Petition by CBI for Documents – Writ petition filed by CBI for obtaining certified copies of documents from court records for investigating a case of disproportionate assets – CBI's application initially dismissed by Special Judge [Paras 1-2, 5].

Importance of Authentic Documents – CBI emphasized the necessity of acquiring documents directly from court records for ensuring authenticity in legal proceedings – Ensures unimpeachable source of documentation, mitigating potential prejudice [Para 7].

CBI (Crime) Manual Provisions – Reference to Rule 14.16 (now Rule 9.9) of CBI (Crime) Manual – Importance of photographing/videographing scene of crime/trap/search proceedings in investigations [Para 8].

Investigation Mandate for Disproportionate Assets – CBI's investigation in disproportionate assets cases requires thorough examination of documents as per CBI manual [Paras 9, 10].

Court's Decision – High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the order of the Special Judge – Directed the Trial Court to supply documents mentioned in "ANNEXURE-E" and permitted CBI to prepare an investigation copy from the Court Compact Disc [Para 10].

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]

Advocate’s Professional Conduct and Negligence - Petitioner, an advocate, challenged his inclusion in the “Caution List” by Indian Banks’ Association after allegations of negligence in providing Search and Title Reports for property loans - Petitioner claimed diligent performance of duties and contested the negligence accusations - Case centered around proper adherence to guidelines for property title verification and loan sanctioning. [Paras 2-4, 8, 10-14]

Guidelines and Responsibilities of Banks - Highlighted the guidelines issued by State Bank of India (SBI) for independent property inspection and obtaining notarized affidavits - Emphasized that responsibilities for verifying property details primarily lay with bank officials, not the panel advocate - Petitioner's inclusion in the “Caution List” deemed inappropriate due to lack of negligence or fraud on his part. [Paras 9-10, 14-15]

Judicial Precedents and Advocate’s Liability - Relied on similar cases (Rajan Shrivallabha Deshpande Vs. Bank of Baroda & Anr., and Mohana Raj Nair Vs. CBI) to argue against the petitioner's negligence and consequent listing - Acknowledged that no criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, further supporting his non-involvement in fraudulent activities. [Paras 16-17]

Decision – Petition allowed, directing the removal of the petitioner’s name from the “Caution List” maintained by the Indian Banks’ Association - Court found no sufficient grounds for the petitioner's continued listing, considering the absence of fraud and reasonable adherence to professional duties. [Paras 17-19]

Criminal Appeal - Conviction under NDPS Act – Appeal against conviction for possession of 6 kgs of ganja under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act – Trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine – Appeal dismissal upheld by High Court. [Para 1, 44-46]

Search and Seizure Compliance - Compliance with Sections 50 and 42 of NDPS Act examined – No personal search of appellant, only bag possession searched – Section 50 compliance not applicable for non-personal search – Section 42 compliance not necessary as no information of ganja stored in any building or conveyance. [Para 17-22, 26-28]

Chain of Custody and Sample Analysis – Argument on delay in sending samples and chain of custody – Samples sent promptly and chain of custody established – Chemical analysis confirmed the substance as ganja. [Para 33-34, 42]

Presumptions under NDPS Act – Invoking Section 35 and Section 54 of NDPS Act – Prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt the recovery of ganja from appellant's possession – Appellant failed to probabalize contrary claims. [Para 39-41]

Conclusion - High Court found no merit in the appeal and confirmed the trial court's judgment – Directed appellant to surrender and trial court to carry out the sentence. [Para 44-48]

EWS Student Admission Dispute – Amitanjali Tiwari, represented by her mother Anjali Pandey, denied admission in Sovereign School despite eligibility – Case focuses on the school’s compliance with RTE Act for EWS category admissions – Dispute on carrying forward unfilled EWS/DG category vacancies from previous years [Paras 1-2, 8-9, 14-21, 45-48, 51-52, 58, 61-64]

RTE Act Provisions – Sections 3(1), 13(2), 2(c), 2(f), 4, 7, 8(a), 8(c), 12, 15 – Guaranteeing education at state expense for children in EWS category – Obligations of schools and governments outlined [Paras 3-5]

Carry Forward Principle Validated – Division Bench decision in Siddharth International Public School upheld – Principle allows carry forward of unfilled EWS/DG vacancies to subsequent academic year – However, applicable only if actual shortage exists [Paras 32-34, 38-39, 42-43, 62-63]

School’s Compliance with RTE Act – Sovereign School argued compliance in admitting EWS/DG students – DOE’s error in calculating unfilled vacancies for 2023-2024 – DOE’s waiver order for Sovereign School acknowledged [Paras 46-49, 51-53]

Final Decision – Amitanjali to continue in Sovereign School as EWS student for current academic year – DOE directed to ensure her admission in neighborhood school for next year – Court emphasizes protection of student’s interests amid legal and administrative complexities [Paras 58-61, 64]

Bail Application in Multiple Cases – Accused, a Drawing Teacher, alleged to have sexually assaulted minor girl students, filed bail applications in six different cases. [Para 1]

Allegations of Sexual Assault – Accusations of assaulting Vth standard students at Himayathul Islam School by touching their private parts on 12.12.2023. [Para 2]

Opposition to Bail by Public Prosecutor – Based on the nature of allegations, bail applications opposed. [Para 4]

Delay in Complaint and Doubtful Circumstances – Argument of delay in lodging complaint by six days – Doubt over the feasibility of assaulting six girls in a classroom setting – Petitioner in judicial custody since 20.12.2023. [Para 5]

Court Observation – Noted the delay in filing complaints and expressed doubts about the feasibility of the allegations; recognized substantial progress in investigation. [Para 6]

Bail Granted – Court inclined to release the petitioner on bail under strict conditions, including bond execution, reporting to investigating officer, restricted entry to school, non-interference with victims, witnesses, and investigation, surrender of passport, restricted travel, and adherence to law. [Para 6]

Bail Conditions – Detailed conditions set for bail, including financial bonds, regular reporting, geographical restrictions, non-contact with victims and witnesses, passport surrender, and travel limitations. [Para 6(i-viii)]

Violation of Bail Conditions – Provision for cancellation of bail by trial court upon violation of any set conditions. [Para 6(ix)]

Criminal Appeal – Dowry Death and Dowry Demand – Appellant convicted under Section 304-B IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act for dowry death of his wife – Prosecution proved harassment and cruelty for additional dowry soon before death – Sentences for both offenses to run concurrently. [Paras 1-58]

Dowry Death – Essential Ingredients – Death within seven years of marriage under abnormal circumstances – Proved consumption of poison leading to death – Presence of ante-mortem injuries indicating physical harassment – Satisfies proximity test for 'soon before her death' requirement in Section 304-B IPC. [Paras 32-36, 50-52]

Harassment and Cruelty for Dowry – Prosecution established continuous harassment for additional dowry – Demands for money to purchase lands – Evidence from relatives and mediators corroborating dowry demands and physical and mental harassment soon before death. [Paras 38-42]

Sentence – Conviction under Section 304-B IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act – Rigorous imprisonment for seven years for Section 304-B and simple imprisonment for one year for Section 4 of D.P. Act – Sentences to run concurrently. [Para 55]

Decision – High Court upheld trial court's conviction and sentence of appellant – Appeal dismissed – Directed registry to certify judgment to trial court for execution of sentence. [Paras 56-58]

Application for Quashing FIR – Settlement of Marital Dispute – Quashing of FIR C.R. No.11191008220309 under Sections 498A, 323, 294(b), 114 of IPC and Sections 3, 7 of Dowry Prohibition Act due to amicable settlement between parties – Complaint originally filed by respondent No.2 against petitioner for dowry harassment. [Paras 1-5, 6]

Mutual Settlement – Affidavit by Complainant – Both parties resolved dispute amicably during proceedings – Complainant submitted affidavit stating no objection to quashing of proceedings. [Para 6]

Legal Principle on Quashing Proceedings – Reference to Supreme Court decisions – Criteria for exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. – Consideration of whether continuation of proceedings serves any purpose post-settlement. [Paras 7-9]

Application Allowed – Quashing of Impugned FIR and Consequential Proceedings – Court finds further proceedings unnecessary and harassment to petitioner – Application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. allowed, quashing FIR and related proceedings. [Paras 8-10]

Release of Applicant – Direction to release the applicant from jail if not required in any other case. [Para 11]

Writ Petition for Quashing Order – Petitioner sought quashing of the order passed by State Information Commission, Haryana, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, which denied information requested under the Right to Information Act – Petitioner filed a writ in the nature of certiorari for non-compliance with the judgment in Rajwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and others (CWP-17672-2023). [Para 1]

Non-compliance with Established Legal Principles – State Information Commission passed the impugned order without adhering to the guidelines laid down in Rajwinder Singh's case, which requires specific findings by appellate authorities under the Right to Information Act – Petitioner argued that the order was cryptic and non-speaking. [Para 2, 5]

Guidelines for Appellate Authorities under RTI – The High Court in Rajwinder Singh’s case provided directives for first and second appellate authorities under the RTI Act, emphasizing the need for detailed, point-wise decisions on information requests, including reasons for non-disclosure if applicable. [Para 5]

Direction for Fresh Decision – High Court set aside the impugned order for being inconsistent with legal precedents – Directed the State Information Commission, Haryana to redecide the petitioner's appeal within three months, in accordance with the principles laid down in Rajwinder Singh’s case. [Para 6]