Public Interest Litigation – Quo Warranto – Judicial inquiry into the legitimacy of the appointment of the Director of the Morarji Desai National Institute of Yoga – Petitioner alleges lack of requisite qualifications and fabricated employment record of the respondent – Court finds the respondent met the essential criteria at the time of appointment. [Para 1, 20-22]

Appointment and Qualifications – Director of MDNIY – Allegations of forged academic credentials and service record – Respondent's qualifications and experience as per the recruitment rules assessed – Court concludes the respondent’s qualifications and experience fulfil the essential criteria. [Para 3.2, 9, 12-14]

Tenure of Office – MDNIY Director’s tenure beyond the stipulated period – Examination of policy documents and appointment terms – Petition’s claim unsubstantiated, respondent’s appointment deemed in compliance with due process. [Para 3.3, 15-16]

Medical Fitness – Respondent's medical fitness for the role of Yoga Instructor questioned due to past medical discharge from Air Force – Court finds no cogent evidence to investigate the claim further. [Para 17]

Vigilance Complaints – Lack of action on complaints lodged with CVC against the respondent – Court accepts Respondent’s explanation as per CVC guidelines, dismissing the complaints as 'pseudonymous.' [Para 18]

Performance as Director – Allegations of respondent’s ineffectiveness in expanding opportunities for Yoga teachers – Court determines such claims fall outside its evaluative authority under Article 226. [Para 19]

Decision – Petitioner’s allegations found unsubstantiated, respondent’s appointment and tenure confirmed as legitimate – Writ petition and associated applications dismissed. [Para 20-24]

Taxation – Challenge against the lower deduction of tax certificate issued under Section 197 of the IT Act – Petitioner, a company in e-commerce retail, sought to challenge the certificate permitting the deduction of TDS at 0.5% instead of 0.01% requested – The court found the order to be non-speaking and mechanically issued, lacking proper reasoning – Impugned actions set aside with directions for a fresh determination. [Para 1, 6, 15-16]

Judicial Review – Application of Rule 28AA of the IT Rules – The court emphasized the need for a speaking and reasoned order, referring to Supreme Court’s decision in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr. – Orders cannot be validated by reasons added later, such as through affidavits – Respondent No. 1’s reasons found to be broad generalizations, indicative of non-application of mind. [Para 13-15]

Procedure – Remand for fresh determination of the application – The case remanded back to Respondent No. 1 for a fresh determination of the Petitioner’s application for lower TDS deduction in accordance with the law – Directed to be conducted as expeditiously as possible. [Para 16-17]

Legal Procedure – Challenge of Magistrate’s Order – Applicants, advocates by profession, seek quashing of a Magistrate’s order for preliminary inquiry – Application made under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – High Court finds no illegality in Magistrate’s direction, application dismissed. [Para 2, 16-17]

FIR Registration – Mandate of FIR registration in cases disclosing cognizable offences – No preliminary inquiry if cognizable offence is apparent – Supreme Court’s guidelines in Lalita Kumari case applied – Magistrate’s direction for preliminary inquiry upheld as cognizable offence not clearly disclosed. [Para 12-16]

Magistrate’s Discretion – Preliminary Inquiry – Scope and discretion in ordering preliminary inquiries – Inquiries to ascertain cognizable offences, not for verifying information veracity – Upheld in case involving allegations against police for violating court order. [Para 16]

Application of Judicial Principles – Necessity for application of judicial mind in Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. applications – Emphasis on supporting affidavits and verification of allegations – Reference to case laws for judicial guidance. [Para 14-15]

Civil Suit – Permission to examine sole witness – Petitioner seeks permission to examine its sole witness in a civil suit for ejectment and recovery of mesne profits – Matter pending at the stage of defendant evidence – Petitioner willing to pay costs and seeks a final opportunity – Respondent agrees to one final opportunity subject to legal costs and strict terms – Petitioner permitted to lead evidence of sole witness on the specified date – Limited right to lead evidence granted with conditions – No infirmity found in the Trial Court’s previous order – Petitioner bound to address final arguments after the conclusion of defendant evidence – Petition disposed of with directions. [Para 1-8]

Civil Contempt – Allegation of deliberate violation and non-compliance of a court order – Petitioner, the ex-daughter-in-law of the deceased testator, filed a contempt petition against respondent No.1/UCO Bank – Dispute regarding the release of funds from the deceased’s bank accounts as per his will – Court issued directions on 01.11.2019 for the release of funds – Contempt petition filed due to non-release of funds as per court directions – Respondent No.1/UCO Bank Imposed a lien on the released funds – Allegation of wilful disobedience of court directions by bank officials – Bank officials failed to comply with the court’s order, causing obstruction in the execution of the deceased’s will – Show cause notice issued to concerned Chief Manager of UCO Bank for appearing in person and justifying the non-compliance – Bank directed to release or vacate the lien on the funds and allow the executor to operate the bank account – Compliance report to be filed. [Para 1-19]

Recruitment Examination – Non-conduct of scheduled recruitment exams for Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police during 2021 and 2022 – Petitioners, having become over-aged due to delay, seek interim relief to appear in the examination – Tribunal dismissed the interim relief – Petitioners' appeal for age relaxation and permission to participate in the examination. [Para 1-7]

Recruitment Rules – Challenge to the Tribunal's refusal to grant age relaxation – Reliance on the Delhi Police (Appointment & Recruitment) Rules, 1980 – Rules mandate annual recruitment in January; Rule 30 allows relaxation of Rules by the Administrator in necessary cases – Petitioners argue for a one-time age relaxation due to the exceptional circumstances of COVID-19. [Para 8-11, 26-28]

Age Relaxation – Discussion on precedents where age relaxation was granted due to administrative failures to conduct timely recruitment – Examination of whether petitioners are entitled to similar relaxation – Tribunal's conclusion against relaxation discussed. [Para 10, 17-21, 33-38]

Tribunal’s Order – Tribunal's rationale on not granting interim relief – Concerns over creating a separate class with vested age relaxation rights – Tribunal's decision upheld by the High Court, petitions dismissed. [Para 21-22, 29-32, 39]

Decision – High Court upholds the Tribunal's decision, denying interim relief to petitioners for age relaxation – Petitions dismissed due to lack of merit. [Para 39]

Regular Bail – Denial of Regular Bail – Petitioner's repeated absconding and non-cooperation in the investigation – Petitioner declared a proclaimed offender twice – Bail application dismissed due to potential obstruction of a fair trial and risk of absconding. [Para 10-14]

Criminal Procedure – Fair Trial and Bail Considerations – Importance of ensuring a fair trial for both the accused and the prosecution – Conduct of the accused obstructing the trial deemed a valid ground for denying bail – Supreme Court precedents on bail considerations emphasized. [Para 7, 11]

Proclaimed Offender – Impact on Bail Application – Petitioner's history of absconding affecting the bail decision – Court emphasizes the necessity of the accused's presence for a fair trial – Miscommunication with counsel not accepted as a valid excuse for non-appearance. [Para 12-13]

Decision – Petitioner's bail application for regular bail rejected – Court finds no merit in the petitioner's reasons for absconding and non-compliance with legal proceedings – Observations made in the judgment solely for the purpose of this petition and not affecting the merits of the case. [Para 14-15]

Eligibility for District Judge Appointment – Practising Advocate Requirement: Challenge to interim order precluding appellant, a Munsiff-Magistrate trainee, from participating in viva-voce for District and Sessions Judge appointment. Legal scrutiny of whether such training status affects eligibility as a practising advocate. [Paras 1, 4, 5, 6]

Judicial Service vs Advocate Practice – Professional Status: Examination of the professional status of a Munsiff-Magistrate trainee in relation to the definition of a practising advocate. References to precedent decisions to understand the impact of judicial training on the practice of law. [Paras 7, 9, 10, 12]

Advocate Eligibility under Article 233(2) – Interpretation: Analysis of the term “practising advocate” for eligibility as District and Sessions Judge. Emphasis on the necessity of uninterrupted legal practice for qualifying. [Paras 8, 11, 13]

Appeal Dismissal: The appeal and writ petition were dismissed, establishing that a Munsiff-Magistrate trainee does not qualify as a practising advocate for direct recruitment to the post of District and Sessions Judge. [Para 13]

Cheque Dishonour – Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Conviction upheld by the appellate court for dishonour of cheque issued by revision petitioner – Substantive sentence modified to imprisonment till rising of court and fine of Rs. 4 lakh. [Paras 1, 5, 7]

Borrowed Money – Claim of Rs. 4 lakh loan by respondent substantiated with bank statements and testimonies – Revision petitioner’s contention of blank cheque given as security for vehicle loan found unsubstantiated. [Paras 10-12, 16]

Presumption under Section 139 of N.I Act – Accused’s responsibility to rebut presumption that cheque was for debt discharge – Failure of revision petitioner to provide cogent evidence against presumption. [Paras 14, 15, 17]

Section 313 Cr.P.C – Non-confrontation of accused with certain discrepancies in prosecution evidence not a ground for trial vitiation – Accused’s failure to dispute signature on cheque and dishonour due to insufficiency of funds. [Paras 18-23]

Final Decision – Dismissal of revision petition – Revision petitioner directed to surrender and comply with sentence and fine payment by the trial court. [Para 25]