Child Custody - Welfare of the Child - Dispute between parents over the custody of minor child, Master Advik - Parents originally from India, living in various countries due to career prospects - Child's happiness and well-being considered paramount - Extensive interactions with the child revealed his preference to stay with the father in Bangkok - Mother's career priorities in Germany noted - German Family Court's ex-parte order considered, but child's welfare takes precedence - Mother granted visitation rights and phone/video call access to the child - Father to execute bond and provide affidavit to ensure his presence in India if required - Child's residence and custody subject to jurisdictional Family Court's orders. [Para 1-30]

Legal Challenge – Challenging legality and validity of orders passed by respondent authorities regarding payment of premium for land transfer – Group of Special Civil Applications filed – Special Civil Application No. 13748 of 2006 treated as lead matter – Submissions made in lead matter applicable to other petitions in the group. [Para 1-3]

Factual Background – Petitioner's claim regarding land ownership and transfer – Permission to transfer land granted under certain conditions – Petitioner challenges conditions imposed on transfer – Subsequent orders related to premium payment and refund of premium also challenged. [Para 2-4]

Premium Payment Dispute – Petitioner contends that the premium amount paid under protest – Authorities alleged to have acted arbitrarily in imposing conditions and premium – Argument against charging premium twice for land transfer – Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India alleged. [Para 4, 4.1]

Government Policy – Payment of Premium for Conversion of Land Use – Challenge to the demand for payment under Government Resolution – Policy measures framed by the Government not challenged – Dispute regarding the payment made under protest – Petitioner's transfer of land to a third party – Locus standi of the petitioner to challenge the proceedings – Exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution – Scope of judicial review in policy matters – No apparent arbitrariness or mala fides found in the policy – Court's reluctance to interfere with policy decisions unless manifestly arbitrary, discriminatory, or contrary to statutory directions – Exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction should be sparing – Petitions dismissed as devoid of merits. [Para 7-12]

Civil Revision – Impleadment of Party – Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant – Defendant claimed no concern with the suit property as construction was done by his son – Plaintiff moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC to implead the son as defendant no.2 – Defendant opposed the application as time-barred and moved to dismiss it – Trial Court allowed the application for impleadment – Challenge to the said order – Whether son of defendant properly impleaded as defendant no.2 – Held, in a society where a son and father are not separate entities, and the son is the owner and constructor of the suit property, son is a necessary party to the suit – Delay not a valid ground to deny impleadment – Impugned order upheld. [Para 1-10]

Civil Revision – Dismissal of restoration applications – Multiple applications for restoration of an exparte decree – Petitioner's previous applications dismissed in default – Allegations of negligence on petitioner's counsel – Court's observation of petitioner's conduct – Impugned order dated 16.01.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar, dismissing the restoration application – No plausible explanation provided for non-appearance before the Trial Court – Conduct of the petitioner in moving repeated applications without pursuing them – Revision petition devoid of merit, dismissed. [Para 1-7] 

Criminal Writ Petition - Quashing of Detention Order - Challenging orders under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black-Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (MPDA) - Alleged personal disputes forming the basis for the detention order - Acts alleged do not constitute a breach of public order but are in the realm of law and order - In-camera statements not properly verified and do not establish a live link to the petitioner's actions - Detention order quashed. [Para 1-16]

Regular Bail - Application for regular bail under Section 439 Cr.PC - Case under NDPS Act - Recovery of contraband - Compliance with Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act - First-time offender - Delay in trial - Precedents cited - Grant of bail based on Supreme Court precedents. [Para 2-8]

Constitutional Right to Speedy Trial - Consideration of Article 21 of the Constitution of India - Dilution of Section 37 of the NDPS Act - Co-accused granted similar relief - Release on bail ordered with specific conditions. [Para 8-12]

Decision - Petitioner, Gurpreet Singh, ordered to be released on bail with specified conditions to the satisfaction of the concerned authorities. [Para 9-12]

Habeas Corpus - Arrest – Illegal detention of petitioner’s husband – Offences charged were bailable – Offer to furnish bail – Violation of fundamental rights – CCTV footage analysis reveals time discrepancies – Inquiry initiated against errant officials – Unconditional apology tendered by investigating officer – Apology accepted – Order for preservation of CCTV footage – Petitioner's husband detained illegally from around 9:30 p.m. on 17th July 2023 until 1:00 p.m. on 18th July 2023 – Serious allegations of abuse and illegal detention – Fundamental rights violated. [Para 4-20]

Police Detention - Unlawful Arrest and Detention - Compensation for Violation of Fundamental Rights - Gross violation of Nitin's right guaranteed under Article 21 - Violation of the right to be released on bail in bailable offences - Injustice caused to the petitioner's husband - Compensation and action against errant officers warranted. [Para 21-35]

Right to Life and Dignity - Compensation for unlawful acts of State instrumentalities - Repairing the damage done to the petitioner's husband's rights - Police high-handedness and insensitivity - Lack of knowledge of legal provisions and judgments on granting bail - Trauma suffered by the petitioner's husband. [Para 32-33]

Apology and Assurance - Unconditional apology tendered by police officers - Assurance of no violation of fundamental rights in future - Awarding costs to Nitin for brazen acts of officers. [Para 34]

Orders - Compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- to be paid to the petitioner's husband within 6 weeks - Appointment of an inquiry officer to investigate the incidents and conduct of police officers - Recovery of compensation from responsible officers after inquiry - Disposal of the petition. [Para 35-36]

Guidelines/Directives - Copy of the judgment to be sent to the Director General of Police and Commissioner of Police to issue appropriate guidelines/directions to Police Stations regarding the grant of bail in bailable offences. [Para 37]

Compliance and Further Action - Stand over for 12 weeks for recording compliance with compensation payment and presentation of the inquiry report - All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this judgment. [Para 38-39]                    

Service Law - Industrial Dispute – Challenge to termination of employee – Termination based on allegations of misconduct and sexual harassment – Inquiry conducted by employer – Legal validity of termination challenged – Matter referred to Labour Court – Labour Court found termination in violation of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Industrial Court partly upheld the decision but remitted the issue of back wages for further consideration – Employer's right to justify termination before the Tribunal without prior disciplinary inquiry – Court held that even in the absence of a proper inquiry, the employer can adduce evidence to justify termination – Emphasis on evaluating evidence in cases of sexual harassment – Orders quashed and matter remitted to the Labour Court for fresh consideration. [Para 1-29]

Criminal Writ Petition – Premature Release – Petitioner seeks direction for premature release under Article 161 of the Constitution of India – Petitioner has completed more than 16.5 years of actual custody – Convicted under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC – Pending Criminal Appeal – Contention that State Government's policy allows her release – State's reluctance based on the life sentence – Reference to relevant judgments regarding the exercise of constitutional power under Article 161 – Mention of petitioner's earlier petition on the same matter. [Para 1-8]

Premature Release of Life Convict - Legal Position - Consideration of Jail Offence - Premature Release Policy Application - The Court notes that the petitioner's conviction under Section 302/120-B IPC does not relate to offenses specified as heinous crimes in the policy. Therefore, her case falls under Column 'C' of the Schedule, which deals with convicts imprisoned for life for offenses where death is one of the punishments but the crimes are not considered heinous. According to this category, a female convict is required to undergo a minimum of 8 years of actual imprisonment and a total of 12 years of imprisonment with remissions before her case can be considered for premature release.

Petitioner's Custody Period - The custody certificate provided by the respondents shows that the petitioner has already served an actual custody period of more than 17 years and 2 months, with a total sentence, including remission, of 22 years and 7 months. This significantly exceeds the required minimum for premature release under the policy.

Premature Release of Life Convict - Legal Position - Consideration of Jail Offence - The judgment discusses the legal aspects regarding the premature release of a life convict and the consideration of jail offences committed by the convict. It highlights that the commission of jail offences should not be a ground to deny premature release, especially when the convict has already been punished for those offences. The judgment cites several legal precedents to support this position. [Para 36-43]

Decision - The judgment allows the petition and directs the authorities to consider the premature release case of the petitioner in accordance with the relevant policy. It also grants interim bail to the petitioner until a decision is made regarding premature release. However, this order is subject to the final outcome of the petitioner's appeal, and if the appellate court finds that the petitioner should undergo life imprisonment until natural death, she must surrender accordingly. [Para 44-45]