Suit for Declaration and Injunction – Plaintiff seeks declaration that share transfer to defendant under a Letter Agreement dated 03.12.2018 is void due to non-payment and to restrain defendant from rights over said shares – Agreement was for 1611 equity shares at ₹5,500 per share, wrongfully recorded as ₹31,516 per share in the agreement – Defendant recorded as owner in company’s register despite non-payment – Interim injunction sought to prevent defendant from alienating shares or exercising ownership rights. [Para 1]

Facts and Agreement Details – Plaintiff, a founder of a company that created BharatPe, transferred shares to defendant under pressure to clear way for U.S. investment due to past legal issues in the USA – Transfer was meant to be temporary with a call option for repurchase by plaintiff – Defendant has not paid for the shares, leading to the plaintiff declaring the agreement and share transfer form void and seeking legal reassertion of ownership. [Para 2, 5]

Defendant’s Response and Court’s Analysis – Defendant claims payment was made through alternative means like usage of property and cash, not directly traceable to the share purchase – Court finds prima facie case that the sale consideration was not paid, hence property in shares did not pass to defendant, leading to interim injunction granted against defendant preventing any transfer or creation of rights in the disputed shares until the disposal of the suit. [Para 3, 24, 28]

Decision – Interim Injunction Granted – Court finds prima facie case that share ownership did not pass to defendant No. 1 due to non-payment. Injunction issued against defendant No. 1 to prevent any transfer or creation of third-party rights in the disputed shares pending final resolution. [Paras 29-30]

Detention Order and Background – Petitioner, previously involved in three cases under the NDPS Act and various IPC matters, challenges the legality of his detention order – background includes previous acquittal and ongoing trials where the petitioner is either bailed or acquitted [Paras 3-7].

Authority’s Justification – Detaining authority’s order emphasized ongoing and planned illicit activities by the petitioner, deemed a continuous threat to national health and security; basis of detention scrutinized [Paras 8, 24].

Legal Challenge – Primary contention is the improper use of detention despite existing custody without adequate justification of future conduct or risk upon release; issues of past case acquittals and misuse of authority also argued [Paras 11, 27-28].

Court’s Analysis and Conclusion – High Court finds detention order unjustified given the petitioner’s existing custody and lack of concrete evidence or reasoning for imminent release and re-engagement in illicit activities; detention order and confirmation order quashed [Paras 22-30].

Partition Suit – Interim Injunction – Plaintiffs claim partition of properties and fixed deposit – Allegation of attempts to alienate properties – Temporary injunction sought – Trial court grants limited injunction – Appeal against the interim injunction orders – Appellants contend orders inadequate – Appeal before High Court – High Court examines contentions and evidence – Finds contiguous properties without clear demarcation – Risk of loss or alienation if injunction not granted – Upholds necessity of preserving status quo – Grants broader injunction – Directs restraint on destruction, waste, and document creation – Also restrains release of fixed deposit amount – Orders to remain until final adjudication in partition suit – Interest renewal allowed to avoid loss – Appeals allowed accordingly.

Procedural Irregularities – Application to sue as an indigent person rejected due to non-compliance with Order XXXIII, Rules 2 and 3 of the CPC at the initial stage of litigation – Subsequent application (I.A.No.1315 of 2017) filed two years after the original suit was claimed to address deficiencies, but failed due to lack of initial compliance – Trial court found significant procedural deviations at initial filing, affecting the integrity of the suit filed as an indigent person. [Paras 2, 6, 8, 9]

Sale of Property – Disqualification under Order XXXIII Rule 5© – Appellant sold property through a power of attorney 28 days before filing the suit, which disqualified her from suing as an indigent due to perceived manipulation of financial status to meet indigency criteria – Arguments that the power of attorney sales were not intended to manipulate legal status for suing as an indigent were not accepted based on the evidence of timing and non-disclosure of these sales at initial filing. [Paras 8, 9, 10]

Conclusion of Court – Appeal dismissed due to procedural missteps and strategic financial disposals by the appellant that contravened the principles governing litigation by indigent persons – Judgment underscores strict adherence to procedural rules for indigent suits and scrutiny of financial dealings preceding such filings. [Para 11]

Tender Process and Disqualification - Akash Construction appeals against orders qualifying S.B. Construction and Stone Concern Infrastructure as tenderers for road work - Electronic Notice Inviting Tender No. 12/2023-2024 for road widening and strengthening was contested due to technical disqualifications which were later overturned - Authorities initially disqualified the respondents at the technical bid stage, which was challenged and set aside by a Single Judge directing that they be treated as technically qualified - Appeal challenges the Single Judge's order for procedural irregularities and misinterpretation of eligibility criteria [Paras 1-7, 22-26].

Judicial Review in Tender Processes - Citing Supreme Court precedents, appellant argues for limited judicial interference in tender decisions unless marked by arbitrariness or illegality - Stresses that the authority floating the tender is the best judge of its requirements and that the Single Judge improperly substituted the authority's interpretation of technical qualifications - Appeals contend the respondents did not meet specific experience criteria for ICBP work as per tender requirements, critical to the project's scope [Paras 9-10, 27-38].

Decision - Court allows appeals, setting aside the Single Judge’s rulings that qualified the respondents as technically eligible - Upholds the original disqualification by tender authorities, emphasizing adherence to stipulated technical criteria without undue judicial alteration of tender processes - Judicial review found to be overreaching in substituting administrative expertise and tender interpretation [Para 38].

Criminal Law - Grant of Anticipatory Bail - Petitioners, chartered accountants, implicated in case FIR No.RC0052020A0011 under IPC and initially under the Prevention of Corruption Act, accused of misclassifying 'Sundry Creditors' as 'Unsecured Creditors' in company balance sheets - No direct evidence linking petitioners to intentional fraud - Cooperation with investigation noted, no custodial interrogation required - Held, petitioners entitled to anticipatory bail under established Supreme Court precedents [Paras 1-21].

Role of Accused - Analysis of petitioners’ involvement suggests reliance on third-party data for audit reports - Accusations based on changes made by another accused under instructions, without petitioners’ direct involvement in fraud - Held, insufficient grounds for custodial detention at this stage [Paras 2-5, 12-13].

Legal Principles on Bail - Consideration of nature of accusations, roles of accused, cooperation with investigation, lack of prior criminal history, and reliance on documentary evidence rather than conduct - Relevance of Supreme Court guidelines on anticipatory bail discussed [Paras 15-19].

Decision - Anticipatory bail granted to petitioners with conditions, including bond of ₹50 lacs each and surrender of passports - Emphasis on petitioners' non-arrest during investigation, full cooperation, and case based largely on documentary evidence [Para 21].

Land Acquisition – Discrimination in land release – Petition against the High Powered Committee’s order and acquisition notifications – High Court dismisses petition finding no merit and no discrimination in the treatment of the petitioner compared to other similarly situated entities – Noted that development activities in the periphery of Chandigarh are restricted to the government or its agencies per policy – Petitioner’s request for release of land not considered compelling enough to warrant deviation from existing policies – Acquisition aimed at planned development overriding private development plans of the petitioner [Paras 1-48].

Application of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – The acquisition notifications under Sections 4 and 6 held valid – Discussion on the legitimacy of the acquisition process and the petitioner’s failed attempts to obtain licenses for development – Judicial findings emphasize the state’s priority in public development over private expectations [Paras 2-48].

Rights and Expectations – Legitimate expectation and discrimination claims rejected – The court holds that the petitioner’s expectations for a license or release of land do not override the clear public interest and policy considerations that favor state-controlled development [Paras 11-17].

Judicial Review – The court upholds the policy decisions that restrict development in the periphery of Chandigarh to government agencies – Legitimate expectation not found reasonable when weighed against public interest and policy restrictions [Paras 13-27].

Family Law – Divorce – Grounds of Cruelty and Desertion – Cruelty – Allegation of False Dowry Complaint: The husband (Appellant) claimed that the wife (Respondent) lodged a false dowry complaint against him, constituting cruelty. However, the court noted that no evidence, such as a copy of the complaint, was provided to substantiate this allegation. Moreover, the wife’s complaint to the All Women Police Station was aimed at reconciliation and living together. Held, the filing of the complaint did not amount to cruelty. [Paras 13-14]

Desertion – Lack of Proof: The husband alleged that the wife deserted him by refusing to live with him and insisting on a separate living arrangement. The court found no sufficient evidence to support these claims. It was noted that the wife made several attempts to reconcile and live with the husband, which he refused. Held, the husband failed to establish ‘animus deserendi’ (intention to desert) on the part of the wife. [Paras 15-16]

Decision: The appeal is dismissed. The court upheld the Trial Court’s decision that the husband failed to prove cruelty or desertion by the wife. The original petition for divorce was rightfully dismissed. [Paras 16-17]

Sexual Harassment – Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) – Appellant challenged the fact-finding report and second show-cause notice issued by the ICC, leading to his dismissal – Court upheld the ICC's procedures, stating no violation of natural justice principles – ICC's findings treated as those of an inquiry authority under the Vishaka guidelines and subsequent legal framework [Paras 1-36].

Principles of Natural Justice – Fair Hearing and Procedural Fairness – Appellant alleged denial of fair hearing and procedural lapses – Court found appellant was given adequate opportunity to respond, cross-examine witnesses, and access complaint documents – Dismissed claims of procedural unfairness [Paras 24-26].

Binding Nature of ICC Report – Disciplinary Authority’s Role – Court emphasized ICC's report as binding and sufficient for disciplinary action – Rejected need for separate departmental inquiry following ICC's findings – Aligned with Supreme Court's stance in Medha Kotwal Lele case and others [Paras 27-35].

Compliance with Service Jurisprudence – Double Jeopardy and Due Process – Appellant contended double jeopardy and lack of formal charge memo – Court clarified ICC's role as per statutory guidelines and internal college procedures, affirming dismissal based on ICC’s findings without requiring additional departmental inquiry [Paras 23-33].

Decision:The Writ Appeal and the Writ Petition are dismissed. The appellant's dismissal is upheld based on the findings of the Internal Complaints Committee. No costs were imposed.