Conviction and Sentencing Under NDPS Act – Lavkesh Singh and Pawan Kumar convicted under Sections 20(b) II(c), 25, 29 of NDPS Act for narcotics transport – Sentenced to 14 years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine for Section 20(b) II(c), and 10 years for Sections 25 and 29 [Para 1].

Raid and Recovery of Narcotics – Intelligence Officer R.K. Tiwari received information about transportation of narcotics in a train – A raid conducted, resulting in the recovery of 124 kg charas and 77 kg ganja, valued at Rs. 38,74,000 [Paras 3-6].

Non-Compliance with NDPS Act Provisions – Violation of Sections 42(1), 42(2), and 55 of NDPS Act – Failure to reduce information into writing, lack of search warrant, and improper handling and custody of recovered narcotics [Paras 12-16, 19-21].

Absence of Independent Witnesses and Link Evidence – Independent witnesses not produced in court, and no explanation given – Missing link evidence for custody of narcotics from seizure to deposition in malkhana [Paras 26, 27].

Appeal Allowed – Given the non-compliance with NDPS Act, procedural lapses, and absence of independent witnesses, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the lower court’s conviction and sentencing [Para 30].

Service Law - Challenge to Armed Forces Tribunal Order – Petitioner, an Indian Air Force Corporal, challenges the Armed Forces Tribunal's decision dismissing his appeal for permission to join a civilian post – Petitioner's appeal for NOC and discharge to join as Assistant Professor in Rajasthan Government contested. [Para 1-3]

Online Application Rejection – Petitioner's failed attempts to apply online for civilian post due to non-acceptance by the software – Offline application attempt also rejected – Petitioner appeared for the selection process without formal permission from the authorities. [Para 3-8]

Armed Forces Tribunal Decision – AFT concludes petitioner failed to comply with necessary procedures for applying to civilian post – No substantial proof of online or offline application submissions – Petitioner's participation in selection process without permission deemed non-compliant with Air Force Order 33/2017. [Para 13]

Petitioner’s Argument – Contention of procedural oversight and non-availability of offline application process – Challenge to the constitutional validity of AFO 33/2017, arguing it imposes unreasonable conditions on airmen seeking civilian employment. [Para 14]

Respondents’ Counterargument – Emphasis on the importance of compliance with AFO 33/2017 guidelines – Argue petitioner failed to provide evidence of attempting to apply online or offline – Highlighting the significant investment in training airmen and operational impact of their premature discharge. [Para 15-23]

High Court's Analysis – High Court finds no evidence of petitioner's online or offline application submissions – Upholds AFT's finding of non-compliance with AFO 33/2017 by the petitioner – Dismisses the petition for lack of merit. [Para 29-35]

Decision – High Court affirms AFT's decision, rejecting petitioner’s appeal for lack of procedural compliance – Petition for NOC and discharge to join civilian post dismissed. [Para 35]

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Appeal under Section 37 – Challenging the dismissal of objections under Section 34 against the Arbitral Award dated 20.02.2019 – Award directed appellants to pay substantial sums with interest and costs – Dismissal of objections upheld by the High Court. [Para 1, 2, 37]

Commercial Court’s Order – Compliance with Order XLI Rule 5 CPC – Appellants directed to deposit 50% of the principal amount and provide an undertaking for the remaining amount – Special Leave Petition against this order dismissed by the Supreme Court. [Para 3]

Facts of the Case – Financial transactions between appellants and respondent – MoU for commission and refund of principal amount – Allegations of defaults in payments by appellants leading to legal action and arbitration. [Para 4, 5]

Arbitration Proceedings – Objections to arbitrator’s appointment by appellants – Arbitrator proceeded with the case, leading to the Award – Appellants contested the arbitrator’s decision and the validity of the MoU. [Para 7-14, 28, 29, 35, 36]

Fraud Allegations – Appellants accused respondent of forgery and violating public policy – Respondent highlighted appellants’ history of legal issues and defaulting tendencies – Commercial Court dismissed appellants’ claims of forgery. [Para 11, 15-19]

Legal Principles – Analysis of arbitration clause under MoU – Limited scope of interference by courts under Section 34 of the Act – Importance of distinguishing between contract interpretation errors and patent illegality. [Para 26, 31-34]

Conclusion – Dismissal of Appeal – No illegality or perversity found in the Arbitral Award and Commercial Court’s decision – Upholding of Arbitral Award dated 20.02.2019. [Para 37]

Medical Termination of Pregnancy – Request for Termination Beyond 24 Weeks – Psychological Impact and Ethical Considerations: Petitioner sought medical termination of a 30-week pregnancy due to severe depression and life changes following her husband's death. AIIMS reports and psychological assessments evaluated the petitioner's mental health and the ethical implications of feticide, considering the fetus showed no abnormalities. [Para 1, 2, 3, 4, 21, 22]

Court's Intervention in Late Pregnancy Termination Cases – Medical and Ethical Guidelines: The Court, referencing the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, and relevant guidelines, highlighted the ethical considerations in late pregnancy terminations, especially when the fetus is normal. The Court emphasized the need for careful evaluation of physical and mental health risks to the mother and potential child. [Para 14, 15, 16, 22, 23]

Psychological Evaluation and Treatment of Petitioner – Importance of Mental Health in Pregnancy Decisions: Detailed psychological assessment revealed the petitioner's severe depression but without psychotic features, emphasizing the importance of mental health in decisions regarding pregnancy termination. [Para 19, 20, 21]

Judicial Precedent and Legislative Provisions – Termination of Pregnancy Beyond Permissible Limits: The Court considered previous Supreme Court judgments and statutory provisions under the MTP Act, highlighting the legal framework for pregnancy termination and the extended considerations for cases beyond 24 weeks. [Para 17, 18, 19, 10]

Court's Decision – Recall of Earlier Judgment Permitting Termination, Emphasis on Future Care: The Court recalled its previous judgment allowing pregnancy termination, taking into account subsequent medical reports and ethical considerations. The judgment focused on future medical care for the petitioner and the newborn, including the possibility of adoption. [Para 24, 25, 26, 27, 28]

Decision: Original judgment permitting termination of pregnancy recalled. The Court directed the petitioner to consult with the Medical Board for future pregnancy and delivery management, ensuring medical and psychological support, and outlined provisions for potential adoption. [Para 24-28]

Servioce Law - Writ Petition – Delhi High Court – Group-D to Group-C Upgradation in Delhi Police – Petition challenging Central Administrative Tribunal’s decision dismissing the Original Application for parity in grade pay with Central Paramilitary Forces (CPMFs) – Dismissed as non-combatised roles in Delhi Police do not equate with combatised roles in CPMFs. [Paras 1, 2, 15-24]

Training and Upgradation – Comparison of Training and Duties – Distinct nature of training and roles between erstwhile Group-D employees in Delhi Police and ‘Followers’ in CPMFs – Lack of rigorous Arms and Ammunition Training and law enforcement duties for Delhi Police Group-D staff, unlike CPMFs – Tribunal’s rejection of parity in grade pay upheld. [Paras 28-34]

Pay Commission Recommendations – 6th Central Pay Commission – Implementation and interpretation – 6th CPC’s specific recommendations for CPMFs not applicable to Delhi Police’s non-combatised roles – Tribunal’s interpretation upheld in distinguishing between roles in Delhi Police and CPMFs. [Paras 20-21]

Equal Pay for Equal Work – Legal Principles – Supreme Court guidelines on equal pay for equal work – Necessity of examining duties, responsibilities, training, and nature of posts for determining pay parity – Tribunal’s decision in line with Supreme Court’s principles on job evaluation and pay determination. [Paras 22]

Decision – Dismissal of Writ Petition – Tribunal’s decision to reject OA for grade pay parity upheld – Distinction between duties and nature of employment in Delhi Police and CPMFs justifies different pay scales – Petitioners’ claim for grade pay of ₹2000/- dismissed, maintaining their grade pay at ₹1800/-. [Para 24]

Validity of Wills – Dispute over the last will of M.N. Ranganathan. The trial court’s dismissal of the suit contesting the will dated 27-01-1996 (Ex.D1) was challenged. The appellants asserted that the will dated 30-12-1992 (Ex.P11) was the valid last will of Ranganathan. [Paras 1, 3, 33-34, 43, 61-62]

Health Condition of Testator – Consideration of the testator’s health at the time of executing the wills. Evidence of medical treatment and mental state indicating he might not have been in a condition to execute the will dated 27-01-1996 (Ex.D1). [Paras 48, 50, 56, 58]

Suspicious Circumstances – Multiple suspicious circumstances surrounding Ex.D1, including inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses, the physical and mental state of the testator, and the manner in which Ex.D1 was found and registered. [Paras 43-44, 47-50, 52, 56-58]

Failure to Dispel Suspicions – Defendants failed to dispel the suspicions surrounding Ex.D1. The court found inconsistencies and unreliability in the evidence presented. [Paras 56, 59]

Admission of Earlier Will (Ex.P11) – Defendants’ admission of the will dated 30-12-1992 (Ex.P11) in their pleadings and the court’s finding that Ex.P11 was the last valid will of the testator. [Paras 61, 64]

Duties of Court Receiver – Directions regarding the duties of the Court Receiver, including handing over possession and documents to the plaintiffs and conducting an enquiry into the handling of the testator’s estate. [Paras 66-72]

Decision: Appeal allowed. The judgment of the trial court is set aside. The will dated 27-01-1996 (Ex.D1) declared null and void, and the will dated 30-12-1992 (Ex.P11) declared as the last valid will of M.N. Ranganathan. Directions issued to the Court Receiver.

Anticipatory Bail – Denial of anticipatory bail in a case involving economic offences and corruption – Petitioner, a revenue official (Patwari) involved in a land compensation fraud under the National Highway Act 1956 – Custodial interrogation necessary to uncover the extent of the conspiracy and financial implications – Bail denied due to the gravity of the offences and the need for a thorough investigation. [Paras 1, 3, 5, 9]

Economic Offences – Seriousness of economic offences and their impact on public interest and national economy – Economic offences involving deliberate and calculated actions for personal gain, considered grave and detrimental to societal and national interests – Importance of rigorous investigation in such cases emphasized. [Paras 11, 14]

Judicial Precedents – Reference to various Supreme Court rulings underscoring the importance of custodial interrogation in serious offences, especially economic crimes – Emphasis on balancing individual liberty with societal interests and the integrity of investigations – Precedents highlight the need for discretion in granting anticipatory bail based on the nature of the accusation, evidence, and severity of punishment. [Paras 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16]

Role of Revenue Officials in Land Compensation Frauds – Specific mention of the petitioner's role as a Patwari in falsifying land nature reports, leading to illegal financial gains and government losses – Illustration of how misuse of official position can facilitate significant economic crimes and corruption. [Paras 5, 7, 8]

Decision – High Court’s decision to deny anticipatory bail based on the seriousness of the allegations, the need for custodial interrogation, and the precedents set by the Supreme Court – Observations made in the judgment not to influence the trial court’s decision on regular bail or the merits of the case. [Para 17, 18]

Anticipatory Bail Application – Petitioner, a Horticulture Development Officer, sought anticipatory bail in FIR for corruption and forgery in land acquisition process – Alleged involvement in assisting in wrongful compensation claims for fruit trees during land acquisition by GMADA – Interim bail granted earlier, subject to conditions, but opposed by the state citing serious allegations and evidence of corruption. [Paras 1-2, 4-5]

Factual Background – FIR based on inquiry into land acquisition for "Aerotropolis Residential Project" – Allegations of corrupt practices in assessing compensation for fruit trees, with petitioner accused of preparing fraudulent reports to facilitate higher compensation – Petitioner's involvement indicated in discrepancies in assessment reports and signatures on official documents. [Paras 3, 7-8, 14-17]

Seriousness of Economic Offences – Court noted the gravity of economic offences and their impact on the state's economy and community trust – Emphasized the need for rigorous scrutiny in cases involving corruption and economic harm. [Paras 12-13, 15]

Considerations for Bail – Analysis of allegations and evidence against the petitioner – The court found substantial evidence linking petitioner to the crime, thus rejecting bail – Emphasized the need for custodial interrogation to uncover the full extent of the conspiracy and involvement of other officials. [Paras 6, 9-11, 16-18]

Supreme Court Precedents – Referenced various Supreme Court judgments outlining principles for granting anticipatory bail, especially in economic offences – Highlighted the importance of considering the nature of the offence, the severity of punishment, and the need for a thorough investigation. [Paras 11-15, 17]

Decision: Petition for anticipatory bail dismissed due to the seriousness of allegations and the need for custodial interrogation – Interim orders vacated.

Service Law - Increment Entitlement after Retirement – Government servants retiring on June 30th entitled to increment due on July 1st – Petitioners, retired government servants, seeking increment and consequential benefits – Reliance on judgments of various High Courts and the Supreme Court affirming this entitlement. [Para 3, 5.1, 5.2]

Legal Position on Grant of Increment Post-Retirement – The Supreme Court and various High Courts' stance on granting increment post-retirement – Interpretation of regulations to avoid arbitrariness and ensure fairness in granting increments earned through service with good conduct. [Para 3, 5.1, 6.5]

Decision – Grant of increment to petitioners retiring on June 30th upheld – Directed revision of pension and other retirement benefits, including arrears with interest, if applicable – Petition allowed for specified petitioners, dismissed for others not meeting criteria. [Para 6, 7, 8]