Bail Application under Section 439 CrPC - Petitioner seeking bail in connection with FIR under Sections 22(C) and 27-A/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) - Petitioner not found in possession of contraband, implicated based on disclosure statement of co-accused - Interim bail previously granted by Coordinate Bench - Prosecution relying on disclosure statements and recovery of contraband - Petitioner's counsel argues lack of recovery from petitioner and absence of misuse of interim bail - Referring to precedent, counsel asserts petitioner's entitlement to bail - Prosecution opposes bail citing disclosure statements and involvement of petitioner - Court notes prima facie evidence linking petitioner to offense but considers duration of custody and lack of grounds to dismiss petition - Bail granted with conditions - Petitioner directed to surrender weapons, firearms, ammunition, and restrict mobile phone usage to one prepaid SIM - Compliance mandated within specified timeframe - Precedent cited for imposition of similar condition - Petition allowed.

Decision: Bail granted to petitioner under Section 439 CrPC in connection with NDPS Act case - Petitioner directed to comply with specified conditions including surrendering weapons and restricting mobile phone usage.

Service Law - Promotion Dispute - Validity of Diploma - Writ Petition under Article 226 - Promotion to the post of Junior Engineer sought by petitioner based on Diploma in Civil Engineering obtained from 'Institute of Advanced Studies in Education Deemed University, Gandhi Vidya Mandir, Sardarshahr, Rajasthan' - Respondents withheld promotion citing non-recognition of University for distance education by All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) - Petitioner contends diploma is valid as per precedents - Respondents argue diploma obtained through distance education from unrecognized institution - Court examines precedents including Kartar Singh case and Jasvir Singh case - Upholds respondents' decision, dismisses petitions, finds no merit in petitioner's claim for promotion. [Paras 1-16]

Validity of Diploma - Precedents - Court refers to Division Bench judgments in Kartar Singh case and Jasvir Singh case - Kartar Singh case held degrees awarded by deemed universities through distance education mode illegal, relied on by Supreme Court for validity of engineering degrees - Jasvir Singh case denied promotion based on diploma obtained through distance learning from non-recognized institution - Court distinguishes Swaran Singh case cited by petitioner, holds no merit in petitioner's claim. [Paras 9-13]

Dismissal of Petitions - Court dismisses petitions, finds no merit in petitioner's claim for promotion, upholds respondents' decision citing non-recognition of diploma obtained through distance education from unrecognized institution - Precedents including Kartar Singh and Jasvir Singh cases considered - No document provided proving approval of Diploma certificate by State of Punjab. [Paras 14-16]

Specific Performance Suit - Court Fee Requirement - Dismissal of Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution - Challenge to the order directing the plaintiff to make good the deficiency in court fees - Plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of agreement/affidavit executed by defendant regarding property - Allegation that defendant agreed to execute transfer deed in favor of plaintiff - Defendant contended that ad valorem court fees not affixed - Plaint categorically stated no consideration amount passed - Court fees to be affixed according to consideration amount - No illegality or infirmity found in impugned order - Revision petition devoid of merit - Dismissed. [Paras 1-6]

Decision: Revision Petition Dismissed - Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order directing plaintiff to make good the deficiency in court fees - Revision petition devoid of merit - Dismissed. [Para 6]

Declaration of Ownership - Validity of Sale Certificate - Challenge against Financial Commissioner's Order - Appellant's suit seeking declaration of ownership of land dismissed by lower courts - Appeal filed against concurrent findings - Plaintiff claimed ownership based on sale certificate dated 03.01.2005 - Allegations of illegalities in auction process and subsequent procedures - Financial Commissioner's order setting aside auction challenged - Courts below relied on previous judgments dismissing appellant's claims - Appellant argued lack of independent assessment of evidence by lower courts - Allegations of minor status of appellant at time of auction disputed - Voter list presented as evidence of age - Appellant's claim of clerical error in sale certificate rejected by authorities - Previous court orders highlighting defects in auction process upheld - Lack of substantial question of law raised in appeal - Appeal dismissed.

Motor Vehicle Accident - Compensation - Appeal against quantum of compensation awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) - Deceased, a 1.5-year-old child, fatally injured in a road accident caused by rash and negligent driving of the respondent - Award of compensation of ₹8,00,000/- granted by MACT - Insurance company, the appellant, sought reduction in compensation amount - Tribunal assessed notional income of deceased at ₹50,000/- per annum and applied multiplier of 15 - Appellant contended for reduction of notional income to ₹25,000/- per annum - Held, losing a child in an accident is an incomprehensible tragedy for parents - No amount of money can adequately compensate for such a loss - Compensation should be assessed based on the potential happiness and support the deceased child would have provided to the claimants - Tribunal's determination of notional income at ₹50,000/- per annum upheld - Appeal dismissed.

Decision: The appeal against the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) is dismissed. The Tribunal's assessment of the notional income of the deceased child at ₹50,000/- per annum and the consequent grant of compensation are upheld.

Quashing of Bye-Election Notification – Writ Petition – Challenging validity of Election Commission’s notification for bye-election in Karnal Assembly Constituency – Held: Notification valid – Court finds no infringement of Representation of People’s Act or the Constitution – Writ petition dismissed. [Paras 1-36]

Constitutionality of Bye-Election Notification – Analysis – Considering proviso (a) to Section 151A of Representation of People’s Act, 1951 and Article 164(4) of the Constitution – Court holds that Election Commission can conduct bye-elections even if the remainder of the vacancy is less than one year. [Paras 14, 24, 30]

Interpretation of Section 151A – Held: The non-obstante clause in Section 151A does not bar bye-elections for vacancies with less than a year’s tenure remaining. Bye-elections serve the democratic principle of representation despite short tenures. [Para 20, 23, 25]

Application of Article 164(4) – Constitutional Provision – Mandate for a Minister/Chief Minister to become a legislative member within six months of appointment upheld. Validity of bye-election in Karnal Constituency affirmed, facilitating adherence to Constitutional mandate. [Paras 26-29]

Allegation of Discrimination by Election Commission – Dismissed – Court finds no discrimination in EC’s decision to proceed with bye-election in Karnal, distinguishing it from the situation in Akola West Assembly Constituency. [Para 31]

Public Expenditure and Representational Democracy – Held: Concerns about expenditure and short tenure not sufficient to invalidate the election process. The essence of a representative democracy upheld. [Para 33]

Decision – Writ petition challenging the notification for bye-election in Karnal Assembly Constituency dismissed. The Election Commission’s decision found to be in compliance with statutory and constitutional provisions. [Para 35]

Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Application for rejection of plaint - Limitation - Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell - Plaintiffs alleged extension of time for execution of sale deed and payment of additional consideration - Defendants contended suit barred by limitation - Plaint discloses extension of time and payment of consideration - Whether suit barred by limitation is a debatable question - Merits and demerits of matter not to be gone into at this stage - Averments in plaint to be considered - Suit not barred by limitation on a bare perusal of plaint - Application for rejection of plaint dismissed. [Paras 1-9]

Decision: Revision petition challenging the order dismissing the application for rejection of plaint is devoid of merits and accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. [Para 9]

Quashing of FIR and Charge-sheet – Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. – Applicant seeks to quash cognizance order and charge sheet for offenses under Sections 376, 313 IPC and Sections 3, 4 POCSO Act – Compromise entered between applicant and victim subsequent to lodging of FIR and summoning by trial court – Applicant contends for quashing based on compromise – Held, power under Section 482 is to be sparingly exercised; objective to secure ends of justice or prevent abuse of court process – Power not to be exercised in heinous and serious offenses or offenses under special statutes like POCSO Act – POCSO Act is a special statute and offenses under it cannot be quashed solely on the basis of compromise – Age of victim, consent immaterial in offenses under POCSO Act – Principles laid down by Supreme Court in Narinder Singh case followed – Compromise arrived after alleged commission of offense, investigation stage, or infancy of evidence may be considered for quashing – However, compromise cannot be a ground for quashing when prosecution evidence is complete or conviction already recorded – Sections charged against applicant not compoundable, hence application for quashing dismissed.

Bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. – Petition for grant of regular bail – Offences under Sections 21/61/85 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Petitioner found in possession of 950 intoxicating capsules – Allegation of Tramadol Hydrochloride weighing 608 grams – Petitioner contends discrepancies in signature language on notice under Section 50 NDPS Act and FIR – Respondent asserts typographical error – Court refrains from delving into veracity of notice but acknowledges signature mismatch – Petitioner's first-time offender status and concluded investigation considered – Bail granted with stringent conditions. [Paras 1-11]

Interpretation of Notice under Section 50 NDPS Act – Mismatch in language of petitioner's signature – Respondent explains typographical error by investigating officer – Court refrains from adjudicating on notice's authenticity but notes discrepancy – Signature language inconsistency observed. [Paras 4-7]

Grant of Bail – Considerations – Petitioner's incarceration period, first-time offender status, and concluded investigation weighed – Bail granted with stringent conditions to prevent misuse and ensure trial attendance – No expression of opinion on case merits. [Paras 8-11]