Revision Petition – Eviction Order Challenge – Petitioners/tenants challenging the eviction order passed by the Additional Rent Controller for a shop in Rajouri Garden, Delhi. The order dismissed their Leave to Defend/Contest Application, allowing the Eviction Petition by the Respondent/landlord. [Para 1]

Bona Fide Requirement – Senior Citizen Landlord – Respondent/landlord's claim of bona fide requirement due to old age and health issues. Contention that the ground floor space is necessary for residence as he cannot use stairs and lacks alternative suitable accommodation in Delhi. [Para 2, 2.1, 6]

Contentions of Petitioners/Tenants – Arguing against the bona fide need of the Respondent/landlord, citing his US citizenship and availability of alternate accommodations in the property. Also raised issues about the landlord's health and family circumstances. [Para 5]

Contentions of Respondent/Landlord – Emphasizing the necessity of the ground floor due to health and age, the inappropriateness of other spaces in the building, and the legal validity of his requirement as a foreign citizen. [Para 6]

Analysis and Findings – Court examined whether the Respondent/landlord's requirement for the demised premises was genuine and bona fide. Consideration of landlord's age, health, the unsuitability of other spaces in the building, and the absence of alternative accommodation in Delhi. [Paras 7-19]

Decision – Dismissal of Revision Petition – Court finds no reason to interfere with the Impugned Order. The petitioners/tenants' revision petition and all associated applications are dismissed. The Court upholds the bona fide requirement of the Respondent/landlord for the disputed premises. [Para 21-22]

Writ Petition – Voluntary Retirement Scheme – Challenge against Tribunal’s dismissal of Original Application – Petitioner’s inadvertent withdrawal from the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2019 due to a technical error – High Court upholds Tribunal’s decision. [Para 1, 6-7, 10, 20-31]

BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2019 – Implementation and applicability – Eligibility criteria and procedural requirements for opting and withdrawing from the scheme – High Court’s interpretation of the scheme’s clauses. [Para 3-5, 18-19]

Technical Error in Online Application – Petitioner’s claim of accidental withdrawal from VRS due to a computer glitch – High Court’s consideration of procedural compliance over claimed inadvertent error. [Para 25-26, 28-29]

Contractual Nature of VRS – Application of Indian Contract Act, 1872 to VRS – High Court’s interpretation of voluntary retirement as a contractual offer that can be withdrawn during validity period. [Para 24]

Judicial Review – Scope in matters of policy decisions and contractual obligations – High Court’s stance on non-interference in policy matters and procedural lapses. [Para 21, 31]

Decision – Dismissal of Writ Petition – High Court finds no infirmity in Tribunal’s findings and upholds the dismissal of petitioner’s claim for inclusion in VRS post withdrawal. [Para 31]

Criminal Appeal – Conviction under Section 304 part-II IPC and Section 34 IPC – Challenge against judgment and order of sentence by the appellants – Conviction based on preponderance of probabilities with witnesses turning hostile – Non-reconstruction of Trial Court Record (TCR) leading to inability to affirm conviction. [Paras 1-2, 10-11, 14-16]

Judicial Procedure – Lost Trial Court Records – Impact on criminal appeals – Reliance on Supreme Court decisions emphasizing the essentiality of TCR for affirming convictions and protecting rights under Article 21 – Appeals allowed due to unavailability of complete TCR. [Paras 12-14, 17-19]

Fair Trial – Right to Appeal and Satisfy Appellate Court – Importance of complete TCR for appellants to challenge trial court’s conclusions – Non-availability of TCR considered a violation of fair legal procedure and Article 21. [Para 13]

Decision – Convictions and sentences set aside in the absence of complete TCR – Appeals allowed based on principles of criminal jurisprudence and right to fair trial. [Paras 15, 19-20]

Challenging of Order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Petition against the order dated 04.09.2023 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, rejecting the application for recalling P.W.1 for further cross-examination in a POCSO case - Offences under IPC and POCSO Act alleged against the petitioner. [Para 1]

Factual Background - Complaint leading to charges under IPC and POCSO Act - Petitioner arrested, charged, and trial commenced - Victim P.W.1 examined and cross-examined, with subsequent witnesses also examined. [Paras 2-4]

Application for Recall of Witness - Petitioner's application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling P.W.1 after one year, citing omissions and improvements in her testimony - Application rejected by the trial court. [Para 4]

Court's Analysis - Delay in filing the application and in seeking a certified copy of the order not explained - Court notes victim's support for the prosecution and observes the petitioner's tactics could be an attempt to protract proceedings - Recall of witness seen as potentially re-victimizing and humiliating for the victim. [Paras 9-10]

Decision - Petition lacks merit and is rejected - Court emphasizes the sensitivity of the matter and the inappropriateness of recalling the victim at this stage of the trial. [Para 10]

Appeal for Divorce Decree – Non-consummation and Mental Cruelty – Appellant's plea for divorce based on allegations of non-consummation of marriage and mental cruelty by the respondent, including refusal of physical intimacy since the marriage date (12.7.2006) until appellant's departure to the USA. [Paras 3, 16, 17, 19, 21]

Respondent’s Non-Appearance and Allegations – Despite notice, respondent did not appear in court. Allegations by appellant of respondent having an affair, lodging false complaints against appellant’s family, and desertion. [Paras 4-6, 10-11, 20]

Legal Grounds for Divorce – Trial court’s dismissal of divorce plea, stating non-proven grounds under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Appellant's argument for divorce based on mental cruelty and irretrievable breakdown of marriage. [Paras 7, 8, 15]

High Court’s Analysis and Decision – Setting aside trial court's judgment, High Court acknowledges mental cruelty as a valid ground for divorce under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Act, recognizing refusal of physical intimacy as mental cruelty. Divorce decree granted. [Paras 17-19, 21, 22]

Matrimonial Law – Divorce – Cruelty and Desertion – Appeal against dissolution of marriage by Family Court, Tiruchirappalli on grounds of cruelty and irretrievable breakdown of marriage – Appellant (wife) challenging the decree, arguing irretrievable breakdown not a ground under Hindu Marriage Act and contesting allegations of cruelty and desertion. [Paras 1-3, 6]

Evidence and Pleadings – Analysis of oral and documentary evidence by trial court – Husband's allegations of cruelty based on wife's accusations of illicit relationships – Trial court's decision based on allegations of mental cruelty and living separately for 12 years. [Paras 4-5]

Husband's Claims – Allegations of cruelty and desertion by husband – Reliance on wife's living separately and accusations of illicit relationships – Consideration of husband's cross-examination admissions. [Paras 6, 11-12, 16]

Wife's Defence – Counterclaims by wife for restitution of conjugal rights – Refutation of husband's allegations, emphasizing willingness to live with husband and denial of desertion or cruelty. [Paras 10, 13, 17]

Court's Findings – Rejection of husband's claims of cruelty and desertion – Recognition of wife's willingness to live with husband and challenges faced due to husband's actions – Husband's failure to prove cruelty or desertion in the manner required by law. [Paras 14-15, 17-18]

Judicial Error – Trial court's erroneous approach in handling wife's defense and pleadings – Misinterpretation of wife's statements as cruelty – Incorrect application of law by trial court. [Paras 14-15, 20]

Final Decision – Overturning Family Court's order of dissolution of marriage – Lack of substantiated evidence for claims of cruelty and desertion – Civil Miscellaneous Appeal allowed, setting aside the decree of dissolution of marriage. [Para 21]

Criminal Law – Sections 302, 376(2)(g), 201, and 34 IPC - Circumstantial Evidence – Conviction for Rape and Murder – Appellants convicted for gang rape and murder of a 19-year-old girl whose body was found in a well – Trial court imposed life sentence till natural death – High Court finds prosecution evidence weak and inconclusive – Motive not established – 'Last seen' theory based on unreliable and belated testimony of employer PW-8 – Call detail records (CDRs) failed to prove the presence of accused with victim or their role in the crime – Recovery of articles based on inadmissible disclosure statements – Held: Prosecution failed to prove a complete chain of circumstances – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 11–28, 34–36].

Evidence Act – Section 27 – Admissibility of Disclosure Statements – Prosecution relied on discovery of articles such as victim’s slippers, clothes, and alleged mobile phones based on disclosure by accused – However, articles not identified by family members – No forensic link established – Held: Disclosure statements did not lead to discovery of any fact connecting accused to the crime – Not admissible under Section 27 [Paras 24–26].

Criminal Trial – Inconsistencies in Witness Testimony – Key prosecution witnesses including victim’s mother (PW-1), friend (PW-11), and employer (PW-8) gave inconsistent and unnatural statements – Failure to explain delay in reporting crucial facts to police – Witness conduct found suspicious – Held: Testimonies not credible or sufficient to sustain conviction [Paras 13–18].

Medical Jurisprudence – Rape and Cause of Death – Medical Officer (PW-13) opined death due to throttling and injuries suggestive of sexual assault – No DNA evidence or semen detected – High Court accepted possibility of rape and homicidal death but emphasized that medical evidence alone cannot establish guilt without corroborative circumstantial evidence [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellants acquitted – Directed to be released unless required in other case [Paras 37–38].

Constitution of India – Articles 14, 15, 16, 19, 31, 35(a) – Equality and Non-Discrimination – Right to Freedom of Profession – The Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act, 2020 mandating 75% job reservation for local candidates in private sector is unconstitutional. The Act violates fundamental rights under Articles 14, 16, and 19, fostering discrimination based on place of birth or residence and unjustifiably restricting freedom of trade and profession. [Paras 33, 34, 40, 41, 70, 73, 74]

Discrimination – Place of Birth and Residence – The Act discriminates against citizens from other parts of India, violating Articles 14 (equality before the law) and 16 (equality of opportunity in public employment) of the Constitution. The concept of domicile or resident status for employment in private sector is against the constitutional mandate. [Paras 33, 34, 41, 43]

Freedom of Trade, Occupation, Profession, and Business – Article 19(1)(g) – The Act excessively restricts the freedom of private employers in engaging employees, infringing on the rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g). The imposition of reservation in private employment limits the choice of employers. [Paras 70, 73]

Doctrine of Basic Structure – The Act violates the basic structure of the Constitution by infringing on fundamental rights of equality and freedom of profession. It leads to fragmentation of national unity and integrity, against the vision of the Constitution. [Para 69]

Reasonable Restrictions – Articles 19(5) and 19(6) – The restrictions imposed by the Act are not reasonable in the context of the public interest or protection of Scheduled Tribes, as envisaged under Articles 19(5) and 19(6). The Act imposes undue constraints on private employers and employees, not justified under the Constitution. [Paras 67, 71, 72, 74]

National Integration – Laws fostering regionalism and provincialism, like the Act in question, are detrimental to the concept of national unity and integrity, and hence unconstitutional. [Para 65]

U.S. Constitution – Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments – Reference to U.S. constitutional principles on discrimination and due process to underline the universality of constitutional morality against discriminatory state actions. [Paras 60, 61, 62]

Held – The Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act, 2020 is declared unconstitutional and invalid, being violative of Part III of the Constitution of India. [Para 76]

Historical Land Acquisition Case – Incomplete Proceedings – Original land acquisition proceedings (case no. LD-5 of 1949-50) for 329.43 acres in Mouzas Natagarh, Sodepur, and Ghola under the Act of 1948, with the declared intent of resettling migrants, remained incomplete without award declaration. Petitioners, inheritors of the land, sought reassessment of compensation under the Act of 2013. [Paras 2-6]

Prolonged Litigation and Administrative Responses – Multiple writ petitions, appeals, and contempt petitions filed by the petitioners due to non-payment of compensation and failure to complete proceedings. Notably, W.P. no. 24050(W) of 2012 and subsequent appeals and contempt proceedings highlight the administrative inertia and non-compliance with court orders regarding compensation. [Paras 7-14]

Respondents’ Defense – Legislation by Incorporation Argument – State contends that the Act of 1948 is a legislation by incorporation, not reference, implying that subsequent amendments to Act-I of 1894 (including Section 11A) do not apply to the Act of 1948. Asserts that proceedings have not lapsed and compensation was assessed correctly under Act of 1948. [Paras 15-23]

Court’s Observation and Ruling – Lapse of Acquisition Proceedings – Court finds that the acquisition proceedings under the Act of 1948 have lapsed, aligning with the Supreme Court’s decision in State of West Bengal & Ors. vs Aziman Bibi & Ors., which applied Section 11A of Act-I of 1894 to such cases. The court determines that no award was declared within the stipulated time, rendering the proceedings void. [Paras 30-41]

Order – Fresh Acquisition and Compensation Assessment – Directs the respondent to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings and determine compensation under the Act of 2013. Invalidates previous compensation assessments and orders expeditious compensation payment within eight months. [Paras 42-44]