Medical Negligence and Criminal Intimidation – Charges against Dr. Punam Sinha for allegedly leaving surgical materials inside the complainant post-operation, leading to further health complications and additional surgeries – Initial complaint led to no action, escalating to a criminal intimidation charge when the complainant was threatened by the accused [Paras 2, 2.1, 13].

Evidence and Witness Testimony – Multiple witnesses corroborated the complainant’s suffering and subsequent operations which allegedly were necessitated by the initial surgical oversight – No expert medical evidence presented to support the negligence claim [Paras 3-4, 13.1].

Legal Framework for Discharge – Discussion on the legal standards and procedures for discharging an accused at the pre-trial stage – Reference to apex court rulings emphasizing that discharge is based on strong suspicion and not a detailed examination of evidence [Paras 10, 10.1-10.4].

Court’s Analysis and Decision – Application dismissed based on insufficient evidence of intent or negligence directly linking Dr. Punam Sinha to the alleged medical complications – The court emphasized that the charge under Section 308 IPC requires evidence of intent to cause such harm, which was not substantiated [Paras 14-15].

Decision: The criminal revision petition is allowed – The impugned order dated 25th February 2023 by the lower court is set aside, discharging Dr. Punam Sinha from the charges under Sections 308 and 338 IPC

Bail Petition – Sections 439 Cr.P.C. – Petitioner sought bail for offenses under IPC and IT Act, including sending obscene messages and morphing images – Petitioner argued the case was foisted due to personal dispute – Court noted the seriousness of charges and impact on society, particularly younger generation using social media – Emphasized that morphing images and uploading them in social media constitutes a serious offense with societal implications [Paras 1-10].
Seriousness of Offense – Morphing Images and Harassment – Allegations include sending obscene messages and creating fake social media IDs to harass – Offenses initially bailable, but subsequent alterations included Section 67A of IT Act, making them non-bailable – Court highlighted the damaging effects on victim’s morality, family, and societal impact [Paras 8-9].
Applicability of Section 67A of IT Act – Impact on Bail Decision – Court considered Section 67A of IT Act, which prescribes imprisonment up to five years for first-time offenders – As per Section 77B of IT Act, offenses with imprisonment of three years or more are non-bailable – Given the gravity of the offense and its broader societal impact, court declined to grant bail [Paras 9-10].
Decision: The Criminal Original Petition is dismissed, and bail is not granted to the petitioner.
 

Jurisdictional Challenge and Applicability of Labour Laws – Petitioner contends that being governed by the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, they are exempt from other labour legislations as the Act provides a complete code; Assistant Labour Officer's jurisdiction challenged – High Court finds that the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act does not preclude the application of general labour laws on welfare and social security measures which are not covered by the Co-operative Societies Act – Dismisses petitioner's arguments [Paras 3, 17-21].

Application of General Labour Laws – Detailed discussion on the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, Minimum Wages Act, Maternity Benefit Act, and the Kerala Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Act – Court upholds that these Acts apply to the petitioner as they qualify as a 'commercial establishment' and 'establishment' under these Acts – Specific provisions for welfare and social security override the Co-operative Societies Act in these regards [Paras 14-21].

Precedents and Legal Interpretations – Court references multiple High Court and Supreme Court precedents to establish that labour laws apply to co-operative societies unless specifically exempted; these include rulings on payment of wages, provident funds, maternity benefits, and subsistence allowances [Paras 8-12].

Decision – Writ petition seeking exemption from labour laws and non-application of the Assistant Labour Officer's directives is dismissed; petitioner is required to comply with the general labour laws as applicable [Para 21].

Appeal against Arbitral Award – Price Variation Dispute – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Appeal under Section 37(1)(c) against Commercial Court’s judgment upholding arbitral award – Dispute over price variation clause in construction contract – Tribunal and Court aligned in interpretation of clause, denying PCC’s claim – Appellant's argument regarding application of specific price index for South Zone rejected – Tribunal found no ambiguity in application of All India Price Index as per clause – Held, arbitral award is plausible and no interference warranted under Section 34 of A&C Act – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-31]

Price Variation Formula in Construction Contract – Interpretation and Application – Clause 10CA of General Conditions of Contract – Dispute over price index application for calculating cement price variation – Appellant argued for specific zone-based price index – Tribunal applied All India Price Index as per contract, rejecting zone-specific index – Held, interpretation of Clause 10CA by Tribunal falls within its jurisdiction and is a plausible view – Court finds no reason to interfere under Section 34 of A&C Act. [Paras 15-31]

Judicial Review of Arbitral Awards – Scope and Limitation – Analysis of limited scope of interference with arbitral awards under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Tribunal's interpretation of contractual clauses and factual findings – Held, unless grounds for setting aside an arbitral award are established, interference not warranted – In present case, Tribunal’s interpretation deemed plausible and within its jurisdiction – Appeal and application dismissed. [Paras 28-31]

Maintenance Review – Criminal revision filed against the order dated 25.01.2023 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarnagar, which granted interim maintenance of Rs.7,000 to revisionist No.1 and Rs.2,000 each to revisionist Nos.2 and 3 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Revisionists seek enhancement of the maintenance allowance, alleging that the trial court did not adequately consider the income and assets of the opposite party No.2 [Paras 2-4].

Income and Earnings Assessment – Opposite party No.2's income from the family business underreported as Rs.7,000 per month – Evidence suggests substantial assets and higher income level, including NSCs, PPF, and ownership in a family business, justifying a higher maintenance allowance [Paras 4, 18-20, 26-28].

Legal Jurisdiction and Procedural Legality – Discussion on the appropriate forum for filing revisions under the Family Court Act, 1984 – Criminal revision held maintainable under Section 19(4) of the Act against orders passed under Chapter IX of Cr.P.C., including those concerning maintenance [Paras 10-15].

Determination of Maintenance – Court finds that maintenance calculated as 25% of the actual income of the husband for the wife and 20% for each child is appropriate based on revised assessments of husband's income – Maintenance for wife revised to Rs.15,000 per month and Rs.6,000 each for the children [Paras 29-31, 34].

Modification of Maintenance Order – Original maintenance order modified to reflect enhanced allowances, payable from the date of the initial application with arrears to be paid in four equal installments [Paras 33-35].

Decision: The criminal revision is partly allowed - The maintenance order dated 25.01.2023 is set aside in part and enhanced as described - The revised maintenance amounts are to be paid from the date of the original application, with arrears structured in four equal instalments. [Para 36].

Gift Deeds and Basic Amenities Requirement – Dispute over ownership and right to stay in flats gifted by father to son – The Maintenance Tribunal nullified gift deeds executed in favor of the petitioner son, based on allegations of non-provision of basic amenities by the son post-transfer – Analysis centers on whether gift deeds were subject to the conditions of providing basic amenities and physical needs, as required under Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizens Act – Tribunal found conditions met due to explicit covenants allowing the father’s residence in the flats, indicating a conditional gift based on basic amenities provision - [Paras 1-54].

Tribunal's Jurisdiction Under Senior Citizens Act – Discussed necessity for specific conditions in gift deeds stipulating the provision of basic amenities for seniors as a prerequisite for invoking Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizens Act – The court opined that such conditions need not be explicitly stated in the deeds but may be established through evidence and proceedings, which aligns with the act’s objective to protect senior citizens’ rights to basic amenities post property transfer - [Paras 19-20, 40-43, 46-47].

Application and Implications of Section 23(1) – Senior Citizens Act envisages scenarios where senior citizens can reclaim gifted properties if basic needs are not met by the transferee – The court critiqued the broad application of Section 23(1), urging it should not be used to resolve general property disputes unrelated to the maintenance of senior citizens – Emphasized that legislative intent is to ensure senior citizens' basic needs are met, not just to nullify transfer documents - [Paras 50-52].

Decision: court set aside the Maintenance Tribunal's order to nullify the gift deeds and vacate the flats - It directed that the petitioner provides residence to the respondent father in one specified flat along with a monthly maintenance amount, aligning with the act’s purpose to ensure the senior’s welfare rather than merely annul property transfers - The judgment refines the interpretation of Section 23(1), emphasizing evidence over explicit conditions in deeds for the provision of basic amenities - [Para 54].

Revisional Application Under Article 227 – Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 and Calcutta Municipal Corporation (Taxation) Rules, 1987 – Challenge to Assessment of Property Tax – exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, adjudicated upon the revisional application challenging the order of the Municipal Assessment Tribunal regarding the annual valuation for property tax of premises no. 99A, Humayun Kabir Sarani, Kolkata. The Tribunal’s order had modified the valuation determined by the Hearing Officer of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. The High Court found that the Tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction appropriately and did not adhere to the mandatory statutory procedures under the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, and the Calcutta Municipal Corporation (Taxation) Rules, 1987. [Paras 1-21]

Misapplication of Jurisdiction by Municipal Assessment Tribunal – Held, the Municipal Assessment Tribunal improperly exercised its jurisdiction by failing to provide reasoned justification for modifying the Hearing Officer's order, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. The Tribunal's reliance on past judgments without elucidating their relevance to the present case and its disregard for the procedural requirements under the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act and the Rules thereof constituted a flagrant violation of statutory obligations. [Paras 15-17]

Decision – Remand for Fresh Adjudication – High Court sets aside the impugned order of the Municipal Assessment Tribunal and directs it to reconsider the matter in strict compliance with the relevant provisions of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, and the Calcutta Municipal Corporation (Taxation) Rules, 1987. [Paras 18-20]

Quashing of Cognizance and Process – Criminal Revision against dismissal of petition to quash cognizance and process – Petitioner accused of offenses under Sections 354A(1)(iv)/34 IPC – Allegations by actress against petitioner – Cognizance and process issued without proper application of judicial mind and procedural requirements – Petitioner challenges orders before Sessions Judge – High Court’s dismissal of similar revisions against co-accused cited as ground for dismissal – Sessions Judge dismisses petitioner’s revision solely based on High Court’s order – Petitioner not heard in High Court’s proceedings – Violation of fundamental principle of hearing and natural justice – Abuse of process of law – Order of Sessions Judge set aside – Matter restored for proper hearing and disposal – Criminal Revision allowed.

Lease Agreement Dispute – Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) and respondents disputed over the renewal of a lease agreement for property at Plot A-9 and 10, South Extension, Part-1, Ring Road, New Delhi - Lease originally executed in 1966, renewed in 2003 for 20 years – BPCL sought renewal; respondents declined and issued notice to vacate [Paras 3(i)-(vii)].

Interpretation of Lease Renewal Clause – Key issue was interpretation of Clause II (7) of the Lease Deed regarding lease renewal - BPCL contended for automatic 20-year renewal; respondents argued for mutually agreeable terms or no renewal – Court examined the phrase "NIL years" in the clause [Paras 9, 10, 12, 13].

BPCL’s Renewal Request – BPCL's communications in 2021 and 2022 seeking renewal cited – Respondents denied receipt; no substantiation by BPCL - Court considered these as afterthought defense [Paras 16, 17].

Court's Analysis and Ruling – Court interpreted renewal clause as requiring mutual agreement for any renewal period - Rejected BPCL’s interpretation of automatic renewal – No ambiguity in the written contract to warrant oral evidence or different interpretation [Paras 19, 23, 24, 25].

Specific Performance and Lease Agreement – Counterclaim for specific performance of lease renewal under Section 14(1)(c) of Specific Relief Act, 1963 deemed untenable – Lease deemed determinable in nature [Paras 27].

Decision – Appeals and pending applications dismissed; upheld judgment of the Commercial Court favoring respondents – Lease Deed considered determinable, no ground for specific performance [Para 28].