Dissolution of Company – Section 481 of the Companies Act, 1956 – Application moved by the Official Liquidator for dissolution of M/s Amrit Worldwide Ltd. – Company in liquidation since 17.05.2000 with final winding up order dated 10.08.2004 – No assets procured for liquidation or realization. [Para 1-2]

Application under Sections 542 & 543 of the Companies Act – Aimed at fixing personal liability on Ex-Directors – Dismissed by Court due to demise of Ex-Directors and lack of actionable claims. [Para 3]

Absence of Company Assets – Registered office and other properties not belonging to Company – No funds available to disburse to creditors – Liquidator unable to proceed further. [Para 4]

Legal Provision for Dissolution – Invocation of Section 481 of the Companies Act, 1956 – Circumstances of the case justifying dissolution of the company. [Para 5]

Reference to Supreme Court Principle – Citing Meghal Homes(P) Ltd. v. Shree Niwas Girni K.K. Samiti & Ors. for dissolution of company when winding up process cannot proceed. [Para 6]

Decision – Approval of application for dissolution of M/s Amrit Worldwide Ltd. – Official Liquidator relieved and permitted to close company's books of accounts – Direction to communicate judgment to Registrar of Companies. [Paras 7-9]

Concealment and Misrepresentation Allegations - Applicant, Kamdhenu Enterprises Ltd. And M/s Jads Services Pvt. Ltd., allege non-applicant Yashovardhan Birla concealed material facts and misrepresented information – Challenges the maintainability of Birla’s petitions filed for quashing complaint cases under Section 138 of NI Act. [Paras 4.1-4.9]

Background of Earlier Petitions and Withdrawal: Non-applicant had previously filed and then withdrawn similar petitions under Section 482 CrPC, with liberty to raise issues before the trial court – This fact was not disclosed in the current petitions, leading to allegations of concealment. [Para 4.1]

Material Suppression Arguments by Non-Applicant: Non-applicant’s counsel argues that the non-disclosure of earlier petitions was an inadvertent error, not a deliberate concealment – Asserts this non-disclosure does not constitute material suppression affecting the merits of the case. [Para 5.3]

Court’s Analysis and Decision: The court finds that the non-disclosure of previous petitions and their subsequent withdrawal does not amount to deliberate concealment by the non-applicant – The court emphasizes the necessity of deliberate and conscious false statements for initiating proceedings under Section 340 CrPC – Applications by the applicant for dismissal of Birla’s petitions on grounds of fraud are dismissed. [Paras 12, 20-23]

Defamation Suit Against Media Publication – Allegations of Libel and Reckless Journalism – Plaintiff, a high-ranking civil servant, sues 'The Wire' & others for defamation over an article suggesting improper conduct in a land compensation case. Allegations include publishing defamatory content recklessly and without due diligence, causing damage to the plaintiff's reputation. [Paras 1-5]

Content of Disputed Article – Enhancement of Land Compensation – Article accused the plaintiff of influencing enhanced compensation in a land acquisition case for the Dwarka Expressway project, linking him to the beneficiary. The arbitral award enhancing compensation was later set aside by the High Court. [Paras 6-7, 12-14, 20-21]

Claims of Conflict of Interest and Impropriety Refuted – Court finds the allegations of conflict of interest and impropriety against the plaintiff in the arbitral award process baseless, emphasizing the quasi-judicial nature of the award and its subsequent annulment. [Paras 12-14, 19-21]

Injunction Granted on Defamatory Publications – Court orders removal of the impugned article and related social media posts, citing immediate and irreparable damage to the plaintiff's reputation. Emphasis on the balance between freedom of speech and protection of reputation. [Paras 28-31]

Legal Precedents Cited – Judgments cited include Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. L.K. Ratna, Lakshmi Murdeshwar Puri v. Saket Gokhale, Vinai Kumar Saxena v. Aam Aadmi Party, and Hanuman Beniwal v. Vinay Mishra, underscoring the impact of defamation on reputation and the need for immediate injunctive relief. [Paras 23-27]

Future Proceedings Scheduled – Compliance affidavit ordered; replies and rejoinders scheduled; next hearing dates set. Observations made are prima facie, subject to further orders. [Paras 32-36]

Eviction Petition – Bonafide Requirement of Landlord – Eviction order passed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for Shop No. 1, Green Park, New Delhi – Landlord sought eviction for starting consultancy and boutique for his wife – Eviction upheld as bonafide requirement established. [Paras 1, 7-9, 42-44, 72]

Landlord and Tenant – Bonafide Need – Landlord’s bonafide need for premises – Requirement for a consultancy and a boutique for landlord and his wife – Assessment of bonafide need not to be dictated by tenant. [Paras 30, 52]

Alternative Accommodation – Suitability for Landlord – Consideration of landlord's subjective choice in alternative accommodation – Front shop in market chosen over other available premises for better visibility and suitability for intended businesses – Court not to substitute its wisdom for landlord's choice. [Paras 46-48, 50-53, 59-61]

Property Law – Estoppel against Tenant – Tenant estopped from disputing landlord's ownership when rent paid to and accepted by landlord – Tenant admitted paying rent to respondent, establishing landlord-tenant relationship. [Para 8]

Evidence – Cross-Examination and Admissions – Tenant’s admission in cross-examination that rear portion of property not suitable for commercial purposes – Importance of such admissions in determining suitability of alternate accommodation. [Paras 54-55]

Revisional Jurisdiction – High Court – Scope of revisional powers under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act – High Court to ensure order of Rent Controller is according to law without reappreciating evidence. [Paras 35-39]

Conclusion – Eviction order for Shop No. 1, Green Park, New Delhi upheld – Respondent's bonafide need and unsuitability of alternative accommodation affirmed – Petition dismissed. [Paras 72-75]

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 - Application for Termination of Pregnancy - Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India along with Section 482 of the CrPC and the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 - Applicant-victim, a minor aged about 16 years seeking termination of pregnancy resulting from rape - Application includes offences under Sections 376(2)(j), 376(2)(n) IPC and Sections 6, 10, 18 of the POCSO Act. [Para 2]

Medical Examination and Report - Court's order for medical examination by Civil Hospital, Bhavnagar's Medical Board - Medical Board's report indicating pregnancy of 27 weeks and 04 days with a viable fetus, suggesting possible methods for termination and highlighting potential risks. [Paras 4, 7, 8]

Victim's Consent and Psychological Evaluation - Court's interaction with victim to ascertain her will - Victim's firm decision to terminate pregnancy after being apprised of medical report - Assessment of mental and psychological preparedness as per guidelines. [Para 5]

Legal Precedents and Guidelines for Termination of Pregnancy - Reference to Supreme Court decisions and MTP Amendment Act, 2021 - Emphasis on the pregnant woman's autonomy and right to bodily integrity - Consideration of mental health and dignity of rape victims in allowing termination of pregnancy beyond standard legal limits. [Paras 10-14]

Direction for Termination of Pregnancy and Responsibilities - Court's directions for termination of pregnancy by senior medical professionals - Emphasis on safety and care during pre- and post-termination - Provisions for DNA sampling for investigation purposes - State's responsibility for the child if born alive and unclaimed by the victim, in adherence to Juvenile Justice Act, 2005. [Paras 14-16]

Conclusion - Petition disposed of with directions for immediate action and care for both the victim and potential child. [Para 17]

Specific Performance Suit – Sale of Property – Appeal against trial court’s judgment declining specific performance and ordering return of advance sale consideration – Original suit involved an agreement (Ext.A1) for sale of property, with the plaintiff alleging defendant’s evasion of performance. [Para 2]

Readiness and Willingness to Perform – Key issue in the appeal – Whether the plaintiff demonstrated readiness and willingness to perform the agreement terms, crucial for specific performance – Trial court found plaintiff lacking in proving continued readiness and willingness. [Paras 5, 7]

Evidence Analysis – Consideration of Ext.A2 (notice), Ext.A3 (defendant’s willingness), Ext.B2 (defendant’s presence at Sub Registry Office), and Ext.A4 (plaintiff’s bank passbook) – Evidence indicated defendant’s readiness but not plaintiff’s. [Paras 6-7]

Financial Capacity – Plaintiff’s inability to show sufficient funds for balance sale consideration – Reliance on oral statement about land acquisition compensation, without supporting evidence. [Para 7]

Interest on Advance Sale Consideration – Modification of trial court’s order – Interest rate increased to 12% per annum from agreement date to filing of suit, then 9% per annum till realisation, considering the defendant’s use of the amount and banking rates during the relevant period. [Para 9]

Decision – Appeal partially allowed – Judgment modified regarding interest rate, upheld in other aspects. 

Infanticide and Evidence Assessment – Appeals against conviction for murder (Section 302) and causing disappearance of evidence (Section 201) – Main question regarding whether disposing of a body believed to be lifeless constitutes culpable homicide – Conviction based on allegations of causing grievous harm resulting in death, and subsequent disposal of the body in the sea. [Paras 2-5, 7, 10, 16, 17]

Prosecution’s Burden of Proof – Reliance on circumstantial evidence and witness testimonies (PW6, PW7, PW8, PW13, PW14, PW15, PW23, PW27) – Injuries observed on the infant prior to death – Inconclusive evidence on whether appellants knew the infant was alive at the time of disposal in the sea. [Paras 11-15]

Legal Interpretation of Culpable Homicide – Analysis of Section 299 IPC – Intention and knowledge as essential elements – Discussion on whether an act on a body believed to be lifeless attracts Section 299 IPC – Reference to the legal principles and precedents on culpable homicide. [Paras 17, 18]

Judgment – Conviction of appellants under Sections 302 and 201 IPC set aside due to lack of conclusive evidence on their knowledge about the child's life at the time of disposal – Appellants acquitted and ordered to be released unless required in other cases. [Final Judgment Para]

Decision:

The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the conviction under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC, and acquitted the appellants.

Promotion Eligibility – Kerala Water Authority Assistant Engineers – Determination of eligibility for further promotion based on entry quota (Degree or Diploma) for Assistant Engineers. Assessment of legal validity of Ext.P12 Final Seniority List including Diploma holders for further promotion. [Para 1-4, 13-14]

Kerala Public Health Engineering Service Rules – Analysis of Special Rules for Kerala Public Health Engineering Subordinate Service and Service Special Rules. Examination of appointment methods and qualification requirements for Assistant Engineers and their impact on promotions. [Para 3-3.10, 11-13]

Seniority and Promotion Dispute – Assistant Engineers in Kerala Water Authority – Conflict between directly recruited Assistant Engineers (Degree quota) and promoted Assistant Engineers (Diploma quota) over seniority and promotion rights. Examination of rules governing promotions to higher posts based on initial recruitment quota. [Para 4-5, 13-14]

Judicial Precedents – Reference to Division Bench and Single Judge decisions in similar cases. Application of established legal principles to the current dispute over promotion and seniority among Assistant Engineers in Kerala Water Authority. [Para 15-17]

Decision – Invalidity of including Diploma quota promotees in Degree quota seniority list for further promotions. Directive to recast Ext.P17 promotion order and seniority lists in accordance with established rules and precedents. Dismissal of W.P.(C) No. 27817/2023 and allowance of W.P.(C) No. 5277/2023. [Para 18-19

Kidnapping for Ransom – Conviction of Two Accused Upheld, One Acquitted – Appellants Sukhjinder Singh and Sukhdev Singh convicted for kidnapping minor for ransom – Prabhjot Singh acquitted due to insufficient evidence – Victim kidnapped on 18.01.2014, recovery and arrest details substantiated – Conviction under Sections 364-A and 365 read with Section 120-B IPC upheld for Sukhjinder and Sukhdev, but acquitted under Section 25 of Arms Act. [Paras 11, 31-34]

Evidence and Witness Credibility – Inconsistent Testimonies and Unproven Allegations – Inconsistencies in witnesses' testimonies regarding kidnappers' identity and role – Victim's inconsistent statements about kidnappers – Insufficient evidence to link Prabhjot Singh to the kidnapping, leading to his acquittal. [Paras 16-28]

Phone Surveillance and Ransom Demands – Establishing Kidnapping for Ransom – Phone surveillance and recorded calls used to establish ransom demands – Expert testimony and call records implicated Sukhjinder Singh in ransom negotiation – Victim's recovery from custody of Sukhjinder Singh and Sukhdev Singh corroborates kidnapping for ransom. [Paras 32-34]

Acquittal of Accused under Arms Act – Lack of credible evidence linking Sukhjinder Singh and Sukhdev Singh to illegal possession of firearms – Acquitted under Section 25 of Arms Act, but conviction for kidnapping upheld. [Paras 29, 35]

Decision – Prabhjot Singh acquitted due to lack of convincing evidence – Sukhjinder Singh and Sukhdev Singh's convictions for kidnapping upheld, but acquitted of Arms Act charges – Appeals of Sukhjinder and Sukhdev partly allowed, Prabhjot's appeal fully allowed. [Para 35]