Disciplinary Proceedings – Natural Justice – Denial of Defence Assistance – Petitioner not allowed to engage preferred defence representative, leading to a claim of violation of natural justice – Court held enquiry officer’s refusal to issue notice to proposed defence representative not in violation as the representative failed to appear on scheduled dates – Argument lacking merit [Paras 28-34].

Judicial Review – Procedural Fairness – Court’s role limited to examining decision-making process for arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness – Emphasized that the scope of judicial review includes ensuring decisions are not perverse, irrational, or grossly disproportionate [Paras 23-26].

Proportionality of Punishment – Removal from Service – Incident of scuffle led to petitioner’s removal – Court found the punishment shockingly disproportionate, considering it a single incident without premeditation – Ordered substitution of dismissal with reduction in grade and continuity of service for retirement benefits without back-wages [Paras 41-48].

Decision:Writ Petition Allowed – Orders of dismissal from service set aside – Directed reduction to a grade lower than what petitioner held at time of punishment – No back-wages but continuity of service for retirement benefits like provident fund, gratuity, pension, and leave encashment to be provided [Paras 46-49].
 

Encroachment Removal – Interim Protection – Petitioners challenged the demolition of structures on land claimed to be private, arguing that the JDA’s actions were beyond their authority under Section 72 of the JDA Act, as the land was not public. The court considered the interim prayer due to the Vacation Bench's limited role and emphasized that individual cases were not adjudicated by the Division Bench's general directions [Paras 1-13].

Land Acquisition – Possession and Title – Petitioners asserted rightful possession and title over the land, challenging the JDA's initiation of demolition without specific orders concerning their individual cases. The court noted the petitioners' claims of title and possession, providing interim protection until a Regular Bench could examine the matter post-vacation [Paras 16-24].

Right to Property – Article 300-A – The court referenced the Supreme Court’s recent judgment outlining the seven sub-rights under Article 300-A of the Constitution, emphasizing the necessity for the State to comply with these rights during land acquisition and related actions [Paras 19-20].

Decision – Interim Relief Granted – The court restrained the JDA from demolishing the petitioners' property on private land, recognizing their entitlement to protection under Article 226 of the Constitution. The matters were scheduled for hearing before a Regular Bench [Paras 27-28].
 

Insurance Claim – Cyclone Damage – Appellants challenged the judgment awarding the respondent compensation for cyclone damage to stock insured under their policy – Trial Court had partially decreed the suit for Rs.1,01,091/- with 6% interest – Appellants argued damages should exclude verandah-stored stock not covered by policy and questioned privity of contract for interest – High Court upheld trial Court’s findings, confirming insured damages and interest award [Paras 1-19].

Policy Coverage – Arbitration Clause – Dispute on policy’s arbitration clause raised late at trial stage, not argued in appeal – Court found suit maintainable and arbitration clause non-restrictive for civil suit proceedings [Para 15].

Assessment of Damages – Court acknowledged surveyor’s report estimating damages in mill area and verandah – Defendants failed to disprove surveyor’s assessment or show policy exclusions – High Court affirmed trial Court’s reliance on surveyor’s report and granted damages accordingly [Paras 13-17].

Interest on Damages – Privity of Contract – Court rejected appellants’ argument on lack of contract for interest – Trial Court’s award of 6% interest from suit filing date upheld as reasonable and justifiable [Paras 18-19].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Judgment and decree of the trial Court affirmed – High Court upheld damages and interest awarded – Each party to bear their own costs [Para 19].

Juvenile Justice – Detention in Observation Home – Appellant challenged the detention of a juvenile (CCL) in an observation home post-release on bail – Contention that continued detention violated statutory provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act – Court held the Juvenile Justice Board’s order as beyond jurisdiction – Orders detaining the CCL in an observation home set aside [Paras 19-40].

Section 104 of the Juvenile Justice Act – Scope and Application – Court clarified that Section 104 permits amendment of orders relating to the institution to which a child is sent or under whose supervision the child is placed – It does not permit remanding a child to an observation home post-bail without cancellation of bail – Board’s reliance on Section 104 deemed erroneous [Paras 27-30].

Writ of Habeas Corpus – Maintainability – Court held that writ of Habeas Corpus is maintainable where detention is illegal or lacks jurisdiction – In the instant case, continued detention of the CCL despite bail was deemed unlawful – Writ issued directing immediate release of the CCL [Paras 33-37].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Orders detaining the CCL in an observation home are set aside – Juvenile Justice Board directed to ensure compliance with conditions of bail and facilitate rehabilitation of the CCL within the statutory framework [Para 41].

Domestic Violence – Right to Reside – Petitioner sought interim reliefs under Section 12 of the DV Act to prohibit the respondent from committing domestic violence and evicting her and her minor child from the shared household – Magistrate granted prohibitory order but directed petitioner to vacate the house within a month – Sessions Court concurred – Revision Petition allowed, setting aside the eviction order – Divorced woman residing in shared household with minor child cannot be evicted without due legal procedure – Emphasis on protection under Section 17(2) of DV Act [Paras 1-21].

Shared Household – Interpretation – Court highlights expansive interpretation of ‘right to reside’ in shared household under Section 17 of DV Act – A woman in a domestic relationship has the right to reside irrespective of her title or actual residence – Clarifies that divorced women residing in shared household at the time of divorce or after cannot be evicted without following legal procedures [Paras 8-14].

Legal Procedure – Eviction – Court criticizes trial and appellate courts for ordering eviction without due process – Emphasizes that even a trespasser cannot be evicted forcefully and must be removed following established legal procedures [Para 19].

Decision: Revision Petition Allowed – Orders of lower courts set aside regarding eviction – Petitioner and minor child allowed to reside in shared household pending final decision in M.C.No.59/2023 – Respondent at liberty to pursue legal eviction procedures [Paras 20-21].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Cheque Dishonour – The petitioner, Rajesh Exports Ltd., sought to quash the order staying proceedings in a cheque bounce case where the respondent had issued a cheque which was dishonoured – The Magistrate had stayed the proceedings invoking Section 446 of the Companies Act due to the winding up of the respondent’s company – Court directed the resumption of proceedings, clarifying that personal liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not get absolved due to company winding up [Paras 1-15].

Company Winding Up – Effect on Criminal Proceedings – Court held that the stay order under Section 446 of the Companies Act was erroneously applied – Personal liability of the respondent for the cheque issued in personal capacity remains unaffected – The judgment reaffirms that criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are not stayed by company winding up orders [Paras 8-14].

Precedent and Judicial Review – Emphasis on following the Apex Court’s decisions which clarified that winding up proceedings do not stay criminal liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act – The Court discussed the doctrine of per incuriam and held that the earlier orders were passed without considering the binding precedents, thus necessitating a different judicial path [Paras 10-13].

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed – Orders dated 11-11-2014 quashed – Directions to resume and expedite proceedings in C.C. Nos. 19781 and 19782 of 2007 – Magistrate to conclude proceedings within three months [Para 15].

Criminal Procedure – Abuse of Process – Petitioners sought quashing of FIR and charge-sheet filed under multiple sections of IPC – Alleged that criminal proceedings initiated by the complainant were a counter-blast to civil disputes – Court held FIR and charge-sheet to be an abuse of process, emphasizing non-compliance with procedural requirements for Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. applications, particularly absence of mandatory affidavit and prior applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) Cr.P.C. – FIR and subsequent proceedings quashed [Paras 9-18].

Procedure under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Statutory obligation for supporting affidavit and prior complaints – Court relied on Supreme Court precedents in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. and Babu Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka, underscoring mandatory requirements for applications under Section 156(3) – Highlighted misuse of criminal process for settling civil disputes and reiterated the necessity for judicial diligence in verifying such applications [Paras 13-17].

Decision: Revision applications allowed – FIR and charge-sheet quashed – Court mandated strict adherence to procedural requirements for invoking Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., ensuring applications are substantiated with affidavits and prior complaints [Paras 18-21].
 

Anticipatory Bail – Grant – Petitioners accused of forging agreements to illegally acquire property – Petitioners contend civil nature of dispute pending before competent court – Ad interim injunction obtained in civil suit prior to criminal case – No prima facie evidence of intent to flee – Investigation ongoing with no criminal antecedents – Court grants anticipatory bail with conditions to ensure presence during investigation [Paras 1-10].

Procedure under Section 438 Cr.P.C. – Conditions for Bail – Petitioners to appear before the Magistrate and furnish personal bonds with sureties – Required to cooperate with investigation and refrain from influencing witnesses – Court emphasizes importance of balancing rights of accused with need for investigation [Paras 8-10].

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – Anticipatory bail granted with specified conditions – Miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed [Paras 10].

Bail Application – Opportunity to Present Case – Violation of Section 45 PMLA – Directorate of Enforcement (ED) contended that they were not given a proper opportunity to oppose the bail application – Vacation Judge denied oral prayer for stay of bail – Failure to fulfill mandatory twin conditions of Section 45 PMLA [Para 2(i), 5]. 

Vicarious Liability – Political Party Involvement – ED argued that the respondent had a vicarious liability under Section 70 PMLA, alleging that proceeds of crime were used for the Aam Aadmi Party’s election campaign in Goa – Vacation Judge failed to consider this aspect [Paras 5.4, 16]. 

Mala Fide Intent – Timing of Arrest – Vacation Judge found malafide in the timing of the ED’s actions – High Court observed that the judgment dated 09.04.2024 by Co-ordinate Bench had cleared ED of mala fide intentions [Para 15]. 

Judicial Discipline – Previous Findings – High Court noted that the Vacation Judge should have adhered to findings of the Co-ordinate Bench – Judgment dated 09.04.2024 had already addressed the issues considered by the Vacation Judge [Para 15]. 

Decision: Stay Application allowed – Operation of the Impugned Order stayed – Bail order set aside, and matter referred to Roster Bench for further consideration [Para 22].