Land Demarcation and Ownership Dispute – Challenge to the demolition process of encroachments by DDA in Mehrauli Archaeological Park – Petitioners assert ownership over properties within khasra No. 1151/3 of Village Mehrauli, disputing DDA's claim of government land – Demolition notice dated 12th December, 2022, based on demarcation report dated 21st December, 2021, contested for not following due process – Demarcation accuracy and property location in question – Writ court's jurisdiction limited, not extending to intricate factual determinations of land demarcation – Petitioners' rights to be determined by competent authority or civil courts – Demolition notice quashed for non-compliance with procedural fairness under Section 30 of the DDA Act – Direction for DDA to reissue notice, allowing petitioners a fair hearing. [Paras 1, 3, 4, 6-7, 10-11, 13-14, 16-17, 18-21]

Conservation Efforts and Judicial Supervision – DDA's responsibility to maintain Mehrauli Heritage Zone as per court directives – High Court's involvement in overseeing conservation does not absolve DDA from following legal procedures – Importance of procedural fairness and compliance with statutory procedures highlighted. [Paras 5, 16-17]

Procedural Fairness in Administrative Actions – DDA's demolition action without show-cause notice contravenes principles of natural justice and statutory requirements – Affected persons entitled to a hearing before property deprivation – Court upholds petitioners' objection on procedural grounds, mandates corrective action by DDA. [Paras 16-17, 19]

Writ Court's Jurisdiction – High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 limited in matters requiring specialized knowledge and technical expertise in land demarcation – Emphasis on statutory authorities' role in resolving complex land disputes – High Court refrains from adjudicating on demarcation report, allows petitioners recourse to appropriate forums. [Paras 7-8, 12-13, 18]

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of FIR – FIR No.264/2017 under Sections 326-B/506 IPC challenged – Allegations of acid attack by petitioner on respondent no.2 – Inherent improbability of allegations and lack of injury evidence led to questioning the authenticity of the FIR – Mala fide initiation of proceedings due to property dispute evident – FIR quashed. [Para 1, 6, 9-11, 15, 21-24]

Property Dispute – Core of the dispute between petitioner and respondent no.2 – Ongoing conflict over property rights leading to a contrived criminal charge against the petitioner – Context of malicious intent established through previous complaints regarding unauthorized construction. [Para 2.1, 6(iii)-(iv), 13-14]

Evidence Evaluation – No external injury consistent with acid attack found – Contradictory medical and police records indicated no acid found on respondent no.2 – FSL report’s findings of Hydrochloric Acid on tiles not substantiated by physical injuries – Statements of alleged eyewitnesses not corroborating the prosecution's claim. [Para 9-12, 16]

Application of Legal Principles – Supreme Court’s criteria in Bhajan Lal for quashing FIRs applied – Current case falls under the categories warranting quashing to prevent abuse of legal process and to serve justice – Chargesheet presence does not bar FIR quashing – High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC reaffirmed for such circumstances. [Para 17-23]

Decision – FIR and subsequent proceedings quashed – Petition allowed based on findings of abuse of legal process and lack of credible evidence against the petitioner – Legal principles and precedents applied to secure the ends of justice and prevent misuse of court's process. [Para 21, 24]

Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Additional Directors under Negotiable Instruments Act – Application for quashing FIR and process against additional directors in a cheque dishonor case – Application allowed, process quashed. [Para 1, 16]

Negotiable Instruments Act, Sections 138 and 141 – Interpretation and Applicability – Clarification on applicability of Sections 138 and 141 to additional directors – Specific averments required to establish responsibility for conduct of company’s business. [Para 9, 10, 13]

Director’s Liability – Types of Directors – Analysis of roles and responsibilities of Managing Directors, Non-Executive Directors, Executive Directors, and Additional Directors – No automatic vicarious liability for additional directors without specific averments. [Para 12, 13]

Judicial Discretion under Section 482 of CrPC – Inherent powers of High Court – Exercised to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice – Applied to quash proceedings lacking prima facie satisfaction of legal provisions. [Para 14, 15]

Decision – Criminal proceedings against applicants (additional directors) quashed – Lack of specific averments against applicants and non-satisfaction of ingredients under Sections 138, 141, and 142 of NI Act. [Para 16]

Criminal Revision Petition – Seeking Discharge Under Section 227 of CrPC – Rejection by Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Thrissur – Revision Petitioner/Accused files petition challenging dismissal. [Para 1]

Offences Charged – Accused charged under Sections 448, 461, 392, and 397 IPC – Trial court cognizance for offences under Sections 448, 461, 328, and 397 IPC – Accused's plea for reevaluation of charges under Section 392 IPC dismissed by lower court. [Para 3]

Prosecution Allegations – Accused allegedly administered poisonous substances to victims for theft – Theft of gold ornaments following victims’ incapacitation – Allegations align with definition of robbery under Section 390 IPC. [Para 4]

Legal Analysis – Differentiating between simple robbery under Section 392 IPC and aggravated forms under Sections 394 and 397 IPC – Consideration of nature of hurt caused to victims in determining applicable sections. [Para 5-6]

Expert Testimony – Witness accounts and expert opinion indicating administration of poisonous substances to victims, leading to prolonged hospitalization – Prima facie evidence suggesting attempt to cause death, categorizing offence under Section 397 IPC. [Para 7]

Charge Framing – Necessity for clarity and specificity in charges – Recommendation to frame charges under Sections 448, 461, 328, and 397 IPC only. [Para 8]

Decision – Modification of impugned order – Charges against petitioner to be framed for offences under Sections 448, 461, 328, and 397 IPC. [Para 9]

Maternity Leave for Surrogate Mothers – Legal Recognition and Entitlement:

The central issue is whether a surrogate mother can be denied maternity leave under the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. The petitioner, a mother through surrogacy, sought maternity leave for her newborn twins but was denied by state authorities. The case examines the eligibility of surrogate mothers for maternity leave and its implications on their rights under the Constitution of India. [Para 4, 5, 7]

Interpretation of Maternity Leave Provisions – Inclusivity of Surrogacy:

The judgment explores the interpretation of 'maternity leave' and its applicability to surrogate mothers. The court considered various High Court decisions, emphasizing the need for inclusive interpretation of maternity leave provisions in the light of developments in reproductive technologies and societal changes. [Para 13-17, 20-26]

Right to Motherhood under Article 21 – Constitutional Perspective:

The court recognized the right to motherhood as part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It highlighted the necessity of extending maternity leave to surrogate mothers, considering the importance of the mother-child bond and the well-being of the child. [Para 25, 27]

Order – Grant of Maternity Leave to Petitioner:

The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the order denying maternity leave to the petitioner. The court directed the respondents to grant 180 days of maternity leave to the petitioner, with all consequential benefits. [Para 30]

Recommendation for Legislative Amendment – Addressing Surrogacy in Maternity Leave Provisions:

The court recommended legislative amendments to explicitly include provisions for maternity leave for surrogate and commissioning mothers, acknowledging the evolving nature of motherhood and family structures. [Para 31]

Decision – No Distinction in Motherhood Forms:

The judgment established that no distinction should be made between natural, biological, and surrogate mothers regarding maternity leave entitlements, affirming the rights of all mothers under the Constitution. [Para 29, 31]

Public Interest Litigation – Quo Warranto – Judicial inquiry into the legitimacy of the appointment of the Director of the Morarji Desai National Institute of Yoga – Petitioner alleges lack of requisite qualifications and fabricated employment record of the respondent – Court finds the respondent met the essential criteria at the time of appointment. [Para 1, 20-22]

Appointment and Qualifications – Director of MDNIY – Allegations of forged academic credentials and service record – Respondent's qualifications and experience as per the recruitment rules assessed – Court concludes the respondent’s qualifications and experience fulfil the essential criteria. [Para 3.2, 9, 12-14]

Tenure of Office – MDNIY Director’s tenure beyond the stipulated period – Examination of policy documents and appointment terms – Petition’s claim unsubstantiated, respondent’s appointment deemed in compliance with due process. [Para 3.3, 15-16]

Medical Fitness – Respondent's medical fitness for the role of Yoga Instructor questioned due to past medical discharge from Air Force – Court finds no cogent evidence to investigate the claim further. [Para 17]

Vigilance Complaints – Lack of action on complaints lodged with CVC against the respondent – Court accepts Respondent’s explanation as per CVC guidelines, dismissing the complaints as 'pseudonymous.' [Para 18]

Performance as Director – Allegations of respondent’s ineffectiveness in expanding opportunities for Yoga teachers – Court determines such claims fall outside its evaluative authority under Article 226. [Para 19]

Decision – Petitioner’s allegations found unsubstantiated, respondent’s appointment and tenure confirmed as legitimate – Writ petition and associated applications dismissed. [Para 20-24]

Taxation – Challenge against the lower deduction of tax certificate issued under Section 197 of the IT Act – Petitioner, a company in e-commerce retail, sought to challenge the certificate permitting the deduction of TDS at 0.5% instead of 0.01% requested – The court found the order to be non-speaking and mechanically issued, lacking proper reasoning – Impugned actions set aside with directions for a fresh determination. [Para 1, 6, 15-16]

Judicial Review – Application of Rule 28AA of the IT Rules – The court emphasized the need for a speaking and reasoned order, referring to Supreme Court’s decision in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr. – Orders cannot be validated by reasons added later, such as through affidavits – Respondent No. 1’s reasons found to be broad generalizations, indicative of non-application of mind. [Para 13-15]

Procedure – Remand for fresh determination of the application – The case remanded back to Respondent No. 1 for a fresh determination of the Petitioner’s application for lower TDS deduction in accordance with the law – Directed to be conducted as expeditiously as possible. [Para 16-17]

Legal Procedure – Challenge of Magistrate’s Order – Applicants, advocates by profession, seek quashing of a Magistrate’s order for preliminary inquiry – Application made under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – High Court finds no illegality in Magistrate’s direction, application dismissed. [Para 2, 16-17]

FIR Registration – Mandate of FIR registration in cases disclosing cognizable offences – No preliminary inquiry if cognizable offence is apparent – Supreme Court’s guidelines in Lalita Kumari case applied – Magistrate’s direction for preliminary inquiry upheld as cognizable offence not clearly disclosed. [Para 12-16]

Magistrate’s Discretion – Preliminary Inquiry – Scope and discretion in ordering preliminary inquiries – Inquiries to ascertain cognizable offences, not for verifying information veracity – Upheld in case involving allegations against police for violating court order. [Para 16]

Application of Judicial Principles – Necessity for application of judicial mind in Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. applications – Emphasis on supporting affidavits and verification of allegations – Reference to case laws for judicial guidance. [Para 14-15]

Civil Suit – Permission to examine sole witness – Petitioner seeks permission to examine its sole witness in a civil suit for ejectment and recovery of mesne profits – Matter pending at the stage of defendant evidence – Petitioner willing to pay costs and seeks a final opportunity – Respondent agrees to one final opportunity subject to legal costs and strict terms – Petitioner permitted to lead evidence of sole witness on the specified date – Limited right to lead evidence granted with conditions – No infirmity found in the Trial Court’s previous order – Petitioner bound to address final arguments after the conclusion of defendant evidence – Petition disposed of with directions. [Para 1-8]