Regular Bail – Grant of Bail in FIR No. 122, dated 20.06.2020, under Sections 302, 201, 34 IPC – Petitioner seeks regular bail – No specific allegations against petitioner in FIR – Based on circumstantial evidence and no recovery from petitioner – Incarceration of over 3 years – Regular bail granted. [Paras 1, 3, 16]

Circumstantial Evidence – Reliance on circumstantial evidence and extra-judicial confession in case against petitioner – No direct evidence implicating petitioner in the crime. [Paras 6, 7, 16]

Length of Incarceration – Consideration of over 3 years of incarceration for the petitioner – Impact on decision to grant bail. [Paras 9, 15, 16]

Legal Principles for Bail – Reference to Supreme Court judgments emphasizing 'Bail is the Rule and Jail is an Exception' – Consideration of the individual's liberty and societal interest in bail decisions – Application of these principles in granting bail to the petitioner. [Paras 10-13, 16]

Future Conduct and Bail Conditions – Clarity on cancellation of bail for future similar offences – Mention that observations in the order do not affect the merits of the trial. [Para 17]

Final Order – Bail granted due to lack of specific allegations in FIR against the petitioner, circumstantial nature of evidence, no recovery from the petitioner, and prolonged incarceration of 3 years, 7 months, and 3 days – Release on furnishing bail and surety bond [Para 16].

Land Acquisition – Release of Acquired Lands – Petitioners seeking mandamus for release of their acquired lands under clause 7 of the policy dated 14.09.2018 – State of Haryana decided to release lands not utilized by respondents – Petitioners’ lands part of public purpose projects, hence non-releasable. [Paras 1, 10]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & RFCTLARR Act, 2013 – Application and interpretation of acquisition and compensation provisions – Reference to 'Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and others' for understanding lapsing provisions under Section 24(2) of RFCTLARR Act, 2013. [Paras 5]

Possession and Compensation – Criteria for lapsing of land acquisition under Section 24(2) of RFCTLARR Act, 2013 – Acquisition not lapsed if possession taken or compensation paid – Petitioners’ claim for lapsing declaration rejected as compensation deposited and possession assumed. [Paras 6]

Section 101 A of RFCTLARR Act, 2013 – Petitioners’ reliance on Section 101 A and clause 7 of policy dated 14.09.2018 for release of lands – Lands earmarked for public purpose, thus essential and viable, negating petitioners’ argument based on said section and policy. [Paras 9, 10]

Parity Claim – Petitioners’ comparison with other land losers for similar releases – Specific case of Mohinder Singh distinguished – Petitioners not entitled to parity due to different circumstances and lack of lapsing declaration under Section 24(2) of RFCTLARR Act, 2013. [Paras 12, 13, 16, 17]

Judicial Precedents – Reference to 'The Press Employees and Friends Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and Others' – Analysis of issues similar to the instant case concerning Section 101-A of RFCTLARR Act, 2013. [Paras 18]

State Ownership and Utilization of Acquired Lands – State as absolute owner post-acquisition – Utilization or sale of lands for public purpose valid – Petitioners’ lands integral to layout plans, rendering them non-releasable. [Paras 19, 20, 21]

Discrimination Claim – Petitioners’ allegation of invidious discrimination in releases – Claim rejected based on integral role of petitioners’ lands in layout plans, differentiating from other land losers. [Paras 20, 21]

Final Decision – Writ petition lacking merit, dismissed – Acquired lands deemed essential for public purpose, not qualifying for release under RFCTLARR Act, 2013 or state policy. [Paras 22, 23, 24]

Challenging Tribunal Award – Air India Ltd. (AIL) challenged award granting permanent status to respondents (wards of employees) engaged through subsidiaries (AIATSL, AICL, AIASL) following compassionate grounds policy – AIL's primary contention was the absence of direct employment relationship with respondents and impact of recruitment freeze per Government Memorandum. [Para 2, 4, 6, 10, 32-33]

Tribunal Findings – Tribunal found respondents were appointed by AIL on compassionate grounds, exercising control and supervision, thus entitled to permanent status, backwages, continuity of service. [Para 29, 39]

High Court Analysis – HC found Tribunal misdirected in evaluating control and supervision; emphasized compassionate appointments must be against sanctioned vacant posts, which were abolished post-Government Memorandum (1997) – AIL had no vacancies for permanent appointments post-1997. [Para 30, 32-33, 40-41]

Erroneous Tribunal Conclusion – HC noted the Tribunal erred in granting permanency in AIL services to respondents, already receiving wages from AICL or AIASL, without considering limitation and feasibility due to recruitment freeze. [Para 42]

Remand to Tribunal – HC remanded the case to Tribunal for deciding alternate prayer for permanency in services of AICL or AIASL, keeping all questions open. [Para 46-48]

Decision – Petition partly allowed. Tribunal's award set aside, remanded for reconsideration on alternate prayer for permanency in services of AICL or AIASL. No costs awarded. [Paras 48-50]

Condonation of Delay – Dismissal of Restoration Application – Application for restoration of RSA 61/1975 dismissed due to delay of 25 years and 2 months – Counsel for appellant unable to provide cogent reasons for the delay – Reliance on judgments for condonation of delay found inapplicable – Court emphasizes that delay cannot be condoned without sufficient reason, rejecting the application due to lack of adequate grounds. [Paras 3-27]

Legal Representation – Counsel’s Responsibility in Tracking Cases – Highlighting the duty of counsel in keeping track of cases, especially those admitted by the Court and pending for years – Court lenient in restoring proceedings dismissed in default and in delay of filing restoration petitions, but requires cogent reasons for long delays. [Para 12-14]

Precedent in Law – Individual Case Assessment for Condonation of Delay – Court notes that each case of condonation of delay must be assessed on its own merits – No universal precedent applicable, emphasizing the importance of individual case examination. [Paras 24-25]

Restoration of Appeal and Reopening of Contempt Proceedings – Dismissal of Applications – Dismissal of CM APPL. 18179/2023 for restoration of RSA 61/1975 and CM APPL. 18180/2023 for reopening of contempt petition, due to rejection of condonation of delay application. [Para 27]

SARFAESI - Writ Petition – Refund of Amount Paid in E-Auction – Petitioner sought refund for amount paid in e-auction under SARFAESI Act for property with undisclosed litigations and encumbrances – Relief granted for refund of sale consideration, stamp duty, house property tax, and interest. [Para 1, 33, 49, 50]

SARFAESI Act, 2002 – Sale/Auction of Secured Assets – Issues regarding undisclosed litigations and encumbrances on property auctioned under SARFAESI Act – Responsibility of banks to disclose material information about property's encumbrances at time of auction – Failure leading to auction being vitiated. [Para 2-7, 35-41]

Disclosure and Transparency in Bank Auctions – Obligation of banks to act transparently and disclose all material information, including pending litigations, regarding property in e-auction – Legitimate expectation from buyers for full disclosure – ‘As is where is’ basis not absolving banks from duty of disclosure. [Para 46-48]

Entitlement to Interest and Compensation – Petitioner entitled to interest on principal sum paid in auction due to bank's failure to disclose litigations, and for compensation including refund of stamp duty and property tax – Application of equitable principles in judicial decisions. [Para 42-50]

Judicial Precedents – Reference to various High Court and Supreme Court decisions addressing similar issues of non-disclosure in property auctions and entitlement to interest and compensation – Emphasis on duty of banks for transparency and fair practices. [Para 14-15, 18, 27, 36-38, 43-44]

Decision – Refund of sale consideration, stamp duty, house property tax, and interest at 8% per annum ordered in favor of petitioner – Bank's actions in not disclosing litigations deemed unjust and against principles of transparency and fairness. [Para 49-51]

Eviction Petition – Dismissal by Additional Rent Controller – Landlords' eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act dismissed after trial for failing to prove bona fide need and dependency of son Jaswant. Order contested by landlords in High Court. [Para 1, 4]

Property Ownership and Tenancy Relationship – Ownership of petitioner over tenanted premises and existence of landlord-tenant relationship established for the purposes of the Delhi Rent Control Act. [Para 12]

Bona Fide Need – High Court finds error in Additional Rent Controller's dismissal based on landlords' failure to specify exact nature of business intended for the premises. Supreme Court precedents indicate non-requirement for landlords to disclose specific business plans. [Para 4, 9, 10]

Dependence of Family Member – Court acknowledges liberal interpretation of dependence for eviction proceedings under Section 14(1)(e). Emotional dependence considered alongside financial dependence. [Para 7]

Employment Status of Son (Jaswant) – High Court criticizes lack of specific findings by Additional Rent Controller on Jaswant's employment status. Testimonies suggest financial dependence of Jaswant on his mother, contrary to Controller's findings. [Para 8]

Legal Precedents on Business Requirement – Court references cases emphasizing that landlords need not demonstrate specific business know-how or detailed plans for utilizing premises. [Para 11]

Remand for Fresh Order – High Court sets aside Additional Rent Controller's order, remanding case for fresh order in light of discussed aspects. Directions given for expeditious disposal within two months, considering the long duration of the dispute. [Para 14, 15]

Decision: The High Court set aside the order of the Additional Rent Controller and remanded the case for fresh adjudication, directing an expeditious disposal within two months. Case remanded for re-evaluation of landlords' bona fide need and son's dependence. [Para 13, 14]

Land Acquisition – Adequacy of Notification and Consideration of Objections – Notification under Section 11 of RFCTLARR Act, 2013 issued for acquisition of land for Waste Water Treatment Plants (WWTPs) – Objectors’ claims of discrimination, malafides, and absence of urgency in dispensing with Chapter II & III of the 2013 Act found to be without merit – Notification and subsequent proceedings substantially complied with statutory requirements – Objections raised by petitioners considered in accordance with law – Acquisition for public purpose of setting up WWTPs justified in light of directions from NGT – Writ petitions challenging acquisition proceedings dismissed. [Paras 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102]

Public Interest and Government Discretion in Land Acquisition – Government's decision to acquire land for WWTPs upheld – Exercise of eminent domain for public interest justified – Notification under Section 11 of RFCTLARR Act, 2013 validly issued before lapsing of relevant Ordinance – Public purpose paramount over private interests in context of land acquisition for environmental and infrastructural development. [Paras 57, 58, 69, 70, 72, 80, 81, 86, 90, 94, 98, 101]

Constitutional and Legal Compliance in Land Acquisition – Acquisition process complied substantially with RFCTLARR Act, 2013 – Proper consideration of objections by affected parties ensured – No evidence of malafides or discrimination in selecting land for acquisition – Acquisition proceedings align with constitutional norms and legal requirements. [Paras 53, 54, 57, 58, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 92, 93, 94, 99, 100, 101, 102]

Acquisition in Accordance with Environmental Directives and Public Interest – Acquisition for setting up WWTPs in accordance with NGT directions – Consideration of environmental imperatives and public health needs validated the acquisition process – Land acquisition deemed essential for infrastructural development and environmental protection. [Paras 57, 70, 72, 80, 81, 101]

Decision and Dismissal of Writ Petitions – High Court dismisses writ petitions challenging land acquisition for WWTPs – Acquisition proceedings found to be conducted in compliance with statutory and constitutional provisions – No grounds for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution – Stay orders in writ petitions vacated. [Paras 101, 102]

Criminal Law - Conviction and Sentence Review – Appellant convicted under Section 302 IPC for the murder of an eight-year-old by setting him on fire – Sentenced to life imprisonment by the II Additional District Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence, including the presence of the appellant at the crime scene and her actions post-incident [Paras 2, 7-9, 16].

Circumstantial Evidence and Mental Health Defense – No direct eyewitnesses to the incident – Appellant, suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, set her nephew on fire following a quarrel – Defense centered around her mental health and lack of intent due to mental illness [Paras 3.1-3.4, 4.5-4.7, 5, 9, 10, 15].

Medical Evidence of Mental Illness – Appellant diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia – Evidence of mental illness for over ten years prior to the incident, during the occurrence, and after – Impact of mental health on criminal responsibility under Section 84 IPC highlighted [Paras 4.7, 9, 10-11, 13-14, 17].

Acquittal on Grounds of Mental Illness – High Court set aside the trial court's conviction – Appellant acquitted under Section 84 IPC, recognizing her mental illness and inability to understand the nature of her act [Paras 16, 14].

Custodial Care and Treatment Ordered – Appellant to be detained in safe custody under Section 335 Cr.P.C. – Treatment at the Institute of Mental Health, Kilpauk, Chennai, followed by potential transfer to a Welfare Home for Women – Family or relatives can seek custody with court's approval [Paras 17-18].

Civil Law - Court Fee – Declaration and Consequential Relief – Mandatory Injunction as Distinct Relief – Challenge to trial court's order directing plaintiff/petitioner to pay ad-valorem court fees for relief of mandatory injunction, separate from the relief of declaration. The trial court found mandatory injunction not to be a consequential relief to the declaration, necessitating separate court fees. Petitioner's argument of injunction being consequential to the declaration in a suit for declaration rejected by the court. Reliance on Civil Revision No. 433 of 2006 and Delhi High Court judgment in Sujata Sharma vs. Manu Gupta & Ors for determining the nature of consequential relief. The High Court's judgment emphasized that the consequential relief must follow directly from the declaration and cannot be claimed independently as a 'substantial relief'. [Paras 2-3, 5-7]

Retiral Dues Dispute – Claim for Declaration and Mandatory Injunction – Petitioner filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction regarding the retiral dues of a late employee. The suit sought to declare actions by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as null and void and claimed an injunction for the dues to be paid to the petitioner instead of respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The court found that the claim for injunction was independent and not consequential to the declaration, thereby requiring separate court fees. [Paras 3-4, 8]

Judicial Interpretation – Separation of Declaration and Consequential Relief – The court’s interpretation based on various precedents, determining that a relief of injunction in a declaration suit is not always consequential. Emphasis on the substance over the form of the plaint, and the need for a relief to follow as a natural consequence from the declaration. The court distinguished between 'further relief' and 'consequential relief', underlining that not all further relief constitutes consequential relief. [Para 7]

Decision – Dismissal of Petition – High Court upheld the trial court's observation and dismissed the petition. The court found no illegality or perversity in the trial court's order and clarified that the relief of declaration and injunction should be valued separately for court fees. The reliance of the petitioner on previous case law was found inapplicable in the present case. [Paras 8-9]