Challenge to Recovery Certificates - Co-operative bank sought recovery of loans from company in liquidation - Issuance of recovery certificates under Section 101 of the MCS Act disputed. [Para 4-5]

Revision Applications and Procedural History - Company in liquidation's revision applications initially dismissed for non-compliance, later allowed upon depositing 50% amount - Assistant Registrar’s order cancelling recovery certificates set aside by Joint Registrar - Remanded for detailed inquiry. [Para 6-9]

Co-operative Bank’s Appeal - Bank challenged cancellation of recovery certificates, arguing misinterpretation of Section 101 of the MCS Act - Reliance on Division Bench judgment emphasizing importance of statement of accounts in Section 101 enquiry. [Para 14-19]

Official Liquidator's Argument - Emphasized discretion under Article 227 and argued against High Court interference with impugned orders. [Para 22]

Misdirection and Error in Exercising Jurisdiction - Assistant Registrar and Joint Registrar erred in ignoring statement of accounts, focusing on irrelevant documents - Application of Article 227 warranted to correct substantial injustice. [Para 32-36]

Dismissal of Company's Writ Petitions for Refund - Refusal to refund deposit amounts to company in liquidation - Company’s stand on loan disbursement found dishonest, no unjust enrichment established. [Para 37-41]

Remand for Fresh Consideration - Impugned orders set aside, matters remanded to Assistant Registrar for reconsideration under Section 101 of MCS Act. [Para 46-47]

Co-operative Bank's Claim with Official Liquidator - Bank permitted to lodge claim afresh before official liquidator in proper format. [Para 48]

Gang Rape and Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault - Conviction under Section 376D IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act - Appeals dismissed, conviction and sentences upheld - Accused involved in gang rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault of a minor - Approver's testimony corroborated by forensic evidence and other witnesses, establishing charges beyond reasonable doubt - Victim's age established as a minor through ossification test corroborated by parental testimony [Paras 1-3, 6-10, 12-16, 18-24, 26-34, 36-40, 42-56, 58-68, 70-80, 82-86, 87-91]

DNA Profiling Evidence - DNA profiling test confirms involvement of accused - One appellant established as biological father of child conceived from the assault - Forensic evidence played a crucial role in confirming appellants' involvement in the crime [Paras 7, 9, 27-29, 32-34, 42-48, 50-54, 66-67]

Judicial Scrutiny of Approver's Testimony - Legal precedents uphold use of approver’s testimony when corroborated - Evidence of approver (PW 23) corroborated by forensic and other evidence, confirming his and appellants' involvement [Paras 14-16, 20, 26, 30, 56-58, 73-76, 80-83]

Victim's Age and Consent - Ossification test establishes victim as a minor - Arguments on victim's consent dismissed based on conclusive proof of age and circumstances of the crime [Paras 21-22, 70, 84-85]

Decision: Appeals dismissed, conviction and sentences upheld - Period of detention suffered by appellants adjusted against sentence [Paras 87-91]

Lease Agreement and Dispute – Plaintiffs (lessors) filed suit for recovery of khas possession and mesne profit due to defendants’ (lessees) failure to vacate property post-lease expiry – Lease initially granted for 30 years with renewal clause for 21 years – Dispute over whether lease renewal was properly exercised [Paras 1, 2].

Application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC – Plaintiffs sought part decree based on defendants’ admission in written statement about the lease and its terms – Defendants countered, claiming rights to renew lease and challenging eviction without compensation [Paras 3, 4, 5].

Defendants’ Pleading and Counter Claim – Defendants filed a counter claim for lease renewal and injunction against eviction without compensation – Raised issue of Thika Tenancy but was not initially pleaded, and attempted amendment was rejected [Paras 6, 7, 20, 22].

Court's Analysis and Directions – Trial court rejected plaintiffs' application for part decree – High Court set aside trial court's decision, directing fresh consideration of the application under Order XII Rule 6 – Emphasis on consideration of admissions in pleadings [Paras 19, 23, 24].

Property Dispute – Mortgage Deed's Validity – Challenged in first appeal under Section 96 CPC – Hetram Sahu (Appellant/Defendant No.1) contesting trial court's decree declaring the mortgage deed as null and void, and ordering return of property possession – Allegations of fraud in execution of mortgage deed instead of rent deed. [Paras 1-2]

Evidence and Witness Testimony – Plaintiff's testimony and cross-examination evidence, alongside other witnesses (PW1 to PW10) – Plaintiff's lack of education and allegation of being deceived into signing mortgage deed – Defendant's admission of renting two shops and absence of registration for mortgage deed. [Paras 6-9]

Legal Analysis – Trial court's application of legal principles – Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act requires registration of mortgage deeds over Rs. 100 – Section 17 of the Registration Act deems unregistered deeds for property over Rs. 100 invalid – Appellant's argument on using unregistered mortgage deed for collateral purposes rejected as no recovery suit or counter-claim was filed. [Paras 10, 20-24]

Decision – Dismissal of First Appeal – Mortgage deed dated 20-9-2006 held not a valid mortgage by conditional sale as per Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act – Lack of registration and failure to fulfill conditions render mortgage deed invalid – Trial court's judgment in favor of the plaintiff upheld. [Paras 25-28]

Police Protection – Request for Personal Security – Denial –petitioners sought police protection alleging threat to their lives following a past incident of violence. The Court considered whether such continued police protection was justified. [Para 2-5, 17]

Threat Perception – Evaluation of Current Risk – The Court assessed the current threat perception to the petitioners, noting that the alleged assailants were convicted, and no further incidents or threats were reported against the petitioners. [Para 18]

Utilization of Police Resources – Public Interest Consideration – Emphasized the need for judicious use of police resources, noting the importance of employing police personnel in areas where they are most needed, such as in crime prevention and law and order maintenance, rather than providing long-term personal security to individuals like the petitioners. [Para 29-30]

Payment for Police Protection Services – Financial Implications – Discussed the financial implications of providing police protection, highlighting that the petitioners had not paid the required fees for the security services extended to them over the years. [Para 24, 35]

Policy on Police Protection – Need for Guidelines – Directed the formulation of clearer guidelines and a committee to assess and decide on requests for police protection exceeding seven days, aiming for more effective and justified allocation of police resources. [Para 34]

Order – Dismissal of Petition – The Court dismissed the petition for police protection, ordering the immediate withdrawal of security from the petitioners and directing them to pay the outstanding fees for the services rendered. Further directed the reassessment of threat perception for all individuals in the state receiving police protection. [Para 30, 36-37]

Land Law – Pre-emption Rights – Maintainability of Suit – The High Court of Punjab and Haryana deliberated on the maintainability of a suit for pre-emption in the case involving the sale of land. The plaintiff-respondent, Abdul Rehman, claimed a preferential right to pre-empt the sale based on being a co-sharer in the joint khewat. The defendant-appellant, Habib Ahmed, contested the suit, arguing that the plaintiff was not a co-sharer and that the land had been partitioned. [Para 2, 5]

Applicability of Punjab Pre-emption Act Amendment, 1995 – Held – The High Court observed that the 1995 amendment to the Punjab Pre-emption Act, which removed the pre-emption rights of co-sharers, does not apply retrospectively. Referencing the Supreme Court’s decision in Shyam Sunder & Anr. V/s Ram Kumar & Anr., the Court noted that the amendment is prospective and does not affect substantive or vested rights existing at the time of the suit or the first instance decree. [Para 8]

Evidence and Findings – Confirmation of Co-sharer Status – The Trial Court, after examining the evidence, established that the plaintiff-respondent was indeed a co-sharer in the land in question. This was corroborated by mutation records, which were not successfully contested by the defendant-appellant. [Para 8]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Habib Ahmed, holding that there was no merit in the appeal and no substantial question of law arose. The judgments and decrees of the lower courts were upheld, confirming the co-sharer status of the plaintiff-respondent and the maintainability of the suit for pre-emption. [Para 9]

Tea Board (Plaintiff) vs. Peermade Tea Co. Ltd. (Defendant) - Suit for declaratory decree and return of machineries or alternative money decree for Rs. 7,01,274.54 along with damages due to breach of hire purchase agreement [Para 1].

Tea Board, a statutory body under Tea Act, 1953, provided machineries to Peermade Tea Co. under "Tea Machinery Hire Purchase Scheme." Agreement executed on 31.01.1978; machineries dispatched to Defendant's tea garden in Kerala [Paras 2-4].

Defendant irregular in instalment payments, leading to Plaintiff's claim for interest and additional charges. Total outstanding amount claimed is Rs. 7,01,274.54 [Para 5].

Defendant's defense: selection of equipment manufacturer by Plaintiff, negotiations outside Kolkata jurisdiction, delay in machinery delivery, and damaged condition of equipment. Denies liability for enhanced instalment rate and claims full payment of instalments [Para 6].

Key issues framed include maintainability, limitation, existence of a valid hire purchase agreement, breach of agreement by Defendant, and Plaintiff's entitlement to relief [Para 8].

Court findings: Suit not barred by limitation (Issue 2), existence of a valid hire purchase agreement (Issue 4), no evidence of delivery delay by Plaintiff (Issue 12), Defendant's failure to report machinery defects in time (Issue 13).

Plaintiff established Defendant's breach of hire purchase agreement due to delayed payment and failure to pay legal dues (Issue 14).

Plaintiff retains ownership of machineries until full payment by Defendant (Issue 15).

Decision: Suit maintainable; Plaintiff awarded Rs. 7,01,274.54 with 8% interest per annum from suit initiation till recovery. Title of machinery to pass to Defendant upon full payment. In case of non-payment, Plaintiff entitled to machinery possession [Paras 16-18].

Bigamy and Cheating Allegations – Proceedings against Petitioners for participation in second marriage ceremony of accused – Section 494 IPC applicable only to individuals who marry during the subsistence of their first marriage – Participation in ceremony alone does not attract Section 494 IPC liability [Paras 2-5, 7-10].

Application of Section 494 IPC – Pertains solely to the marrying individuals, not extending to family members attending the ceremony – Absence of allegations indicating petitioners' awareness or intention to facilitate an offence under Section 494 IPC [Para 10].

Legal Clarification – Section 494 IPC does not encompass prosecution of individuals attending the marriage, such as the petitioners in this case – Limited to parties directly involved in the bigamous marriage [Para 10].

Decision - Petition allowed –Quashing of Proceedings – Proceedings in C.C.No.1115/2016 against petitioners (accused Nos. 4 to 6 therein) quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the absence of substantial grounds for their implication under Section 494 IPC [Para 11].

Petitioner’s Arrest and Charges – Petitioner arrested and remanded for offences under Sections 279, 308, 427 of IPC read with Sections 181, 185, 188 of the Motor Vehicles Act in relation to a traffic incident while under the influence of alcohol causing property damage. [Para 1]

Alteration in Offences and Satisfaction Court – Request for alteration of offences and satisfaction court in the bail petition, modified to reflect the accurate charges and satisfaction court. [Para 2]

Prosecution’s Case – Petitioner accused of driving under the influence, causing approximately Rs. 2,00,000 in damages to a shop, two-wheeler, and a signal post. [Paras 3-4]

Bail Granted with Conditions – Considering the factors and incarceration period, the court granted bail subject to several conditions including a bail bond, reporting to police, compensation deposit, and prohibitions against absconding and tampering with evidence. [Paras 5-6]

Conditions of Bail – Bail set at Rs. 10,000 with two sureties; regular reporting to police; deposit of Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation; restrictions against absconding and tampering with evidence or witnesses; consequences for breach of conditions as per P.K. Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560]; provision for registering fresh FIR under Section 229A IPC if accused absconds. [Para 6]