Maintenance – Quantum Determination – True Disclosure of Income and Assets – Petitioner challenged the order directing him to pay maintenance to the respondent – Contention that the petitioner's unemployment and lack of documentary evidence regarding income were not considered – Court emphasized the requirement of true disclosure of income, assets, and liabilities by both parties as per Supreme Court guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha – Impugned order set aside to the extent of quantum of maintenance – Matter remitted for fresh determination based on affidavits of disclosure – Interim maintenance to continue at Rs. 10,000 per month until final disposal [Paras 1-14].

Legal Principles – Affidavit of Disclosure – Supreme Court guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha mandate filing of detailed affidavits by both parties in maintenance proceedings – Affidavits to cover financial status from the date of filing the original case to the date of filing affidavits – Misrepresentation or false statements may attract proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and contempt of court [Paras 8-10].

Procedure – Compliance with Supreme Court Guidelines – Trial courts must ensure adherence to the guidelines for fair determination of maintenance – Importance of responsible pleadings and disclosure in matrimonial disputes stressed – Directions issued for expeditious disposal of remitted matter [Paras 11-14].

Decision: Revision allowed – Impugned order dated 16.01.2019 set aside to the extent of quantum of maintenance – Parties directed to file affidavits of disclosure – Interim maintenance to continue at Rs. 10,000 per month until final disposal [Paras 11-14].

Bail in Economic Offenses – The court evaluated the petition for regular bail considering the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception. It acknowledged the Supreme Court's stance that while the gravity of economic offenses warrants sensitivity, it does not justify an automatic denial of bail. The court emphasized the need to balance the liberty of the individual against the interests of justice and the state's position​​.

Triple Test for Bail – The court applied the triple test: (i) whether the accused is a flight risk, (ii) whether the accused will tamper with evidence if granted bail, and (iii) whether the accused could influence witnesses if granted bail. The court found no substantial risk under these criteria warranting continued detention​​.

Comparative Analysis – The petitioner sought parity with a co-accused who was granted bail earlier. The court recognized that denying bail to one while granting it to another under similar circumstances would be unjust. Therefore, it allowed bail for the petitioner on parity grounds​​.

Legislative Framework – The petitioner's counsel argued that the offenses related to tax evasion under the Haryana VAT Act, a self-contained code excluding IPC provisions. The court noted that such arguments, though relevant, do not preclude the grant of bail, particularly when investigation and charge-sheets have been filed, reducing the risk of tampering with evidence​​.

Decision:Petition allowed. The petitioner is granted regular bail on furnishing bail bonds/surety to the satisfaction of the trial court. The court imposed conditions including the surrender of the passport, maintaining contact details, and refraining from altering any documents or business structures under investigation​​.

Eviction under Public Premises Act – Unauthorised Occupation – Prima Facie Satisfaction – The Estate Officer must have prima facie satisfaction that the respondent is in unauthorised occupation before issuing an eviction notice under Section 4(1) of the Public Premises Act – Satisfaction must be based on substantive material – Subsequent notices may waive earlier ones, impacting the basis for the eviction notice – Notice dated 9 February 2001 was found waived due to subsequent notices – Prima facie satisfaction formed on waived notice indicates non-application of mind [Paras 1-19].

Eviction Process – Statutory Compliance – Fairness and Reasonableness – Public authorities must act in public interest and follow principles of natural justice and constitutional fairness – Requirement for eviction under Public Premises Act involves dual-stage satisfaction: preliminary before issuing notice, and final after hearing the occupant – The necessity for eviction must align with constitutional principles and demonstrate bona fide need and fairness [Paras 20-29].

Protection under Maharashtra Rent Control Act – Waiver of Notice – Tenant’s Status – Respondent failed to prove tenancy prior to 1980 to claim protection under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act as interpreted in Suhas H. Pophale’s case – Multiple notices indicated tenancy was treated as subsisting, leading to waiver of earlier notices [Paras 30-31].

Decision: The Civil Revision Application is dismissed. The judgment of the City Civil Court, Greater Bombay, setting aside the eviction order of the Estate Officer, is upheld. The Estate Officer’s prima facie satisfaction was found to be based on non-application of mind due to reliance on waived notice. The applicant failed to demonstrate the fairness and reasonableness required for eviction [Paras 32-33].
 

Criminal Law – Quashment of FIR and Charge-Sheet – Applications seeking to quash the FIR, charge-sheet, and criminal proceedings against the applicants – Allegations involve assault and use of criminal force against police personnel by prisoners in a temporary prison – Applicants argue procedural improprieties and lack of specific roles attributed to them – Court rejects the applications, finding sufficient material to proceed with charges under IPC [Paras 1-22].

Procedure under Prisons Act – Superintendent’s Authority – Contention that the incident should be handled as a prison offence under the Prisons Act and Punishments Rules, requiring Superintendent’s action rather than lodging an FIR – Court clarifies that serious offences under IPC committed within a prison do not preclude the registration of an FIR and police investigation – Provisions of Prisons Act do not bar the police from investigating cognizable offences [Paras 23-45].

Overlap between Prison Offences and IPC Offences – Analysis of the overlap between acts constituting prison offences under Section 45 of the Prisons Act and offences under the IPC – Court finds that while some acts overlap, they do not preclude separate charges under IPC where elements differ or where more severe penalties are involved – Rule 25 of Punishments Rules permits prosecution for certain offences under IPC committed within prison premises [Paras 33-43].

Decision: Applications dismissed – Interim relief extended till 8th July 2024 – Court finds no procedural impropriety in the registration of FIR, investigation by police, and Magistrate’s cognizance of IPC offences committed within the prison [Paras 46-50].

Interim Order – Vacation Request – Application filed for vacating interim order dated 01.03.2023 – Respondent argued interim order halted significant public projects involving national security – Court reviewed necessity of interim relief versus public interest [Paras 1-13].

Public Interest and National Security – Judicial Review in Tender Matters – Emphasis on minimal judicial intervention in tender-related disputes involving state contracts – Supreme Court’s guidelines on preserving public interest and avoiding unnecessary interference reiterated [Paras 14-25].

Decision – Interim Order Modified – Held – Interim order modified to allow respondents to proceed with tender processes subject to the final outcome of the writ petition – Public interest and national security considerations prioritized – Detailed reasoning of Supreme Court judgments on judicial restraint and public interest cited [Paras 26-38].

Service Law – Misappropriation and Disciplinary Action – Circular Providing Amnesty – Petitioner challenged the dismissal show cause notice and sought relief under Circular No.1/2017 granting amnesty for certain misdemeanors – Petitioner had a history of misdemeanors, leading to multiple punishments – Court found the circular was misused by employees to evade serious consequences for repeated misconduct – Circular aimed at reform was found to conflict with principles of public accountability and legal discipline [Paras 1-19]. 

Circular No.1/2017 and its Legal Sustainability – The circular allowed bus conductors involved in misdemeanors to avoid dismissal by paying fines – Court deemed it illogical, irrational, and legally unsustainable as it indirectly condoned corruption and lacked a basis in the Discipline and Appeal Rules of MSRTC – Court highlighted the need for legal discipline and public accountability over unchecked amnesty [Paras 20-29]. 

Withdrawal of Circular and Introduction of New Circular – Respondent MSRTC introduced Circular No. X-1 dated 18/04/2024, modifying the previous circular by limiting the amnesty to one or two occasions – Court scrutinized the legality of both circulars and emphasized that any change in punishment procedures must be codified in the Discipline and Appeal Rules to be legally enforceable [Paras 30-43]. 

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Court held that the petitioner's reliance on the 2017 circular was untenable and that the modified circular still lacked legal backing in the absence of amendments to the Discipline and Appeal Rules – The MSRTC was directed to enforce disciplinary actions strictly as per the codified rules without undue leniency [Paras 44-47]. 

Juvenile Justice – Applicability of Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 – Appellant, a juvenile at the time of the offence, convicted under Sections 307 and 323 of IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act – Plea of juvenility raised for the first time in appeal – Trial Court did not consider juvenility – High Court directed an inquiry by the Juvenile Justice Board – Inquiry confirmed appellant's juvenility – Appellant entitled to benefits under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, even after becoming an adult – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant ordered to be released as detention period exceeded three years, the maximum for a juvenile [Paras 1-40].

Benefit of Juvenility – Retrospective Application – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, applied retrospectively in pending cases – Juvenile at the time of offence entitled to the Act's benefits despite age at the time of conviction – Appeal allowed without considering merits due to appellant's status as juvenile at offence time [Paras 18-22, 30-38].

Decision: Appeal allowed. Judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.02.2022 and 05.03.2022 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge-1, Munger, in Sessions Trial No. 31 of 2004 set aside. Appellant directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
 

Review Jurisdiction – Grounds for Review – Petitioner seeks review of dismissal order, arguing substantial questions of law were raised but not considered by the court – Review petition examined under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC – Review permissible on grounds of discovery of new evidence, error apparent on face of record, or other sufficient reason [Paras 1-22].

Error Apparent on Face of Record – Definition and Scope – Review jurisdiction confined to patent errors not requiring elaborate argument or reappreciation of evidence – Error must be self-evident and not subject to different interpretations or extensive reasoning – Prior case laws including Parsion Devi and Lily Thomas reiterated [Paras 10-17].

Previous Adjudication – No New Grounds – Petitioner’s arguments largely reiterate points already considered and rejected in the initial appeal – No new evidence or error apparent demonstrated – Review petition found to be an attempt to reargue the case on merits [Paras 19-23].

Judicial Precedents – Analysis and Application – Review jurisdiction principles from Apex Court judgments applied – Review not an appeal in disguise, meant to correct manifest errors only – Precedents from Col. Avatar Singh Sekhon, S. Nagaraj, and others discussed to emphasize limited scope of review [Paras 15-21].

Decision:

Review Petition Dismissed – No grounds for review found within the ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC – Original order dated 10.10.2023 upheld, dismissing the appeal for lack of substantial questions of law – Petitioner's arguments considered repetitive and unconvincing [Paras 23-24].

Bail – Cancellation – Suppression of Material Facts – The respondent Indira Kumari @ Tanu secured bail by suppressing material evidence against her, specifically the statements of last seen witnesses recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The bail was granted under the false premise that there was no evidence against her. This concealment and misrepresentation amounted to an abuse of judicial process. The court, upon discovering this suppression, recalled the bail order dated 07.03.2024 and directed her arrest. [Paras 1-22]

Principle of Parity – Negative Parity – Bail Application – The co-accused Anuj Pokharna and Rishabh Raj sought bail on the ground of parity with Indira Kumari. The court rejected their bail applications, emphasizing that the principle of parity is based on positive equality and cannot be invoked to perpetuate an illegality. The court highlighted that parity cannot be claimed when the initial bail was obtained by suppressing material facts. [Paras 23-30]

Decision – Bail Cancelled – Bail Applications Rejected – The bail granted to Indira Kumari on 07.03.2024 was recalled and cancelled. The bail applications of Anuj Pokharna and Rishabh Raj were rejected. Directions were issued for the immediate arrest and detention of Indira Kumari. [Paras 22, 30-31]