Criminal Procedure – Anticipatory Bail – Medical Impersonation and Forgery – The High Court of Delhi deliberated on the grant of anticipatory bail to a practitioner of Unani medicine accused of impersonating an MBBS doctor and committing document forgery in relation to medical practice. The case revolved around the death of a patient post-childbirth, with allegations of using a forged MBBS degree and practicing modern medicine illegally. [Para 1-5, 26-28]

Qualifications and Practice of Unani Medicine – Consideration – The court examined the credentials of the applicant, a Bachelor of Unani Medicine and Surgery (BUMS) degree holder from Jamia Hamdard Delhi. The defense argued that the applicant was authorized to conduct normal deliveries as per the guidelines of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, and had significant experience in Unani medical practice. [Para 6-7, 11]

Allegations of Impersonation and Forgery – Evaluation – The prosecution accused the applicant of impersonating an MBBS doctor and using a forged stamp, highlighting discrepancies in the registration numbers used and absence of necessary qualifications for prescribing certain medications. The court assessed these allegations to determine the applicability of relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code. [Para 3, 16-18, 27]

Considerations for Granting Anticipatory Bail – Analysis – The court considered various factors, including the seriousness of the charges, the need for effective investigation, the likelihood of the applicant’s availability for trial, and the balance between personal liberty and the public interest, in deciding the anticipatory bail application. Reliance was placed on the principles laid down in landmark judgments such as Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others. [Para 29-32]

Decision – Anticipatory bail application dismissed due to the gravity of the allegations and the necessity for effective custodial interrogation to verify the claims and collect material evidence. [Paras 33-34]

Petitioners' Rights to Life and Liberty Under Live-in Relationship – Judicial Precedence and Constitutional Rights – Held – Petitioners, despite being in a non-marital live-in relationship, are entitled to protection of their life and liberty as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court, relying on past judgments, emphasizes that the legal recognition or status of the relationship does not diminish the right to protection. Petitioners' fundamental rights upheld irrespective of their marital status or age of majority. [Paras 2-4, 9, 10, 13]

Directions to Police for Protection – Assessment of Threat Perception – Held – Respondent No.2, Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur, directed to consider the petitioners' representation for protection and assess any threat to their life and liberty. Appropriate action to be taken in accordance with the law, ensuring the safety of the petitioners, reflecting the Court's commitment to safeguard individual rights under the Constitution. [Para 14]

Judicial Approach towards Non-Conventional Relationships – Analysis – Held – The Court demonstrates a progressive approach in acknowledging and protecting individuals in live-in relationships. Recognizes the evolving societal norms and extends legal protection irrespective of traditional marital boundaries, underscoring the primacy of individual liberty and rights over societal conventions. [Paras 8-10, 12, 13]

Decision – Protection of Life and Liberty in Live-in Relationship – Court grants protection to the petitioners, living in a live-in relationship, directing the police to assess and respond to their safety concerns. The judgment reiterates the sanctity of life and liberty under the Constitution, extending its protection to relationships outside the traditional marital framework. [Paras 14-15]

Registration Law - Mandamus to Register Sale Certificate - Writ petition seeking mandamus directing Sub-Registrar to register sale certificate issued under SARFAESI Act - Sub-Registrar refused registration citing pending Income Tax dues against original owners - Supreme Court holds SARFAESI Act provisions override other statutory claims - Mandamus issued directing Sub-Registrar to register sale certificate - State Government directed to issue circular to Sub-Registrars clarifying registration obligations under SARFAESI Act. [Paras 1-15]

Priority of Secured Creditors - SARFAESI Act - Examines Section 26E and Section 35 of SARFAESI Act - Held, secured creditor's rights have priority over other statutory dues - Sub-Registrar’s refusal to register sale certificate due to pending Income Tax dues invalid - SARFAESI Act provisions take precedence over Income Tax Act dues. [Paras 9-14]

Sub-Registrar’s Jurisdiction - Refusal to Register - Analyses grounds under Section 71 of Registration Act and Rule 171 of Karnataka Registration Rules - Sub-Registrar’s refusal to register sale certificate based on reasons not listed in Rule 171 invalid - Mandates compliance with statutory provisions for registration. [Paras 10-14]

Decision - Issuance of Mandamus - Directs Sub-Registrar to register sale certificate immediately - Orders State Government to issue clarificatory circular to all Sub-Registrars - Circular to reference Rules and Supreme Court judgments to prevent similar refusals. [Para 15]

Commercial Law – Condonation of Delay in Filing Written Statement –adjudicated upon the condonation of delay in filing the written statement by the respondent in a commercial dispute under the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The primary contention revolved around whether the delay beyond the statutorily prescribed period could be condoned under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. [Para 1-10, 13, 15, 25-26]

Service of Summons – Interpretation of Proper Service – The court analyzed the correctness of service of summons upon the respondent and its implications on the obligation to file the written statement within the prescribed timeframe. The impact of the mediation process on the computation of the period for filing the written statement was also examined. [Para 7-8, 17-18, 20]

Supreme Court Guidelines – Compliance in Commercial Disputes – The judgment referred to the Supreme Court precedent in “M/s SCG Contracts India Pvt Ltd Vs K S Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt Ltd” to determine the permissible limits for condoning delay in commercial disputes. It emphasized the strict timelines set by the Supreme Court for filing written statements in such matters. [Para 9, 14, 15, 25]

Decision – Non-Condonation of Delay – High Court set aside the Commercial Court's order allowing the condonation of delay - Court directed that the written statement filed beyond the permitted timeframe should not be taken on record. [Para 26]

Criminal Law – Negotiable Instruments Act – Compounding of Offence – In the case of Devender Sharma versus State NCT of Delhi & Anr, the High Court of Delhi, presided by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Jain, dealt with a revision petition under Section 397, read with Sections 401 & 482 of Cr.P.C., challenging the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. [Paras 1-5]

Condonation of Delay – The court condoned the delay in filing the revision petitions, with the consent of the respondents, ensuring no prejudice to their rights and contentions. [Paras CRL.M.A. 9426/2024, 3]

Settlement and Compounding – The petitioner, while in custody, reached a settlement with the complainant, leading to the filing of an application under Section 147 of the NI Act for compounding the offence. The Court noted the terms of the settlement and the payment of the agreed sum to the complainant. [Paras 7-12, 16-17]

Effect of Compounding – Acquittal – On allowing the application for compounding, the Court highlighted that compounding of the offence would result in acquittal as per Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C., directing the release of the petitioner if not required in any other case. [Paras 17-18]

Petition Disposal – The petition was disposed of, and instructions were issued for the petitioner's release and the submission of the cost payment proof [Paras 23-26].

Banking Law - Jurisdictional Conflict – Securitisation Act vs. Kerala State Fishermen Debt Relief Commission Act – The core issue is whether the KSFDRC can interdict actions taken under the Securitisation Act by a secured creditor – [Paras 1, 4].

Overriding Effect of Securitisation Act – Determination – The Court finds that Section 35 of the Securitisation Act has an overriding effect over other laws, including state legislation, due to its non obstante clause. The Court relies on precedents to establish the supremacy of Parliament-enacted legislation over conflicting state laws, under Article 246 of the Constitution of India. [Paras 7, 13-14]

Securitisation Act and State Legislation – Conflict Resolution – The judgment deliberates on the conflict between the Central legislation (Securitisation Act) and the State legislation (Kerala Fisherman Debt Relief Commission Act 2008), concluding that the former prevails due to the federal structure of legislation under the Indian Constitution. [Paras 10-13, 16]

Invalidity of KSFDRC’s Interdiction – Rationale – The Court reasons that the KSFDRC’s order directing the State Bank of India to refrain from proceeding under the Securitisation Act and to hand over the possession of secured assets is invalid. It holds that the KSFDRC lacked jurisdiction in this matter and erroneously assumed authority. [Paras 15-17]

Decision – Setting aside Order of KSFDRC – The High Court sets aside the order of the KSFDRC, reaffirming the bank’s liberty to proceed with recovery measures as per the Securitisation Act. The petition by the State Bank of India is allowed, establishing the primacy of the Securitisation Act over the Kerala Fisherman Debt Relief Commission Act in matters of secured creditors' rights. [Para 17]

Seizure and Freezing of Bank Accounts – Connection with Corruption Case – The appellant’s bank accounts were seized and frozen during the investigation of her husband (Accused No. 3) in a corruption case involving Canara Bank - [Paras 3-6, 13].

Trial Court’s Order on Seized Amounts – Allowed partial utilization of the seized funds; the rest was to be invested and its fate decided during the trial – Accused No. 3 acquitted of PC Act offenses but convicted under IPC sections - [Paras 4, 6, 7, 12].

Appeal for Release of Invested Funds – The appellant, suffering from cancer, appealed for release of the invested Rs. 2 lakhs for medical treatment; Trial Court deemed itself functus officio post-trial – [Paras 8-9, 13].

Bombay High Court Decision – Appeal allowed; Trial Court’s order set aside – Held that there was no finding linking the seized funds to the crime, and the appellant should not be deprived of her legitimate entitlement - [Paras 13-16].

Challenge against Tribunal’s Order – Petitioner aggrieved by Tribunal's dismissal of his application for deemed promotion date post-professional exam success – Tribunal's decision based on limitation and interpretation of Government Resolutions – High Court reevaluated the case, focusing on the continuous nature of cause of action and Government Resolutions interpretations. [Paras 1, 3, 8, 10]

Tribunal’s Misinterpretation of Limitation and Government Resolutions – Tribunal's error in suo motu addressing limitation issue and misreading Government Resolutions – High Court finds that application not barred by limitation and Tribunal's interpretation of Government Resolutions incorrect. [Paras 9-10, 14]

Applicability of Coordinate Bench’s Judgment – Case falls under dictum of Writ Petition No.1683/2021 – Coordinate Bench's judgment applicable, establishing petitioner’s right to claim relief of deemed promotion date from professional exam passing date. [Paras 11, 15]

Entitlement to Deemed Date of Promotion – Based on Government Resolutions, petitioner entitled to deemed promotion from professional examination passing date (18-03-1986 or 13-02-1986) – Tribunal’s order set aside, petitioner granted deemed promotion and consequential pensionary benefits. [Paras 12-13, 16-17]

Adoption Law - Cross-Border Adoption and Legal Recognition in India – Petitioners, Indian citizens residing in Kenya, adopted a child in Uganda and sought legal recognition of adoption in India [Paras 2, 3, 9].

CARA’s Inaction on Legalization Request – Petitioners approached CARA for legal sanctity in India but received no definitive response, leading to this petition [Paras 3, 9, 10].

Legal Framework for Adoption – Indian Juvenile Justice Act, Hague Convention, and Adoption Regulations applicable. Uganda not a Hague Convention signatory, creating complexity in adoption recognition [Paras 11-13].

Judicial Interpretation for Unforeseen Situations – Court emphasized the role of judicial review in adapting the law to unique situations not envisaged by legislators [Paras 13, 14].

Application of Foreign Judgments in India – Court applied Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, recognizing that foreign judgments can be conclusive in India, subject to conditions [Paras 15-17].

Direction for Action by CARA – Court mandated CARA to consider the petitioners’ request and issue a No Objection Certificate, harmonizing international and national legal provisions for adoption [Para 17].

Order:  The High Court directed CARA to process the petitioners’ request and grant a No Objection Certificate for adoption, complying with relevant laws and observations, within six weeks from the order receipt [Para 17].