Writ of Mandamus – Right to Profession/Business – Rajasthani artisan petitioner alleges infringement by authorities in selling Vinayaka idols – Financial distress due to authorities' intervention – Context of environmental guidelines discussed – Court delves into Central Pollution Control Board's guidelines on idol immersions. [Para 4-8]

Environmental Guidelines – Compliance – Authorities accused of overstepping by restricting sale based on plaster of paris use – Court distinguishes between sale and immersion, stipulating that eco-friendly idols may be sold – Authorities warned against illegal prevention of sales. [Para 9]

Constitutional Rights – Article 19(1)(g) – Court upholds petitioner's fundamental right to sell idols as part of his profession/business – However, conditions imposed on sale to ensure eco-friendly practices and to protect water bodies – Register to be maintained for buyer details. [Para 10]

Decision – Writ petition allowed – Authorities directed not to interfere with petitioner's right to sell eco-friendly Vinayaka idols, subject to the condition that sales are to be recorded in a register for inspection – No cost order. [Para 11]

Commercial Dispute – Termination of Supervisor’s Employment – Challenge to the Labor Court’s Award – Petitioner company engaged in manufacturing diesel generators – Respondent appointed as Supervisor with a probation period – Allegation of gambling at the workplace – Warning issued to respondent – Probation extended multiple times – Termination of respondent’s service due to non-extension of probation – Dispute raised before the Labor Court – Labor Court’s award directing reinstatement and benefits – Petitioner challenges award on grounds of respondent’s status as a non-workman and gainful employment – Award set aside, and Writ Petition allowed. [Para 1-13]

Registration of FIR – Mandate of Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh – Petitioner seeks direction for registering an FIR related to a murder case – Petitioner’s complaint and medical report establish the occurrence of a cognizable offence – Failure to register an FIR amounts to dereliction of duty by the police officer. [Para 5-7]

Lalita Kumari Guidelines – Court reiterates the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari case – Registration of FIR is mandatory when a cognizable offence is disclosed – Preliminary inquiry permissible only in specific circumstances – Police officers must follow the guidelines scrupulously, failure to do so may result in disciplinary proceedings. [Para 5-7, 11]

Alternative Remedy – Despite the availability of an alternative remedy, the Court exercises its writ jurisdiction due to the exceptional nature of the case and the potential dilution of evidence – The argument for an alternative remedy is not accepted. [Para 9]

Direction to Register FIR – Director General of Police and Superintendent of Police directed to register an FIR forthwith – Director General of Police instructed to issue necessary Circular/SOP to all Station House Officers, emphasizing compliance with Lalita Kumari guidelines – Disciplinary proceedings may be initiated against non-compliance – Timeframe of two weeks provided for compliance. [Para 10-12]

Independence of Investigation – The Court clarifies that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the complaint – The investigation shall be conducted independently and in accordance with the law. [Para 15]

Civil Law - Specific Performance - Suit for Possession - Intention of Parties - Regular Second Appeal against concurrent findings of fact - Specific Relief Act, 1963, S. 20 - Suit for possession by way of specific performance - Held, it is settled law that intention of the parties is the basic essence for execution of any document - Agreement executed for advancing loan and not for sale - Appeal dismissed - In the present case, the court observed that the agreement to sell was not executed with the intention of registering a sale deed but as collateral security for a loan. The court referred to previous judgments to support the finding that the plaintiff's actions were consistent with securing a loan rather than purchasing the property​​ .

Intention Behind Agreement to Sell - Analysis - Held, intention of the parties at the time of execution was crucial - The court noted that despite significant payments made by the plaintiff, possession was not taken, and dates for executing the sale deed were repeatedly extended, indicating the agreement was for security rather than a genuine sale .

Decision - Dismissal of Suit and Appeal - The suit for specific performance was dismissed by the trial court, and the dismissal was upheld by the first appellate court. The regular second appeal was also dismissed, confirming that the agreement in question was not intended to culminate in a sale deed .

Cheque dishonor under section 138 of NI Act - Dispute between Lokesh Thakkar and Amandeep Singh regarding investment and financial transactions - Amandeep Singh, as Director of M/s Shalini Securities Private Limited, issued 11 cheques amounting to Rs. 50 lakhs each, which got dishonored due to "Funds Insufficient" - Allegations and averments made against M/s Shalini Securities Private Limited and Amandeep Singh in the complaint - Amandeep Singh's resignation as Director in 2012 - Questions regarding possession of cheques and their issuance under such circumstances - Need for evidence to determine liability - Trial court's order taking cognizance upheld. [Para 1-13]

Writ Petition – Recovery of Sales Tax – Petitioner impugns Ext.P1 and Ext.P4 notices related to recovery of Sales Tax dues along with interest and collection charges – Petitioner challenges the authority of the District Collector to grant installments under Kerala General Sales Tax Act and Rules. [Para 2-3]

Statutory Provisions – Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963, and Section 23(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act – Counsel for the petitioner submits willingness to pay outstanding amount in installments as per Rule 30(B) of KGST Rules. [Para 3-4]

Tax Liability – Petitioner's outstanding tax amount quantified as Rs. 1,55,11,002/- including tax, interest, collection charges, and processing costs as per the notice dated 11.08.2023 – District Collector lacks authority to grant installments for such payments. [Para 4]

Jurisdiction – The assessing authority, i.e., Sales Tax Officer (4th respondent), empowered to grant up to 6 installments for payment of tax dues as per Rule 30(B) of the KGST Rules. [Para 4-5]

Direction – Petitioner allowed to apply for 6 installments within ten days; 4th respondent to decide on the application within 15 days – Implementation of impugned notices stayed for one month. [Para 5-6]

Denial of Maintenance – Family Court’s Order Upheld - Appellant/Wife appeals against the Family Court’s order denying her maintenance under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The High Court concurs with the lower court’s findings regarding her educational qualifications and undisclosed employment. [Para 1, 4, 9-10]

 Qualification and Earning Capacity - High Court points out the appellant’s high qualifications and employment status, stating that her maintenance claim is unsubstantiated due to her earning capacity. [Para 6, 10-12]

 Disclosure Issues – Appellant’s Credibility - appellant initially fails to disclose her employment status. This nondisclosure affects her credibility and weakens her claim for maintenance. [Para 8-9]

 Legal Interpretation – Section 24 of HMA - Court cites prior judgments to articulate that Section 24 is designed to aid those genuinely unable to support themselves, not those with a high earning capacity who choose not to work. [Para 11-12]

Decision - High Court finds no merit in the appeal and agrees with the Family Court that the appellant is not entitled to maintenance. [Para 13]

Rent Control – Eviction under Section 12(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 – Tenant's failure to pay admitted arrears of rent within specified timeframes – Challenge to the order of eviction – Opportunity to show sufficient cause before passing an order under Section 12(3) – Principles of natural justice emphasized. [Para 9]

Eviction Proceedings – Obligation of tenant to pay or deposit admitted arrears of rent – Statutory requirement – Failure to make payment within specified time – Consequences under Section 12(3) – Payment of arrears during pendency of the appeal not a reason to set aside the eviction order. [Para 16]

Execution of Possession – Workshop premises – Tenant's need for time to remove fixtures – Execution Court directed to effect delivery after a period of fifteen days in the interest of justice. [Para 18]

Maintenance - Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act - Appeal against the denial of maintenance to appellant/wife by learned Principal Judge, Family Courts – Appellant, a highly qualified woman with a Ph.D., had been previously employed and evidence suggests current employment – Court holds that appellant's claim for maintenance cannot be entertained given her qualifications and potential for earning. [Para 1, 4, 10, 13]

 Earning Capacity and Truthful Disclosure - Appellant initially claimed to be unemployed but was later found to be engaged in work – Court emphasizes that a party’s failure to disclose true facts about employment can have a significant bearing on the adjudication for maintenance. [Para 8-9]

 Precedential Case Law – Mamta Jaiswal vs. Rajesh Jaiswal and Rupali Gupta vs. Rajat Gupta - The Court refers to precedential case law where maintenance under Section 24 of HMA was denied to parties with significant qualifications and earning capacity – Maintenance is not intended to create an 'Army of idle people,' but to assist those genuinely incapable of supporting themselves. [Para 11-12]

 Domestic Violence Act and Maintenance - The appellant’s claim for maintenance under the Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act also rejected – Court underlines that qualifications, employment status, and truthful disclosures are essential factors in determining eligibility for maintenance. [Para 13]

 Decision - The Court finds no merit in the appeal for maintenance by the appellant, considering her high qualifications, earning capacity, and the undisclosed facts about her employment – Appeal dismissed. [Para 13-14]