Equal Pay for Equal Work – Temporary employees seeking parity with regular staff nurses in AIIMS – Petitioners perform similar duties and responsibilities – Principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ applies – Supreme Court precedent in Jagjit Singh (2017) 1 SCC 148 cited – Petitioners entitled to wages at the minimum of the pay scale applicable to regular employees with Dearness Allowance. [Para 12-14]

Value of Hospital Nurses – Recognition of the valuable humanitarian service provided by hospital nurses – Their multifaceted responsibilities and importance in healthcare – Denying adequate compensation to such personnel would be unjust. [Para 15]

Decision – The petition is allowed, and the Tribunal’s order is set aside – Respondent directed to pay salary at the minimum of the pay scale of the post along with Dearness Allowance to the petitioners from the date of filing the OA, without interest – Compliance ordered within three months. [Para 16-17]

Recovery Proceedings - Challenge by National Political Party - Dispute over dues claimed by U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (U.P.S.R.T.C.) - Initiation of recovery notice - Issue of recovery certificate - Political vendetta alleged - Proceedings pending since 1998 -. [Para 2-4]

U.P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 - Section 3 - Dispute over the recovery of dues under the Act - Petitioner's contention that the amount cannot be recovered under Section 3 of the Act - Lack of agreement relating to loan, land revenue, advance, grant, or higher purchase agreement - Parties' failure to settle the dispute amicably over 25 years. [Para 3, 4]

Debt Recovery – Political Party’s outstanding bills for vehicle services provided by U.P.S.R.T.C. – Non-payment of dues despite repeated reminders – Political party in power availing public resources for political activities – Technical argument that dues cannot be recovered as arrears of land revenue – Equitable considerations in exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 – Duty to ensure justice and eliminate injustice – Public interest and fairness in balancing equities – Precedents emphasizing equitable exercise of jurisdiction – Liability of political party to pay long-pending dues established – Direction to pay entire due of Rs. 266 Lakhs with 5% interest within three months. [Para 7-20]

Criminal Conspiracy - Quashing of charges against the applicant - Allegation of giving a false opinion in a criminal conspiracy - Charges under Sections 120B (Criminal Conspiracy), 420 (Cheating), 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Cognizance and summoning order challenged - Lack of Specific Conspiracy Details - Bald and Omnibus Nature of Allegation - No Mention of a Criminal Conspiracy with Named Persons - Insufficient Concrete Evidence of a Criminal Conspiracy - Applicant's Professional Conduct Questioned - Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) allowed - Cognizance and summoning order quashed by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench. [Para 1-36]

Quashing of FIR – Offences under Sections 406, 420, 120-B, and 114 of IPC – Common judgment for multiple petitions – Pertains to M/s. Finquest Financial Solutions Private Limited and M/s. Manpasand Beverages Limited – Allegations of financial mismanagement, fraud, and loan disbursement – Detailed narration of the events leading to the filing of FIR – Quashing sought for the FIR. [Para 1-3]

Criminal Conspiracy - FIR alleging criminal conspiracy, cheating, and fraud - Petitioners include directors and officers of a financial firm and the complainant - Complainant's company facing financial difficulties - Allegation that petitioners promised a loan and took certain actions which later led to a criminal case - Petitioners argue that no prima facie case of cheating or criminal breach of trust exists - Claim that complainant converted a civil transaction into a criminal offense - Reference to proceedings before NCLT and civil suit in Mumbai - Contention that FIR is filed with a mala fide intention - Request for quashing of the FIR on the grounds of abuse of process of law. [Para 5-7]

Opposition to Quashing - Respondent and learned advocate assert that the petitioners colluded and played a vital role in causing trouble to the complainant - Reference to affidavit-in-reply highlighting prima facie offenses - Allegations of serious fraud, cheating, and forgery - Mention of stolen blank signed cheques used for financial fraud - Citing of relevant legal precedents emphasizing the seriousness of economic offenses - Argument against quashing based on the ongoing criminal case and charge sheet filed - Request for dismissal of the petitions. [Para 7.1]

Criminal Offences - Fraud and Conspiracy - Allegations of financial irregularities, cheating, and criminal conspiracy - Complainant facing financial difficulties due to GST issues - Contact between complainant and petitioners regarding financial assistance - Documents executed, but allegedly misused by the petitioners - Attempts to transfer shares of the complainant - Allegations of offences under Sections 406, 420, and 120-B of the IPC - Prima facie case made out. [Para 9-10]

Quashing of Proceedings - High Court's power to quash proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC - Exercise of such power to be sparing - Court to consider whether allegations disclose a cognizable offence - Prima facie case present in this instance - No abuse of process of law or mala fide intent apparent - Proceedings not to be quashed - Petitions dismissed. [Para 13-15]

Bail Application - Regular Bail - Fraudulent Activities - Grant of regular bail sought by the petitioner who is accused of offenses under Sections 420/406/467/468/471/120B IPC - Allegations of defrauding banks and submission of forged documents - Lengthy detention without trial - Pre-conviction stage and presumption of innocence - Role of courts in safeguarding liberty - Completion of investigation and filing of charge-sheets - Custody no longer required - Stringent bail conditions imposed. [Para 1-34]

Criminal Misc. Bail Application – Second Attempt – Applicant Prem Paudel seeks bail in a case under the N.D.P.S. Act, having previously been denied by the Court – Application filed for reconsideration based on material change in circumstances. [Para 1-3]

Prosecution Case – Claimed violation of Sections 8/18/23/29 of the NDPS Act by the applicant – Counsel for the accused argues false implication, non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, and non-procurement of independent public witness by N.C.B. [Para 4-6]

Material Change in Circumstances – Co-accused Sita Nepali granted bail by a Coordinate Bench, making it a material change in circumstances for the applicant – Counsel contends identically placed accused has been granted bail. [Para 6-7]

Opposition by N.C.B. – Counsel for the Opposite Party opposes bail, highlighting the Nepali citizenship of the applicant and questioning the merits of the prior bail given to the co-accused, Sita Nepali. [Para 8]

Judicial Analysis – Court observes that identically placed co-accused has been granted bail and that the applicant has been detained for over six years – Concludes that this constitutes a material change in circumstance and addresses concerns of the N.C.B. regarding the applicant's availability for trial. [Para 9]

Decision – Bail granted to the applicant subject to conditions, including not tampering with evidence and cooperating in the trial – Non-compliance with any condition will result in the cancellation of bail. [Para 10-12]

Bail Application – Regular bail sought by petitioner in FIR No. 224/2019 under Sections 302 IPC – Prosecution's case based on the death of an individual due to asphyxia from manual strangulation – Accused and deceased known to each other and were habitual consumers of liquor – Prima facie, absence of intent to cause death or grievous injury – Possibility of alteration of charge to Section 304 Part II – Maximum punishment for Section 304 Part II is 10 years – No minimum punishment – Presumption of innocence at the pre-conviction stage – Delay in trial commencement and conclusion – Accused in continuous incarceration for almost four years – No criminal record of the accused – Bail granted with conditions. [Para 19-32]

Eviction Order – Jurisdiction of Rent Controller – Review of eviction order – Error apparent on the face of record – Application under Section 25B(9) read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC – Maintainability of review application – Scope of power to review – Mislabeling of petition – Proper distinction between Sections 14(1)(e), 14(1)(f), and 14(1)(g) of DRC Act – Bona fide need of the petitioner – Prima facie requirements of law – Miscarriage of justice – Interchangeability of Sections 14(1)(g) & 14(1)(f) with Section 14(1)(e) – Protection and rights of the tenant – Review of eviction order by Rent Controller – [Para 1-32]

Scope of Review – Interpretation of Section 25B of Delhi Rent Control Act – Emphasis on strict compliance with Section 25B – Special procedure for eviction applications – Distinction between Section 14(1)(e) and Section 14(1)(g) of DRC Act – Reconstruction of premises for bona fide need – No bar on landlords for reconstruction as long as conditions of Section 14(1)(e) are satisfied. [Para 35-62]

Decision – Impugned review orders set aside – Eviction orders upheld – Decree of eviction passed with respect to the tenanted premises – Petitioner entitled to possession after six months from the date of this order – Other issues regarding maintainability of review and power of ARC left open for future adjudication. [Para 63-67]

Writ Petition & Subject Matter – Petition filed against the order by Commissioner, Revenue Division District Ujjain, which petitioners claim to be illegal under Section 10(5) and 10(6) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 – Sought for quashment and other consequential reliefs. [Para 2]

Prior Proceedings & Remand – Initial writ petition allowed, influenced by the Amar Chand Vs. State of MP case – Decision set aside by the State's appeal, remanding the case back to writ court. [Para 3-4]

Special Leave Petition (SLP) – Petitioners' SLP was allowed, restoring the initial writ court's order and quashing the appellate order. [Para 5]

Review Petition & Finality – State of MP's review petition against the Apex Court's decision dismissed, confirming the initial writ petition’s relief for the petitioners. [Para 6]

Entitlement & Final Decision – Petitioners entitled to benefits under the Repeal Act, 1999 and name mutation in revenue records – The initial writ court's order dated 11.09.2019 restored, and impugned order quashed. [Para 7, 9]