Anticipatory Bail – Comprehensive consideration of applicant's involvement and necessity for custodial interrogation – Detailed contemplation of legal precedents and careful analysis of investigation papers led to the conclusion of prima facie involvement in serious offences – Anticipatory bail denied. [Para 6.0, 7.2, 9.0]

Forgery and Cheating – Serious nature of the offences involving forgery and cheating in a competitive examination – Emphasis on the integrity of academic standards and the judicial disinclination towards granting anticipatory bail in cases of methodical criminal planning against societal interest. [Para 6.1, 7.2]

Investigative Process – The importance of custodial interrogation for a qualitative investigation – Observations on the significance of arrest in the investigative process and the potential hampering of the investigation by granting anticipatory bail. [Para 7.1, 7.2]

Judicial Discretion in Bail – Discussion of the principles guiding the discretion of the court in granting bail – Reference to Supreme Court precedents emphasizing the balance between personal liberty and societal interest, and the rejection of anticipatory bail when serious offences and societal impact are involved. [Para 5.0, 7.3]

Decision – The court’s stance against anticipatory bail based on active involvement in the offence and the potential threat to the investigation process – Application for anticipatory bail dismissed and rule discharged. [Para 8.0, 9.0]

Second Appeal – Admissibility of Second Appeal – Consideration of substantial questions of law raised by appellant – Assessment of whether the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court are vitiated due to non-framing and deciding the appropriate points for determination required under Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC. [Para 5, 11]

Property Possession – Unauthorized Possession – Trial Court’s direction for appellant to hand over possession upheld by First Appellate Court – Trial Court’s decree based on sufficient reasoning on the issues – Appellant’s claim of lawful possession and authority disputed. [Para 3, 10]

Appellate Procedure – Requirement for Independent Assessment – First Appellate Court’s duty to independently assess evidence, with mandatory reasons for its decision on each point – Apex Court’s guidelines on the scope of Order 41 Rule 31 and need for detailed evidence consideration by the first Appellate Court emphasized. [Para 7, 12, 13]

Decision – First Appellate Court’s approach in concurring with the Trial Court without detailed reasoning – First Appellate Court’s judgment and decree challenged for lack of independent assessment of evidence and insufficient reasoning – Matter requires further consideration in Second Appeal. [Para 8, 12]

Criminal Appeal – Suspension of Sentence – Convicts seeking suspension of sentence for pursuing higher education invoking Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. – Convicted under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment – Application for attending LL.B. courses online due to confinement in prison. [Para 1-2]

Right to Life and Dignity – Constitutional right to live with dignity under Article 21 – Even convicts retain dignity and essential human rights – The right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and encompasses adequate nutrition, clothing, shelter, and education. [Para 7-8]

Education of Prisoners – Education recognized as a potent tool for advancement and a human right – Prisoners entitled to pursue studies and have access to education to fulfill reformative and rehabilitative goals of imprisonment – Education in prison seen as a part of living with dignity and a constitutional right. [Para 9-10]

Online Education for Convicts – Suspension of sentence not granted for physical attendance in LL.B. courses – Convicts permitted to attend classes online – Balance struck between societal interest and rights of convicts without suspending the execution of the sentence. [Para 11-12]

Implementation of Online Education – Applicants allowed to attend LL.B. courses online with arrangements made by prison and college authorities – Attendance through online mode considered equivalent to physical attendance in compliance with Bar Council Rules – Provision for interim bail for necessary physical presence at college/university. [Para 13-14]

Criminal Appeal – Application for rescheduling trial date in murder case – Original dismissal by trial court due to High Court's directive for expedited disposal of such cases – Importance of considering lawyer's convenience in trial scheduling highlighted. [Para 2]

Judicial Discretion and Fairness – Trial courts should adopt a pragmatic approach in scheduling trials, taking into account the genuine submissions of lawyers – The accused's right to counsel of choice and the counsel's convenience are critical factors in trial scheduling. [Para 3]

Decision – Overturning of the trial court's dismissal of the rescheduling application – Direction to Additional Sessions Court-II, Palakkad, to reconsider the application (Crl.M.P.No.4928/2023) in S.C.No.474/2018, ensuring fair scheduling in accordance with legal standards. [Para 4]

Writ Jurisdiction – Misuse of CRPF personnel for personal disputes – Retired Air Commodore denied access to ancestral home by CRPF personnel at the behest of respondent no. 7, a sitting MP and petitioner’s brother – Allegations of fundamental rights violation under Articles 19 & 21 – Writ jurisdiction invoked for redressal. [Para 1-3]

Property Rights – Assertion of joint possession in ancestral property – Filing of partition suit for ancestral properties – Family dispute leading to denial of entry into ancestral home – Dispute over the possession and claim of family arrangement by respondent no. 7. [Para 4-6, 47-49]

Security Personnel Conduct – Allegations against CRPF personnel for obstructing petitioner’s entry into property – CRPF's duty to secure 'Z' category protectee’s residence – Sentry's polite refusal to allow entry without a key as per security protocol. [Para 16-20, 50-52, 70-73]

Legal Remedy – Maintainability of writ petition in property disputes – Alternative remedies under civil law – High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction not to be used for property disputes resolvable under general law. [Para 28, 60-67]

Fundamental Rights – Claim of violation of dignity and fundamental rights – No conclusive evidence of dignity violation by CRPF or respondent no. 7 – Family property dispute to be resolved under civil jurisdiction, not under writ. [Para 68-77]

Decision – Dismissal of writ application due to the existence of a bona fide property dispute among family members – Availability of alternative remedies – No fundamental rights violation established warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. [Para 74-77]

Extraordinary Family Pension – Setting aside of order denying extraordinary family pension to the petitioner – Deceased husband suffered heart attack on duty, not pre-existing or natural cause – Entitlement to extraordinary pension under Central Civil Services (Extra Ordinary Pension) Rules, 1939 supported by precedents – Impugned order set aside, respondents directed to release pension within 6 months. [Paras 1-8]

Constitutional Law – Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 – Challenging rejection of extraordinary family pension – Petition allowed in light of judicial precedents and absence of contrary evidence from respondents. [Para 1, 7-8]

Service Law – Extraordinary Pension Rules Interpretation – Division Bench of Delhi High Court and Punjab & Haryana High Court precedents – Heart attack on duty as an entitled condition for extraordinary pension if not attributed to natural causes – Petitioner’s case falls under the entitlement criteria. [Paras 2-7]

Judicial Precedents – Reliance on Vikram Singh and Smt. Kunta Devi cases – Heart attacks on duty without prior history of heart disease recognized as service-related for pension purposes – Consistent judicial view in favor of the petitioner’s entitlement. [Paras 3, 6, 7]

Government Service – Entitlement to Extraordinary Pension – Heart attack while on duty, without prior heart condition, considered attributable to stressful service conditions – Entitled to extraordinary pension under the Rules. [Paras 4, 6, 7]

Judgment – High Court sets aside the order rejecting extraordinary family pension – Respondents directed to comply and release pension benefits to the petitioner – Upholds judicial decisions ensuring fair application of pension rules for service personnel. [Para 8]

Customs Clearance - Import of "Lithium Ion Cell" - Challenge to detention and non-clearance of goods under specific bills of entries - Compliance with Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) marking requirements - Violation of principles of natural justice - Issuance of show cause notice - Confiscation and penalty imposed - Customs Act, 1962, Section 124 - BIS Regulations, 2018 - Public Notices No. 136/2008 and 157/2018 - Interpretation of labeling requirements - Promotion of electric vehicles and environmental considerations - Clearance of goods - Consumer safety concerns - Circular No. 35/2017 - Jurisdiction of Customs Authorities. [Para 1-13]

Release of Goods - Application for release of goods in question - Examination of the facts and circumstances - Admitted facts regarding the consignment of "Lithium Ion Cell" - Similarity with other consignments released for home consumption - Justification for not releasing the goods by the respondents examined. [Para 14-16]

Compliance with BIS Standards - Dispute regarding the affixing of BIS mark on the product - Manufacturer's role in affixing the mark - Examination of the 2018 Regulation, Schedule II, and relevant provisions - Application of Public Notice No. 136 of 2018 - Departure from the requirements of the 2018 Regulation by the respondents - Clarification through Public Notice No. 157/2018 - Affixing of the standard mark on the package. [Para 17-22]

Decision - Unjustified Detention of Goods - Evaluation of the department's stand - Misapplication of regulations - High-handed approach of customs officers - Inconsistent treatment of goods compared to other consignments - Absence of seizure or physical possession of goods - Show cause notice issued - Need for independent proceedings on the show cause notice - Conclusion regarding the illegal detention of goods and partial allowance of the petition. [Para 23-31]

Criminal Writ Petition – Rejection of application for handwriting expert – Petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by the Sessions Court allowing the respondent-accused's revision application – Original rejection by the Magistrate for handwriting expert based on the impossibility of scientifically determining ink age – High Court reiterates the futility of such scientific tests and restores Magistrate's order. [Para 2, 5, 9, 13]

Right to Fair Trial – Accused's right to fair trial and defense considered – High Court acknowledges the right but emphasizes the futility of exercises with a predetermined outcome, such as determining the age of ink when no scientific method is available. [Para 4, 5, 8]

Expert Opinion – Reference to various judgments stating the absence of a scientific method to determine the age of ink – Assistant Director of Forensic Science Department confirms the lack of such methods, invalidating the respondent's request for a chemical test of ink age. [Para 6, 7, 8]

Judicial Vigilance – Courts urged to be vigilant against applications for evidence that would not yield any benefit – High Court's emphasis on avoiding futile exercises in the judicial process. [Para 5, 11]

Restoration of Magistrate’s Order – High Court sets aside Sessions Court's judgment that reversed Magistrate’s decision – Reinstates Magistrate’s rejection of application for ink age test, upholding the rationale of scientific impossibility and futility. [Para 12, 13]

Appeal Against Arbitral Award – The appellant, NPCC, appealed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, against the judgment partially setting aside an arbitral award dated 29 August 2016 concerning liquidated damages payable by the appellant to the respondent, M/S AAC India Pvt. Ltd. [Para 1, 2]

Factual Background – The appellant and respondent entered into an agreement for the installation of a Fire Protection System. The project faced delays, leading to arbitration and the award dated 29 August 2016. [Para 2-3]

Arbitral Award and Challenge – The Arbitrator partially granted the reliefs claimed by the respondent. The award was challenged under Section 34 of the A&C Act, and the learned ADJ partially set aside the award. [Para 4-7]

Grounds for Appeal – The appellant contended that the learned ADJ misconstrued evidence and placed an erroneous construction on the contract provisions. [Para 8]

Scope of Section 34 and 37 of A&C Act – The High Court emphasized the limited scope of Section 34 and 37, stating that an award can only be set aside on limited grounds and there is no power to modify an award under Section 34. [Para 10-13]

Contractual Clauses and Liquidated Damages – The Court found that the learned ADJ misconstrued evidence and correspondence, erroneously concluding that the imposition of LD was only being negotiated. [Para 14-19]

Decision – The High Court set aside the order dated 22 March 2021 to the extent it struck down the award dated 29 August 2016 regarding payment of LD and upheld the award in its entirety. [Para 21]