Civil Suit – Permission to examine sole witness – Petitioner seeks permission to examine its sole witness in a civil suit for ejectment and recovery of mesne profits – Matter pending at the stage of defendant evidence – Petitioner willing to pay costs and seeks a final opportunity – Respondent agrees to one final opportunity subject to legal costs and strict terms – Petitioner permitted to lead evidence of sole witness on the specified date – Limited right to lead evidence granted with conditions – No infirmity found in the Trial Court’s previous order – Petitioner bound to address final arguments after the conclusion of defendant evidence – Petition disposed of with directions. [Para 1-8]

Civil Contempt – Allegation of deliberate violation and non-compliance of a court order – Petitioner, the ex-daughter-in-law of the deceased testator, filed a contempt petition against respondent No.1/UCO Bank – Dispute regarding the release of funds from the deceased’s bank accounts as per his will – Court issued directions on 01.11.2019 for the release of funds – Contempt petition filed due to non-release of funds as per court directions – Respondent No.1/UCO Bank Imposed a lien on the released funds – Allegation of wilful disobedience of court directions by bank officials – Bank officials failed to comply with the court’s order, causing obstruction in the execution of the deceased’s will – Show cause notice issued to concerned Chief Manager of UCO Bank for appearing in person and justifying the non-compliance – Bank directed to release or vacate the lien on the funds and allow the executor to operate the bank account – Compliance report to be filed. [Para 1-19]

Recruitment Examination – Non-conduct of scheduled recruitment exams for Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police during 2021 and 2022 – Petitioners, having become over-aged due to delay, seek interim relief to appear in the examination – Tribunal dismissed the interim relief – Petitioners' appeal for age relaxation and permission to participate in the examination. [Para 1-7]

Recruitment Rules – Challenge to the Tribunal's refusal to grant age relaxation – Reliance on the Delhi Police (Appointment & Recruitment) Rules, 1980 – Rules mandate annual recruitment in January; Rule 30 allows relaxation of Rules by the Administrator in necessary cases – Petitioners argue for a one-time age relaxation due to the exceptional circumstances of COVID-19. [Para 8-11, 26-28]

Age Relaxation – Discussion on precedents where age relaxation was granted due to administrative failures to conduct timely recruitment – Examination of whether petitioners are entitled to similar relaxation – Tribunal's conclusion against relaxation discussed. [Para 10, 17-21, 33-38]

Tribunal’s Order – Tribunal's rationale on not granting interim relief – Concerns over creating a separate class with vested age relaxation rights – Tribunal's decision upheld by the High Court, petitions dismissed. [Para 21-22, 29-32, 39]

Decision – High Court upholds the Tribunal's decision, denying interim relief to petitioners for age relaxation – Petitions dismissed due to lack of merit. [Para 39]

Trademark Infringement – Unauthorized use of ‘PATANJALI’ trademark in an advertisement for men’s undergarments – Allegations of the video being defamatory and disparaging to the brand ambassadors – Claim of revenue generation by the respondents from the video. [Para 3-5]

Jurisdiction – Dispute characterized as a commercial matter by the Trial Court, invoking the definition of ‘Commercial Dispute’ under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Trial Court’s decision to return the plaint for presentation in the appropriate court challenged. [Para 6-7, 10]

Intermediary Liability – Respondents’ claim of intermediary status under the Information Technology Act, 2000 – Exemption from liability discussed with reference to Section 79 of the said Act. [Para 8]

Trial Court Procedure – Non-compliance with Order VII Rule 10A CPC by the Trial Court – Appeal against the Trial Court’s decision to return the plaint without following due process. [Para 10-11]

Freedom of Speech – Respondents’ defense of parody content under fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression – No financial gain claimed by the respondents from the video. [Para 12]

Decision – Appeal allowed – Trial Court directed to rehear the matter and decide issues after fresh hearing – Parties to appear for hearing on 01.12.2023. [Para 13]

Contempt of Court – Initiation of contempt proceedings against respondents for willful disobedience of court's order – Petitioner alleges non-compliance with judicial precedents on primacy of perjury applications – Respondent No. 1's order in civil suit challenged for non-adherence to precedents – Contempt petition dismissed, liberty granted to petitioner to seek legal remedies against the impugned order. [Para 1, 24, 43]

Civil Procedure – Dismissal of suit for non-payment of cost – Examination of Section 35B of CPC – Supreme Court judgment cited for interpretation that non-payment does not automatically lead to dismissal – Court's discretion in extension of time for payment of costs acknowledged – Respondent No. 1's decision based on non-fulfillment of precondition for restoration of suit. [Para 25, 32]

Judicial Officers – Protection from litigation for acts done in good faith within judicial capacity – Reference to Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850 and Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 – Petitioner's contempt action against judicial officer deemed improper – Independence of judiciary underscored as a cornerstone for the rule of law. [Para 30, 33]

Professional Conduct – Role and independence of the bar in legal proceedings – Advocate's professional capacity and misconduct not grounds for contempt – Advocates Act, 1961 as the governing statute for professional misconduct – Petitioner's contempt allegations against Respondent No. 2 for representing Respondent No. 3 found unsustainable. [Para 38, 40]

Civil Suit Proceedings – Historical timeline of civil suit for possession of property – Multiple dismissals and restorations – Perjury applications filed by petitioner and subsequent orders for cost payments – Respondent No. 3's previous civil suit and petitioner's applications for waiving costs. [Para 3-19]

Judicial Precedence – Emphasis on precedence of criminal over civil proceedings – Supreme Court judgments cited by petitioner to establish precedence of perjury applications over civil matters – Petitioner's contention of trial court's order being contrary to established law. [Para 24]

Administration of Justice – Protection of judiciary's majesty and conduct of judges – Supreme Court's stance on protecting the administration of justice and maintaining public confidence – Petitioner's approach to seek contempt against judge viewed as an attack on judicial sovereignty – Contempt jurisdiction not to be misused to question judicial decisions. [Para 34, 35]

Regular Bail – Denial of Regular Bail – Petitioner's repeated absconding and non-cooperation in the investigation – Petitioner declared a proclaimed offender twice – Bail application dismissed due to potential obstruction of a fair trial and risk of absconding. [Para 10-14]

Criminal Procedure – Fair Trial and Bail Considerations – Importance of ensuring a fair trial for both the accused and the prosecution – Conduct of the accused obstructing the trial deemed a valid ground for denying bail – Supreme Court precedents on bail considerations emphasized. [Para 7, 11]

Proclaimed Offender – Impact on Bail Application – Petitioner's history of absconding affecting the bail decision – Court emphasizes the necessity of the accused's presence for a fair trial – Miscommunication with counsel not accepted as a valid excuse for non-appearance. [Para 12-13]

Decision – Petitioner's bail application for regular bail rejected – Court finds no merit in the petitioner's reasons for absconding and non-compliance with legal proceedings – Observations made in the judgment solely for the purpose of this petition and not affecting the merits of the case. [Para 14-15]

Eligibility for District Judge Appointment – Practising Advocate Requirement: Challenge to interim order precluding appellant, a Munsiff-Magistrate trainee, from participating in viva-voce for District and Sessions Judge appointment. Legal scrutiny of whether such training status affects eligibility as a practising advocate. [Paras 1, 4, 5, 6]

Judicial Service vs Advocate Practice – Professional Status: Examination of the professional status of a Munsiff-Magistrate trainee in relation to the definition of a practising advocate. References to precedent decisions to understand the impact of judicial training on the practice of law. [Paras 7, 9, 10, 12]

Advocate Eligibility under Article 233(2) – Interpretation: Analysis of the term “practising advocate” for eligibility as District and Sessions Judge. Emphasis on the necessity of uninterrupted legal practice for qualifying. [Paras 8, 11, 13]

Appeal Dismissal: The appeal and writ petition were dismissed, establishing that a Munsiff-Magistrate trainee does not qualify as a practising advocate for direct recruitment to the post of District and Sessions Judge. [Para 13]

Cheque Dishonour – Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Conviction upheld by the appellate court for dishonour of cheque issued by revision petitioner – Substantive sentence modified to imprisonment till rising of court and fine of Rs. 4 lakh. [Paras 1, 5, 7]

Borrowed Money – Claim of Rs. 4 lakh loan by respondent substantiated with bank statements and testimonies – Revision petitioner’s contention of blank cheque given as security for vehicle loan found unsubstantiated. [Paras 10-12, 16]

Presumption under Section 139 of N.I Act – Accused’s responsibility to rebut presumption that cheque was for debt discharge – Failure of revision petitioner to provide cogent evidence against presumption. [Paras 14, 15, 17]

Section 313 Cr.P.C – Non-confrontation of accused with certain discrepancies in prosecution evidence not a ground for trial vitiation – Accused’s failure to dispute signature on cheque and dishonour due to insufficiency of funds. [Paras 18-23]

Final Decision – Dismissal of revision petition – Revision petitioner directed to surrender and comply with sentence and fine payment by the trial court. [Para 25]

Maintenance – Grant of Maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC – Application filed by wife, Smt. Deepa, and minor son, Rohit, for maintenance against husband, Harish – Trial court allowed application, granting monthly maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- to wife and Rs. 4,000/- to son from July 2010 – High Court upheld trial court's decision, dismissing revisions filed by both parties. [Para 5, 26]

Assessment of Income and Maintenance Entitlement – Trial court assessed income of applicant wife to be Rs. 3,000/- per month and non-applicant husband's net income over Rs. 21,000/- per month – High Court found no error in trial court's assessment and entitlement of applicants to maintenance. [Para 5, 23, 26]

Res Judicata Principle Inapplicable – Earlier application u/s 125 of CrPC withdrawn, not decided on merits – High Court held principle of Res Judicata inapplicable in current maintenance application. [Para 15, 16]

Wife's Earning Capacity and Maintenance Claim – Wife, despite being educated and skilled, found to have limited earning capacity – High Court concurred with trial court's observation of her probable income around Rs. 3,000/- per month – Maintenance awarded considering wife's limited earning and husband's adequate income. [Para 22, 23]

Increased Maintenance Award Justified – Trial court awarded maintenance more than initially claimed – High Court upheld, citing increased income of husband and inflation, emphasizing duty of court to award just and reasonable maintenance. [Para 24, 25]

Judgment and Order Justified – High Court found no material irregularity or illegality in trial court's judgement and order – Both revision petitions dismissed, maintenance order upheld. [Para 26, 27]