Quashing of Summoning Order - Non-Executive Independent Directors - The petitioners, being Non-Executive Independent Directors of HDIL, challenged the summoning orders issued against them in relation to dishonoured cheques. The court observed the necessity of proving the day-to-day involvement of these directors in the company's affairs for holding them liable under Section 138 of the NI Act. [Paras 3, 4]

Procedural Lapse in Summoning Process - The court noted the failure to follow the mandatory drill of Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. before issuing summoning orders against petitioners residing outside the local jurisdiction of the trial court. The court highlighted the importance of this procedural requirement, especially in the context of senior citizens and non-resident accused. [Paras 5, 9, 10, 11]

Corporate Insolvency and Liability - The petitioners argued that due to corporate insolvency proceedings initiated against HDIL, the directors were not liable for the dishonoured cheques. However, the respondent emphasized that the insolvency proceedings did not absolve the petitioners of their responsibilities under the NI Act. [Paras 4, 7]

Remand for Fresh Consideration - The court set aside the summoning orders and remanded the matter back to the Judicial Magistrate for fresh consideration in accordance with Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. The court refrained from commenting on the merits of the case to prevent any prejudice during the trial. [Paras 12, 13, 14

Medical Examination – Government Recruitment – Petition challenging Review Medical Examination Report dated 21.12.2023 declaring petitioner unfit due to hypertension and tachycardia – High Court noted failure to follow required regulations/guidelines for hospitalization and observation before final opinion – Set aside report – Directed reconstitution of Review Medical Board to re-examine petitioner in accordance with guidelines dated 31.05.2021 – Further action to follow based on new findings. [Paras 1-5]

Administrative Law – Compliance with Guidelines – Petitioner’s right to fair medical examination process in government recruitment – High Court emphasized necessity for adherence to procedural guidelines ensuring fairness – Directed fresh medical board examination with required observation and hospitalization – Non-compliance with procedural guidelines leading to setting aside of previous report. [Paras 3-4]

Judicial Review – Medical Fitness – Court’s intervention in medical fitness assessments for government recruitment – Addressed procedural lapses in medical evaluations – Reinforced need for transparent and standardized medical review procedures. [Paras 3-5]

Decision:Held: Petition allowed – Report of Review Medical Board dated 21.12.2023 set aside – Fresh Review Medical Board to be constituted within two weeks – Petitioner to be given at least four days advance notice – If found fit, further action to be taken in accordance with rules – Petition disposed of. [Paras 4-5]

Debarment from Tenders – Judicial Review – Petitioner challenged the order debarring it from participating in any MCD tenders for five years – High Court examined whether the order was arbitrary, lacking reasons, or shockingly disproportionate – Court found the order was based on failure to complete work within stipulated time, resulting in public inconvenience [Paras 1-17].

Fairness in Administrative Actions – Court emphasized that administrative actions, such as debarment, must be fair, rational, and non-arbitrary – Found that the decision to debar the petitioner was supported by sufficient reasons recorded in the respondent's records – Referred to relevant case law establishing the need for fairness and recording of reasons in administrative decisions [Paras 10-13].

Proportionality and Article 14 – Petitioner argued that the action was disproportionate and violated Article 14 – Court held that the punishment was not disproportionate given the delay and public inconvenience caused – Rejected the petitioner's claim that it should be treated differently from Respondent No.2 [Paras 7, 16].

Non-interference in Contractual Disputes – Court reiterated the principle that disputes involving breach of contract with disputed facts should not be adjudicated through writ jurisdiction under Article 226 – Advised the petitioner to seek remedy through a civil suit if needed [Paras 12-15].

Decision:

Writ Petition dismissed – Court found no reason to interfere with the respondent's decision to debar the petitioner – Emphasized the importance of adhering to contractual obligations and the limited scope of judicial review in administrative decisions related to contracts [Paras 17].

Cheque Bounce - Petitioner's Challenge to Trial Court and ASJ's Decision – Conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act for dishonoring cheques worth Rs. 16,00,000/- in a property sale transaction – Appeals dismissed by ASJ, conviction upheld by the High Court. [Paras 4-5, 14, 24-31]

Facts and Allegations – Petitioner (Mohd Akil) alleged to have issued dishonored cheques to respondent (Mohd Fareed) for property sale – Property dispute involving 300 sq. yards, with partial sale and execution of Power of Attorney. [Paras 6-9]

Trial Court's Observations and Conviction – Petitioner's admission of issuing cheques and execution of agreements – Conviction based on failure to honor cheques as per agreement, leading to legal consequences under Section 138 of the NI Act. [Paras 10-13]

ASJ's Findings and Dismissal of Appeal – Confirmation of Trial Court's decision – No credible evidence to overturn Trial Court's findings – Agreement terms and cheque dishonor crucial to judgment. [Paras 14, 35-42]

High Court's Analysis – Limited revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C – No jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice found in lower courts' decisions – Upholding of conviction and sentence by High Court. [Paras 20-23, 24, 30-31]

Sentencing and Compliance – Sentences of simple imprisonment and fines upheld – Directives regarding deposit amounts and adjustment against fines – Accused directed to surrender. [Paras 31-36]

Dishonored Cheque and Conviction Challenge - Accused petitioner appeals against conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and confirmed by the Sessions Court for offense under Section 138 of the N.I Act - Accused contends cheque was not issued for legally enforceable debt and challenges the signature's authenticity on the cheque - Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. [Para 1, 14, 16]

Signature Authenticity Dispute - Accused denies signature on dishonored cheque, which was returned for 'Stop Payment' - Complainant failed to prove the signature on the cheque was of the accused, a key element not addressed by the trial and appellate court [Paras 14, 16]

Financial Capacity of Complainant Questioned - Accused questions complainant's capacity to lend Rs.4,15,000 - Complainant's failure to prove financial capacity to lend the said amount - High Court considers this aspect significant, especially as the loan was allegedly given in cash [Paras 20, 21]

Decision - High Court sets aside the trial court and Sessions Court's orders, acquitting the accused under Section 138 of N.I Act - Noted failure of complainant to prove signature authenticity and financial capacity - Bail bond of accused discharged [Paras 22, (i)-(iv)]

Criminal Revision Petition – Dishonor of Cheque – Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Accused, a land developer, convicted for cheque dishonour under Section 138 of N.I Act by the trial court, and confirmed by the Sessions Court – Revision petition filed by the accused challenging the conviction and sentence. [Para 1, 9-10, 20]

Complaint Background – Accused sold land to complainant; disputes arose regarding the land – Accused agreed to provide an alternative site or repay Rs. 60 lakhs – Issued a cheque for Rs. 20 lakhs, which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds – Legal notice issued to accused, who neither repaid the amount nor responded to the notice. [Para 3, 3.1]

Trial Proceedings and Evidence – Accused contested the matter, but the trial court convicted him based on the evidence presented by the complainant and the nature of the dishonoured cheque. [Para 4-5, 9]

Defence Claims – Accused alleged no legally recoverable debt and claimed the cheque was stolen – Trial and Sessions Courts rejected these claims as unsubstantiated. [Para 11, 11.1, 17-18]

Court’s Analysis and Decision – High Court found no merit in the accused's arguments – Upheld trial court and Sessions Court's findings that the accused was liable for the dishonoured cheque – Petition dismissed, and conviction and sentence confirmed. [Para 16-20]

Dishonored Cheque and Legal Notice Service Dispute – Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonoring a cheque worth Rs.60,300 – Petitioner's argument on incorrect service of legal notice and incorrect address in the legal notice and complaint – Trial and Appellate Courts' judgments upheld by High Court. [Paras 3, 7, 13-14, 17-21]

Address Verification and Presumption under Law – High Court upholds presumption under Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 27 of the General Clauses Act regarding the service of notice – Endorsements on RPAD cover and postal authorities' remarks considered valid – Accused's failure to rebut prosecution evidence or provide contrary proof of residence. [Paras 16-19]

Minor Contradictions in Complaint Details – High Court notes minor contradictions in the complaint regarding the date of loan and cheque issuance – Such contradictions deemed not significant enough to affect the case, as per precedent set in P. RASIYA v. ABDUL NAZER AND ANOTHER. [Para 20]

Revision Petition Dismissed – Petition challenging conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, dismissed – Conviction and order of sentence by lower courts confirmed – Accused directed to deposit the remaining fine amount within 30 days. [Paras 1, 21-22]

Custody of Minor – Guardianship Dispute – Appeal against the order of First Additional District Judge, Waraseoni, rejecting the application for custody of the minor son under Section 25 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 – Trial court's decision based on the welfare of the child, considering the conduct of the appellant and the ability of maternal grandparents to provide care. [Paras 1, 4]

Welfare of Minor – Paramount Consideration – Emphasis on the welfare of the minor as the paramount consideration in custody matters – Reference to Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, and Section 19(b) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 – Decision based on the welfare of the child rather than the legal right of the parents. [Paras 8, 9, 10, 11]

Preference of the Minor – Consideration of the minor's preference in custody matters – Section 17(3) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, acknowledging the importance of the minor's preference if old enough to form an intelligent decision – The minor's desire to live with the maternal grandfather respected. [Paras 11, 12, 13, 15]

Judicial Observations and Precedents – Reference to Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the welfare and best interests of the minor as the paramount concern in custody disputes – Factors influencing the decision include the minor's welfare, upbringing, educational opportunities, and overall growth. [Paras 14, 16, 17]

Decision Upheld – High Court upholds the decision of the First Additional District Judge, Waraseoni – Custody of the minor to remain with the maternal grandfather, considering the minor's welfare and preference – Appellant's appeal dismissed, but the option to seek modification in future based on changed circumstances remains open. [Paras 17, 18, 19]

Workman Status – Nature of Employment – Determination based on Work Profile and Burden of Proof – Labour Court erroneously determined employee as ‘workman’ solely based on management witness’s negative statements during cross-examination – Employee’s failure to provide material on nature of work performed – Court’s selective use of evidence led to perverse finding – Legal standards for defining ‘workman’ not met [Paras 8-34].

Industrial Dispute – Jurisdictional Fact – Employee’s status as ‘workman’ is a jurisdictional fact impacting Labour Court’s authority – Erroneous determination of employee as ‘workman’ vitiates jurisdiction to adjudicate termination dispute – Reinforces necessity of establishing work nature to assume jurisdiction [Paras 46-47].

Judicial Review – Evidence Evaluation – Improper reliance on selective witness testimony – Ignoring uncontroverted material evidence regarding sales promotion and managerial duties – Reversal of Labour Court’s finding necessary due to misapplication of evidence standards and jurisdictional errors [Paras 35-38].

Decision:   Writ Petition (W.P. (L) No. 4378 of 2019) filed by the management is allowed, and the writ petition (W.P. (L) No. 924 of 2022) filed by the employee is dismissed. Labour Court’s award of reinstatement and back wages is set aside. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are dismissed [Paras 48-49].