Matrimonial Law – Divorce - Civil Revision Petition – Challenging order of Senior Civil Judge in mutual consent divorce petition under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 – Petition returned for want of jurisdiction – Petitioner and respondent, belonging to Lambada Scheduled Tribe, contending their marriage was solemnized as per Hindu customs. [Paras 1-4]

Applicability of Hindu Marriage Act to Scheduled Tribes – Examination of Section 2(2) of the Act – Non-applicability to members of any Scheduled Tribe unless directed by Central Government notification – Article 366 of Constitution defining Scheduled Tribes – Consideration of whether Hindu customs followed by Scheduled Tribe members bring them under the Act’s purview. [Paras 11, 12, 20, 23]

Judicial Precedents – Reference to Supreme Court and High Court judgments on applicability of Hindu Marriage Act to Scheduled Tribes following Hindu customs – Emphasis on parties being substantially Hinduised. [Paras 14, 16, 17, 26]

Decision – Civil Revision Petition allowed – Impugned order set aside – Trial Court directed to number the petition and decide in accordance with the law considering the material on record – No general opinion expressed on applicability of Section 2(2) of the Act to Scheduled Tribes; to be decided based on facts and circumstances of each case. [Paras 27-30]

Specific Performance and Execution Proceedings – Rejection of Application to Deposit Balance Sale Consideration – Petitioner's challenge against the order of the Executing Court, which dismissed his application for depositing balance sale consideration in a specific performance case. [Paras 2, 5-6]

Closure of Execution Proceedings – Executing Court closed execution proceedings temporarily due to non-effective steps by the decree holder, with liberty to reopen after obtaining Commissioner's report. [Para 2]

Application under Section 151 of CPC – Filed by decree holder for permission to deposit balance sale consideration. Executing Court dismissed the application as it was filed without reopening the case. [Paras 2, 5]

High Court's Consideration – Whether rejection of the application by the Executing Court was just and proper. [Para 4]

High Court’s Decision – Order of Executing Court set aside. High Court directed that upon application for reopening the execution proceedings, the Executing Court should accept the application and pass appropriate orders for reopening the case and accepting the balance sale consideration amount. [Paras 6-8]

Suspension Order and Employee Rights – Appeal against temporary injunction preventing the appellant from obstructing the respondent's office work – Challenge to the legality of the suspension order issued by the appellant organization – Alleged procedural irregularities and bias in suspension proceedings. [Paras 2-5, 20-23, 26-27, 29-31, 33-34, 36-37, 39, 43-44, 46-47, 49]

Appellant's Contentions – Appellant argued that suspension followed due process, supported by organizational bye-laws, and was not a punishment but a necessary step for disciplinary proceedings – Reliance on various judicial precedents to justify suspension order's validity. [Paras 6-14, 40-42]

Respondent's Arguments – Respondent contended suspension was without proper authorization and lacked procedural fairness – Alleged absence of board authorization for the suspension, with subsequent ratification being void – Emphasized the need for reasonable opportunity to respond to allegations. [Paras 20-25, 43, 45]

Court Analysis – Detailed examination of organizational bye-laws and personnel policies – Consideration of the factual matrix, including immediate responses to memos, and the absence of prior documentation of misconduct – Determination that suspension lacked adequate procedural justification, appeared pre-determined, and lacked immediate ratification. [Paras 28-31, 33-34, 36-38, 43-44, 46-48]

Judgment – Appeal dismissed, upholding the Trial Court's decision granting temporary injunction – Direction to appellant to pay subsistence allowance to respondent in accordance with law. [Para 49]

Common Issues in Two Petitions – Consolidated Order – Common Issue regarding the validity of the selection process for LPG distributorship – Facts primarily drawn from CWP-9511-2018. [Para 1]

Selection Process for LPG Distributorship – Advertisement and Guidelines – Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (Corporation) Advertisement (2013) – Withdrawal and reissue of advertisement – Petitioner and respondent No.4's participation – Lease deed and selection of respondent No.4 – Cancellation and reinstatement of respondent No.4's selection based on various guidelines and instructions from the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. [Paras 2, 5-8, 10-12, 14-15]

Eligibility and Land Lease Criteria – Lease Deed Validity – Respondent No.4 as Sole Lessee – Requirement of notarized affidavits from co-owners (lessors) of the leased land – Misreading of guidelines by petitioner – Respondent No.4's compliance with brochure requirements. [Paras 9, 11]

Guidelines of March 2015 – Applicability and Curable Deficiencies – Acceptance of NOC Post-Application – Guidelines declaring certain deficiencies as curable – 'NOC' from co-owners considered a curable defect – Respondent No.4 cured defect before Field Verification Check (FVC). [Paras 14-15]

Mortgage of Leased Land – No Breach of Guidelines – Alternative Land Offered – Respondent No.4’s lease deed not invalidated by prior land mortgage – Acceptance of alternative land by IOC for LPG godown. [Para 16]

Decision – Dismissal of both petitions – Respondent No.4's selection for LPG distributorship upheld – Petitions dismissed based on proper application of relevant guidelines and absence of procedural impropriety. [Para 17]

Summoning of Additional Accused - Challenge against the summoning order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by the petitioners in a case of alleged assault and death - FIR registered for various offenses including murder, rioting, and criminal conspiracy - Petitioners exonerated in initial investigation but summoned based on complainant's statement. [Paras 1-2]

Investigation and Final Report – The investigating agency, after thorough investigation, exonerated the petitioners, submitting a final report against other accused - Complainant's application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning additional accused accepted by trial court - Present criminal revision petition filed against this order. [Para 3]

Legal Arguments and Precedents – Petitioners' counsel argued against the sustainability of summoning order in absence of cogent evidence - Reliance on Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the necessity of strong evidence for summoning additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. - Response by complainant's counsel highlighting prima facie satisfaction for summoning and reliance on Supreme Court judgment for interpretation of 'evidence' under Section 319 Cr.P.C. [Paras 3-4]

Court’s Analysis and Decision – Examination of the complainant's statement in trial court revealed reiteration of FIR contents without specific role attribution to petitioners - No substantial new evidence against petitioners in trial - Trial court's duty to evaluate material against persons sought to be summoned - High Court set aside summoning order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for lack of credible material against petitioners. [Paras 6-9]

Principle Upheld – Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is discretionary and extraordinary, to be exercised on the basis of material available during trial - Absence of credible evidence against a person sought to be summoned warrants non-exercise of this power. [Paras 7-9]

Decision: Impugned summoning order dated 02.06.2022 set aside; petition allowed.

Land Tenure – Gair Marusi Status – Petitioners challenging eviction orders on the basis of being Gair Marusi over petition lands – Concurrent eviction verdicts from lower authorities against petitioners – High Court examined the status and rights of petitioners as tenants and the ownership of Gram Panchayat over disputed lands. [Paras 1-3, 5-6]

Legal Interpretation – Interpretation of Annexures P-1 and P-2 – High Court considered the implications of previous court decisions affirming petitioners as tenants – Analysis of Gram Panchayat's right to seek eviction in accordance with law as outlined in operative part of Annexure P-1 and confirmed by Annexure P-2. [Para 6]

Tenancy and Eviction – Validity of Eviction Process – Assessment of petitioners' claim of tenancy and the subsequent eviction process – High Court's rationale for upholding the eviction orders against the petitioners, who are not owners but tenants of the disputed lands under Gram Panchayat. [Paras 7-8]

Judgement – Dismissal of Petition – High Court finds no merit in the petition, affirming the eviction orders (Annexures P-3 and P-4) – Petitioners' challenge to eviction on the basis of being Gair Marusi and tenants dismissed. [Para 9]

Anticipatory Bail in Economic Offenses – Fraudulent Input Tax Credit Claim – Involvement of Chirag Goel and Chaman Goel in a GST Input Tax Credit fraud of Rs.200 crores – Accused obtained anticipatory bail which was challenged by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) due to the serious nature of the economic offense and the attempt by Chaman Goel to leave the country, violating bail conditions. [Paras 1-2, 13-16, 20-21, 30]

Applicability of Section 438 CrPC – Supreme Court's decision in Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer restricting anticipatory bail in CGST Act offenses – However, the court held that the ruling does not have retrospective operation and that Article 226 empowers granting pre-arrest protection. [Paras 7-11]

Invalidity of Anticipatory Bail – Cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to Chirag Goel and Chaman Goel due to their involvement in large scale economic fraud and evasion of summons – Court highlighted the distinction between anticipatory and regular bail in economic offenses, citing P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement. [Paras 12, 25-27, 30]

Factual Analysis of Fraud – Seizure of spurious smoking mixtures, fraudulent transactions for Input Tax Credit, and lack of actual business operations by M/s Radiant Traders and M/s Harsha International – Utilization of cigarettes as raw material for ‘smoking mixture’ to fraudulently claim Input Tax Credit. [Paras 14, 16, 18-19, 28-29]

Decision – Appeals of DGGI allowed, anticipatory bail of Chirag Goel and Chaman Goel cancelled – CRL.M.C.6431/2023 filed by Chaman Goel dismissed – Observations made for bail decision not to be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. [Paras 30-33]

Quashing of FIR – Section 306 IPC – Abetment of Suicide - Application under Article 226 and Section 482 CrPC for quashing FIR alleging abetment of suicide – FIR lodged by deceased's wife against applicant for harassment and pressurizing deceased, leading to his suicide – Allegations in FIR constituting cognizable offence under Section 306 IPC. [Paras 1, 2, 12]

Delay in Filing Complaint – Impact on Credibility of FIR - FIR lodged after an 8-day delay – Applicant’s contention that delay raises doubt over allegations – Respondent’s explanation of delay due to wife’s shock and depression – Court finds no unusual delay affecting FIR’s credibility. [Paras 7, 10]

Ingredients of Abetment – Analysis of FIR Allegations - Court’s examination of FIR allegations against requirements of Sections 107 and 306 IPC – Determination that FIR discloses prima facie case of abetment of suicide by applicant. [Paras 11, 12]

Suicide Note – Relevance in Establishing Abetment - Suicide note found on deceased implicating applicant in harassment and pressure – Note considered significant evidence in assessing abetment charge. [Para 13]

Court’s Power under Section 482 CrPC – Limitations in Quashing FIR - Court’s refusal to quash FIR under Section 482 CrPC – Observations on limited scope of judicial intervention at FIR stage – Importance of not impeding police investigation or trial process. [Paras 14, 19]

Judicial Precedents – Guiding Principles for Quashing of FIR - Reference to Apex Court judgments outlining principles for exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC – Emphasis on allowing police investigation in cases where FIR discloses cognizable offence. [Paras 16-19]

Decision – Application Dismissed, FIR Upheld – The application for quashing the FIR dismissed due to the prima facie establishment of offence under Section 306 IPC – Rule discharged and interim relief vacated. [Para 20-21]

Quashing of Summoning Order - Non-Executive Independent Directors - The petitioners, being Non-Executive Independent Directors of HDIL, challenged the summoning orders issued against them in relation to dishonoured cheques. The court observed the necessity of proving the day-to-day involvement of these directors in the company's affairs for holding them liable under Section 138 of the NI Act. [Paras 3, 4]

Procedural Lapse in Summoning Process - The court noted the failure to follow the mandatory drill of Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. before issuing summoning orders against petitioners residing outside the local jurisdiction of the trial court. The court highlighted the importance of this procedural requirement, especially in the context of senior citizens and non-resident accused. [Paras 5, 9, 10, 11]

Corporate Insolvency and Liability - The petitioners argued that due to corporate insolvency proceedings initiated against HDIL, the directors were not liable for the dishonoured cheques. However, the respondent emphasized that the insolvency proceedings did not absolve the petitioners of their responsibilities under the NI Act. [Paras 4, 7]

Remand for Fresh Consideration - The court set aside the summoning orders and remanded the matter back to the Judicial Magistrate for fresh consideration in accordance with Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. The court refrained from commenting on the merits of the case to prevent any prejudice during the trial. [Paras 12, 13, 14