Civil Law - Appeal Against Order Dismissing Amendment Application – Appellant's amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, seeking to challenge a 1976 partition decree as fraudulent, dismissed by Single Judge [Paras 1-1.5].

Partition Suit Background – Suit filed by appellant for partition of property, claiming a 1/4th share. Respondents contended property already partitioned in 1976 [Paras 1.2-1.3].

Alleged Fraud in 1976 Decree – Appellant claimed 1976 partition decree collusive and fraudulent. Sought to declare it null and void [Para 1.4].

Single Judge's Observations – Amendment application was dismissed as it sought to change the nature of the original suit for partition [Para 1.5].

Appellant's Argument – Proposed amendment sought to challenge the 1976 decree's validity, claimed unawareness of decree and its fraudulent nature [Paras 2-2.4].

Respondents' Argument – 1976 partition decree was legitimate, and appellant had no right to challenge it. Amendment would change suit's nature [Paras 3-3.3].

Court's Analysis and Findings – Amendment would convert partition suit into a declaration suit with distinct cause of action and limitation, which is not permissible [Paras 5-11].

Appellant's Lack of Locus to Challenge 1976 Decree – Appellant had no right, title, or interest in the property in 1976. Cannot challenge ancestor’s actions posthumously [Paras 16-17, 19].

Decree Accepted by Ancestor – Appellant's common ancestor accepted and acted upon the 1976 decree, hence binding on appellant [Paras 14, 18-19].

Decree Cannot Be Challenged Posthumously – Right to challenge a decree is not transferable posthumously according to Section 6(e) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 [Para 19].

Dismissal of Appeal – Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it along with pending applications [Para 21].

Revision Petition – Delhi Rent Control Act – Dismissal of petition under Section 25B(8) – Tenant’s challenge to ownership and denial of jural relationship of landlord and tenant – Petitioner/tenant failed to provide documentary evidence of ownership, while respondents/landlords produced substantial evidence. [Paras 1, 8, 9, 11]

Bonafide Requirement – Section 14(1)(e) of the Act – Landlords' requirement for premises for expanding business – No sufficient evidence from tenant to refute landlords' claim of bonafide requirement – Tenant's vague denial of landlords’ need insufficient. [Paras 2.1, 6]

Alternate Accommodation – Tenant’s claim of landlords having alternate accommodation – Absence of specific details or supporting material from tenant – Landlords’ specific disclosure of premises used and requirement for expansion upheld. [Paras 6, 7]

Title to Property – Issue of landlord's title in eviction proceedings – Landlord not required to prove absolute title – Sufficient for landlord to establish better title than tenant – Petitioner/tenant failed to provide documentary evidence against landlords' substantiated claim of ownership. [Paras 7, 8, 9]

Legal Principles – Application of principles in exercising jurisdiction under Section 25B(8) of the Act – High Court’s role in revision proceedings, balancing landlord's right to eviction and tenant’s right to contest. [Paras 5, 5.4, 5.5]

Decision – Dismissal of revision petition – Upholding the order of the Additional Rent Controller – Tenant’s application for leave to contest rightly rejected based on lack of substantial evidence and ownership claim. [Paras 12, 13]

Tender - Challenging Debarment Communication – The petitioner challenges the communication dated 17.06.2020 debarring them from participating in tenders due to alleged non-payment of wages and dues to employees [Para 1].

Facts of the Case – The petitioner was awarded a maintenance contract by the respondent. A show cause notice was issued for non-payment of wages and dues to employees, leading to the debarment of the petitioner for three years from participating in tenders by IPGCL or PPCL [Paras 2-3].

Contention of Violation of Principles of Natural Justice – The petitioner contends that the debarment was made without adequate notice, violating principles laid down by the Apex Court in Gorkha Security Services vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, and UMC Technologies (P) Ltd. v. Food Corpn. of India [Para 4].

Examination of Contract Clauses – Contract clauses regarding blacklisting/debarment and termination were examined, indicating the respondent's discretion to blacklist/debar a contractor under certain conditions [Para 6-7].

Lack of Notice for Debarment – Court finds that there was no specific notice for debarment, only for termination of the contract, rendering the debarment notice invalid [Paras 8-10].

Apex Court's Observations – Referenced Apex Court judgments emphasize the necessity of a prior show-cause notice and reasonable opportunity of being heard before blacklisting or debarment [Para 12].

Conclusion and Judgment – The High Court set aside the debarment communication dated 17.06.2020 for lack of proper show cause notice. It allowed the respondent to issue a fresh notice for debarment on valid grounds [Paras 13-14].

Matrimonial Law - Divorce - Cruelty - Appeal against the judgment of the Additional District Judge denying divorce on the ground of cruelty - Husband alleged disrespectful behavior, physical assault, and financial exploitation by wife - Wife alleged husband's extramarital relationship with colleague causing marital discord - Evidence showed husband's intimate association with colleague, including living together and addressing her as mother, corroborating wife's claims - Complaints and representations made by colleague's father further supported wife's allegations - Husband's involvement with colleague during marriage found to be the cause of marital breakdown - Acquittal in criminal case related to marital dispute not absolving husband of cruelty - Principle of not benefiting from one's own wrongdoing applied - Appeal dismissed, divorce denied.

Service Law – Writ - Quashing of Penalty Order and Proceedings – Denial of Petitioner’s Requests – Petitioner Shashank Jain seeks quashing of penalty order for ‘Removal from service’, and orders rejecting his appeal and review petitions, along with reinstatement with benefits and treating suspension period as duty. He argues arbitrary decision-making, harsh punishment, and personal medical condition influencing the incident. [Paras 1, 7, 8]

Circumstances of Disciplinary Action – Gross Negligence – Petitioner, a CISF Sub-Inspector, was found guilty of leaving his post and service pistol unattended in a CCTV control room, leading to a fellow officer’s suicide with the petitioner’s pistol. Disciplinary action, departmental inquiry, and subsequent orders by higher authorities upheld this finding. [Paras 2-4, 5, 6]

Defense of Petitioner – Medical Condition and Unforeseeability – Petitioner claims medical ailment (Ankylosing Spondylitis) caused him to leave his post and behave negligently. He denies foreseeing the deceased’s act of suicide and contends his actions did not directly cause the death. [Paras 8, 9]

Respondents’ Argument – Appropriate Punishment – Respondents argue the punishment is proportionate to the negligence displayed, considering the petitioner’s role in a disciplined force and the consequent loss of life. [Para 11]

Court’s Observations – Unpardonable Negligence – Court finds the petitioner’s actions as gross negligence, especially considering his role in CISF and the sensitivity of his post. His medical condition and arguments do not absolve him of his duty to maintain discipline and vigilance. [Paras 13, 15, 16, 21]

Judicial Review and Final Decision – The Court, limited by its jurisdiction under Article 226, cannot re-appreciate evidence or act as an appellate authority. Finding no merit in petitioner’s arguments and considering the gravity of negligence, the petition is dismissed. [Paras 19, 20, 21, 22]

Matrimonial Law - Paternity Test Refusal Upheld - Appellant/husband's appeal against Family Court's refusal for a paternity test dismissed – Family Court's decision based on continuous cohabitation of the couple and the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Evidence Act upheld – The child's interest considered paramount, with the Court emphasizing that the child cannot be used as a pawn in marital disputes. [Paras 2, 6-8]

Background of Marriage and Dispute - The marriage took place in 2008 and the child was born in 2014 – Divorce petition filed in 2020 based on cruelty, with later amendments in 2022 to include the husband's claims of azoospermia and doubts about paternity. [Paras 3.1-3.5]

Medical Condition of Azoospermia - Court acknowledges the medical condition of azoospermia (absence of sperm in ejaculate) but notes that it does not conclusively rule out paternity due to possibilities like IVF or sperm retrieval. [Paras 5-5.1]

Cruelty and Adultery Allegations - The central issue of the divorce petition involves allegations of cruelty and adultery – The Court notes the possibility of addressing these claims through trial without necessitating a paternity test. [Paras 6-7]

Child's Legitimacy Presumed Under Law - Court reiterates the legal presumption of a child's legitimacy during an ongoing valid marriage, emphasizing the importance of a child’s right to identity and protection from marital conflicts. [Para 8]

Decision - Appeal dismissed with a focus on the child's welfare and rights, and the pending application declared inefficacious. [Para 9]

Criminal Appeal – Circumstantial Evidence and Last Seen Together Doctrine – Appeals against conviction under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC for murder, based on circumstantial evidence and the 'last seen together' doctrine – Appellants challenge the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli in Sessions Trial No. 45 of 2010. [Para 1, 5, 19-25]

Evidence – Reliability and Credibility of Witnesses – Discussion on the reliability of witnesses, particularly PW7, who claimed to have seen the deceased last with the appellants – Doubts raised regarding the credibility and circumstances of PW7's testimony. [Para 19-23]

Medical Evidence – Post-Mortem Report – Medical evidence indicating homicidal death due to asphyxia, strangulation, and head injuries, with the time of death established as 16 hours before post-mortem. [Para 15]

Discovery and Seizure of Evidence – Recovery of deceased's belongings and other articles at the instance of appellants – The credibility of discoveries under scrutiny, given the articles were recovered from places accessible to all and the inconclusive reports of the Chemical Analyzer. [Para 26]

Acquittal of Co-Accused – The State's and PW1's applications for leave to appeal against the acquittal of co-accused dismissed, as the prosecution failed to establish charges against them. [Para 31]

Decision – High Court allows the appeals, setting aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants – Appellants acquitted of the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC, citing insufficient evidence to conclusively establish their guilt and a failure to form a complete chain of circumstances pointing to their guilt. [Para 32]

Allegations of Sexual Exploitation Under False Promise of Marriage – Applicant accused of establishing physical relations with the victim on the promise of marriage - Victim later married another individual - FIR lodged following applicant's engagement with another woman - Applicant claimed relations were consensual and due to a love affair. [Para 3, 6]

Consent Obtained Under Misconception – Prosecution's argument that the victim's consent was obtained under a false promise of marriage, thereby constituting an offence under Section 375 IPC. [Para 7]

Analysis of Evidence – Court observed that the physical relationship between the applicant and the victim evolved from a consensual love affair and wasn't solely based on the promise of marriage - WhatsApp chats indicated the victim initially refused marriage. [Para 8, 12]

Distinction Between False Promise and Breach of Promise – Supreme Court precedents cited, distinguishing between false promise and non-fulfillment of promise - Lack of evidence that the applicant never intended to marry the victim. [Para 9, 10, 12]

Application of Ch. Bhajan Lal Guidelines – The case fell under guidelines for quashing proceedings where allegations don't constitute an offence and continuation of proceedings is an abuse of the law. [Para 14]

Decision – Impugned order of learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside - Applicant discharged from all charges under Sections 376(2)(n) and 417 IPC. [Para 16]

Judicial Review – Mandamus – Reinstatement and Back Wages – Petitioner seeking mandamus for enforcement of earlier High Court order for reinstatement and back wages – Earlier judgment partly allowed reinstatement with modified punishment, not back wages – Petitioner's claim for back wages unsustainable due to limited scope of the petition. [Para 1, 6-7, 16-17]

Employment – Disciplinary Proceedings – Termination of Service – Petitioner's service terminated along with four others for negligence – Labour Court's negative award for petitioner – High Court's modification of punishment and reinstatement with reduced benefits – No entitlement to back wages or service benefits for period out of service. [Para 2-3, 10, 16]

Administrative Law – Implementation of Court Orders – Respondent Corporation's compliance with High Court's order – Reduction in punishment to lower scale and proportionate recovery – Petitioner deemed reinstated and retired, with no back wages or other service benefits during out-of-service period. [Para 6, 8, 16]

High Court – Powers and Limitations – Relief not claimed in pleadings cannot be granted – Petitioner's failure to challenge specific part of order precludes claim for back wages – Court's inability to grant relief beyond the scope of petition and pleadings. [Para 16, 17]

Dismissal – No further relief granted to petitioner due to limitations in the scope of the petition and finality of certain aspects of the order. [Para 17]