Recovery Proceedings - Challenge by National Political Party - Dispute over dues claimed by U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (U.P.S.R.T.C.) - Initiation of recovery notice - Issue of recovery certificate - Political vendetta alleged - Proceedings pending since 1998 -. [Para 2-4]

U.P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 - Section 3 - Dispute over the recovery of dues under the Act - Petitioner's contention that the amount cannot be recovered under Section 3 of the Act - Lack of agreement relating to loan, land revenue, advance, grant, or higher purchase agreement - Parties' failure to settle the dispute amicably over 25 years. [Para 3, 4]

Debt Recovery – Political Party’s outstanding bills for vehicle services provided by U.P.S.R.T.C. – Non-payment of dues despite repeated reminders – Political party in power availing public resources for political activities – Technical argument that dues cannot be recovered as arrears of land revenue – Equitable considerations in exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 – Duty to ensure justice and eliminate injustice – Public interest and fairness in balancing equities – Precedents emphasizing equitable exercise of jurisdiction – Liability of political party to pay long-pending dues established – Direction to pay entire due of Rs. 266 Lakhs with 5% interest within three months. [Para 7-20]

Matrimonial Petition – waive the cooling period - Request to set aside the order rejecting the application for waiving the cooling period in a divorce case under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act – Parties married with differences, seeking dissolution of marriage through mutual settlement – Compromise agreement in place – Principal Judge, Family Court refused to waive the cooling period – Parties assert that there are no children and that reconciliation is impossible – Contention that Amardeep Singh judgment was not considered correctly – Reference to Shilpa Sailesh judgment – Observations on the importance of the cooling-off period and waiver conditions – Impugned order not interfered with, but parties advised to move an appropriate application before the Family Court for consideration in accordance with law. [Para 1-17]

Trade Regulation – Challenge to Import Prohibition – Fresh Fruit Flowers and Vegetables Traders Association, Delhi, challenges an import prohibition on cut flowers imposed by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) through an impugned notification – Allegation of discrimination and infringement of constitutional rights. [Para 1-3]

Background to the Dispute – Previous Writ Petition and Court's Directions – The dispute's origins traced to a prior writ petition challenging the notification – Court had directed DGFT and Ministry of Commerce & Industry to decide the petitioner's representations – Subsequent order issued by DGFT denying the petitioner's requests challenged in the present case. [Para 3]

Legal Challenge - Import of Cut Flowers - Dispute over the exclusive import of cut flowers through Chennai Airport - Petitioner challenges the government's directive - The case revolves around whether the government's decision is arbitrary and in violation of the petitioner's rights. [Para 23]

Bio-Security and Operational Efficiency - Government's justification for the exclusive import through Chennai Airport - Government argues that this decision serves national bio-security interests and optimizes operational efficiency - It aims to expedite clearance processes and ensure rigorous adherence to phytosanitary inspection protocols. [Para 24]

Specialized Expertise - RPQS Chennai's capabilities - Chennai facility equipped with advanced instrumentation and specialized personnel for identifying elusive pests in cut flowers - Demonstrates the need for specialized expertise in ensuring bio-security. [Para 25]

Phytosanitary Risks - Import of cut flowers associated with high phytosanitary risks - Emphasis on preventing the introduction of harmful exotic pests into India - Government's responsibility for safeguarding bio-security and ecological stability. [Para 27]

Administrative and Policy Decisions - Court's role in matters of import regulations and resource allocation - Acknowledgment that specialized determinations best left to experts in relevant fields - Government's prerogative to make policy decisions regarding the safeguarding of domestic agriculture. [Para 30]

Future Plans - Government's commitment to upgrading facilities at various ports, including Delhi - Phased approach to strengthen technical manpower and laboratory facilities - Indication of the government's long-term strategy for bio-security. [Para 31-33]

Disposition of the Petition - Ongoing initiatives by the government to address challenges faced by the petitioner - Judicial intervention not warranted at this stage - The petition is disposed of. [Para 35-36]

Police Detention – Illegal arrest and detention without following due procedure – Petitioner seeks compensation – Investigation reveals the Petitioner was picked up and placed in lock-up without an FIR or due process – Violation of fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution – Principles laid down in D K Basu case followed. [Para 1-8]

Compensation – High-handed actions by the Police authorities – Deprivation of personal liberty without lawful procedure – Award of compensation under Article 21 – Message to authorities that police officers cannot act arbitrarily – Compensation of Rs. 50,000 granted, to be recovered from the salaries of erring officers. [Para 10-14]

Criminal Revision – Quashing of proceedings and charge sheet – Petitioner seeks the quashing of charges under IPC Sections 341/323/506 – Dispute related to the petitioner’s place of stay – Examination of relevant facts and circumstances. [Para 1-7]

Family Dispute – Marital discord related to the place of residence – Husband’s parents are deceased, and he resides with the petitioner’s family – Mother of the petitioner is blind – Petitioner is the sole earning member – Emphasis on the importance of supporting and taking care of parents. [Para 8-12]

Abuse of Process of Law – Lack of prima facie evidence to substantiate alleged offenses – Quashing of proceedings warranted – No material in the case diary to support the charges against the petitioner. [Para 15]

Decision – The revisional application is allowed – Impugned proceedings and charge sheet quashed – All connected applications disposed of – Interim order vacated – Copy of judgment to be sent to the Trial Court for compliance. [Para 16-21]

Equal Pay for Equal Work – Temporary employees seeking parity with regular staff nurses in AIIMS – Petitioners perform similar duties and responsibilities – Principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ applies – Supreme Court precedent in Jagjit Singh (2017) 1 SCC 148 cited – Petitioners entitled to wages at the minimum of the pay scale applicable to regular employees with Dearness Allowance. [Para 12-14]

Value of Hospital Nurses – Recognition of the valuable humanitarian service provided by hospital nurses – Their multifaceted responsibilities and importance in healthcare – Denying adequate compensation to such personnel would be unjust. [Para 15]

Decision – The petition is allowed, and the Tribunal’s order is set aside – Respondent directed to pay salary at the minimum of the pay scale of the post along with Dearness Allowance to the petitioners from the date of filing the OA, without interest – Compliance ordered within three months. [Para 16-17]

Criminal Conspiracy - Quashing of charges against the applicant - Allegation of giving a false opinion in a criminal conspiracy - Charges under Sections 120B (Criminal Conspiracy), 420 (Cheating), 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Cognizance and summoning order challenged - Lack of Specific Conspiracy Details - Bald and Omnibus Nature of Allegation - No Mention of a Criminal Conspiracy with Named Persons - Insufficient Concrete Evidence of a Criminal Conspiracy - Applicant's Professional Conduct Questioned - Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) allowed - Cognizance and summoning order quashed by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench. [Para 1-36]

Quashing of FIR – Offences under Sections 406, 420, 120-B, and 114 of IPC – Common judgment for multiple petitions – Pertains to M/s. Finquest Financial Solutions Private Limited and M/s. Manpasand Beverages Limited – Allegations of financial mismanagement, fraud, and loan disbursement – Detailed narration of the events leading to the filing of FIR – Quashing sought for the FIR. [Para 1-3]

Criminal Conspiracy - FIR alleging criminal conspiracy, cheating, and fraud - Petitioners include directors and officers of a financial firm and the complainant - Complainant's company facing financial difficulties - Allegation that petitioners promised a loan and took certain actions which later led to a criminal case - Petitioners argue that no prima facie case of cheating or criminal breach of trust exists - Claim that complainant converted a civil transaction into a criminal offense - Reference to proceedings before NCLT and civil suit in Mumbai - Contention that FIR is filed with a mala fide intention - Request for quashing of the FIR on the grounds of abuse of process of law. [Para 5-7]

Opposition to Quashing - Respondent and learned advocate assert that the petitioners colluded and played a vital role in causing trouble to the complainant - Reference to affidavit-in-reply highlighting prima facie offenses - Allegations of serious fraud, cheating, and forgery - Mention of stolen blank signed cheques used for financial fraud - Citing of relevant legal precedents emphasizing the seriousness of economic offenses - Argument against quashing based on the ongoing criminal case and charge sheet filed - Request for dismissal of the petitions. [Para 7.1]

Criminal Offences - Fraud and Conspiracy - Allegations of financial irregularities, cheating, and criminal conspiracy - Complainant facing financial difficulties due to GST issues - Contact between complainant and petitioners regarding financial assistance - Documents executed, but allegedly misused by the petitioners - Attempts to transfer shares of the complainant - Allegations of offences under Sections 406, 420, and 120-B of the IPC - Prima facie case made out. [Para 9-10]

Quashing of Proceedings - High Court's power to quash proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC - Exercise of such power to be sparing - Court to consider whether allegations disclose a cognizable offence - Prima facie case present in this instance - No abuse of process of law or mala fide intent apparent - Proceedings not to be quashed - Petitions dismissed. [Para 13-15]

Bail Application - Regular Bail - Fraudulent Activities - Grant of regular bail sought by the petitioner who is accused of offenses under Sections 420/406/467/468/471/120B IPC - Allegations of defrauding banks and submission of forged documents - Lengthy detention without trial - Pre-conviction stage and presumption of innocence - Role of courts in safeguarding liberty - Completion of investigation and filing of charge-sheets - Custody no longer required - Stringent bail conditions imposed. [Para 1-34]