Digi - Legal Insights

Rejection of appellant No. 2s compassionate appointment on grounds of having retired on medical grounds was deemed unjustifiable.

There was no ambiguity in Resolution Plan, dismissing relevance of face value reservation mechanism and principles like contra proferentem, upholding integrity of established timeline for payments hence, impugned Judgment passed by Courts below are set aside.

Appellants are entitled to refund, less 10% for administrative charges and regarding withheld amounts, MRTP Act allows for interest on refunds, but applying standard rate may not be appropriate given the circumstances.

Law does not limit protections to disabilities arising from service and that employer is obligated to explore reasonable accommodations rather than opting for invalidation.

There are no direct allegations against Appellant in complaint, which is essential for applying Section 141 of Act that requires accused to be in charge of and responsible for companys business conduct hence, summoning order in connection with complaint registered of alleged offences, quashed.

Cause of death was established as septicaemia resulting from burns hence, impugned order of conviction needs to be upheld.

Petitioners bail cancelled for failing to meet conditions and ordered forfeiture of Rs. 50 crores deposited, directing Rs. 5 crores to National Legal Services Authority and remainder to IRP for IBC proceedings, with immediate compliance mandated by Registrar (Judicial).

Cognizance was taken in year 2001, that is, much before notification therefore, benefit of Section 197 is not available to Appellants.

For a charge under Section 306 IPC to be sustained, there must be a positive act of instigation or incitement with clear mens rea, having proximate nexus to the act of suicide.

High Court erred in granting protection from arrest, failing to adequately justify its decision and not reflecting an appropriate application of legal principles relevant to case.

Offences under PC Act can be investigated by various agencies, including State, Central, or police agencies, as per Section 17, which requires police officers to have a specific rank.

Orders by Special Court are set aside and Appellate Tribunals decision on Section 26 should also be restored for merits evaluation, as order was not justly considered.

High Court should not have entertained writ petition and if it did, defacto complainant should have been heard.

When Petitioners seek to quash FIR, High Court must assess cases merits rather than dismiss it as infructuous.

Investigative officer is responsible for conducting proper investigation and filing report in accordance with Section 173 of CrPC/Section 193 of BNSS and it warns against high court intervention that could unfairly impose timelines on trials, potentially compromising concept of fair trial.

Order issued by High Court related to bail application is unsustainable in law and has resulted in travesty of justice.

Repeated registration of FIRs aimed to maintain Petitioner No.1 in custody hence, Petitioner No.1 is granted immediate bail due to previously granted anticipatory bail.

Even if allegations in FIR are accepted as true, they do not constitute an offence under SC/ST Act and regarding IPC offences, allegations lack credibility and general nature of claims does not establish Appellants participation in alleged crime hence, criminal prosecution against Appellant is quashed.

Taking into account Appellants age, lack of prior convictions and satisfactory conduct during custody, sentence has been reduced to a fixed term of 25 years of actual imprisonment without remission.

Evidence presented indicates that second Appellant-convict actively participated in crime, supporting conviction under Section 307 of IPC for attempted murder.