Medical Ethics – Issuing professional certificates without examining patients – Complaint against doctors for issuing a certificate without examination – Warning issued by UP State Medical Council – Appeal before Medical Council of India – Consideration of regulations 7.7 and 8.2 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 – Power of Medical Council to impose penalties – Discretion to impose penalties beyond removal from the Medical Council rolls – Precedents on interpreting the term "liable" in statutes – Dismissal of writ petition challenging Medical Council's warning and authority to impose penalties upheld. [Para 1-16]

Writ Petition - SARFAESI Act vs. MSMED Act - Priority of Recovery - Challenge to proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) - Default in repaying a loan availed from the respondent Bank - Classification of loan account as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) - Issuance of notices and proceedings under the SARFAESI Act - Petitioner's request for constitution of a Committee under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) and loan restructuring - Dispute regarding priority of recovery under the SARFAESI Act vis-à-vis the MSMED Act - Applicability of Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act - Supreme Court precedent establishing SARFAESI Act's priority affirmed. [Para 2-23]

Statutory Remedy - Availability of an effective alternate statutory remedy under the SARFAESI Act - Discretion of the High Court to entertain writ petitions - Exceptions to the rule of exhausting alternate remedies - Principles laid down in previous judgments regarding interference by High Courts in matters involving recovery of public dues and commercial disputes - Disapproval of entertaining writ applications challenging SARFAESI Act proceedings without exhausting statutory remedies - Dismissal of writ petition. [Para 14-23]

Partition Suit - Dispute over the ownership and partition of a property - Plaintiff claimed to be the son of the original owner and sought partition - Defendants denied the plaintiff's biological relationship with the original owner - Trial Court dismissed the suit - First Appellate Court reversed the decision, acknowledging the plaintiff's status as the son of the original owner - Defendants appealed. [Para 1-5]

Admissibility of evidence regarding the relationship between the plaintiff and the original owner - Oral testimony of a witness claiming no biological relationship versus documentary evidence, including school records and birth certificates, suggesting a father-son relationship. [Para 15-19]

Burden of Proof - Plaintiff's claim supported by documentary evidence, including school records and birth certificates, indicating a father-son relationship - Defendant's oral testimony alone insufficient to rebut the probative value of documentary evidence - Court upholds the judgment of the First Appellate Court, affirming the plaintiff's right to partition. [Para 23-24]

Decision - The appeal is dismissed, and the judgment of the First Appellate Court is upheld.

Bail Application – Second application for regular bail – Petitioner accused of committing an offence under Section 20(b)(ii)C of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Allegation of transporting contraband – Arrested with a significant quantity of Ganja – Search conducted between sunset and sunrise – Compliance of 2nd proviso to Section 42 of the NDPS Act in question – Petitioner a first-time offender – One year in custody – Trial not materialized within six months – Parameters for bail in NDPS cases discussed – Petitioner granted bail on specified conditions. [Para 1-9]

Property Law - Tenant holding over after the termination of lease - Applicability of Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act - Whether notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is necessary for eviction against tenant under the Rent Control Act - Supreme Court's clarification on the acceptance of rent after the expiration of the lease term - Tenant continuing without the landlord's consent - Distinction between a tenant holding over with consent and a tenant by sufferance - Protection under Section 116 denied. [Para 10-16]

Decision - The Second Appeal is dismissed, and the Judgment and Decree of the first Appellate Court are set aside - The suit in O.S.No.845 of 1987 stands allowed - Time for handing over possession is four months from the date of the judgment. [Para 17]

Civil Appeal – Demolition Proceedings – Challenge to Judgment and Order: Appellant challenges the judgment and order dated December 8, 2022, which disposed of his writ petition against the initiation of demolition proceedings by Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) under Section 400(1) of the KMC Act, 1980 concerning premises co-owned by him. The appeal also contests the demolition order dated June 19, 2017, and a notice dated September 20, 2022, under Sections 544 and 546 of the KMC Act for execution of the demolition order. [Para 2, 5, 6]

Service of Notice – Speed Post – Section 557(1) of KMC Act: The appellant contends that the notice for the hearing scheduled on June 15, 2017, sent via speed post, is not a recognized mode of service under Section 557(1) of the KMC Act, which mandates registered post. However, the court finds that speed post is an acceptable mode and the appellant had received and acted upon such notices in earlier stages of the proceedings without objections. [Para 12, 28-30]

Principles of Natural Justice – Opportunity to be Heard: The appellant argues infringement of his constitutional right to be heard due to non-receipt of notice for the hearing on June 15, 2017. The court observes that while Section 400(1) of the KMC Act does not expressly require a personal hearing, in this case, the appellant was offered hearings and had participated in earlier proceedings. The court also references jurisprudence acknowledging that an opportunity to show cause may be satisfied through written representation. [Para 13, 32-34]

Alternative Remedy – Statutory Appeal – Laches: The court notes the appellant’s failure to avail the statutory remedy of appeal before the Municipal Building Tribunal within the prescribed time under the KMC Act, leading to time-barred remedy. The court opines that the writ court should not entertain the application as the appellant allowed the statutory remedy to become time-barred and there’s no provision for condonation of delay in the KMC Act. [Para 35-36]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal: The court upholds the judgment and order dated December 8, 2022, and the demolition order dated June 19, 2017, emphasizing that the appellant received adequate notice and opportunity to show cause against the demolition proceedings. The appellant’s failure to avail the statutory remedy within the prescribed time frame leads to the dismissal of the appeal. [Implicit from Para 25-36]

Divorce- Family Dispute – Dissolution of Marriage – Allegations of cruelty and counter-allegations – Parties lived separately for an extended period – Examination of evidence – No direct evidence of cruelty – Husband admitted paternity of child born during separation – Repeated complaints to various agencies without justification – Long separation and deprivation of conjugal relationship – Marriage beyond repair – Mental cruelty established. [Para 19-36]

Additional Evidence – Allegation of second marriage by the husband during subsistence of the first marriage – Lack of concrete proof – Subsequent events during the pendency of divorce petition – Husband’s actions cannot be termed cruelty in the circumstances – Consequence of the liaison to be borne by the husband and the woman involved. [Para 33-36]

Maintenance – Prayers for permanent maintenance and rights of the child born from the wedlock – Liberty granted to the appellant to seek recourse under appropriate provisions of law for maintenance of the child. [Para 37]

Decision – Marriage dissolved on grounds of cruelty – Appeal and pending applications disposed of. [Para 38]

Maintenance - Revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order of learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, District Uijain - Order dated 16.01.2020 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 127 of Cr.P.C for reduction in the maintenance amount awarded to respondent/wife and her son - Dispute arising from a matrimonial dispute and maintenance claim. [Para 1-3]

Maintenance Dispute - Petitioner contends that the respondent/wife is highly qualified and capable of maintaining herself but has suppressed her income - Respondent argues that she is entitled to maintenance as per her husband's standard of living - Principles of maintenance law applied. [Para 4-7]

Maintenance Proceedings - Maintenance proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C are for the protection of women and children, and to prevent vagrancy - Hyper-technical approach should not be adopted, and the wife's means at the time of living with her husband are considered. [Para 8-10]

Maintenance Obligation - Husband's capability to earn and maintain his wife and children is a primary consideration, even if he has left his job voluntarily - Liability to provide maintenance remains. [Para 11-12]

Revisional Power - Scope of revisional power of the Court - High Court should not interfere with maintenance orders unless they are manifestly perverse - Reduction in maintenance justified based on proper appreciation of evidence. [Para 17-18]

Decision – The revision petition is dismissed, upholding the Family Court’s order on maintenance. [Para 18]

Service Law - Administrative Tribunal - Challenge to order - Petitioner seeks quashing of order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing his application for absorption as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Dy.SP) in the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) - Petitioner had joined CBI on deputation - Tribunal's order challenged on the grounds of violation of constitutional principles - Petitioner's prayers include quashing the Tribunal's order and CBI's order for his repatriation. [Para 1-30]

Recruitment Rules - Deputation and Absorption - Eligibility of the petitioner for the post of Dy.SP in CBI - The petitioner applied for the post of Dy.SP on deputation/absorption basis in CBI - He participated in the interview process and was appointed as Dy.SP on deputation basis - The petitioner's challenge to his non-appointment on deputation basis in a previous selection was not raised - The Recruitment Rules allowed for filling 10% of the posts of Dy.SP on deputation or absorption basis - The Interview Board found the petitioner fit for deputation but not absorption - No allegations of malafides against the Board members - The petitioner's conduct showed his preference for deputation - The petitioner's claim for absorption cannot be based on a statutory rule and requires concurrence from multiple parties - The maximum period of deputation is five years, and the petitioner had continued for almost ten years - Absorption is a policy matter, but justifiable reasons are required for rejection - The petitioner's absorption was not arbitrary - The petitioner's challenge to the selection process and eligibility criteria was not upheld - The judgment in Kunal Nanda was cited to support the conclusion - The petitioner's non-absorption was consistent with the Recruitment Rules - The judgment in Rameshwar Prasad was cited, emphasizing that justifiable reasons are needed for rejection - The Supreme Court's judgment in V. Ramakrishnan did not apply to the petitioner's case - The petitioner's claim was dismissed. [Para 36-49]