Jurisdiction - Territorial Jurisdiction in Disciplinary Matters - The inquiry, though initiated while the appellant was working in Dhanbad, relates to facts that occurred while he was working in Muzaffarpur, Bihar - The entire allegations were of facts that occurred within the State of Bihar - High Court of Patna has jurisdiction to consider the question raised regarding the order of dismissal. [Para 15-17]

Misappropriation of Funds - Serious Charges of Misappropriation of Funds through False Expense Claims - C.O. submitted false cash bills for lunch expenses for agents/clients meetings that were never held - Cheques were prepared in favor of the C.O. and deposited in his personal account, leading to misappropriation of a significant amount - Charges found to be proved - Justification for the order of dismissal. [Para 29]

Disciplinary Inquiry - Scope of Judicial Review - Limited Scope of Judicial Review in Disciplinary Matters - Judicial review not akin to an appeal - Court can interfere only if the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the gravity of the offense alleged - In this case, the punishment of dismissal was justified based on the seriousness of the charges proved. Petition Dismissed. [Para 31]

Writ Petition – Clinical Negligence – Compensation – Challenge against the award passed by the West Bengal Clinical Establishment Regulatory Commission (WBCERC) directing Park Hospitals to pay Rs. 20 lakh for alleged medical negligence in the treatment of Dr. Shraddha Bhutra. [Para 1]

Factual Background – Medical Treatment – Dr. Bhutra, pregnant and under the care of Dr. Supriya Khetan, experienced severe abdominal pain. She was refused admission by multiple hospitals, including Park Hospitals, leading to her unfortunate demise. [Para 2-4]

Petitioners' Contentions – Duty and Negligence – Petitioners argue they were not solely responsible for the negligence, claiming that other hospitals, including Apollo and Belle Vue, also played roles. They assert having provided preliminary treatment and an ambulance. [Para 5-14]

Respondent's Arguments – Medical Obligations – The respondent contends that Park Hospitals failed to provide immediate and basic treatment, thereby violating their medical obligations. [Para 15-19]

Commission's Observations – Expert Report – The Commission relied on an expert report diagnosing the patient with Eclampsia, a largely preventable condition, and held Park Hospitals responsible for the patient's death. [Para 20-22]

High Court's Findings – Double Standards – The Court observes that the Commission did not properly assess the roles of all involved Clinical Establishments and applied double standards in its judgment. [Para 29-37]

Judgment – Remand for Re-Adjudication – The High Court sets aside the Commission's award and remands the matter for re-adjudication, directing it to consider fresh evidence and make a new decision on the issue of compensation. [Para 38]

Criminal Revision – Discharge application under Section 376 IPC – Appellant challenges order rejecting discharge – Victim and accused were in a consensual relationship for several years – Victim was major at the time of the alleged incidents – Accused allegedly allured her to marry and established physical relations – Victim got divorced from her former husband – Allegations indicate awareness of consequences – Consent not obtained under misconception – No sufficient ground to make out Section 376 IPC offence – Impugned order set aside – Accused discharged. [Para 1-20]

Petition for ‘No Objection Certificate’ – Petitioner challenges the rejection of his application to open a retail meat shop. The rejection is based on an unfavorable police report, citing proximity to religious places and potential unauthorized meat sales. [Para 1-3]

Presumptive Grounds – The court finds that the ground of potential unauthorized meat sales is presumptive and not a valid reason for refusing the ‘no objection certificate.’ [Para 4]

Inconsistency in Rules – Petitioner points out that other meat shops in the same area have received ‘no objection certificates.’ The court acknowledges this inconsistency and notes that no religious places are within a 50-meter radius of these shops. [Para 5-6]

Court’s Direction – The Superintendent of Police is directed to reconsider the matter and pass a fresh order within four weeks. The licencing authority is also directed to consider the matter in accordance with law. [Para 7]

Writ Petition Allowed – The writ petition stands allowed, and the matter is to be reconsidered in accordance with the court’s directions. [Para 8]

Criminal Revision – Quashing of Proceedings – Narcotics Case – Petitioner seeks quashing of proceedings and orders – Allegations of involvement in storing and transporting contraband – Statements of co-accused implicating the petitioner – Initial discharge application rejected – Further investigation ordered – Prima facie case established against the petitioner – Revision dismissed, trial to proceed. [Para 1-40]

Prima Facie Case – Sufficiency of evidence to proceed to trial – Co-accused statements alleging petitioner's involvement – Alleged storage and transportation of contraband – Contradictory statements by co-accused – Materials showing petitioner's connection – Prima facie case established against the petitioner. [Para 33-34]

Confessions of Co-Accused – Use of confessions as evidence against co-accused – Confessions lending assurance to other evidence – Confessions not treated as substantive evidence – Prima facie case to be established with other evidence before considering confessions – Relevant legal principles applied. [Para 26]

Involvement and Investigation – Accusations of storage and transportation of contraband – Statements of accused and co-accused – Contraband loaded from petitioner's godown – Statements recorded under relevant provisions – Investigating officer appointed for further investigation – Prima facie involvement established for trial. [Para 21-22, 29-31]

Trial Proceeding – Dismissal of revision – Direction for trial to proceed against petitioner – Prima facie case against petitioner established – Involvement in storing and transporting contraband – Directions to Trial Court for compliance. [Para 35-38]

Preventive Detention – Illicit Trafficking of Narcotic Drugs – Challenge to the validity of detention order – Analysis of grounds of detention, nature of activities attributed to the detenue, and legality of procedure followed by detaining authority – Court examines context of drug trafficking and seriousness of drug problem globally – Emphasis on preventive detention being aimed at protecting society’s safety and security – Reference to legal principles and past judgments establishing scope of preventive detention – Detention not punitive but preventive in nature. [Para 10-33]

Legal Principles – Scope of preventive detention – Balancing personal liberty with needs of society – Preventive detention as a measure to protect safety and interest of society – Judicial review of subjective satisfaction of detaining authority – Parameters within which validity of subjective satisfaction can be tested – Court’s role in scrutinizing detention order while considering material placed before detaining authority. [Para 27-29]

Detention Procedure – Examination of legality of detention order – Procedure followed by detaining authority – Provision of material to detenue – Involvement of Central Advisory Board – Court’s observation on the legality of procedure – Detention order passed after following prescribed procedure and considering detenue’s propensity for prejudicial activities – Balance between personal liberty and societal needs highlighted. [Para 30-33]

Facts: Petitioners and Respondents: Jambo Plastics Pvt. Ltd. And Merushikhar Infra LLP filed a writ petition against the Chief Quality Assurance Establishment and the Commissioner of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). The petitioners sought to quash certain endorsements and letters issued against them, particularly those dated 15.07.2016 and 03.09.2016. [Para 1-5]

 Issues and Analysis: Works of Defence Act, 1903: Court holds that the Works of Defence Act, 1903, exclusively governs the imposition of land-use restrictions near defense establishments, thereby limiting the scope of executive power in this domain. [Para 15, 22]

Executive Power and Fundamental Rights: Court emphasizes that executive instructions cannot abridge fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution, citing Apex Court decisions. [Para 21, 32]

Validity of Guidelines: Court rules that the guidelines issued are not executive instructions capable of imposing restrictions on the petitioners’ rights. [Para 20, 28]

Authority of Law for Deprivation of Property: Court cites Article 300-A to state that deprivation of property can only occur through authority of law, not executive fiat. [Para 34]

Executive Fiat and Fundamental Rights: Court references Article 13(2) and Article 19 to assert that rights cannot be abridged by executive action without legislative backing, supported by Apex Court decisions. [Para 31-33]

Transaction of Business Rules: Court finds that the Guidelines were not issued in the name of the President, making them invalid under Article 77(3) of the Constitution. [Para 35-37]

Decision: Validity of Guidelines and Endorsements: Court sets aside endorsements based on Guidelines, directing respondent-BBMP to proceed with the grant of the sanction plan without relying on the Guidelines. The process is to be completed as per law, within a period of three months. [Para 38-39]

Interlocutory Application – Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC – Suit for partition of ancestral property – Allegation of mortgage of property by defendant without plaintiff’s knowledge – Defendant’s contention of initiation of SARFAESI proceedings – Defendant’s claim of Civil Court lacking jurisdiction – Trial Court granting temporary injunction – Appeal against granting of injunction – Examination of whether Trial Court erred in entertaining injunction application and the jurisdiction of Civil Court in such matters. [Para 2-16]

Mortgage and Loan Recovery – Dispute over Ancestral Property – Secured Debt under SARFAESI Act – Plaintiff’s claim of ancestral joint family property – Defendant No.1 mortgaging the property to the appellant-bank – Loan becoming NPA – Plaintiff’s contention of defendant No.1’s irresponsible use of loan – Defendant No.1’s property being self-acquired – Property devolving under Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act – Three generations needed for ancestral property – Plaintiff’s residence with defendant No.1 – Loan obtained when plaintiff and defendant No.2 were minors – Jurisdiction under SARFAESI Act for secured creditor to enforce security interest – Bar on Civil Court jurisdiction under Section 34 of SARFAESI Act – Plaintiff seeking injunction against bank’s possession – Fraud allegation without particulars insufficient – Court’s analysis of previous judgments – Plaintiff’s motive to stall recovery proceedings – Trial Court’s erroneous injunction order set aside. [Para 17-37]

Property Ownership and Loan Recovery – Suit to Prevent Possession – Plaintiff’s claim of ancestral property – Defendant No.1’s mortgage to appellant-bank – Loan becoming NPA – Plaintiff alleging defendant No.1’s neglect and misuse of loan – Defendant No.1’s property being self-acquired – Property devolving under Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act – Plaintiff residing with defendant No.1 – Loan obtained when plaintiff and defendant No.2 were minors – Jurisdiction under SARFAESI Act for secured creditor to enforce security interest – Bar on Civil Court jurisdiction under Section 34 of SARFAESI Act – Plaintiff seeking injunction against bank’s possession – Fraud allegation without particulars insufficient – Court’s analysis of previous judgments – Plaintiff’s motive to stall recovery proceedings – Trial Court’s erroneous injunction order set aside. [Para 17-37]

Civil Revision Petition – Land Dispute – Prima facie case for injunction – Discrepancy in revenue records for a couple of years – Plaintiffs' claim to land ownership and possession supported by recent records – Prima facie case in favor of plaintiffs – Interim injunction granted – Lower courts' reliance on irrelevant documents for denial of injunction not justified – Orders of lower courts set aside – Suit to be disposed of by considering all relevant documents. [Para 15-17]