Denial of Maintenance – Family Court’s Order Upheld - Appellant/Wife appeals against the Family Court’s order denying her maintenance under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The High Court concurs with the lower court’s findings regarding her educational qualifications and undisclosed employment. [Para 1, 4, 9-10]

 Qualification and Earning Capacity - High Court points out the appellant’s high qualifications and employment status, stating that her maintenance claim is unsubstantiated due to her earning capacity. [Para 6, 10-12]

 Disclosure Issues – Appellant’s Credibility - appellant initially fails to disclose her employment status. This nondisclosure affects her credibility and weakens her claim for maintenance. [Para 8-9]

 Legal Interpretation – Section 24 of HMA - Court cites prior judgments to articulate that Section 24 is designed to aid those genuinely unable to support themselves, not those with a high earning capacity who choose not to work. [Para 11-12]

Decision - High Court finds no merit in the appeal and agrees with the Family Court that the appellant is not entitled to maintenance. [Para 13]

Default Bail - Petitioner seeks to set aside/modify an order granting interim bail under Section 167(2) CrPC - Case involves recovery of MDMA - Petitioner applied for default bail after 196 days in judicial custody due to non-filing of charge-sheet - Impugned order granted interim bail till filing of FSL report and challan - Petitioner contends that Section 167(2) does not allow for interim bail - Refers to Supreme Court's decision on personal liberty and default bail [Para 1-4]

Interpretation of Default Bail - Supreme Court's analysis of default bail - Explains that the right to default bail arises if charge-sheet is not filed within the prescribed period - Default bail cannot be canceled merely upon filing the charge-sheet - It can be canceled on merits if a strong case is made out for a non-bailable offense and considering specific grounds under Sections 437(5) and 439(2) CrPC - Filing of FSL report and challan alone is insufficient to cancel default bail [Para 8-10]

Modification of Impugned Order - The impugned order is modified to allow for the cancellation of default bail in case prosecution establishes a strong case for a non-bailable offense and shows special reasons, considering the grounds under Sections 437(5) and 439(2) CrPC - Filing the FSL report and challan alone is not sufficient grounds for cancellation - Default bail is allowed to continue with this clarification [Para 11]

Rent Control – Eviction under Section 12(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 – Tenant's failure to pay admitted arrears of rent within specified timeframes – Challenge to the order of eviction – Opportunity to show sufficient cause before passing an order under Section 12(3) – Principles of natural justice emphasized. [Para 9]

Eviction Proceedings – Obligation of tenant to pay or deposit admitted arrears of rent – Statutory requirement – Failure to make payment within specified time – Consequences under Section 12(3) – Payment of arrears during pendency of the appeal not a reason to set aside the eviction order. [Para 16]

Execution of Possession – Workshop premises – Tenant's need for time to remove fixtures – Execution Court directed to effect delivery after a period of fifteen days in the interest of justice. [Para 18]

Maintenance - Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act - Appeal against the denial of maintenance to appellant/wife by learned Principal Judge, Family Courts – Appellant, a highly qualified woman with a Ph.D., had been previously employed and evidence suggests current employment – Court holds that appellant's claim for maintenance cannot be entertained given her qualifications and potential for earning. [Para 1, 4, 10, 13]

 Earning Capacity and Truthful Disclosure - Appellant initially claimed to be unemployed but was later found to be engaged in work – Court emphasizes that a party’s failure to disclose true facts about employment can have a significant bearing on the adjudication for maintenance. [Para 8-9]

 Precedential Case Law – Mamta Jaiswal vs. Rajesh Jaiswal and Rupali Gupta vs. Rajat Gupta - The Court refers to precedential case law where maintenance under Section 24 of HMA was denied to parties with significant qualifications and earning capacity – Maintenance is not intended to create an 'Army of idle people,' but to assist those genuinely incapable of supporting themselves. [Para 11-12]

 Domestic Violence Act and Maintenance - The appellant’s claim for maintenance under the Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act also rejected – Court underlines that qualifications, employment status, and truthful disclosures are essential factors in determining eligibility for maintenance. [Para 13]

 Decision - The Court finds no merit in the appeal for maintenance by the appellant, considering her high qualifications, earning capacity, and the undisclosed facts about her employment – Appeal dismissed. [Para 13-14]

Two writ petitions involved the eligibility of Zydus Wellness Products Limited and Alkem Laboratories Limited for budgetary support under the Budgetary Support Scheme introduced for eligible manufacturing units in Sikkim under various Industrial Promotion Schemes. The central issue was whether changes in ownership and constitution disentitled these units from availing budgetary support. [Para 1-6]

The petitioners contended that the change in constitution from a partnership concern to a company should not disentitle them from the benefit of the Budgetary Support Scheme. They argued that the business, assets, and liabilities remained the same even though the legal entity changed. [Para 7]

The respondents, on the other hand, argued that the change in ownership and constitution rendered the petitioners ineligible for the Budgetary Support Scheme as they were considered new legal entities. The Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Commerce had both opined that the change in ownership disqualified them from the scheme. [Para 8]

The Court examined the Budgetary Support Scheme, which aimed to provide support to existing eligible manufacturing units operating in Sikkim. It was clear that the scheme was intended for units that were eligible under earlier excise duty exemption/refund schemes and had not fully benefited from those schemes due to their untimely withdrawal. The Budgetary Support Scheme did not apply to units that had not made the necessary investments to enjoy the benefits of the previous exemption. [Para 35]

Both petitioners, Zydus Wellness Products Limited and Alkem Laboratories Limited, were not eligible units as per the definition in the scheme since they did not exist during the period when the exemption notification was applicable. The change in ownership and constitution of these entities further disqualified them from the scheme. [Para 38]

Violation of Section 210 of Cr.P.C. - The matter pertains to the summoning order in a complaint case filed under Section 498-A, 323 I.P.C. and Section 4 D.P. Act. It is alleged that two criminal proceedings were initiated simultaneously - one through an F.I.R. and another through a complaint. The trial court proceeded without following the provisions of Section 210 of Cr.P.C., which require staying proceedings if a police investigation is in progress for the same matter. The impugned summoning order dated 13.9.2018 was challenged on this ground. [Para 2-11]

Violation of Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. - The complainant and witness statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded, but there was no mention of the genuineness of the accused persons or their addresses, as required by Section 202(1). The court observed that if the accused reside outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate, an inquiry or investigation should be conducted unless the statements sufficiently establish their genuineness. [Para 12]

Lack of Reasoned Summoning Order - The court emphasized that summoning orders in complaint cases should include reasons. In the present case, the impugned summoning order lacked reasoning, violating the principles established by previous judgments. [Para 13-16]

Setting Aside the Impugned Summoning Order - Considering the violations of Section 210 of Cr.P.C. and the absence of a reasoned summoning order, the court set aside the impugned summoning order dated 13.9.2018. The matter was remitted back to the trial court for a fresh order to be passed within 45 days. [Para 17-20]

Civil Suit for Possession – Co-owner seeking possession of the property – Defendant claiming possession and raising preliminary objections – Learned Trial Court finding in favor of the plaintiff – First Appellate Court reversing the judgment based on the failure to specify structures constructed on the land and the principle of acquiescence – Appeal to High Court. [Para 1-2]

Ownership and Possession – Plaintiff established co-ownership of the disputed land – Defendant’s initial claim of constructing in the presence of the plaintiff abandoned – Defendant’s subsequent assertion of no possession on the suit land – Trial Court correctly decreed possession in favor of the plaintiff. [Para 3-15]

Non-Joinder of Necessary Parties – Suit filed by a co-sharer against a trespasser – No requirement to implead other co-sharers – Suit not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. [Para 16-22]

Limitation – Suit based on title not barred by limitation unless adverse possession is established – Defendant did not plead adverse possession – Suit not time-barred. [Para 23-25]

Judgment Reversed – First Appellate Court erred in dismissing the suit – Judgment and decree of Trial Court restored. [Para 26-28]

Land Acquisition – Challenge to notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Notification subsequently followed by Section 6 declaration – Possession not taken by Land Acquisition Authority – Claim of discrimination based on release of lands with prior construction – Review applications dismissed by the Court – Supreme Court’s decision in Prahlad Singh’s case clarified that actual physical possession is required for vesting of land – Later Supreme Court decision in “Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and others” overruled the earlier ruling – Land vests with the State upon recording of RapatRoznamacha – Discrimination not applicable in cases with no prior construction – Violation of Act of 1985 rejected based on established principles – Writ petitions dismissed. [Para 1-16]

Revision Petition against Summoning Order – Accused challenging summoning order in a drug-related case – Accused claiming valid drug license at the time of supply –– Petition filed under CrPC Section 482 and Article 227 –– Accused declared proclaimed offender for non-appearance. [Para 1-18]

Criminal Offense - Section 27 (b) (ii) of the Drug and Cosmetics Acts Act - Offense related to drugs without a valid license - Maximum punishment under this section is imprisonment extending to three years and a fine not less than 5,000 rupees. - Section 468 CrPC imposes a limitation on taking cognizance after the expiry of the period of limitation based on the punishment prescribed. - The complaint in this case was filed on 3rd June 1999, and the offense alleged falls under Section 27 (b) (ii) of the Act. As per Section 468 CrPC, the limitation period for such an offense is three years from the date of the offense. - Section 469 CrPC defines the commencement of the period of limitation, which starts from the date of the offense, knowledge of the offense, or when the identity of the offender is known. - In this case, the complainant alleged the offense occurred in March 1997. However, the offense was already known to the authorities due to the registration of FIR No. 2/91 in a related matter. The complainant's attempt to bring the complaint within the limitation period was seen as an effort to avoid the bar under Section 468 CrPC. - The complainant selectively produced documents, and the court considered the documents provided by the accused, which were beyond suspicion or doubt, including a certified copy of an order related to a similar matter. This order revealed discrepancies in the complainant's claims. - The court concluded that the complainant's allegations did not bring the complaint within the prescribed period of limitation, and the attempt to manipulate facts was evident. Therefore, the complaint was not sustainable. [Paragraphs 27-49]

- Corporate Liability - Section 34 of the Act - Offense committed by a company - Liability of persons in charge of the company's conduct - Section 34 imposes liability on individuals who were in charge of and responsible for the company's business conduct when the offense was committed. - The complaint in this case did not specifically aver that the accused, Prithi Pal Singh, as the Managing Director, was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business. - The court cited previous judgments to emphasize the necessity of specific averments in the complaint to establish that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the company's business. - Since the complaint lacked these essential averments, the accused was entitled to relief on this ground. [Paragraphs 46-50]

Decision - The accused was able to make a case for the exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC. Therefore, the petition was allowed, and the impugned summoning order and complaint were quashed. The accused was not compelled to appear before the trial court. - No other points were argued, and pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of accordingly. [Paragraphs 51-54]