Contracts Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act – Employer-Employee Relationship – Reinstatement – Labour Court found that claimants, shown as employees of Contractors, were actually employees of the petitioner company – Registration under the 1970 Act did not specify the nature of work performed by the claimants – Held, Labour Court correctly held claimants as employees of the company, reinstating them with all benefits – Petitioners failed to prove claimants were employed by Contractors [Paras 1-27].

Burden of Proof – Continuity of Service – Documentary Evidence – Petitioner claimed workers were employed by Contractors but failed to produce documentary evidence – Labour Court assessed evidence correctly, finding continuous work with the company – No appointment letters from Contractors, and petitioner destroyed older records – Labour Court’s findings upheld [Paras 21-25].

Decision: Writ petitions dismissed – Labour Court’s award reinstating claimants with full back-wages and continuity of service upheld – Petitioner’s applications rendered infructuous [Paras 27-29].

Covid-19 Pandemic – Holding of Exams – Adherence to Guidelines – Petitioner challenged the University’s decision to hold BDS first-year exams, alleging violation of Covid-19 guidelines – University successfully conducted previous exams with due precautions – Supreme Court in Maghi Devi case upheld conduct of exams with no highlighted deficiencies – Petitioner, residing near exam center, cannot represent other students – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-10].

Examination Conduct – Precautionary Measures and Legal Compliance – University adhered to guidelines, no complaints from students – Petitioner did not demonstrate any specific violations – Practical exams to be conducted on non-living subjects with precautions – University's conduct of exams upheld as compliant with Covid-19 guidelines [Paras 6-10].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – University's notifications for exams upheld – University’s adherence to Covid-19 guidelines affirmed [Para 10].

Bail – Chit Funds Scheme – Financial Fraud – Petitioner, a director and promoter of M/s HDPL, involved in unauthorized chit fund scheme, collected substantial money from the public with false assurances – Petitioner’s role direct and active in the scheme – Large sums collected not yet recovered – Petitioner declared Proclaimed Offender in related cases – Bail denied due to flight risk and criminal antecedents [Paras 1-13].

Criminal Law – Financial Crime – Proclaimed Offender – Petitioner involved in similar financial fraud cases – Convicted under Section 174-A IPC for absconding – History of evading court proceedings – Prosecution’s apprehension of petitioner being a flight risk valid – Bail petition dismissed [Paras 8-12].

Decision: Bail petition dismissed – Petitioner to remain in custody – Observations not to affect merits of the case during trial [Para 13].

Writ Petition – Maintainability – Cooperative Society – Petitioners' services terminated by respondent cooperative society registered under the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 – Held, society not "State" under Article 12, not amenable to writ jurisdiction – No financial stake or control by the State, no public function performed by society – Petition dismissed as not maintainable [Paras 1-18].

Constitutional Law – Article 226 – Public Function and State Control – Respondent society governed by its own bye-laws, no evidence of State being a stakeholder – Supreme Court precedents establish that societies not created under statute and without pervasive State control are not "State" under Article 12 – Relevant cases include S.S. Rana v. Registrar Cooperative Societies and General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. v. Satrughan Nishad [Paras 10-15].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Respondent society not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 – Petitioners directed to pursue other legal remedies if available [Para 17].

Contract Law – E-Tender – Revocation of Cancellation – FCI Regional Office scrapped the tender due to less participation and invited fresh tenders – Petitioner challenged the scrapping and served a legal notice – FCI Headquarters revoked the scrapping and decided to proceed with the initial tender – Held, FCI as a statutory body and contracting party has authority to rectify mistakes by its delegates – Decision by Headquarters valid – Petitioner has no vested right to be awarded the contract despite being the L-1 bidder – Petitioner's grievance stands resolved as financial bid has been opened [Paras 1-23].

Authority of Contracting Party – Delegation of Powers – Correction of Errors – Regional Office's decision to scrap the tender could be reconsidered by FCI Headquarters – Headquarters’ decision not an appeal or revision but an exercise of authority vested in FCI – Delegation of powers allows FCI to ensure consistency and adherence to guidelines – Petitioners in other writs have no vested right after disqualification in initial tender [Paras 16-22].

Decision:

CWP No. 7474 of 2020 disposed of as partly infructuous – Directed FCI to proceed with the tender enquiry as per law – Petitioner's claim for allotment of contract dismissed [Para 23(a)].

CWP No. 7442, 7454, 7455, 7456 of 2020 dismissed – No illegality in FCI’s actions – Public interest not adversely affected [Para 23(b)].

Proclaimed Offender – Quashing of Order – Improper Service – Petitioner declared proclaimed offender and FIR registered under Section 174-A IPC due to non-appearance in a cheque dishonor case under Section 138 NI Act – Held, the correct address of the petitioner was not furnished by the complainant, resulting in non-service of summons – Mandatory 30-day period for appearance not complied with – Proclamation effected at wrong address – Order declaring petitioner proclaimed offender and subsequent FIR quashed [Paras 1-9].

Criminal Procedure – Compliance with Section 82 CrPC – Service of Summons – Petitioner’s correct address not used for service of summons – Proclamation effected at a different address – Court noted non-compliance with Section 82 CrPC – Petitioner offered to surrender and furnish bank guarantee equivalent to cheque amount – Court accepted offer and quashed the proclamation and FIR [Paras 7-9].

Decision: Order declaring petitioner as proclaimed offender and FIR under Section 174-A IPC quashed – Petitioner to surrender and join proceedings, furnish bank guarantee – Trial court directed to release petitioner on bail upon compliance [Para 9].

Anticipatory Bail – Denial – Sexual Offences against Minor – Petition for anticipatory bail in a case involving a 16-year-old victim who alleged multiple instances of sexual assault, forced intoxication, blackmail, and threats by the petitioner and co-accused – Victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC corroborated the allegations – Held, anticipatory bail denied due to gravity of the offence and material on record indicating petitioner’s involvement [Paras 1-9].

Criminal Procedure – Evidence of Threats and Coercion – Mental Trauma – Allegations supported by victim’s detailed statement – Petitioner and co-accused allegedly threatened the victim into silence for three years, leading to her mental instability – Grant of interim bail to co-accused not relevant for petitioner’s case – Petitioner considered a sexual predator based on evidence [Paras 6-7].

Decision: Petition for anticipatory bail dismissed – Victim’s statement and severity of allegations justified denial – Court emphasized need to consider the victim's mental trauma and age at the time of the incident [Para 8].

Temporary Injunction – Joint Ownership – Construction by Co-owner – Petitioners, co-owners in possession, sought to expand existing construction on joint property – Trial and appellate courts issued temporary injunction restraining further construction and alienation – Held, allowing further construction could oust other co-owners and complicate partition proceedings – Temporary injunction justified to prevent potential prejudice to interests of other co-owners [Paras 1-30].

Co-ownership – Ouster and Prejudice – Legal Remedies – Legal principles under Order XXXIX, Rules 1, 2 CPC and precedents such as Full Bench judgment in Bachan Singh v. Swaran Singh applied – Co-owners not in possession may seek injunction to prevent acts detrimental to their interest – In pending partition suit, further construction by one co-owner could disrupt equitable partition [Paras 15-30].

Decision: Civil revision petition dismissed – Temporary injunction against further construction and alienation upheld – Pending partition suit to decide final rights and interests of co-owners [Para 30].

Contract Law – Validity of Agreement – Thumb Impressions and Consideration – Appellant sought specific performance of an agreement to sell, claiming part consideration was paid and the agreement was executed with respondent no.1, who later sold the land to respondents no.2 and 3 – Trial court upheld the agreement's validity based on attesting witness and appellant's testimony, corroborated by thumb impressions – Held, as per Sections 2, 4, 8, 10 of Indian Contract Act, acceptance of part consideration constitutes a valid contract – First appellate court’s reversal on grounds of appellant's lack of readiness and willingness overturned – Original agreement to sell upheld as valid [Paras 1-52].

Readiness and Willingness – Specific Performance – Timely Action – Appellant argued consistent readiness and willingness to perform her part of the contract – Trial court found in favor, appellate court reversed citing delayed action – Held, suit filed within reasonable time after awareness of the subsequent sale – Appellant demonstrated readiness and willingness as required under contract law – Suit for specific performance decreed [Paras 53-56].

Bonafide Purchasers – Knowledge of Prior Agreement – Respondents no.2 and 3 contested on grounds of being bona fide purchasers without notice – Trial court found them aware of the prior agreement – Held, respondents did not step into the witness box to refute claims, adverse inference drawn – Respondents not bona fide purchasers under Specific Relief Act [Paras 57-60].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Original judgment of the trial court decreeing specific performance restored – Agreement to sell declared valid and enforceable – Subsequent sale deed in favor of respondents no.2 and 3 declared null and void [Para 61].