Revision Petition – Maintenance Allowance – Challenge to Family Court’s order directing the revision petitioner to pay maintenance to the respondents – Revision petitioner was previously the respondent in Family Court proceedings. [Para 1]

Section 125 of CrPC – Respondents seek maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at varying rates – Claims of abandonment and insufficient financial support by the revision petitioner. [Para 2-3]

Financial Status – Conflicting accounts of financial status for both parties – Revision petitioner claimed a daily income of Rs.350/- as an auto-rickshaw driver, while respondents alleged that he had a previous monthly income of Rs.1,00,000/- in the Gulf. [Para 12-13]

Cohabitation and Abandonment – Revision petitioner’s claim of separation without sufficient cause refuted – No efforts to resume cohabitation or initiate proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights demonstrated. [Para 10]

Quantum of Maintenance – Family Court’s determination of maintenance amounts discussed – Revision petitioner’s past employment and earnings in the Gulf considered in setting the maintenance amounts. [Para 11, 16]

Decision – No error, illegality, or impropriety found in Family Court’s order – Revision petition dismissed – Direction given for adjustment of any interim maintenance amounts deposited. [Para 17-18]

Appeal under Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Appeal against the judgment dated 01.03.2021 and the Arbitral Award dated 08.05.2015 – Appellant contending wrongful dismissal of application under Section 34 of the said Act by the learned Single Judge – Prayers for setting aside the impugned judgment and the Arbitral Award. [Para 1]

Arbitration Procedure – Disputes arose between the parties leading to arbitration – Sole Arbitrator appointed – Appellant alleges lack of opportunity to file Statement of Defence and/or counter-claim due to arbitral procedures and communication issues – Respondent filing Statement of Claim belatedly – Directions from Supreme Court to Arbitrator to consider application for filing defence and counter-claim, if filed within specified timeframe – Disregard of Supreme Court’s order by the Arbitrator, closing right to cross-examine witnesses for the appellant and proceeding to arguments and award pronouncement. [Paras 2-14, 27-30]

Supreme Court Order Compliance – Supreme Court providing a specific timeframe to the Appellant for filing an application to the Arbitrator for presenting its case – Arbitrator not adhering to the Supreme Court's direction, taking up the matter and reserving judgment within two days, before the expiry of the said period – Appellant prevented from presenting its case due to non-compliance with Supreme Court's order by the Arbitrator. [Paras 24-27, 30-31]

Judicial Review and Public Policy – Impugned award and order challenged as being against public policy due to defiance of Supreme Court's order – Principle of Judicial discipline emphasized – Non-compliance with Supreme Court's order rendering the appellant unable to present its case – Impugned award and order set aside under Section 34 (2)(iii) of the said Act for being against public policy and for preventing appellant from presenting its case. [Paras 32-40]

Family Court Jurisdiction - Ad Valorem Court Fee - Revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge orders of the Family Court - Order dated 04.11.2019 directing the petitioners to pay ad valorem court fee in a maintenance petition - Order dated 03.02.2020 dismissing the application for recall of the order - Issue of whether the plaintiffs are liable to pay ad valorem court fee on the suit pending before the Family Court - Clarification on the nature of proceedings in Family Courts - Ruling in Balwinder Singh Versus Sinderpal Kaur and another, 2019(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 720 that proceedings initiated before the Family Court for maintenance are petitions and not suits, and ad valorem court fee is not payable - Setting aside of the impugned orders, and petitioners not liable to pay ad valorem court fee on their suit filed in the Family Court. [Para 1-16]

Anticipatory Bail – Petitioner declared 'proclaimed offender' in a non-cognizable offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Petitioner's plea for anticipatory bail – Non-receipt of notice and warrants by the petitioner – Desire to join proceedings and appear before the Court – Request for protection from arrest – Offer to furnish an undertaking – Grant of anticipatory bail with certain conditions. [Para 1-5]

Service of Notice – Dispensation of service of notice upon respondent No.2 due to the monetary nature of the dispute and the petitioner's absence hindering trial proceedings – Paramount consideration of securing the accused's presence – Avoidance of unnecessary wastage of time and energy in running after accused persons – Direction for the petitioner to appear before the Trial Court. [Para 7-10]

Conditions of Bail – Petitioner to appear before Ld. Trial Court on or before 09.11.2023 – Release on bail subject to furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds – Deposit of Rs.20,000/- for the benefit of Poor Patients’ Treatment – Submission of an undertaking to ensure future appearances during trial proceedings. [Para 11-13]

Quashing Petition – The applicant filed M.Cr.C. under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing prosecution complaint pending before Special Court constituted under PML Act – Court dismisses application. [Para 1, 8]

Factual Background – Applicant involved in transactions with individual accused of financial fraud – Financial fraud primarily connected to sale and purchase of land – Court details the facts and course of investigation. [Para 2]

Legal Framework – Explanation of Section 3 of the PML Act – Court elaborates on what constitutes money laundering under Section 3 and the presumptions under Sections 22 and 24 of the PML Act. [Para 5-7]

Burden of Proof – The Court specifies that under Section 24 of PML Act, the burden is on the applicant to prove his innocence – The Court finds prima facie involvement of the applicant in money laundering. [Para 7]

Decision – The Court dismisses the quashing petition, stating that no clean chit can be given to the applicant under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. [Para 8]

Civil Appeal - Challenge to the order granting temporary injunction in a partition suit - Dispute over joint family properties - Appellant contends that the suit properties are not joint family properties - Existence of several disputes amongst the parties - Whether one coparcener can seek injunctive relief against other coparceners - Maintenance of a suit for permanent injunction by a coparcener against the Karta/Manager - The power of the Manager to alienate joint family property for legal necessity or benefit of the estate - Whether grant of temporary injunction is avoidable in the present circumstances. [Para 8-13]

Injunction - Limited scope of injunctive relief in joint Hindu family disputes - Coparcener's right to claim share in joint family estate - The inability of a coparcener to interfere with the act of management of the joint family affairs - Maintenance of a suit for permanent injunction against the Karta/Manager - Bar on the grant of injunction in certain cases as per Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act - Prima facie case for grant of injunction not made out - Irreparable loss to non-applicant if injunction is granted. [Para 9, 10, 11]

Partition Suit - Dispute over joint family properties - Existence of various disputes among the parties - Challenge to sale transactions effected before the filing of the suit - Question of maintainability of challenge to such transactions after a substantial period - Allegation of using the suit to settle matrimonial disputes - Suit filed with a malafide intention - Whether the suit for partition can be used to restrain coparceners from dealing with their shares - Prima facie case for grant of injunction not established - Error in granting a blanket injunction against all the Defendants - Modification of the injunction order to secure the interest of the Plaintiff. [Para 13-18]

Appeal - Modification of the injunction order - Direction to Appellants not to create third-party interests or change possession only in respect of a specific land - Disposal of the appeals and related interim applications. [Para 18-20]

Injunction Order - Request for continuation of the injunction order after judgment - Rejection of the request based on the nature of the findings recorded in the judgment. [Para 21]

Educational Institutions - Minority Institution - Ban on recruitment imposed by the State Government due to financial constraints caused by the COVID-19 pandemic - Minority institution seeking approval for the appointment of a teacher - Refusal of approval by the Education Officer - Challenge to the rejection - Coordinated bench judgments holding that the ban on recruitment does not apply to minority institutions - Applicability of the judgments to the present case - Impugned orders quashed and set aside - Direction to Education Officer to consider the proposal in light of the coordinated bench judgments within four weeks - Communication of decision to the petitioners within one week - Writ petitions allowed. [Para 1-16]

Local Government Disqualification – Removal of President of Jafrabad Nagar Panchayat – Challenge to order disqualifying the petitioner – Technical and merits-based challenges – Alleged failure to conduct meetings and improper conduct of meetings – Violation of principles of natural justice – Interpretation of statutory provisions regarding removal of elected representatives – Validity of removal – Consideration of democratic principles. [Para 1-11]

Statutory Principles – Disqualification of the President of Jafrabad Nagar Panchayat – Examination of issues related to disqualification and statutory provisions – Notice defects, denial of natural justice, and merit of disqualification considered. [Para 9-22]

Notice Defects – Notice dated 13.06.2023 defective as it called upon the petitioner to explain disqualification from the post of "President of Jalna Nagar Parishad" instead of "President of Jafrabad Nagar Panchayat" – Disqualification beyond the scope of the notice is invalid. [Para 13-14]

Denial of Natural Justice – Petitioner denied sufficient opportunity to respond to the notice – Collector failed to provide relevant material before the hearing – Order under section 55B passed without notice, violating principles of natural justice – Order bad in law due to non-compliance. [Para 15-20]

Merit of Disqualification – Disqualification based on non-conduct of meetings and financial decisions taken in meetings without an agenda – Section 81 of the Act provides for a procedure when meetings are not called – Misconduct must involve willful wrongdoing, not mere negligence – Lack of analysis and response to petitioner's submissions in the judgment – Order lacks justification for disqualification – Disqualification not supported by the law. [Para 21-22]

Interpretation of Misconduct - The judgment discusses the concept of "misconduct" in the context of government officials and public servants. It cites cases such as Government of A.P. v. P. Posetty (2000) 2 SCC 220 and M.M. Malhotra v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 2006 SC 80 to emphasize that misconduct is a term that derives its meaning from the specific context and nature of the delinquency in question. [Para 10-13]

Public Interest and Misconduct - The judgment underscores that misconduct should be evaluated based on its impact on public interest. It must be measured by the nature and consequences of the misconduct to determine whether it is detrimental to the public interest. [Para 13]

Distinction Between Misconduct and Disgraceful Conduct - The judgment distinguishes between "misconduct" and "disgraceful conduct," stating that the inquiry under Section 341B-5 of the Act deals with misconduct alone, while Section 55A of the Act covers both misconduct and disgraceful conduct. The power of the government under Section 55A is broader than the inquiry under Section 341B-5. [Para 23]

Lack of Discussion on Merit - The judgment points out that the impugned order lacks a discussion on the merit of the report and does not include the petitioner's response on record. The petitioner has been disqualified apparently for not calling meetings of the Council regularly, but the order does not establish the petitioner's responsibility for this or show that it amounts to misconduct. [Para 24-26]

Removal of Elected Officials - The judgment emphasizes that the removal of elected members from office is a serious matter and must adhere to statutory provisions and principles of natural justice. It highlights that elected officials are accountable to their electorate, and their removal affects both the official and the constituency. [Para 27-28]

Fresh Proceedings - Due to the petitioner's lack of opportunity to provide an explanation before the statutory authority, the judgment quashes the proceedings and remits the matter back to the statutory authority for a fresh adjudication. [Para 29-32]

Expedited Proceedings - The judgment directs that if the statutory authority decides to issue a notice, both parties should avoid unnecessary adjournments to expedite the proceedings. [Para 33-35]

Writ Petition – Retirement Age – Petitioner challenges the university’s decision to retire him at age 62, asserting his role as teaching staff should extend his retirement age to 65 like other teachers. [Para 2-3]

Employment Status – Assistant Engineer – The respondent, Mahatma Gandhi Chitrakoot Gramodaya Vishwavidhyalaya, clarified that the petitioner’s substantive post is Assistant Engineer, with all benefits attached to that post, determining his retirement age as 62. [Para 4]

Legal Definition – “Teachers of the University” – Court emphasizes the specific definition under Section 2(l) of the Mahatma Gandhi Chitrakoot Gramodaya Vishwavidhyalaya Adhiniyam, 1991, indicating the petitioner was not ‘appointed’ for teaching. [Para 7-8]

Temporary Arrangement – Not a teacher – Court rules that the petitioner’s involvement in teaching activities was a temporary measure due to a shortage of teachers, not sufficient to classify him as a “Teacher of the University.” [Para 8]

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Court dismisses the petition, holding the petitioner’s retirement age to be 62 years as per university’s notification dated 16/08/2018. [Para 9]