Conditional Attachment – Acceptance of Security – Appeal against Sub Court’s decision accepting security of immovable property for lifting conditional attachment – Property in question recorded as paddy land – Appellant's concern about insufficient value and legal issues with security offered – Sub Court’s order set aside due to unresolved issues about property’s classification and value [Paras 1-7].

Revenue Records – Correction and Legal Status – Dispute over property recorded as paddy land in revenue records – 1st defendant's efforts to correct records – Court emphasizes need for proper classification before accepting property as security – Future applications permitted upon correction of records [Paras 4-7].

Decision – Orders Set Aside – Conditional attachment over plaint A schedule property to continue until sufficient security is provided – 1st defendant allowed to file fresh application if revenue records are corrected – Emphasis on current insufficiency of security due to legal and factual uncertainties [Para 7].

Caste Certificate – Provisional Admission and Employment – Petitioner admitted to M.B.B.S. and M.D. courses based on provisional caste certificate – Caste claim invalidated by Scrutiny Committee – Petitioner completed courses and was appointed as Medical Officer – Petitioner sought protection of education and employment – High Court dismissed the petition, citing the Apex Court’s judgment in Jagdish Bahira & Others v. State of Maharashtra, which mandates withdrawal of benefits secured through invalid caste certificates – Court observed that protection of such benefits violates constitutional and statutory norms [Paras 1-14].

Equity Principle – Protection of Education – Petitioner’s plea for protection based on prolonged benefits availed due to inaction by authorities – Court rejected plea, emphasizing that equitable considerations cannot override statutory mandates – Apex Court precedents in Jagdish Bahira and other relevant judgments upheld, stating that benefits drawn under false caste claims must be withdrawn to preserve integrity and rule of law [Paras 10-12].

Legislative Mandate – Withdrawal of Benefits – Supreme Court decisions reiterated – Benefits drawn under false claims to be withdrawn – No protection for admissions or employment secured on invalid caste certificates – Section 10 of the Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001 emphasized [Paras 10-13].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – No protection for educational and employment benefits drawn under invalid caste claim – Effect and operation of the judgment stayed for four weeks – Rule discharged, no costs [Para 14].

Bail – Prolonged Detention – Applicant, in jail since 2017, failed to file for bail due to lack of resources and legal aid – Applicant nominated in 2005, arrested in 2017 – Bail application drafting inadequate – Court appoints amicus curiae – High Court Legal Services Committee to assist – District Judge to ensure all details provided to amicus curiae [Paras 1-7].

Legal Aid – Appointment of Amicus Curiae – Court notes applicant's lack of legal aid since arrest – Deficiencies in current legal representation – Appointment of Shri Rajiv Lochan Shukla as amicus curiae – High Court Legal Services Committee directed to assist – Urgency of matter emphasized [Paras 4-7].

Decision – Bail Application Deferred – Case adjourned to 19.07.2024 for further consideration – District Judge, Meerut, instructed to expedite provision of relevant details to amicus curiae – Court highlights procedural steps for ensuring applicant’s representation [Para 7].

Landlord and Tenant – Eviction – Arrears of Rent – Petitioner tenant failed to pay rent for over six months and ignored landlord’s notice demanding arrears – Landlord entitled to decree for possession under Section 12(3)(a) of Bombay Rent Act – Tenant's defence of non-receipt of notice and payment to another heir rejected – Notice considered duly served – Appeal dismissed, eviction decree upheld [Paras 1-30].

Fixation of Standard Rent – Application filed after prescribed period – Bombay Rent Act requires filing within one month of notice – Application rejected – Standard rent application cannot nullify decree for arrears of rent and eviction [Paras 26-33].

Service of Notice – Validity – Notice sent to tenant’s workplace and marked as refused – Held valid service – Tenant had prior knowledge of landlord’s ownership and obligation to pay rent [Paras 18-20].

Tenant's Obligations – Arrears of Rent – Tenant failed to deposit arrears during pendency of suit – Triple default: pre-suit, post-suit, and during suit – No protection under Section 12(3)(b) for non-compliance [Paras 27-28].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Concurrent findings of lower courts upheld – Tenant's eviction affirmed – Application for fixation of standard rent dismissed as untimely and ineffective in negating default [Paras 33-34].

Defamation – Social Media Posts – Plaintiff, a renowned journalist, alleged Defamation by Defendants via social media – Plaintiff sought injunction for removal of defamatory posts – Court directed Defendants to remove posts and make videos private within seven days [Paras 50-51].

Right to Reputation vs. Free Speech – Court acknowledged higher threshold for public figures but stressed individual dignity – Distinguished between permissible public criticism and defamation [Paras 40-41].

Ex Parte Injunction – Granted under exceptional circumstances – Court emphasized factors for consideration, including irreparable harm and balance of convenience – Noted prima facie case of defamation [Paras 36-49].

Decision – Application for interim injunction allowed – Defendants directed to remove defamatory content and make videos private pending final decision in the suit [Paras 50-51].

Criminal Procedure – Bail – Considerations for Grant: Petitioner sought regular bail for offenses under Sections 308, 341, 354B, 506, 509 IPC. The court considered the delay in FIR registration and the gravity of allegations. It highlighted factors such as prima facie case, severity of punishment, and potential to tamper with evidence. The application was dismissed on grounds of severity of charges and apprehension of influencing witnesses [Paras 1-14].

Evidence Tampering – Allegation of Suppression: The petitioner was accused of formatting his mobile phone before seizure, indicating potential evidence tampering. Selective CCTV footage was handed over by the petitioner’s office, raising concerns about evidence suppression. The court emphasized the need for thorough investigation [Paras 7-13].

Prima Facie Case – Consideration of Facts: The delay in FIR registration was explained by the complainant’s trauma and position. The court found no motive for false implication. Allegations of unprovoked assault in a high-security area were taken seriously. The court noted the complainant’s status and the petitioner’s influence in the office [Paras 12-14].

Security Breach Report – Investigation Pending: A report by Deepak Dikshit, Assistant Section Officer at the Chief Minister’s residence, about the complainant’s unauthorized entry was not included in the police investigation. The court observed that any serious security breach should have been immediately reported to the police, apart from sending a report to senior officers [Para 13].

Criminal History and Threats: The petitioner had a prior case (FIR No.102/2007 under Section 353 IPC) and was accused of making threatening statements to the complainant. The court considered these factors in denying bail [Para 9].

Decision: Bail application dismissed – Pending applications disposed of. The court emphasized thorough investigation and protection of witnesses [Para 14].

Bail Application – Regular Bail – Appellants accused of drug smuggling and financing terrorism – Held in custody for nearly four years – High Court granted bail emphasizing the constitutional right to speedy trial and personal liberty – Bail granted with strict conditions despite stringent provisions under UAPA and NDPS Act [Paras 1-29].

Constitutional Law – Right to Speedy Trial – Appellants detained for four years without trial – Supreme Court’s precedent cited to reinforce the right to speedy trial and personal liberty – Detention exceeding substantial part of potential sentence considered [Paras 12-15, 26].

Statutory Interpretation – Sections 37 of NDPS Act and 43D of UAPA – Twin conditions for bail – Reasonable grounds to believe accused not guilty and unlikely to commit offense while on bail – High Court found compliance with these conditions, facilitating bail grant [Paras 17-19, 23].

Case Specifics – Role of Appellants – Charges against appellants varied, with different sets of offenses under IPC, NDPS Act, and UAPA – Detailed examination of charges, role in alleged crimes, and lack of recovery of drugs or proceeds of crime for some appellants [Paras 8-10, 20-22].

Decision – Bail Granted – Held – Appellants directed to be released on bail with stringent conditions – Conditions include furnishing substantial sureties, surrender of passports, regular court appearance, and prohibition from involvement in criminal activities or tampering with evidence [Paras 27-29].

Administrative Law – Repatriation – Absorption – Petitioner, initially on deputation as Deputy Registrar, was absorbed by University’s Executive Council (EC) resolution – Later repatriated by Registrar’s order claiming she was still on deputation – Petitioner challenged repatriation – Court held petitioner was validly absorbed and became permanent employee – Registrar’s order set aside as it lacked jurisdiction and violated statutory provisions [Paras 7.1-7.4].

University Governance – Authority and Jurisdiction – Executive Council (EC) as Chief Executive Authority – Registrar and Vice-Chancellor overstepped jurisdiction in repatriating petitioner – Absence of quorum for EC meetings not justified – EC’s decisions binding until formally modified or recalled [Paras 7.3-7.4].

Costs – Litigation Costs – Petitioner awarded ₹1,00,000 as costs due to illegal actions by University officials – Costs to be borne by Registrar and Vice-Chancellor personally [Para 9].

Decision – Petition allowed – Impugned repatriation order dated 01.03.2024 set aside – Petitioner to be treated as Deputy Registrar with effect from 02.03.2021 – Respondent University directed to relieve petitioner from her current posting within three days to enable her to join the University [Para 8].

Arbitration – Challenge to Award – Interest on Claims – VAT Claims – Challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act against an award allowing claims for unsupplied items and VAT components – Held that the arbitrator acted beyond jurisdiction by granting claims contrary to contractual terms – Clause 15.4 of the tender document precluded any interest claims against the purchaser – Arbitrator’s award of interest despite contractual bar was beyond his jurisdiction – VAT claims for unsupplied items and post-delivery period precluded by contractual terms – Award set aside [Paras 1-44].

Contractual Terms and Jurisdiction of Arbitrator – Arbitrator bound by contract terms – Section 28(3) of the Act mandates consideration of contract terms – Short closure clause within the tender terms justified non-purchase of balance items – No breach of contract by petitioner railways – Arbitrator’s award disregarding contract terms vitiated by illegality and perversity – Section 34(2)(a)(iv) and Section 34(2-A) of the Act invoked [Paras 22-29, 35-41].

Interest Award – Clause 15.4 of bid document barred interest claims – Section 31(7) of the Act permits interest only if not otherwise agreed by parties – Arbitrator’s award of interest beyond contract terms held illegal and beyond jurisdiction – Judgments cited reinforcing arbitrator’s inability to grant interest in contradiction to contract [Paras 37-40].

Decision – AP No.105 of 2021 allowed – Arbitral award dated September 24, 2020, set aside – No order as to costs – Directions for urgent certified copies issuance upon compliance [Paras 44-46].