Civil Writ - Legal Profession – Enrollment Fees – Validity of Charges for Verification – Supreme Court Directions Binding – Appellant challenged the collection of verification fees for enrollment certificates, relying on a Supreme Court order mandating that universities and boards verify such certificates without fees – Held: Bar Council cannot levy fees for verification beyond the express legal stipulation under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961 – Supreme Court directions prevail over contrary administrative notices – Fees collection invalid [Paras 3–6].

Procedural Law – Verification of Educational Certificates – Responsibility of State Bar Councils – Bar Councils are responsible for verifying educational certificates directly with the concerned universities and boards – Any procedural lapses or delays should not prejudice the applicant – Held: Certificates must be verified without charging fees, and enrollment cannot be delayed due to incomplete verification if the applicant meets other requirements [Paras 7–10].

Interim Relief – Conditional Enrollment Allowed – Court directed the Bar Council of Kerala to process the appellant's enrollment application immediately, without requiring verification fees, and to permit conditional enrollment pending completion of certificate verification – Held: Enrollment subject to cancellation if certificates are later found inauthentic [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Interim order modified – Enrollment application to be processed without charging verification fees – Conditional enrollment granted pending certificate verification [Paras 8–10].
 

Employment Law – Departmental Inquiry – Principles of Natural Justice – Petitioner alleged violations of natural justice in a disciplinary inquiry leading to his dismissal for alleged financial irregularities – Documents required for defense were not furnished, and the inquiry was conducted without adequate opportunity to respond – Held: Absence of required documents did not demonstrably prejudice the petitioner’s case – Allegations of procedural violations during the inquiry were rejected [Paras 8–12].

Acquittal in Criminal Case – Impact on Disciplinary Proceedings – Petitioner was acquitted in Criminal Case No. 636 of 2012, with no appeal filed against the judgment – Petitioner sought reconsideration of dismissal in light of acquittal – Held: Disciplinary proceedings and criminal cases operate independently, but the acquittal warranted reconsideration of the dismissal order – Respondents directed to review the dismissal order based on the criminal court’s judgment [Paras 11, 13].

Delay in Filing Appeal – Doctrine of Delay and Laches – Appeal against the dismissal order was filed five years late, citing ill health and unemployment – Held: Delay, though unsupported by documentary evidence, was not entirely unreasonable given the petitioner’s circumstances – The delay was excused to ensure substantive justice [Paras 12–13].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of with directions to the respondents to review the dismissal order in light of the criminal court’s acquittal judgment and to issue appropriate orders within three months – No costs awarded [Paras 13–14].

Criminal Law – Look Out Circular – Fundamental Right to Travel – Suspension of LOC Upheld – The appellant challenged the suspension of the LOC issued against the respondent, who was permitted to travel abroad by the learned Single Judge subject to conditions – Held: The respondent has cooperated with the investigation, attended when summoned, and the investigating agency has failed to file a charge sheet since 2021 – The respondent is not a flight risk, has provided undertakings to return within five days of intimation, and cannot be deprived of his constitutional right to travel under Article 21 – LOC suspension upheld [Paras 17-19].

Companies Act – Pending Investigation – Conditions Imposed for Travel Abroad – Validity Upheld – The respondent, former director of a corporate debtor, is under investigation for alleged misappropriation and fraudulent acts – Despite allegations, the investigation has been pending since June 2022, and the appellant failed to provide a time frame for its conclusion – The conditions imposed by the learned Single Judge, including undertaking to return promptly and cooperation with the investigation, sufficiently safeguard against abuse – Held: No infirmity in the order permitting travel abroad [Paras 18-19].

Proportionality – Rights of the Respondent vs. Public Interest – While the public interest in investigating corporate misappropriation is vital, the appellant failed to establish any material showing non-cooperation by the respondent – The balance of rights must weigh in favor of the respondent's fundamental right to travel – Order permitting travel upheld [Paras 17-18].

Allegations of Fraud and Non-Disclosure – No Prima Facie Evidence Against the Respondent – The appellant alleged the respondent failed to disclose offshore investments and financial interests – Held: The respondent disclosed his assets, cooperated with investigating agencies, and refunded/compensated several allottees – Allegations of fraud and siphoning of funds not substantiated at this stage – LOC suspension justified [Paras 17-19].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order suspending Look Out Circular upheld – Permission to travel abroad subject to conditions imposed by the learned Single Judge [Para 19].

Civil Law - Eviction and Redevelopment – Consent of Members – Definition of "Building" – Petition challenging redevelopment of Nidhi Apartment dismissed – Petitioners objected to redevelopment on the grounds of lack of requisite consent (75%) for Block No. 1 and absence of development permission – Held: Definition of "building" under Section 60A of Gujarat Housing Board (Amendment) Act, 2019 applies to the entire property, not individual blocks – Consent of 93% of members satisfies statutory requirements – Redevelopment validly initiated [Paras 14–18].

Development Permission – Vacating Premises – Petitioners argued that premises could not be vacated before obtaining development permission from AMC – Court found this claim baseless, stating that Clause 8 of the tripartite agreement requires members to vacate premises within 30 days of signing the agreement, not after development permission – Petitioners’ refusal to vacate premises unjustified [Paras 20–24].

Common Utility Areas – Ownership Rights – Petitioners contended that common utility areas (e.g., toilets) should be distributed pro-rata – Court rejected this argument, observing that such areas were not transferred under lease agreements and remain common property under Gujarat Housing Board ownership – Claim deemed an attempt to delay redevelopment [Para 25].

Suppression of Facts – Civil Suit – Petitioners failed to disclose dismissal of Civil Suit No. 777 of 2024 challenging the tripartite agreement – Court criticized the petitioners for their obstructive conduct and frivolous litigation – Held: Public interest in redevelopment outweighs the private interests of petitioners [Paras 10–12, 27–29].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Eviction and redevelopment orders upheld – Costs of ₹10,000 imposed on petitioners to discourage frivolous objections – Amount to be deposited with Gujarat State Legal Services Authority [Paras 30–30.1].

Bail Petition – Change in Circumstances – Successive Bail Applications – Change in Circumstances Justified – The petitioner, previously denied bail, filed a subsequent petition based on new evidence where the victim and her mother claimed she was major at the time of the incident, and the relationship was consensual – Held: New statements of the victim and her mother, prima facie, render the prosecution's claim of minority doubtful, especially as no school certificate was produced to verify the victim's age – Bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 17-19].

Age Determination – Preference for School Certificate – Under POCSO Act and Juvenile Justice Act – Where a victim's age is disputed, a school certificate is preferred over a Gram Panchayat certificate – Observed: In the absence of a school certificate, the Gram Panchayat's record loses significance when the victim claims she was major at the time of the incident [Para 17].

Parameters for Granting Bail – Consideration of Supreme Court Guidelines – Successive bail applications can be considered only with substantial changes in circumstances – Held: New evidence brought by the petitioner justified reconsideration – No reasonable ground to believe petitioner’s involvement under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act – Petitioner’s continued detention unjustified [Paras 7-19].

Conditions for Bail – Safeguarding Trial Integrity – Conditions imposed to prevent intimidation of witnesses, ensure attendance at trial, and restrict movement without informing authorities – Failure to comply may lead to bail cancellation [Paras 19-20].
 

Criminal Law – Quashing - Abuse of Process – Multiple FIRs arising from the same incident – Quashing of Police Reports – Allegations of wrongful restraint, injury, and offenses under Sections 354, 354-B, 354-D IPC – FIR No. 20/2024 filed by Ajay Kumar Sareen against Rohit Krishan Bhat alleging assault – FIR No. 24/2024 filed by Ragini Rajput against Ajay Kumar Sareen alleging sexual harassment – Both FIRs investigated by the same police station lacked coherence and factual basis – Investigations were contradictory, incomplete, and improperly supervised – Both cases involved fabricated claims by parties attempting to misuse the judicial process – Held: Both police reports quashed – Fresh investigation ordered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for FIRs 20/2024 and 24/2024 to ascertain true facts – Court emphasized the need to uphold the integrity of criminal administration of justice and prevent misuse of legal provisions [Paras 137–143].

Investigation – Contradictory and Deficient Police Reports – FIR No. 20/2024 (alleging wrongful restraint and injury by Rohit Krishan Bhat) – Police Report (Challan No. 10/2024) found to lack evidentiary basis and involved non-relevant witnesses such as the complainant’s parents – FIR No. 24/2024 (alleging sexual harassment and assault by Ajay Kumar Sareen) – Police Report (Challan No. 38/2024) prepared without proper corroboration, key witnesses giving conflicting accounts, and delayed recording of statements – Both investigations found to have procedural lapses and indicative of partiality – Held: Final police reports for both FIRs quashed – Investigation directed to be conducted afresh to prevent miscarriage of justice [Paras 134–140].

Inherent Powers of the Court – Fresh Investigation Ordered – Citing State of Punjab v. CBI (2011 AIR SC 2962), the Court held that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 BNSS, 2023) can be exercised to order re-investigation to ensure a fair and impartial inquiry – Investigation of FIRs 20/2024 and 24/2024 assigned to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to ensure credibility – Timeframe of 90 days set for CBI to conclude the investigation – Investigation of FIR No. 20/2024 with Police Station Pacca Danga directed to be completed by local police within two months – Clear directives issued to ensure accountability and avoid further delays [Paras 141–144].

Public Justice – Misuse of Judicial Process – Parties engaged in frivolous and self-serving claims – Failure of police to reconcile conflicting narratives and conduct impartial investigations – Both complainants and respondents found to be exploiting the legal system for personal vendettas – Court emphasized that justice cannot be reduced to a mockery through procedural inefficiencies or intentional misuse by litigants – Fresh investigation ordered to preserve the sanctity of the judicial process [Paras 137–143].

Decision: Police Reports No. 38/2024 and 10/2024 quashed – Fresh investigations to be conducted by CBI within 90 days for FIRs 20/2024 and 24/2024.
Police Station Janipur directed to hand over all records related to FIRs to the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), CBI, Jammu.
FIR No. 20/2024 under Police Station Pacca Danga to be investigated by local police and completed within two months, subject to extension by court upon valid reasons.
Petitions disposed of with detailed instructions for conducting fair investigations – Copies of the judgment sent to trial courts concerned for compliance [Paras 145–147].
 

Ad-Interim Injunction in Defamation – Prima Facie Case Established – Balance of Convenience Favored Plaintiff – Plaintiff demonstrated a prima facie case of defamation against Defendant No. 1 for publishing unverified allegations of manipulation and financial irregularities – Defendants Nos. 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11 further amplified defamatory claims – Court held that the Plaintiff's reputation faced irreparable harm, warranting temporary injunctions [Paras 26-30, 38].

Digital Platforms and Defamation – Limited Relief Against Defendant No. 4 (Google) – Plaintiff alleged defamatory content hosted on YouTube, owned by Defendant No. 4, but failed to provide translations or specific details of content – Held: Relief deferred until the Plaintiff files adequate documentation – Defendant No. 4 directed to act on valid takedown requests in good faith [Paras 33-34].

Freedom of Speech vs. Right to Reputation – Equitable Balance Between Competing Rights – Court emphasized that reckless and baseless allegations harming reputation cannot be justified under Article 19(1)(a) – Prima facie defamatory content found in publications by Defendants Nos. 6 to 11 – Injunction granted to preserve Plaintiff's reputation [Paras 28-29, 39].

Speculative Publications by Media Outlets – Defamation Found – Media outlets (Defendants Nos. 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11) published speculative and unverified allegations linking Plaintiff to family disputes of Defendant No. 1 – Content harmed Plaintiff's personal and professional credibility – Court restrained Defendants from further publication and directed removal of defamatory content [Paras 35-38].

Decision: Ad-Interim Injunction Granted Against Defendants Nos. 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11:

Defendants restrained from publishing, sharing, or disseminating defamatory content regarding the Plaintiff.
Defendants directed to remove existing defamatory content within one week.
Relief Deferred Against Defendants Nos. 2 and 4 (YouTube/Google):

Plaintiff to furnish translations and details of the defamatory content before seeking relief.
Undertaking by Defendant No. 9 (HT Media Ltd.):

Agreed to publish Plaintiff’s version of events to ensure balanced reporting.
Compliance and Filing of Replies:

Compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC to be made within two weeks.
Replies and rejoinders to be filed as per timelines set by the Court.
Next Steps in Suit:

Summons issued to Defendants with directions to file written statements within 30 days.
Pleadings to be completed by 17/02/2025.
 

Service Law – Removal from Service – Acquittal in Criminal Case – Relevance in Departmental Proceedings – Petitioner challenged removal from service following departmental inquiry on charges of misconduct, citing subsequent acquittal in a criminal case – Held: Acquittal in criminal proceedings, based on insufficient prosecution evidence, does not impact the validity of disciplinary action taken under the preponderance of probabilities standard – No grounds for interference found [Paras 6.3, 12.1].

Gratuity and Provident Fund – Forfeiture – Validity of Deduction – Bank forfeited petitioner’s gratuity and deducted provident fund contributions to recover financial losses caused by petitioner’s misconduct – Held: Forfeiture of gratuity under Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, justified given proven financial loss to the bank – Provident fund deductions similarly upheld [Paras 8–9].

Delay and Laches – Bar to Relief Under Article 226 – Petition filed 14 years after removal from service – Held: Petition barred by delay and laches, as the petitioner accepted the order of removal without challenging it for an extended period – Doctrine of delay and laches applied to dismiss stale claims [Paras 11–12].

Judicial Review – Limited Scope in Disciplinary Actions – Court emphasized its limited role in interfering with administrative decisions unless there is a violation of natural justice or procedural impropriety – Disciplinary action conducted as per law and principles of natural justice upheld [Paras 12, 13].

Decision: Petition dismissed – No interference with the order of removal from service or the forfeiture of gratuity and deductions from provident fund – Rule discharged [Paras 12–13].
 

Motor Accident Compensation – Death of Injured Claimant Before Award – Whether Legal Heirs Can Claim Compensation – The injured claimant filed MAC No. 136 of 2016 but passed away before judgment was pronounced – The Tribunal awarded ₹3,60,400/- with 7% interest, but later refused substitution of his married daughter (Petitioner) and minor granddaughter as legal heirs – Held: Legal representatives are entitled to compensation even if the claimant dies during proceedings, and their substitution cannot be rejected solely on procedural technicalities [Paras 5-7].

Legal Representatives – Scope of Section 166 MV Act – Inclusion of Married Daughters – The Tribunal held that married daughters are not dependents and thus cannot claim compensation for pain and suffering – Petitioner relied on N. Jayasree v. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd., (2022) 14 SCC 712, which interpreted ‘legal representatives’ broadly – Held: Married daughters and minor grandchildren fall within the definition of ‘legal representatives’ under Section 166 of the MV Act and are entitled to compensation [Paras 20-22].

Award in Favor of a Deceased Person – Whether Nullity in Law – The Insurance Company argued that since the injured claimant died before the judgment, the award is non est (void) in law – Held: The award remains valid as MV Act is beneficial legislation – The Tribunal erred in rejecting the substitution petition – Compensation awarded to a deceased claimant does not lapse but passes to legal heirs [Paras 17-18].

Substitution of Legal Heirs – Right of Minor Granddaughter – Appointment of Next Friend – The Tribunal rejected the Petitioner’s substitution as guardian of her minor niece, Subhalaxmi Nath, stating that her father was still alive – Held: A next friend need not be the natural guardian; any responsible person without adverse interest can represent a minor – The Tribunal’s rejection was improper, and the Petitioner was allowed to act as next friend for the minor [Paras 28-30].

Final Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Tribunal Directed to Accept Substitution – The High Court set aside the Tribunal’s orders dated 15.11.2022 and 02.01.2023 – Tribunal directed to permit Petitioner to represent minor grandchild as next friend and distribute compensation accordingly [Para 30].