. The court deliberates on whether to direct the conduct of fresh elections despite the amendments in the Co-operative Society Act, which mandates the establishment of a Cooperative Election Authority (CEA) for such purposes. [Para 72-77]

Judicial Intervention – Appointment of Returning Officer – The court decides that if the CEA is not established within three weeks, a former judge will be appointed as Returning Officer to conduct the elections. The decision is based on the principle that the law does not contemplate a vacuum and the necessity of continuing the society's operations without interruption. [Para 78-79]

Financial Oversight – Maintenance and Audit of Accounts – The court refrains from restraining the current BoD from operating further or from appointing an Administrator, considering that proper accounts maintenance is subject to audit and the election process is expedited. [Para 83]

Related Applications – Compliance with Higher Court Orders – The court declines to consider applications unrelated to the election issue, stating that such matters have been decided by the Supreme Court and are beyond the scope of the current proceedings. [Para 84-86]

Disposition – The petition and associated applications are disposed of without costs, and the court's directions are to be implemented without affecting compliance with higher court orders. A copy of the order is to be communicated to the appointed Returning Officer. [Para 87-88]

Anticipatory Bail – Comprehensive consideration of applicant's involvement and necessity for custodial interrogation – Detailed contemplation of legal precedents and careful analysis of investigation papers led to the conclusion of prima facie involvement in serious offences – Anticipatory bail denied. [Para 6.0, 7.2, 9.0]

Forgery and Cheating – Serious nature of the offences involving forgery and cheating in a competitive examination – Emphasis on the integrity of academic standards and the judicial disinclination towards granting anticipatory bail in cases of methodical criminal planning against societal interest. [Para 6.1, 7.2]

Investigative Process – The importance of custodial interrogation for a qualitative investigation – Observations on the significance of arrest in the investigative process and the potential hampering of the investigation by granting anticipatory bail. [Para 7.1, 7.2]

Judicial Discretion in Bail – Discussion of the principles guiding the discretion of the court in granting bail – Reference to Supreme Court precedents emphasizing the balance between personal liberty and societal interest, and the rejection of anticipatory bail when serious offences and societal impact are involved. [Para 5.0, 7.3]

Decision – The court’s stance against anticipatory bail based on active involvement in the offence and the potential threat to the investigation process – Application for anticipatory bail dismissed and rule discharged. [Para 8.0, 9.0]

Criminal Appeal – Suspension of Sentence – Convicts seeking suspension of sentence for pursuing higher education invoking Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. – Convicted under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment – Application for attending LL.B. courses online due to confinement in prison. [Para 1-2]

Right to Life and Dignity – Constitutional right to live with dignity under Article 21 – Even convicts retain dignity and essential human rights – The right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and encompasses adequate nutrition, clothing, shelter, and education. [Para 7-8]

Education of Prisoners – Education recognized as a potent tool for advancement and a human right – Prisoners entitled to pursue studies and have access to education to fulfill reformative and rehabilitative goals of imprisonment – Education in prison seen as a part of living with dignity and a constitutional right. [Para 9-10]

Online Education for Convicts – Suspension of sentence not granted for physical attendance in LL.B. courses – Convicts permitted to attend classes online – Balance struck between societal interest and rights of convicts without suspending the execution of the sentence. [Para 11-12]

Implementation of Online Education – Applicants allowed to attend LL.B. courses online with arrangements made by prison and college authorities – Attendance through online mode considered equivalent to physical attendance in compliance with Bar Council Rules – Provision for interim bail for necessary physical presence at college/university. [Para 13-14]

Criminal Appeal – Homicide – Appellant convicted for murder under Section 302 IPC – Evidence of homicide established – Altered to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II IPC due to sudden and grave provocation – Sentence reduced to time already served. [Paras 6, 8-12]

Criminal Appeal – Conviction under Section 302 IPC – Appellant convicted by the trial court for the murder of the deceased with a lathi – Appellant sentenced to life imprisonment and fine, with a default sentence for non-payment. [Para 1]

Murder – Evidence of eye-witness (P.W.8) – Mother of the deceased testified seeing the appellant assault the deceased and the appellant’s wife (P.W.1) suspecting an illicit affair – Evidence corroborated by recovery of the weapon of offense at the appellant's instance. [Para 6, 8-10]

Provocation – Defense contention of grave and sudden provocation – Appellant allegedly witnessed his wife in the company of the deceased in a compromising situation, leading to a loss of self-control and assault – Court considered whether such provocation would cause a reasonable person to lose self-control. [Para 11]

Conviction Modified – Application of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC – Court found the offense fell under Exception 4, indicating culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside, altered to Section 304 Part-II IPC. [Para 11]

Sentence – Considering the appellant's age, time already spent in custody, and the time elapsed since the offense, the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone. [Para 11-12]

Appeal – Partially Allowed – Conviction modified, and the appellant sentenced to time served – Directed the trial court to take necessary action based on the judgment. [Para 12]

Customs Clearance - Import of "Lithium Ion Cell" - Challenge to detention and non-clearance of goods under specific bills of entries - Compliance with Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) marking requirements - Violation of principles of natural justice - Issuance of show cause notice - Confiscation and penalty imposed - Customs Act, 1962, Section 124 - BIS Regulations, 2018 - Public Notices No. 136/2008 and 157/2018 - Interpretation of labeling requirements - Promotion of electric vehicles and environmental considerations - Clearance of goods - Consumer safety concerns - Circular No. 35/2017 - Jurisdiction of Customs Authorities. [Para 1-13]

Release of Goods - Application for release of goods in question - Examination of the facts and circumstances - Admitted facts regarding the consignment of "Lithium Ion Cell" - Similarity with other consignments released for home consumption - Justification for not releasing the goods by the respondents examined. [Para 14-16]

Compliance with BIS Standards - Dispute regarding the affixing of BIS mark on the product - Manufacturer's role in affixing the mark - Examination of the 2018 Regulation, Schedule II, and relevant provisions - Application of Public Notice No. 136 of 2018 - Departure from the requirements of the 2018 Regulation by the respondents - Clarification through Public Notice No. 157/2018 - Affixing of the standard mark on the package. [Para 17-22]

Decision - Unjustified Detention of Goods - Evaluation of the department's stand - Misapplication of regulations - High-handed approach of customs officers - Inconsistent treatment of goods compared to other consignments - Absence of seizure or physical possession of goods - Show cause notice issued - Need for independent proceedings on the show cause notice - Conclusion regarding the illegal detention of goods and partial allowance of the petition. [Para 23-31]