Challenge to Tribunal’s Order – Petition against Central Administrative Tribunal's order directing review DPC for promotion of respondent No.4 retrospectively – Petitioners claim their seniority affected due to Tribunal's decision without their participation in the original application – Tribunal’s order based on Supreme Court’s interpretation of equivalence in qualifications for promotion. [Para 1-2]

Seniority and Promotion Dispute – Dispute over promotion criteria from Assistant Surveyor of Works (ASW) to Surveyor of Works (SW) – Criteria set in Military Engineering Services Recruitment Rules, 1985, and subsequent changes in 2005 – Respondent No.4’s promotion denied previously due to qualification criteria, now considered equivalent by Supreme Court. [Para 3-6]

Judicial History – Respondent No.4's initial application for seniority correction based on equivalence of degree in Civil Engineering with Institution of Surveyors (India) examination – Supreme Court ruling in favor of equivalence – Impact on respondent No.4's promotion and subsequent Tribunal applications. [Para 6-9]

Petitioners' Arguments and Tribunal's Decision – Petitioners' contention on delay and non-inclusion in Tribunal application – Tribunal ordered review DPC for respondent No.4, considering him fit and eligible for promotion – Challenge to Tribunal's decision on grounds of delay and procedural issues. [Para 10-11]

Respondent No.4's Position and Tribunal’s Rationale – Respondent No.4 justified in seeking promotion based on Supreme Court’s decision and equivalence in qualifications – Tribunal's order aimed at rectifying missed promotion opportunity for respondent No.4. [Para 11-13]

Court’s Analysis and Conclusion – High Court finds no merit in petitioners' arguments regarding delay and procedural lapses – Emphasizes the importance of implementing Tribunal's order in the spirit of the Supreme Court's decision on qualification equivalence – Petition dismissed, upholding Tribunal's direction for review DPC. [Para 14-17]

Applications Dismissed – Associated applications dismissed as infructuous following the main petition's dismissal. [CM APPLs. 15631/2023 & 17512/2023]

Civil Procedure – Reframing of Issues in Civil Suit – Trial Court’s deletion and reframing of issues challenged – Petitioner’s application for additional issues not fully considered – High Court analysis of necessity for additional issues proposed by Petitioner. [Para 1, 2, 4, 5, 14-15, 21]

Jurisdiction – Suit Maintainability under U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land

Reforms Act – Trial Court and Coordinate Bench’s earlier decisions on maintainability upheld – Doctrine of res judicata applied – No new issue on jurisdiction to be considered. [Para 17, 17.1, 21(a)]

Power of Attorney – Validity and Cancellation – Issues regarding validity and authority of Power of Attorney and its cancellation covered under existing issues – No separate framing required. [Para 16, 16.1, 21(c, e)]

Possession and Transfer Rights – Claims of possession and transfer rights in land – Trial Court’s earlier order and its implications – No separate issue on possession and transfer rights required. [Para 18, 18.1-18.2, 21(d)]

Valuation and Court Fees – Question of undervaluation of suit and sufficiency of court fees – Issue already covered by existing framed issue – Trial Court to consider additional court fees if required at final stage. [Para 20, 20.1, 21(b)]

Bona Fide Purchasers – Validity of Sale Deed – Plea of defendants being bona fide purchasers not substantiated in pleadings – Issue of legal authority of defendant no.1 to execute sale deed and retain proceeds covered under existing issue. [Para 19, 19.1-19.3, 21(e)]

Directions for Expeditious Trial – Emphasis on speedy trial given the prolonged duration of the suit – Trial Court urged to conclude trial within nine months from a specified date. [Para 22]

Abuse of Process – Concerns over defendants’ conduct in proceedings – Trial Court advised to exercise jurisdiction against non-participating defendants to prevent abuse of legal process. [Para 26, 27]

Decision – Petition disposed with specific directions and observations – No additional issues required to be framed beyond those already considered by Trial Court. [Para 28]

Cheque Dishonor - Allegation of Non-Repayment of Loan – Petitioner accused of not depositing a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- in a fixed deposit and issuing a dishonored cheque for Rs.10,00,000/-. [Para 2]

Abuse of Process of Law – Petitioner's contention of multiple complaints against the respondent for physical and mental torture and the non-availability of ingredients of Section 138 of the NI Act in the complaint. [Para 3]

Legal Enforceable Debt – Argument of no legally enforceable debt and absence of consideration in the complaint. Reliance on Apex Court judgment in Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. vs. Galaxy Traders & Agencies Ltd. & Ors. to emphasize the purpose of Section 138 of the NI Act. [Para 4]

Counter-Argument – Respondent's submission on the existence of basic ingredients of Section 138 of the NI Act and legal presumptions under Section 118 of the NI Act. Citing Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. on the presumption of discharge of liability by a cheque. [Para 6]

Section 138 NI Act – Analysis of the complaint against the requirements of Section 138 of the NI Act: legally enforceable debt, cheque drawn for discharge of debt or liability, and its dishonor due to insufficient funds. Reference to Krishna Janardhan Bhat vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde. [Para 8]

Prematurity of the Petition – Court's observation on the premature nature of the petition as the complainant's statement not fully recorded and not cross-examined. Reliance on Manoj Singhal & Anr. vs. Rajendra Singh Bapna & Anr. for emphasizing the procedure under Section 202 Cr.P.C. [Para 9-10]

Decision – Dismissal of the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. due to its premature nature and the prima facie establishment of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. [Para 11]

Forgery and Cheating in Land Transaction – Dispute over land sale involving fraudulent representation and cheating – Allegations against Subodh Mishra for fraudulently representing himself as the owner of the land and deceiving Rakesh Vyas – Anurag Shukla, a bonafide purchaser of the land, incorrectly implicated in the case. [Paras 6, 20-22, 24-25]

Role of Dinesh Sharma, Station House Officer – Allegations of concealing information and siding with accused – Investigation found no connivance with Subodh Mishra – Report by police officer not binding on court and subject to judicial scrutiny. [Paras 23, 33]

Bonafide Purchase and Ownership of Land – Role of Seema Sharma and others as bonafide purchasers of the land in question – Purchased from Anurag Shukla without knowledge of the dispute between Rakesh Vyas and Subodh Mishra – Discharged from accusations under Sections 420 & 120-B of the IPC. [Paras 24, 34]

Civil Nature of Dispute – Emphasis on the civil nature of the property dispute – Misuse of criminal proceedings to resolve civil disputes discouraged – Supreme Court precedents highlighted to distinguish between civil and criminal aspects in property disputes. [Paras 27-29]

Decision – M.Cr.C. No.1433 of 2016 (Dinesh Sharma) allowed, proceedings quashed – Cr.R. No.162 of 2016 (Seema Sharma and others) allowed, applicants discharged – M.Cr.C. No.4396 of 2016 (Anurag Shukla) allowed, FIR and proceedings quashed – Cr.R. No.1643 of 2015 (Anita Vyas and others) dismissed. [Paras 33-36]

Civil Suit - Application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC - Challenge to the order allowing the application during the pendency of a suit - Relationship between parties not disputed - Petitioner is the son of respondent No.1, and respondent No.2 is the grandson of respondent No.1 - Compromise had taken place between the parties in the earlier suit, transferring the suit property to the petitioner and his minor son, with no rights for respondent No.2 - Similar compromise in a subsequent suit led to the withdrawal of the suit - Respondent No.2's claim as a necessary party rejected - Impugned order allowing the application set aside.

Bail Application – Regular bail granted to Jagsir Singh @ Jagga in FIR No. 101 dated 21.08.2023 registered for offences under IPC Sections 379-B, 420, 383, 411, 120-B and Arms Act Sections 25, 27 at Police Station Nihal Singh Wala, District Moga. Reliance on co-accused Sikander Singh alias Sikanderi’s bail, the principle of parity applied. [Para 7]

Circumstances of Offence – Allegations involve using a woman as bait for extortion. Petitioner's connection to the crime questioned due to delayed victim statements. Investigation concluded and challan presented. [Paras 2-3]

Opposition by State – State's opposition to bail due to the petitioner’s involvement in multiple other cases, including under Sections 384 and 307 of the IPC. [Para 4]

Legal Precedents – Reference to 'Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of UP and another', 2020 (1) RCR (Criminal) 831, and 'Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of UP (SC)', (2012) 2 SCC 382, emphasizing that multiple cases against an individual are not grounds to deny bail. [Paras 5, 7]

Decision – Petitioner granted bail considering the duration of incarceration and parity with co-accused. Bail terms to be satisfied as per the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate. [Para 7]

Medical Unfitness in Recruitment - Hypertension and Varicose Vein - Petitioner declared medically unfit for the post of Constable (Animal Transport) in ITBP due to 'varicose vein both legs' and 'high blood pressure', later revised to 'hypertension with mild mitral regurgitation'. Petitioner contends wrongful rejection based on hypertension, a condition reportedly curable with drug therapy. [Paras 1-3]

Court’s Directive for Re-examination - High Court orders re-examination of petitioner by PGIMER's Medical Board. Subsequent medical reports confirm Stage-I Hypertension, manageable with drug therapy, and absence of varicose veins. [Paras 4-5]

Expert Medical Opinion Upheld - High Court relies on consistent medical opinions from various boards, affirming petitioner's hypertension. It emphasizes the inability of the judicial system to substitute the expert medical opinions with its judgment. [Paras 6-7]

Precedent and Finality of Medical Board’s Opinion - Citing a similar case (LPA No.871 of 2022 titled ‘Sumit Vs. Union of India’), the court underscores the finality of the medical board's opinion in recruitment processes, dismissing any further judicial intervention in the matter. [Para 7]

Decision - Petition challenging medical unfitness in the recruitment process dismissed, upholding the opinions of the medical experts. [Para 8]

Civil Procedure – Jurisdiction of Civil Court under SARFAESI Act – Suit based on Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for specific performance and damages – Jurisdiction of civil court not barred under Section 34 of SARFAESI Act – DRT or other tribunals not empowered to adjudicate rights arising from MOU – Civil Court's jurisdiction plenary unless expressly or impliedly ousted – Suit maintainable before Civil Court [Paras 1, 5-16].

Contract Law – Validity and Enforceability of MOU – MOU executed acknowledging property mortgaged with bank – No earnest money paid by plaintiff nor steps for Change of Land Use (CLU) taken – MOU became non-enforceable after stipulated period without plaintiff’s action – Plaintiff’s non-approach to avail remedies under SARFAESI Act notable [Paras 17-21].

Temporary Injunction – Principles for Grant – Three basic principles for grant of injunction: Prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable loss or injury – Plaintiff’s case fails on all three counts – MOU non-enforceable after expiry of stipulated period without plaintiff's action – Balance of convenience and irreparable injury not in favor of plaintiff – Injunction declined [Paras 22-23].

Property Law – Lis Pendens – Alienation of property during pendency of suit at risk of party creating third party rights – Defendant No.3 (Apollo Hospitals North Ltd.) holds title and possession with necessary permissions, alienation during suit at their own risk [Para 24].

Decision – Jurisdiction of Civil Court in the matter upheld – Plea of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC by plaintiff rejected – Suit's outcome to be decided independently, without influence from interim order findings [Paras 25-26].

Proclaimed Offender – Quashing of Proclamation Order – Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of order declaring petitioner as proclaimed person in Negotiable Instruments Act case – Petitioner’s absence at trial led to proclamation – Impugned order set aside due to non-compliance with mandatory conditions of Section 82 (2) Cr.P.C. and lack of recorded satisfaction by trial court – Petition allowed. [Para 1, 3-4, 12-13]

Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act – Cheque Dishonor – Complaint against petitioner for purchasing buffaloes and issuing cheque that was dishonored due to insufficient funds – Legal notice sent to accused returned unserved, leading to proclamation and subsequent trial proceedings. [Para 2]

Criminal Procedure – Service of Process – Issue regarding service of bailable and non-bailable warrants to petitioner – Contention of non-service of warrants and improper following of Section 82 Cr.P.C. procedures by trial court – Importance of proper service and recording of satisfaction before issuing proclamation highlighted. [Para 3-4, 12]

Compromise and Withdrawal of Complaint – Settlement between parties – Complainant’s withdrawal of complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act recorded by trial court – Impact on ongoing criminal proceedings and proclamation order. [Para 8-9]

Criminal Justice and Personal Liberty – Balance between individual’s personal liberty and societal interests – Necessity of adhering to procedures established by law in line with Article 21 of the Constitution – Reference to relevant case laws for proper procedure in issuing proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. [Para 11-12]

Decision – Quashing of proclamation order – Petition allowed due to procedural lapses in issuing proclamation – Trial court’s order declaring petitioner as proclaimed person set aside, highlighting the importance of following legal procedures in criminal justice system. [Para 13]