Eviction Suit – Landlord’s Bonafide Need – Eviction of tenant from shop premises under Section 16(1)(g) of the MRC Act – Suit based on landlord's bonafide need for second son – Earlier suit for elder son’s need dismissed – Eviction upheld by Trial and Appellate Courts. [Para 4, 9, 12, 20]

Dispute Over Shop's Area and Rent – Arguments about shop size and rent – Not central to eviction decision. [Para 7]

Sequential Suits for Family Members' Needs – Filing separate suits for different family members' needs permissible – No statutory restriction in MRC Act. [Para 12]

Challenge for Non-Disclosure and Previous Restaurant Closure – Tenant's argument on non-disclosure of other properties and landlord's past business decisions – Not affecting eviction decision. [Para 13, 15, 17]

Comparative Hardship Analysis – Consideration under Section 16(2) of MRC Act – Greater hardship to landlord than tenant – Tenant’s long occupation and landlord’s prolonged recovery efforts noted. [Para 22, 22-A]

Rejection of Additional Evidence in Appellate Court – Dismissal of tenant’s applications for additional evidence – Documents deemed repetitive or irrelevant. [Para 24, 26, 27]

Consideration of Admissions in Prior Litigation – Tenant’s admissions in previous suit reviewed – No bearing on established bonafide need. [Para 28]

Petition dismissed, eviction decree upheld – Execution proceedings stayed for four weeks post-judgment. [Para 29, 30]

Promotional Exercise – Eligibility Criteria and Seniority – Challenging the communication for promotion to Deputy Conservator of Forests (DCF) based on eligibility without considering seniority – Eligibility criterion under Rule 5 of the 2015 Rules mandates five years of continuous service in the grade of OFS Group-A (JB) – Petitioners, senior in service but not meeting the eligibility criterion, challenge the promotion of juniors. [Para 2, 3, 4, 11, 18]

Maintainability – Locus Standi of Petitioners – Petitioners have locus standi to challenge the promotion process as the proposed promotion of their juniors would affect their inherent seniority and career progression. [Para 7, 10]

Reservation in Promotion – Applicability and Legal Position – Promotion to DCF not proposed on the basis of reservation but on eligibility criteria – Relevance of the catch-up principle in restoring seniority and its potential nullification by the proposed promotion process. [Para 6, 12, 16, 17, 20]

Rule of Law and Constitutional Principles – Balancing Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution – Seniority to take precedence over eligibility to maintain the balance between equality and affirmative action – Indirect application of reservation principle through eligibility criteria held as contrary to constitutional principles. [Para 18, 20, 21]

Directive to Authorities – Quashing the impugned communication and directions for future promotion exercises – Authorities directed to consider relaxation of eligibility criteria or defer the promotion exercise to include all eligible officers as per the final gradation list. [Para 21, 22, 24]

Decision – Impugned communication quashed – Directions issued for filling up the posts in the promotional cadre (DCF) in line with the observations made in the judgment. [Para 24]

Civil Procedure – Dismissal of Suit – Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC – Suit dismissed by invoking Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC – Plaintiffs challenged the order for dismissal of suit filed for declaration & injunction – Trial court's rejection based on non-inclusion of plaintiffs in an earlier suit – Contention raised on purchase of property from a party in the earlier suit. [Para 1, 7]

Property Law – Sale of Property During Pendency of Suit – Plaintiffs purchased property during pendency of earlier suit – Sale deeds executed in 1993 – Issue on whether property can be claimed back by original party in the suit – Consideration of the doctrine of lis pendens and its applicability in the context of property sold. [Para 2, 8, 9]

Fraud and Deception – Challenge to Compromise Decree – Allegation of fraud in obtaining a compromise decree – Plaintiffs claimed the decree affected their rights as property purchasers – Examination of validity of compromise decree when allegations of fraud are raised. [Para 3, 13, 14]

Legal Doctrine – Doctrine of Lis Pendens – Discussion on the doctrine of lis pendens and its implications – Consideration of whether the doctrine applies to properties sold during pendency of litigation – The impact of fraudulent practices on the application of the doctrine. [Para 15]

Decision – Reversal of Trial Court's Order – High Court set aside the order of the Trial Court dismissing the suit – Direction for further proceedings in the trial court – Emphasis on the need for a detailed examination of the factual matrix and legal principles involved. [Para 16, 17]

Income Tax – Reassessment Notices – Applicability of Limitation Period – Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18 – Notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, post-enactment of Finance Act, 2021, treated as issued under Section 148A(b) – Validity of reassessment actions including orders under Section 148A(d) and consequent notices under Section 148 – Extended reassessment notices not allowed to ‘travel back in time’ to original issuance date – Limitation period under Section 149(1)(a) applicable – Notices concerning AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18 declared unsustainable for exceeding prescribed three-year limitation period – Paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2(ii) of CBDT Instruction dated 11.05.2022 propounding ‘travel back in time’ theory held bad in law. [Para 54-56]

Legislative Intent – Finance Act, 2021 – Reassessment Proceedings – Reduction of time limit for issuance of notice under Section 148 – In normal cases, limit set to three years from the end of relevant assessment year – Extended period of ten years applicable in serious tax evasion cases with evidence of income concealment of ₹50 lakh or more – New regime intended to reduce litigation and ease compliance burden – Specific cases where extended limitation applies detailed in Finance Minister’s speech and Memorandum explaining provisions of Finance Bill 2021. [Para 53-53.4]

Decision – High Court declares impugned reassessment actions including orders under Section 148A(d) and consequent notices under Section 148 concerning AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18 unsustainable due to exceeding the limitation period prescribed under Section 149(1)(a) of the amended Income Tax Act – ‘Travel back in time’ theory in CBDT Instruction dated 11.05.2022 held invalid – Writ petitions allowed and reassessment notices concerning the specified assessment years quashed. [Para 54-56]

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Summoning Order – Challenge to the summoning orders in cases of cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Accusation of non-compliance with mandatory inquiry under Section 202 of CrPC by the Magistrate – High Court held that mandatory inquiry was conducted satisfactorily. [Para 1, 3, 14, 20-21, 25]

Territorial Jurisdiction – Inquiry under Section 202 CrPC – Importance of conducting mandatory inquiry when the accused resides outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court – High Court affirmed that the Magistrate conducted necessary inquiry as per guidelines under Section 202 CrPC and Section 145 of the NI Act. [Para 6-7, 9, 12-13]

Evidence – Presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act – High Court observed that at the summoning stage, the existence of a legally enforceable debt is presumed, subject to rebuttal at trial – Inquiry under Section 202 CrPC need not delve into evidence regarding enforceability of debt. [Para 18-19, 22-23]

Judicial Discretion – Role of Magistrate in Summoning Process – Examination of the magistrate's discretion in the summoning process – High Court concluded that the Magistrate applied judicial mind appropriately in issuing summons, fulfilling the criteria under Section 202 of the CrPC. [Para 24, 27]

Decision – High Court set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, upheld the summoning order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate – Emphasized compliance with Supreme Court directions in Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases Under Section 138 of NI Act 1881. [Para 28]

Habeas Corpus – Missing Child – Inadequate Police Action: Petitioner’s daughter went missing from a hospital. Despite CCTV evidence and involvement of known harasser Janu, police initially reluctant to register an FIR; higher authority intervention required. [Para 1]

Kidnapping – Involvement of Acquaintances: Janu and his cousin Ankit confessed to kidnapping the petitioner’s daughter. Despite these confessions, the police failed to trace the child, highlighting ineffective action in a serious case. [Para 2]

Investigation – Efforts to Trace Missing Child: Various police activities, including re-examining suspects and issuing notices, failed to yield leads on the missing girl, reflecting challenges in tracing missing persons. [Para 3]

Judicial Directive – Quarterly Status Report: Court directed the police to file quarterly status reports on the investigation with the Metropolitan Magistrate, emphasizing continued efforts in unresolved cases. [Para 4]

Decision : High Court disposed of the writ petition, acknowledging the ongoing investigation and the need for persistent police vigilance in the case of the missing girl. [Para 5]

Habeas Corpus – Missing Person Case – Petitioner's Wife Missing Since 19.11.2022 – Petitioner seeks Habeas Corpus under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution to produce his missing wife. [Para 1-2]

Police Investigation – FIR Registered Under Section 365 IPC – Complaint by Respondent No.2 Leads to FIR No.339/2023 – Efforts to Trace Missing Lady Including Examination of Call Records and Local Area Search. [Para 3-5]

Judicial Review – Perusal of Status Report – Court Acknowledges Police Efforts in Searching for Missing Lady – Directive for Quarterly Status Report to Metropolitan Magistrate – Immediate Transmission of Any Clue to Petitioner. [Para 6-7]

Judgment – Disposal of Petition – Court Disposes of Writ Petition Based on Ongoing Police Investigation and Directed Continued Efforts to Find Missing Lady. [Para 8]

Town Planning Scheme Implementation – Nidhi Cooperative Society's entitlement to land under Town Planning Scheme (Thaltej) No. 1 confirmed – Court directed Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (AUDA) to implement the scheme by handing over possession of Final Plot No. 65 to Nidhi Cooperative Society – Long-standing litigation in favor of Nidhi Cooperative Society. [Para 5, 10, 17]

Unauthorized Occupation and Litigation History – Snehanjali Cooperative Society's unauthorized occupation of Final Plot No. 65 acknowledged – Previous litigations upheld Nidhi Cooperative Society's claim – Apex Court dismissed Special Leave Petitions, affirming the entitlement of Nidhi Cooperative Society. [Para 7, 8, 11]

Valuation and Settlement – Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation to implement court orders for handing over possession – Valuation of alternative plot (Final Plot No. 100-P) determined for Snehanjali Society as part of settlement – AUDA proposed an alternative arrangement in a tripartite agreement. [Para 13, 14, 15]

Court Directives for Resolution – Final Plot No. 65 to be handed over to Nidhi Cooperative Society – Snehanjali Society offered options to vacate Plot No. 65 or pay for an alternative plot – Time-bound directives issued to resolve the matter and ensure compliance with previous court orders. [Para 20, 26]

Legal Obligations and Consequences – Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation tasked with implementing court orders – Snehanjali Society's members to comply with directives or face eviction – Strict instructions for adherence to court's decision to ensure justice for Nidhi Cooperative Society. [Para 24, 27]

Final Disposition – Appeals and Special Civil Application related to the case disposed of as per the court's directives – Court emphasized strict compliance with its orders and resolution of the dispute in accordance with legal entitlements. [Para 28]

Writ Petition – Quashing of Order – Quashing of order dated 20.10.2023 in Dhanbad Mahila P.S. Case No.30 of 2023 under section 82 Cr.PC – Petitioner, the husband in a case under section 498A IPC, had already complied with notice under section 41A Cr.PC and appeared before the investigating officer – Petitioner's non-pressing of prayer-(a) and focusing on prayer-(b) for quashing the impugned order. [Para 5]

Anticipatory Bail – Denial of Anticipatory Bail by Sessions Court and High Court – Petitioner's A.B.P. No.3077 of 2023 rejected by Sessions Judge and A.B.A. No.9253 of 2023 dismissed as withdrawn in High Court – Compulsion to withdraw due to issuance of process under section 82 Cr.PC. [Para 5, 7]

Supreme Court Guidelines – Reference to Supreme Court judgments in Satender Kumar Antil v. C.B.I (2022) and Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) – Emphasis on guidelines regarding issuing process under section 82 Cr.P.C and arrest procedures in cases under section 498A IPC. [Para 5, 7]

Judicial Review – High Court's consideration of petitioner’s compliance with legal procedures and Supreme Court guidelines – Setting aside of impugned order dated 20.10.2023 and remittance of matter to the lower court for fresh proceedings in accordance with the law. [Para 7, 8, 9]