Land Dispute - Challenge to dismissal order under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act, 1948 - Disputed lands and question of title - Jurisdiction of Consolidation Authorities - Necessity to raise the question of title before a competent civil court - Impugned order found to be in alignment with legal precedent. [Para 1-4]

Legal Mandate - Prohibition against redistributing or repartitioning disputed lands amongst estate holders after the finalization of the consolidation scheme - Remedy for redistribution through declaratory suit before competent Civil Court - Reference to 'Parkash Singh and Others Vs. Joint Development Commissioner, Punjab and Others' case. [Para 3-4]

Dismissal of Writ Petition - Lack of merit in the petition - Reserving liberty for private respondents to pursue remedies as per legal precedent - Challenge to Annexure P-7 regarding auction of Grass becomes infructuous due to earlier court order. [Para 5-10]

Land Dispute - Challenge to dismissal order under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act, 1948 - Disputed lands and question of title - Jurisdiction of Consolidation Authorities - Necessity to raise the question of title before a competent civil court - Impugned order found to be in alignment with legal precedent. [Para 1-4]

Legal Mandate - Prohibition against redistributing or repartitioning disputed lands amongst estate holders after the finalization of the consolidation scheme - Remedy for redistribution through declaratory suit before competent Civil Court - Reference to 'Parkash Singh and Others Vs. Joint Development Commissioner, Punjab and Others' case. [Para 3-4]

Dismissal of Writ Petition - Lack of merit in the petition - Reserving liberty for private respondents to pursue remedies as per legal precedent - Challenge to Annexure P-7 regarding auction of Grass becomes infructuous due to earlier court order. [Para 5-10]

Regular Bail - Prolonged Custody - Right to Speedy Trial - Circumstantial Evidence - Medical Reports - Fairness in Trial - Article 21 of the Constitution - Petitioner, a mother of a minor child, seeks regular bail in a murder case where she is accused of killing her husband due to an alleged illicit relationship. The prosecution's case relies on circumstantial evidence, with key witnesses not supporting their claims, and medical reports contradicting the prosecution's version. The judgment emphasizes the right to a speedy trial and the importance of ensuring fairness in the ongoing trial. The petitioner is granted regular bail based on the grounds of prolonged custody, without making any comments on the merits of the case to prevent prejudice to the ongoing trial.

Bail Petition for NDPS Act Offense - Nirmal Kaur's petition for regular bail in FIR No.177 dated 07.07.2021 under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Division No.6, Ludhiana - Allegations of selling intoxicant powder and recovery of Alprazolam tablets and intoxicant powder from petitioner and her son [Paras 1-2].

Contention of False Implication - Petitioner's counsel argues false implication, non-compliance with mandatory provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of NDPS Act, absence of independent witnesses during search and seizure, petitioner being a first-time offender and in custody since 07.07.2021, delay in trial with 13 out of 17 witnesses examined - Cited judgments of the Supreme Court in Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan Versus The State of West Bengal and Hasanujjaman & others Versus The State of West Bengal [Para 3].

State's Opposition to Bail - State counsel opposes bail citing commercial quantity of contraband, but concedes petitioner's status as a first-time offender and duration of custody [Para 4].

Supreme Court Precedents on Bail - Reference to Supreme Court judgments in Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan Vs. The State of West Bengal and Hasanujjaman & others Vs. The State of West Bengal emphasizing bail in cases with long custody and slow trial progress [Paras 6-7].

Grant of Bail Considering Circumstances - Court grants bail considering petitioner's long custody since 07.07.2021, status as a first-time offender, progress in trial with 13 of 17 witnesses examined, and application of Article 21 of the Constitution of India - Directed to furnish bail bonds and surety to the satisfaction of the CJM/Duty Magistrate, report to police station monthly, and deposit an FDR of Rs.2,00,000/- with the Trial Court [Paras 8-11].

Criminal Bail – Regular Bail – Accused charged under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B IPC – Allegation of forgery and cheating the Bank – Petitioner's claim of being a guarantor of the loan – Co-accused granted bail – Petitioner in custody since August 29, 2023 – None of the 23 prosecution witnesses examined – No significant evidence of the risk of absconding, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses – Bail granted. [Para 2-8]

Personal Liberty – Emphasis on granting bail as the norm, especially in economic offences, once investigation is complete, and the triple test is satisfied – Denial of bail should be the exception rather than the rule – Bail granted without commenting on the merits of the case. [Para 6]

Quashing of Complaint and Summoning Order – Section 482 of Cr.P.C. – Petitioners, former employees of financial institutions, sought quashing of complaint and summoning order for charges under Section 58A(10) of the Companies Act, 1956, related to non-repayment of deposits by Euro Cotspin Limited. [Para 1]

Facts and Background – Euro Cotspin Limited failed to repay deposits as per Company Law Board's order. Petitioners, as nominee directors, argued non-liability for the company's failure and non-involvement in day-to-day affairs. A similar case (Lok Manya Negi) referenced for parity in relief. [Paras 2-4]

Legal Argument and Precedents – Nominee directors' limited role and lack of involvement in daily company operations highlighted. Protection under Section 41-A of the State Financial Corporation Act emphasized, citing precedent (S.K. Sharma Vs. Registrar of Companies) for non-liability of nominee directors. [Paras 4, 6]

Decision – Complaint and summoning order against petitioners quashed. The court held that nominee directors are not liable for company defaults and are protected under Section 41-A of the State Financial Corporation Act. [Paras 6-8]

Cancellation of Appointment Letter Challenged – Petitioner's appointment in ITBP cancelled after disclosing past criminal case involvement, despite acquittal – Ministry of Home Affairs guidelines cited for cancellation – Issue of whether acquittal on benefit of doubt bars appointment in armed forces. [Paras 1-3, 5, 7, 19]

Legal Principles on Acquittal and Employment – Supreme Court precedents (Avtar Singh v. Union of India, Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India) considered – Assessment of acquittal nature, especially on benefit of doubt, in public employment – Application of guidelines for appointment in sensitive roles like ITBP. [Paras 8-10, 14-15, 17-18]

Judgment's Analysis of Petitioner's Acquittal – Trial Court's finding that prosecution failed to prove minor age of alleged victim under POCSO Act – Petitioner's acquittal based on lack of evidence and non-supportive testimonies of alleged victim and her mother. [Paras 16-17]

High Court's Decision – Quashing the cancellation of appointment letter – Direction to reconsider petitioner's case for appointment in ITBP – Emphasis on thorough examination of petitioner's case and antecedents, considering his acquittal and honest disclosure. [Paras 21-22]

Common Issue and Petitioners' Background – Consolidation of three petitions with similar issues – Petitioners, former apprentices under the 1961 Act with National Fertilizers Limited, sought regular employment based on their training completion from 1999 to 2001 and a 2018 job advertisement – Petitioners lacked the required B.Sc. or Engineering diploma qualifications for the advertised posts [Para 1-3].

Petitioners' Argument – Cited Supreme Court's judgment, emphasizing the duty of employers to prefer trained apprentices over direct recruits – Alleged intentional exclusion by the respondent in setting qualifications for advertised posts – Petitioners expressed willingness to work in any capacity, including as laborers [Para 4].

Respondents' Counterargument – Pointed to Section 22 of the 1961 Act, highlighting no obligation to employ apprentices post-training – Respondents had relaxed age criteria but maintained educational qualifications due to a policy decision favoring B.Sc./Diploma holders for specific roles [Para 5].

Court's Analysis – Noted a 17-year gap between apprenticeship completion and job advertisement – Acknowledged respondents' policy changes and shifting technological demands – Recognized respondents' decision to prioritize specific qualifications and reduce manual labor roles [Para 6-8].

Applicability of Section 22, 1961 Act – Clarified that employment of apprentices post-training is not mandatory under the Act – No condition in the contract between parties obligated the employer to offer employment post-apprenticeship [Para 9-10].

Petitioners' Delay and Acquiescence – Lack of employment claim from 2001 to 2018 indicated petitioners' acquiescence to their release post-apprenticeship – The Court cannot mandate employers to alter qualification criteria, as it falls within the employer's discretion [Para 11].

Court's Interpretation of Supreme Court Judgment – The Apex Court's judgment does not entail mandatory employment for apprentices in every case – Employers are not required to tailor eligibility criteria to suit apprentices – Section 22 of the 1961 Act is explicit in not obliging employers to provide employment post-apprenticeship [Para 11-12].

Decision:

The petitions were dismissed due to lack of merit, with any pending applications also disposed of – However, the dismissal does not prevent the respondent-organization from considering the petitioners for employment in the future if they meet the required criteria [Paras 12-14].

Petition Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Quashing of criminal complaint No. 489 dated 25.01.2012 filed against the petitioner involving various charges under IPC, along with the summoning order dated 20.07.2012 and revision order dated 29.10.2015 – Complaint pertains to the alleged forced eviction and theft from a shop in PGIMS, Rohtak. [Para 1]

Allegations and Response – Complainant alleged forced eviction and theft of goods worth Rs.80/90 lacs by the petitioner and others – Petitioner, as Estate Officer, acted under orders of competent authority – Compliance with lawful procedures for eviction emphasized. [Para 2, 4]

Comparison with Co-accused – Petitioner's case paralleled with co-accused whose complaints were previously quashed by the Court in separate petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C., highlighting similar grounds and circumstances. [Para 3]

Need for Sanction Under Section 197 Cr.P.C. – Emphasis on requirement of sanction before prosecuting a public servant – Petitioner's actions considered within official capacity and in good faith – Reference to prior judgments underscoring the necessity of sanction for legal proceedings against public servants. [Para 4, 5]

Quashing of Proceedings – Court finds complaint, summoning order, and revision order against the petitioner to be quashed, aligning with decisions in similar cases involving co-accused – Recognition of petitioner’s compliance with official duties and absence of malice in actions. [Para 6]