Election of Council Office Bearers – Procedural Irregularities Alleged – Petitioner, Dr. Kunal Saha, challenges the election process of the West Bengal Medical Council's President and Vice President, alleging procedural irregularities based on the Bengal Medical Act, 1914. Meeting and elections held on November 1, 2022, contested as being before the official Gazette notification date, claimed to be violative of Sections 11A and 11B of the Act. [Paras 1, 4-5, 26-28, 30-31, 33-35]

Locus Standi of OCI Card Holder – The petitioner, an OCI card holder, argued to have locus standi in challenging the Council's elections. The court examines Sections 7A and 7B of the Citizenship Act, 1955, and Section 4 of the Bengal Medical Act, 1914, to determine eligibility and rights of the petitioner in contesting the Council's election procedures. [Paras 8-9, 17-24]

Legal Interpretation and Retrospective Effect – Court interprets the term "notification" in Section 11A(1) of the 1914 Act, considering the actual and published dates of the notification. It finds no substantial illegality in the Council's first meeting held on the notification date (November 1, 2022) but prior to its publication in the Gazette on November 3, 2022. [Paras 27, 29-31, 35]

Impact of Technical Irregularities on Council’s Functioning – The court acknowledges the functioning of the newly elected Council for over a year with its office bearers and considers the potential disruptive impact of upholding the technical challenge at this stage. [Paras 35-36]

Conclusion and Dismissal of Petition – The court does not find any gross illegality in the election process of the West Bengal Medical Council. WPA No.14447 of 2023 dismissed, addressing primarily the issue of nomination and election of the President and Vice President. Other election aspects, not argued substantially by the petitioner, were not delved into. [Paras 37-39]

Disciplinary Proceedings in Banking Sector – Petitioner, a Scale-II officer in Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank, challenges the disciplinary process including charge-sheet dated 7th June 2013, enquiry findings, and subsequent orders of punishment and appellate authority – Allegations of financial irregularities and misconduct as Branch Manager – Issues around the procedural aspects of the disciplinary process under bank service regulations. [Paras 1, 4, 7, 9, 22]

Procedural Legality and Jurisdictional Authority – Examination of the authority of the General Manager to issue the charge-sheet – Change in ‘Competent Authority’ definition under the amended Service Regulations, 2013 – Implications for the legitimacy of the charge-sheet and subsequent proceedings – Argument that procedural irregularities vitiated the proceedings. [Paras 7-9, 14-17]

Principles of Natural Justice and Disciplinary Proceedings – Discussion on adherence to principles of natural justice – Assessment of whether procedural irregularities led to prejudice or miscarriage of justice against the petitioner – Judicial review confined to decision-making process in disciplinary proceedings. [Paras 18, 20-21]

Admission of Guilt and Procedural Compliance – Evaluation of petitioner's admissions regarding deviations from banking practices and sanctioning loans against norms – Enquiry officer’s reasoned findings upheld by Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority – No substantial miscarriage of justice found. [Paras 22, 24]

Decision: Writ petition dismissed. No interference with the charge-sheet, enquiry proceedings, or orders of punishment and appellate authority. [Para 24]

Writ Petition – Pay Anomaly Correction – Petition for equalizing petitioner's pay with that of a junior colleague – Petitioner, a retired 'Process Server', sought parity in pay with respondent no. 4, who drew higher pay at retirement. [Para 1-4, 9]

Judicial Precedent – Reference to Similar Cases – Citing instances of pay correction in similar circumstances in the judiciary department – Previous High Court orders and government actions cited as precedents for pay anomaly correction. [Para 5-8, 15-16]

Legal Argument – Application of Rule 55(4) of West Bengal Service Rules – Argument for stepping up petitioner’s pay in line with junior’s pay based on Rule 55(4), highlighting cases of similar pay step-ups. [Para 10-11, 14-15]

Opposition by State – Differentiation in Circumstances – State’s contention that petitioner's circumstances were not identical to those in cited cases, suggesting benefit under the Modified Career Advance Scheme, 2001 instead. [Para 12]

Judicial Analysis – Review of Applicability of Rule 55(4) – Consideration of legal provisions and past judgments relevant to the case. [Para 13-16]

Direction for Representation – Opportunity for Grievance Redressal – Granting liberty to petitioner to submit a detailed representation to the learned District Judge, with instructions for the procedure and timeframe for addressing the grievance. [Para 17-18]

Orders – Disposal of Petition with Directions – Disposal of the writ petition with specific directions for reconsideration of petitioner’s pay anomaly and subsequent actions based on findings. [Para 18-19]

Challenge to Tribunal’s Order – Petition against Central Administrative Tribunal's order directing review DPC for promotion of respondent No.4 retrospectively – Petitioners claim their seniority affected due to Tribunal's decision without their participation in the original application – Tribunal’s order based on Supreme Court’s interpretation of equivalence in qualifications for promotion. [Para 1-2]

Seniority and Promotion Dispute – Dispute over promotion criteria from Assistant Surveyor of Works (ASW) to Surveyor of Works (SW) – Criteria set in Military Engineering Services Recruitment Rules, 1985, and subsequent changes in 2005 – Respondent No.4’s promotion denied previously due to qualification criteria, now considered equivalent by Supreme Court. [Para 3-6]

Judicial History – Respondent No.4's initial application for seniority correction based on equivalence of degree in Civil Engineering with Institution of Surveyors (India) examination – Supreme Court ruling in favor of equivalence – Impact on respondent No.4's promotion and subsequent Tribunal applications. [Para 6-9]

Petitioners' Arguments and Tribunal's Decision – Petitioners' contention on delay and non-inclusion in Tribunal application – Tribunal ordered review DPC for respondent No.4, considering him fit and eligible for promotion – Challenge to Tribunal's decision on grounds of delay and procedural issues. [Para 10-11]

Respondent No.4's Position and Tribunal’s Rationale – Respondent No.4 justified in seeking promotion based on Supreme Court’s decision and equivalence in qualifications – Tribunal's order aimed at rectifying missed promotion opportunity for respondent No.4. [Para 11-13]

Court’s Analysis and Conclusion – High Court finds no merit in petitioners' arguments regarding delay and procedural lapses – Emphasizes the importance of implementing Tribunal's order in the spirit of the Supreme Court's decision on qualification equivalence – Petition dismissed, upholding Tribunal's direction for review DPC. [Para 14-17]

Applications Dismissed – Associated applications dismissed as infructuous following the main petition's dismissal. [CM APPLs. 15631/2023 & 17512/2023]

Cheque Dishonor - Allegation of Non-Repayment of Loan – Petitioner accused of not depositing a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- in a fixed deposit and issuing a dishonored cheque for Rs.10,00,000/-. [Para 2]

Abuse of Process of Law – Petitioner's contention of multiple complaints against the respondent for physical and mental torture and the non-availability of ingredients of Section 138 of the NI Act in the complaint. [Para 3]

Legal Enforceable Debt – Argument of no legally enforceable debt and absence of consideration in the complaint. Reliance on Apex Court judgment in Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. vs. Galaxy Traders & Agencies Ltd. & Ors. to emphasize the purpose of Section 138 of the NI Act. [Para 4]

Counter-Argument – Respondent's submission on the existence of basic ingredients of Section 138 of the NI Act and legal presumptions under Section 118 of the NI Act. Citing Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. on the presumption of discharge of liability by a cheque. [Para 6]

Section 138 NI Act – Analysis of the complaint against the requirements of Section 138 of the NI Act: legally enforceable debt, cheque drawn for discharge of debt or liability, and its dishonor due to insufficient funds. Reference to Krishna Janardhan Bhat vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde. [Para 8]

Prematurity of the Petition – Court's observation on the premature nature of the petition as the complainant's statement not fully recorded and not cross-examined. Reliance on Manoj Singhal & Anr. vs. Rajendra Singh Bapna & Anr. for emphasizing the procedure under Section 202 Cr.P.C. [Para 9-10]

Decision – Dismissal of the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. due to its premature nature and the prima facie establishment of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. [Para 11]

Forgery and Cheating in Land Transaction – Dispute over land sale involving fraudulent representation and cheating – Allegations against Subodh Mishra for fraudulently representing himself as the owner of the land and deceiving Rakesh Vyas – Anurag Shukla, a bonafide purchaser of the land, incorrectly implicated in the case. [Paras 6, 20-22, 24-25]

Role of Dinesh Sharma, Station House Officer – Allegations of concealing information and siding with accused – Investigation found no connivance with Subodh Mishra – Report by police officer not binding on court and subject to judicial scrutiny. [Paras 23, 33]

Bonafide Purchase and Ownership of Land – Role of Seema Sharma and others as bonafide purchasers of the land in question – Purchased from Anurag Shukla without knowledge of the dispute between Rakesh Vyas and Subodh Mishra – Discharged from accusations under Sections 420 & 120-B of the IPC. [Paras 24, 34]

Civil Nature of Dispute – Emphasis on the civil nature of the property dispute – Misuse of criminal proceedings to resolve civil disputes discouraged – Supreme Court precedents highlighted to distinguish between civil and criminal aspects in property disputes. [Paras 27-29]

Decision – M.Cr.C. No.1433 of 2016 (Dinesh Sharma) allowed, proceedings quashed – Cr.R. No.162 of 2016 (Seema Sharma and others) allowed, applicants discharged – M.Cr.C. No.4396 of 2016 (Anurag Shukla) allowed, FIR and proceedings quashed – Cr.R. No.1643 of 2015 (Anita Vyas and others) dismissed. [Paras 33-36]

Bail Application – Regular bail granted to Jagsir Singh @ Jagga in FIR No. 101 dated 21.08.2023 registered for offences under IPC Sections 379-B, 420, 383, 411, 120-B and Arms Act Sections 25, 27 at Police Station Nihal Singh Wala, District Moga. Reliance on co-accused Sikander Singh alias Sikanderi’s bail, the principle of parity applied. [Para 7]

Circumstances of Offence – Allegations involve using a woman as bait for extortion. Petitioner's connection to the crime questioned due to delayed victim statements. Investigation concluded and challan presented. [Paras 2-3]

Opposition by State – State's opposition to bail due to the petitioner’s involvement in multiple other cases, including under Sections 384 and 307 of the IPC. [Para 4]

Legal Precedents – Reference to 'Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of UP and another', 2020 (1) RCR (Criminal) 831, and 'Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of UP (SC)', (2012) 2 SCC 382, emphasizing that multiple cases against an individual are not grounds to deny bail. [Paras 5, 7]

Decision – Petitioner granted bail considering the duration of incarceration and parity with co-accused. Bail terms to be satisfied as per the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate. [Para 7]

Medical Unfitness in Recruitment - Hypertension and Varicose Vein - Petitioner declared medically unfit for the post of Constable (Animal Transport) in ITBP due to 'varicose vein both legs' and 'high blood pressure', later revised to 'hypertension with mild mitral regurgitation'. Petitioner contends wrongful rejection based on hypertension, a condition reportedly curable with drug therapy. [Paras 1-3]

Court’s Directive for Re-examination - High Court orders re-examination of petitioner by PGIMER's Medical Board. Subsequent medical reports confirm Stage-I Hypertension, manageable with drug therapy, and absence of varicose veins. [Paras 4-5]

Expert Medical Opinion Upheld - High Court relies on consistent medical opinions from various boards, affirming petitioner's hypertension. It emphasizes the inability of the judicial system to substitute the expert medical opinions with its judgment. [Paras 6-7]

Precedent and Finality of Medical Board’s Opinion - Citing a similar case (LPA No.871 of 2022 titled ‘Sumit Vs. Union of India’), the court underscores the finality of the medical board's opinion in recruitment processes, dismissing any further judicial intervention in the matter. [Para 7]

Decision - Petition challenging medical unfitness in the recruitment process dismissed, upholding the opinions of the medical experts. [Para 8]

Civil Procedure – Jurisdiction of Civil Court under SARFAESI Act – Suit based on Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for specific performance and damages – Jurisdiction of civil court not barred under Section 34 of SARFAESI Act – DRT or other tribunals not empowered to adjudicate rights arising from MOU – Civil Court's jurisdiction plenary unless expressly or impliedly ousted – Suit maintainable before Civil Court [Paras 1, 5-16].

Contract Law – Validity and Enforceability of MOU – MOU executed acknowledging property mortgaged with bank – No earnest money paid by plaintiff nor steps for Change of Land Use (CLU) taken – MOU became non-enforceable after stipulated period without plaintiff’s action – Plaintiff’s non-approach to avail remedies under SARFAESI Act notable [Paras 17-21].

Temporary Injunction – Principles for Grant – Three basic principles for grant of injunction: Prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable loss or injury – Plaintiff’s case fails on all three counts – MOU non-enforceable after expiry of stipulated period without plaintiff's action – Balance of convenience and irreparable injury not in favor of plaintiff – Injunction declined [Paras 22-23].

Property Law – Lis Pendens – Alienation of property during pendency of suit at risk of party creating third party rights – Defendant No.3 (Apollo Hospitals North Ltd.) holds title and possession with necessary permissions, alienation during suit at their own risk [Para 24].

Decision – Jurisdiction of Civil Court in the matter upheld – Plea of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC by plaintiff rejected – Suit's outcome to be decided independently, without influence from interim order findings [Paras 25-26].