Jurisdiction - Territorial Jurisdiction in Disciplinary Matters - The inquiry, though initiated while the appellant was working in Dhanbad, relates to facts that occurred while he was working in Muzaffarpur, Bihar - The entire allegations were of facts that occurred within the State of Bihar - High Court of Patna has jurisdiction to consider the question raised regarding the order of dismissal. [Para 15-17]

Misappropriation of Funds - Serious Charges of Misappropriation of Funds through False Expense Claims - C.O. submitted false cash bills for lunch expenses for agents/clients meetings that were never held - Cheques were prepared in favor of the C.O. and deposited in his personal account, leading to misappropriation of a significant amount - Charges found to be proved - Justification for the order of dismissal. [Para 29]

Disciplinary Inquiry - Scope of Judicial Review - Limited Scope of Judicial Review in Disciplinary Matters - Judicial review not akin to an appeal - Court can interfere only if the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the gravity of the offense alleged - In this case, the punishment of dismissal was justified based on the seriousness of the charges proved. Petition Dismissed. [Para 31]

 Facts - petitioner, Smt. Shrenika, challenged the detention orders against a detenue - failure to provide relevant documents to the detenue within a 21-day period and the absence of translated and legible copies for proper representation before the Government and Advisory Board.

Detention – Legal Formalities - Non-compliance with the 21-day period for providing relevant documents to the detenue, thereby infringing upon the right to defend against illegal detention. [Para 7]

 Constitutional Law – Article 22(5) - Failure of the sponsoring authority to provide translated and legible copies of documents, resulting in a violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to make proper representation before the Government and Advisory Board. [Para 22]

 Detention – Advisory Board - Discussion on the statutory provisions under Section 3(3) and the role of the Advisory Board in determining the validity of detention. The board's opinion is pivotal for either confirming or revoking the detention order. [Para 16]

 Decision – Quashing of Detention Orders - quashed the detention orders passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, directing the immediate release of the detenue. [Para 29]

Criminal Appeal – Conviction under Section 304 Part II of the IPC – Appellant convicted by the trial court – Dissatisfaction with the conviction – State’s appeal against the acquittal of other accused – Sequence of events leading to trial examined – Previous quarrel between accused and deceased – Appellant accused of assaulting deceased with a knife – Death attributed to stab injuries – Medical evidence supports the cause of death – Whether conviction under Section 304 Part II is justified – Discussion on applicability of Section 304 Part I and Part II – Analysis of evidence and circumstances – Appellant’s intention and premeditation – Application of Exception 4 to Section 300 – Conviction altered from Section 304 Part II to Section 304 Part I – Sentence already undergone – Appeal dismissed, conviction and sentence altered. [Para 1-15]

Civil Procedure Code – Jurisdiction – Suit for defamation against news channel – Jurisdiction of High Court questioned – Appellant alleged that news channel telecasted false and damaging news reports about respondent cricketer – High Court’s order declining transfer of suit to subordinate court challenged – Forum non conveniens considered – High Court has jurisdiction to entertain suit – Allegations of jurisdiction forum shopping unfounded – Special leave to appeal against order declined. [Para 1-7]

Civil Procedure Code – Interrogatories – Appellant seeks to set aside interrogatories served on them – Order XI Rules 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 21, and 22 of CPC applied – Pleadings must set forth sufficient factual details for fair disposal of the case – Purpose of interrogatories to discover truth and reduce litigation time – Appellant’s objections rejected – Obligation of Judges to actively seek the truth – Interrogatories to be administered liberally for efficient trial – Appellant directed to answer interrogatories within 10 days. [Para 8-16]

Discovery of Truth – Importance of ascertaining the truth in the judicial process – Judicial system created to discern and find out the real truth – Judges have a duty to actively seek the truth – Observations on the role of Judges and lawyers in pursuing truth – Need for parties to investigate and ensure authenticity of pleadings – Emphasis on the veracity of pleadings and documents – Courts to encourage the use of interrogatories for truth-seeking. [Para 11, 27-29]

Purpose of Interrogatories – Interrogatories as formal written questions administered by parties to the opposite party – Objective to disclose cases, ascertain truth, and shorten litigation – Need to avoid false or exaggerated claims or defenses – Interrogatories to be used liberally to achieve justice and reduce expenses – Liberally exercising the power of interrogatories to serve the ends of justice – Importance of complete grip on facts before dealing with a case. [Para 10, 11, 25-26, 42]

Role of Judges – Duty of Judges to actively engage in discovering truth – Judicial officers to consider truth-seeking as a paramount duty – Importance of Judges and lawyers ensuring truth prevails in the administration of justice – Judges must avoid remaining passive to proceedings – Truth as the foundation of justice – Need for disclosure and production of documents and proper admission/denial for proper perspective in civil cases. [Para 11, 12, 25, 26, 30, 34-36, 40, 44, 45, 51, 52]

Rule 7 of Order XI – Application to strike out interrogatories – Scope of Rule 7 – Application permissible to strike out unreasonable, vexatious, prolix, oppressive, unnecessary, or scandalous interrogatories – Misconceived grounds for setting aside the impugned order rejected – Appellant directed to answer interrogatories within 10 days. [Para 15]

Criminal Revision – Discharge application under Section 376 IPC – Appellant challenges order rejecting discharge – Victim and accused were in a consensual relationship for several years – Victim was major at the time of the alleged incidents – Accused allegedly allured her to marry and established physical relations – Victim got divorced from her former husband – Allegations indicate awareness of consequences – Consent not obtained under misconception – No sufficient ground to make out Section 376 IPC offence – Impugned order set aside – Accused discharged. [Para 1-20]

Writ Petition – Clinical Negligence – Compensation – Challenge against the award passed by the West Bengal Clinical Establishment Regulatory Commission (WBCERC) directing Park Hospitals to pay Rs. 20 lakh for alleged medical negligence in the treatment of Dr. Shraddha Bhutra. [Para 1]

Factual Background – Medical Treatment – Dr. Bhutra, pregnant and under the care of Dr. Supriya Khetan, experienced severe abdominal pain. She was refused admission by multiple hospitals, including Park Hospitals, leading to her unfortunate demise. [Para 2-4]

Petitioners' Contentions – Duty and Negligence – Petitioners argue they were not solely responsible for the negligence, claiming that other hospitals, including Apollo and Belle Vue, also played roles. They assert having provided preliminary treatment and an ambulance. [Para 5-14]

Respondent's Arguments – Medical Obligations – The respondent contends that Park Hospitals failed to provide immediate and basic treatment, thereby violating their medical obligations. [Para 15-19]

Commission's Observations – Expert Report – The Commission relied on an expert report diagnosing the patient with Eclampsia, a largely preventable condition, and held Park Hospitals responsible for the patient's death. [Para 20-22]

High Court's Findings – Double Standards – The Court observes that the Commission did not properly assess the roles of all involved Clinical Establishments and applied double standards in its judgment. [Para 29-37]

Judgment – Remand for Re-Adjudication – The High Court sets aside the Commission's award and remands the matter for re-adjudication, directing it to consider fresh evidence and make a new decision on the issue of compensation. [Para 38]

Criminal Appeal – Conviction and Sentence - Appeal against the judgment dated 13.03.2000, convicting the appellant under Sections 304-II and 323 of IPC. The appellant was sentenced to 10 years and 3 months R.I. with a fine. [Para 1-2]

Judicial Custody – Period of Incarceration - The appellant was in judicial custody from 05.10.1998 to 30.03.2000 and was released on 19.05.2000 after his sentence was suspended. Prosecution Case – Injuries and Death- Accused of causing injuries to Devraj and vital injuries to Ramnarayan, Ramsingh, and Kushal due to previous enmity. Ramsingh later succumbed to his injuries. [Para 4-5]

Evidence – Witness Testimonies and Medical Reports - Prosecution examined 11 witnesses and presented medical reports to substantiate the charges against the appellant. [Para 6]

Defense Arguments – Sentence and Witness Credibility - Defense argued that the sentence was excessive and that the witnesses were interested parties, thus their testimonies should not be relied upon. [Para 8-9,]

Legal Principles – Maxim “Falsus in Uno Falsus in Omnibus” - Clarification that the maxim “falsus in uno falsus in omnibus” does not apply in India. Testimony of witnesses cannot be disregarded solely because other co-accused persons are acquitted. [Para 23-24]

Co-Accused Acquittal – Impact on Appellant’s Conviction - Acquittal of co-accused persons does not automatically lead to the appellant’s acquittal. [Para 22-23]

Offense Classification – Culpable Homicide - Rejection of the argument that the appellant should be charged under Section 325 of IPC for a single blow. Held liable for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 (Part-II) of IPC. [Para 25]

Sentence – Mitigating Circumstances and Legal Precedents - Sentence under Section 304(II) of IPC was reduced to five years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 10,000, considering mitigating circumstances such as the appellant’s long trial period and lack of premeditation. [Para 26-29,]

Bail and Surrender – Court’s Direction - Appellant, who is on bail, directed to surrender before the trial Court within 15 days to complete the remaining part of the sentence. [Para 30]

Compliance and Disposal of Seized Property - Direction to send a copy of the order and the trial Court record for information and necessary compliance. Judgment regarding the disposal of seized property confirmed. [Para 31]

Preventive Detention – Illicit Trafficking of Narcotic Drugs – Challenge to the validity of detention order – Analysis of grounds of detention, nature of activities attributed to the detenue, and legality of procedure followed by detaining authority – Court examines context of drug trafficking and seriousness of drug problem globally – Emphasis on preventive detention being aimed at protecting society’s safety and security – Reference to legal principles and past judgments establishing scope of preventive detention – Detention not punitive but preventive in nature. [Para 10-33]

Legal Principles – Scope of preventive detention – Balancing personal liberty with needs of society – Preventive detention as a measure to protect safety and interest of society – Judicial review of subjective satisfaction of detaining authority – Parameters within which validity of subjective satisfaction can be tested – Court’s role in scrutinizing detention order while considering material placed before detaining authority. [Para 27-29]

Detention Procedure – Examination of legality of detention order – Procedure followed by detaining authority – Provision of material to detenue – Involvement of Central Advisory Board – Court’s observation on the legality of procedure – Detention order passed after following prescribed procedure and considering detenue’s propensity for prejudicial activities – Balance between personal liberty and societal needs highlighted. [Para 30-33]

Facts: Petitioners and Respondents: Jambo Plastics Pvt. Ltd. And Merushikhar Infra LLP filed a writ petition against the Chief Quality Assurance Establishment and the Commissioner of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). The petitioners sought to quash certain endorsements and letters issued against them, particularly those dated 15.07.2016 and 03.09.2016. [Para 1-5]

 Issues and Analysis: Works of Defence Act, 1903: Court holds that the Works of Defence Act, 1903, exclusively governs the imposition of land-use restrictions near defense establishments, thereby limiting the scope of executive power in this domain. [Para 15, 22]

Executive Power and Fundamental Rights: Court emphasizes that executive instructions cannot abridge fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution, citing Apex Court decisions. [Para 21, 32]

Validity of Guidelines: Court rules that the guidelines issued are not executive instructions capable of imposing restrictions on the petitioners’ rights. [Para 20, 28]

Authority of Law for Deprivation of Property: Court cites Article 300-A to state that deprivation of property can only occur through authority of law, not executive fiat. [Para 34]

Executive Fiat and Fundamental Rights: Court references Article 13(2) and Article 19 to assert that rights cannot be abridged by executive action without legislative backing, supported by Apex Court decisions. [Para 31-33]

Transaction of Business Rules: Court finds that the Guidelines were not issued in the name of the President, making them invalid under Article 77(3) of the Constitution. [Para 35-37]

Decision: Validity of Guidelines and Endorsements: Court sets aside endorsements based on Guidelines, directing respondent-BBMP to proceed with the grant of the sanction plan without relying on the Guidelines. The process is to be completed as per law, within a period of three months. [Para 38-39]