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]

Criminal Law - Arrest and Detention - Illegality and Non-Compliance with Statutory Provisions - The High Court of Bombay examined the legality of the arrest and detention of the petitioners, Chanda Deepak Kochhar and Deepak Virendra Kochhar, under the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), in light of the statutory requirements of Sections 41, 41-A, and 60-A, and constitutional protections. The Court scrutinized the arrest memos and the procedure followed by the investigating agency, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), in arresting the petitioners. [Para 8-8.26]

Application of Section 41 and Section 41-A Cr.P.C. - Held - The Court observed a significant departure from the compliance of Sections 41, 41-A, and 60-A of Cr.P.C. in the arrest of the petitioners. The arrest reasons, as stated in the arrest memos, did not satisfy the necessary conditions under these sections, leading to a conclusion that the arrests were not in accordance with the law. [Para 8.11-8.14, 8.18-8.22]

Right to Personal Liberty and Protection from Arbitrary Arrest - Reinforced - The High Court emphasized the importance of personal liberty and the need to protect individuals from arbitrary arrest. It was held that the mere ability to arrest does not justify the act of arrest without proper legal basis and adherence to procedural safeguards. [Para 8.23]

Decision - Grant of Bail - In view of the non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Cr.P.C. and the directions of the Supreme Court, the Court held that the petitioners' arrests were illegal. Consequently, the Court ordered the release of the petitioners on interim bail, setting specific conditions for their release. [Para 9]

Bail Application – Allegation of Assault – Petitioner accused of participating in an assault with other co-accused, giving lalkara and kick blows – FIR No.70 under Sections 307, 323, 324, 506, 148, 149 IPC – Co-accused granted bail in related cases. [Paras 1-3]

Legal Principles for Bail – Citing "State of Rajasthan V. Balchand alias Baliay", 1977 AIR 2447, and "Nikesh Tarachand Shah V. Union of India", (2018) 11 SCC 1 – Emphasis on bail as a rule and jail as an exception, presumption of innocence, and the right to speedy trial. [Paras 5-7]

Petitioner's Incarceration – Faced incarceration for 10 months and 3 days – Co-accused who inflicted more serious injuries already granted bail. [Paras 4, 10]

Final Order – Petitioner granted bail based on the principle of parity and the nature of the allegations – Directed to furnish bail and surety bond to the satisfaction of the concerned court. [Para 11]

Conditions and Future Conduct – Warning against involvement in similar offences in the future – State's liberty to seek cancellation of bail in case of repeat offences. [Para 12]

Civil Suit – Grant of conditional leave to defend – Defendant challenges the Trial Court’s order granting conditional leave to defend – Defendant disputes financial transactions and execution of handwritten undertaking – Defendant failed to comply with the Trial Court’s directions and delayed approaching the Court – Defendant’s conduct indicates an intent to protract legal proceedings – Plaintiff relied on dishonored cheques and handwritten undertaking – Defendant’s defense of issuing blank cheques without consideration is weak – Defendant’s admission of signatures on the undertaking while disputing its contents – Trial Court’s discretion to impose conditions for leave to defend – Interference with discretionary order under Article 227 requires a showing of patently erroneous exercise of discretion – Defendant failed to make a case for interference – Petition dismissed.

Injunction – Restraining Sale of Property – Appellants restrained from selling disputed property till further orders – Appeal against Single Judge's order in Original Suit for partition, declaration, and permanent injunction – Court maintaining status quo to protect property rights during litigation. [Para 1, 7, 8]

Property Rights – Sale of Property in Dispute – Challenge to the legality of sale based on claims of fraud and collusion in execution of relinquishment deed – Consideration of legal heir's rights in property inherited from deceased father. [Para 2, 3]

Appellate Jurisdiction – Interference with Discretionary Orders – Appellate court’s approach to discretion exercised by trial court in granting temporary injunction – Appellate court not to substitute its discretion except in cases of arbitrary, capricious or perverse exercise of discretion. [Para 5, 6]

Temporary Injunction – Principles for Grant – Prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss – Upholding Single Judge's findings on all three considerations for granting injunction to protect property during litigation. [Para 7, 8]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – Upholding Single Judge's order, maintaining injunction against appellants from selling disputed property – Appeal and pending application dismissed. [Para 9

Negotiable Instruments Act – Cheque dishonored – Account blocked – Maintaining the account – Accused acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate – Petition seeking leave to appeal against the judgment – Issue of whether the account on which the cheques were drawn can be said to be maintained by the drawer when the said account was blocked/frozen/attached on the orders of an authority – Interpretation of Section 138 of the NI Act – The petitioner argues that the judgment ignored settled case law accommodating situations arising from deliberate acts/omissions of the accused – Relying on Laxmi Dyechem vs. State of Gujarat (2012) 13 SCC 375 and Pankaj Mehra & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2000) 2 SCC 756 – Respondent argues that the account was blocked for reasons beyond the control of the drawer – Citing Modi Cements Limited vs. Kuchil Kumar Nandi (1998) 3 SCC 249 and Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Pennar Peterson Securities Ltd. & Ors. (2000) 2 SCC 745 – Court finds that the account being blocked for reasons beyond the control of the drawer does not amount to a voluntary act of the drawer – Petitioner fails to prove the first ingredient of Section 138 of NI Act – Judgment of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate upheld – Leave petition dismissed.

Application for Leave to Appeal Against Acquittal – Filed under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. against acquittal in a case under the N.D.P.S. Act – Accused acquitted by the Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Neemuch, in Special S.T. No.32A/2018. [Para 1]

Facts of the Case – Secret information led to the interception of co-accused Indarmal with 2 Kg 600 grams of opium – Respondent Ajay implicated based on Indarmal’s statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. [Para 2, 3]

State’s Contention – Appellant/State challenged the trial court’s judgment, claiming it overlooked the evidence and prosecution witnesses’ statements, and failed to consider the presumption in favor of the State. [Para 4]

Trial Court’s Acquittal – Grounded on insufficient evidence to establish respondent Ajay’s involvement in the alleged crime – Relied only on the co-accused’s memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. [Para 6]

Appellate Principles – Reference to Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the cautious approach in appellate intervention against acquittals – Interference only on compelling and substantial grounds. [Paras 7-8]

High Court’s Decision – Finding no illegality or perversity in the trial court’s order and no compelling reasons for appellate interference – Dismissal of appeal and declination of leave to appeal. [Para 9, 10]

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Modification of maintenance amount by Appellate Tribunal – Original order requiring each brother to pay Rs.700/- per month – Appellate order enhanced petitioner's payment to Rs.3000/- per month, leaving other brother's payment unchanged – Petitioner's challenge to the discriminatory enhancement. [Para 2, 3]

High Court Intervention – Direction to deposit arrears at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month from November 2016 and to pay litigation expenses – Balance payment of Rs.19,000/- towards maintenance at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month confirmed by the court. [Para 3, 4]

Settlement and Court Order – Petitioner's agreement to pay Rs.1000/- per month as maintenance – High Court modifies the impugned order and sets the maintenance amount at Rs.1000/- per month, to be paid by the 7th of every month. [Para 5-7]

Decision – Impugned order dated 14.12.2016 partially modified – Civil Writ Petition disposed of with directions for regular maintenance payments by the petitioner. [Para 7, 8]