Eviction Petition – Dismissal by Additional Rent Controller – Landlords' eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act dismissed after trial for failing to prove bona fide need and dependency of son Jaswant. Order contested by landlords in High Court. [Para 1, 4]

Property Ownership and Tenancy Relationship – Ownership of petitioner over tenanted premises and existence of landlord-tenant relationship established for the purposes of the Delhi Rent Control Act. [Para 12]

Bona Fide Need – High Court finds error in Additional Rent Controller's dismissal based on landlords' failure to specify exact nature of business intended for the premises. Supreme Court precedents indicate non-requirement for landlords to disclose specific business plans. [Para 4, 9, 10]

Dependence of Family Member – Court acknowledges liberal interpretation of dependence for eviction proceedings under Section 14(1)(e). Emotional dependence considered alongside financial dependence. [Para 7]

Employment Status of Son (Jaswant) – High Court criticizes lack of specific findings by Additional Rent Controller on Jaswant's employment status. Testimonies suggest financial dependence of Jaswant on his mother, contrary to Controller's findings. [Para 8]

Legal Precedents on Business Requirement – Court references cases emphasizing that landlords need not demonstrate specific business know-how or detailed plans for utilizing premises. [Para 11]

Remand for Fresh Order – High Court sets aside Additional Rent Controller's order, remanding case for fresh order in light of discussed aspects. Directions given for expeditious disposal within two months, considering the long duration of the dispute. [Para 14, 15]

Decision: The High Court set aside the order of the Additional Rent Controller and remanded the case for fresh adjudication, directing an expeditious disposal within two months. Case remanded for re-evaluation of landlords' bona fide need and son's dependence. [Para 13, 14]

Land Acquisition – Adequacy of Notification and Consideration of Objections – Notification under Section 11 of RFCTLARR Act, 2013 issued for acquisition of land for Waste Water Treatment Plants (WWTPs) – Objectors’ claims of discrimination, malafides, and absence of urgency in dispensing with Chapter II & III of the 2013 Act found to be without merit – Notification and subsequent proceedings substantially complied with statutory requirements – Objections raised by petitioners considered in accordance with law – Acquisition for public purpose of setting up WWTPs justified in light of directions from NGT – Writ petitions challenging acquisition proceedings dismissed. [Paras 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102]

Public Interest and Government Discretion in Land Acquisition – Government's decision to acquire land for WWTPs upheld – Exercise of eminent domain for public interest justified – Notification under Section 11 of RFCTLARR Act, 2013 validly issued before lapsing of relevant Ordinance – Public purpose paramount over private interests in context of land acquisition for environmental and infrastructural development. [Paras 57, 58, 69, 70, 72, 80, 81, 86, 90, 94, 98, 101]

Constitutional and Legal Compliance in Land Acquisition – Acquisition process complied substantially with RFCTLARR Act, 2013 – Proper consideration of objections by affected parties ensured – No evidence of malafides or discrimination in selecting land for acquisition – Acquisition proceedings align with constitutional norms and legal requirements. [Paras 53, 54, 57, 58, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 92, 93, 94, 99, 100, 101, 102]

Acquisition in Accordance with Environmental Directives and Public Interest – Acquisition for setting up WWTPs in accordance with NGT directions – Consideration of environmental imperatives and public health needs validated the acquisition process – Land acquisition deemed essential for infrastructural development and environmental protection. [Paras 57, 70, 72, 80, 81, 101]

Decision and Dismissal of Writ Petitions – High Court dismisses writ petitions challenging land acquisition for WWTPs – Acquisition proceedings found to be conducted in compliance with statutory and constitutional provisions – No grounds for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution – Stay orders in writ petitions vacated. [Paras 101, 102]

Bail Application Under Section 439 Cr.P.C. – Application by Mohit Pilania in FIR No. 220/2021 for offences under Sections 419/420/493/494/495/376/109/201/120B IPC – Allegations of bigamy, fraud, and conspiracy by main accused Aarav @ Ravi Gautam and the applicant Mohit Pilania. [Paras 1-6]

Involvement in Fraudulent Marriages – Accusations against Aarav for marrying multiple women while already married – Use of matrimonial website to contact 1411 women – Mohit Pilania accused of aiding in deceit and receiving fraudulent money. [Paras 2-3, 12-13, 22]

Challenge of Bail – Contention of false implication by Mohit Pilania’s counsel – State’s argument highlighting the severity of the conspiracy and the applicant’s active participation – Court’s consideration of the gravity of the offence and potential influence on witnesses. [Paras 7-9, 25]

Misuse of Judicial Connections Alleged – Applicant’s counsel’s claim of influence due to complainant’s brother being a judicial officer – Court’s strong objection to such allegations and mention of the complainant’s name in records, violating Section 228A IPC. [Paras 14-15, 17, 21, 26-27, 33]

Dismissal of Bail Application – Considering the serious allegations and evidence, bail application dismissed – Direction to mask names of the victim and the judicial officer in court records. [Paras 22, 24, 34-37]

Criminal Law - Conviction and Sentence Review – Appellant convicted under Section 302 IPC for the murder of an eight-year-old by setting him on fire – Sentenced to life imprisonment by the II Additional District Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence, including the presence of the appellant at the crime scene and her actions post-incident [Paras 2, 7-9, 16].

Circumstantial Evidence and Mental Health Defense – No direct eyewitnesses to the incident – Appellant, suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, set her nephew on fire following a quarrel – Defense centered around her mental health and lack of intent due to mental illness [Paras 3.1-3.4, 4.5-4.7, 5, 9, 10, 15].

Medical Evidence of Mental Illness – Appellant diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia – Evidence of mental illness for over ten years prior to the incident, during the occurrence, and after – Impact of mental health on criminal responsibility under Section 84 IPC highlighted [Paras 4.7, 9, 10-11, 13-14, 17].

Acquittal on Grounds of Mental Illness – High Court set aside the trial court's conviction – Appellant acquitted under Section 84 IPC, recognizing her mental illness and inability to understand the nature of her act [Paras 16, 14].

Custodial Care and Treatment Ordered – Appellant to be detained in safe custody under Section 335 Cr.P.C. – Treatment at the Institute of Mental Health, Kilpauk, Chennai, followed by potential transfer to a Welfare Home for Women – Family or relatives can seek custody with court's approval [Paras 17-18].

Transfer of Investigation and Limitation – Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C for transfer of investigation due to alleged inaction by police in Crl.OP.No.433 of 2024 – Final report filed after four years, exceeding limitation period under Section 468 Cr.P.C – Court exercised powers under Section 473 Cr.P.C – Directed Court below to pass orders within six weeks regarding delay [Paras 2-3, 30].

Quashing of FIR – Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash FIR in Crime No.749 of 2015 due to non-filing of final report within prescribed limitation – Offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(i) IPC – Exceeded limitation period without sufficient cause – FIR quashed [Paras 32-34].

Limitation for Taking Cognizance – Relevance of limitation period for offences punishable with imprisonment – Distinction between “complaint” under Section 2(d) Cr.P.C and “information” under Section 154 Cr.P.C – Limitation period calculated from date of filing final report, not from FIR date – Clarification on Sarah Mathew v Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases [2014] 2 SCC 62 and Kishore v State [2023] 2 LW (Cri) 285 [Paras 14, 24, 26-27].

Legal Principles for Limitation in Criminal Cases – Examination of decisions including Arun Vyas v Anita Vyas [1999] 4 SCC 690 and Ramesh v. State of T.N. [2005] 3 SCC 507 – Limitation period starts from the date of final report filing in cases initiated by police report [Paras 12, 26-27].

Civil Law - Court Fee – Declaration and Consequential Relief – Mandatory Injunction as Distinct Relief – Challenge to trial court's order directing plaintiff/petitioner to pay ad-valorem court fees for relief of mandatory injunction, separate from the relief of declaration. The trial court found mandatory injunction not to be a consequential relief to the declaration, necessitating separate court fees. Petitioner's argument of injunction being consequential to the declaration in a suit for declaration rejected by the court. Reliance on Civil Revision No. 433 of 2006 and Delhi High Court judgment in Sujata Sharma vs. Manu Gupta & Ors for determining the nature of consequential relief. The High Court's judgment emphasized that the consequential relief must follow directly from the declaration and cannot be claimed independently as a 'substantial relief'. [Paras 2-3, 5-7]

Retiral Dues Dispute – Claim for Declaration and Mandatory Injunction – Petitioner filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction regarding the retiral dues of a late employee. The suit sought to declare actions by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as null and void and claimed an injunction for the dues to be paid to the petitioner instead of respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The court found that the claim for injunction was independent and not consequential to the declaration, thereby requiring separate court fees. [Paras 3-4, 8]

Judicial Interpretation – Separation of Declaration and Consequential Relief – The court’s interpretation based on various precedents, determining that a relief of injunction in a declaration suit is not always consequential. Emphasis on the substance over the form of the plaint, and the need for a relief to follow as a natural consequence from the declaration. The court distinguished between 'further relief' and 'consequential relief', underlining that not all further relief constitutes consequential relief. [Para 7]

Decision – Dismissal of Petition – High Court upheld the trial court's observation and dismissed the petition. The court found no illegality or perversity in the trial court's order and clarified that the relief of declaration and injunction should be valued separately for court fees. The reliance of the petitioner on previous case law was found inapplicable in the present case. [Paras 8-9]

Criminal Law - Quashing FIR - Challenging FIR and Proceedings – Petitioners, school authorities of Vivekanand School, challenged FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings related to the suicide of a student post admonishment for misconduct. [Paras 1-2, 4-5]

School Discipline and Social Control – Discussion on social control methods in schools; citing sociological theories and Informal Social Controls like shaming, praising, gossiping. Emphasized on balanced approach in maintaining discipline. [Paras 15-19, 21-24]

Legal Interpretation of Abetment to Suicide – Analysis of Section 306 IPC and Section 107 IPC; emphasized the need for proving instigation, conspiracy, or aiding in the act of suicide for conviction under Section 306. [Paras 27-31, 33-34]

Absence of Abetment Evidence – Court found no evidence of abetment or instigation by the petitioners leading to the student’s suicide. Noted the absence of physical violence and the duty of teachers in student welfare. [Paras 26, 35-37]

Application of Section 482 Cr.P.C. – The court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process and miscarriage of justice, citing the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604. [Paras 38-40]

Quashing of FIR and Proceedings – The FIR at Crime No.371/2022 and all consequential proceedings against the petitioners were quashed, discharging them from all allegations. [Paras 41-42]

Validity of Wills – Dispute over the last will of M.N. Ranganathan. The trial court’s dismissal of the suit contesting the will dated 27-01-1996 (Ex.D1) was challenged. The appellants asserted that the will dated 30-12-1992 (Ex.P11) was the valid last will of Ranganathan. [Paras 1, 3, 33-34, 43, 61-62]

Health Condition of Testator – Consideration of the testator’s health at the time of executing the wills. Evidence of medical treatment and mental state indicating he might not have been in a condition to execute the will dated 27-01-1996 (Ex.D1). [Paras 48, 50, 56, 58]

Suspicious Circumstances – Multiple suspicious circumstances surrounding Ex.D1, including inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses, the physical and mental state of the testator, and the manner in which Ex.D1 was found and registered. [Paras 43-44, 47-50, 52, 56-58]

Failure to Dispel Suspicions – Defendants failed to dispel the suspicions surrounding Ex.D1. The court found inconsistencies and unreliability in the evidence presented. [Paras 56, 59]

Admission of Earlier Will (Ex.P11) – Defendants’ admission of the will dated 30-12-1992 (Ex.P11) in their pleadings and the court’s finding that Ex.P11 was the last valid will of the testator. [Paras 61, 64]

Duties of Court Receiver – Directions regarding the duties of the Court Receiver, including handing over possession and documents to the plaintiffs and conducting an enquiry into the handling of the testator’s estate. [Paras 66-72]

Decision: Appeal allowed. The judgment of the trial court is set aside. The will dated 27-01-1996 (Ex.D1) declared null and void, and the will dated 30-12-1992 (Ex.P11) declared as the last valid will of M.N. Ranganathan. Directions issued to the Court Receiver.

Anticipatory Bail – Denial of anticipatory bail in a case involving economic offences and corruption – Petitioner, a revenue official (Patwari) involved in a land compensation fraud under the National Highway Act 1956 – Custodial interrogation necessary to uncover the extent of the conspiracy and financial implications – Bail denied due to the gravity of the offences and the need for a thorough investigation. [Paras 1, 3, 5, 9]

Economic Offences – Seriousness of economic offences and their impact on public interest and national economy – Economic offences involving deliberate and calculated actions for personal gain, considered grave and detrimental to societal and national interests – Importance of rigorous investigation in such cases emphasized. [Paras 11, 14]

Judicial Precedents – Reference to various Supreme Court rulings underscoring the importance of custodial interrogation in serious offences, especially economic crimes – Emphasis on balancing individual liberty with societal interests and the integrity of investigations – Precedents highlight the need for discretion in granting anticipatory bail based on the nature of the accusation, evidence, and severity of punishment. [Paras 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16]

Role of Revenue Officials in Land Compensation Frauds – Specific mention of the petitioner's role as a Patwari in falsifying land nature reports, leading to illegal financial gains and government losses – Illustration of how misuse of official position can facilitate significant economic crimes and corruption. [Paras 5, 7, 8]

Decision – High Court’s decision to deny anticipatory bail based on the seriousness of the allegations, the need for custodial interrogation, and the precedents set by the Supreme Court – Observations made in the judgment not to influence the trial court’s decision on regular bail or the merits of the case. [Para 17, 18]