Indian Judgements

Indian Judgements

Bail granted in Attempt to Murder case on ground of Parity

Picture of Judgments Online

Judgments Online

In Kanna @ Bhuvnesh vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T) of Delhi, the Delhi High Court granted regular bail to a petitioner accused of attempt to murder and various other offences under the IPC and the Arms Act. Justice Girish Kathpalia allowed the application primarily on the grounds of parity, noting that nine out of twelve co-accused—including the primary assailants who allegedly opened fire—had already been released on bail. The Court also took into consideration that all three public witnesses for the prosecution had turned hostile during their testimony.

  • Case Background and Allegations: The petitioner sought regular bail in connection with FIR No. 03/2024 (PS Jahangir Puri) for offences under Sections 307 (attempt to murder), 120B, 147, 148, 149, and 34 of the IPC, along with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution alleged that on January 4, 2024, the petitioner and a group of individuals attacked the complainant in a park. While the complainant escaped unhurt, shots fired by co-accused Akash and Suri allegedly misfired and injured a child.
  • Arguments for Bail: Counsel for the petitioner argued for release based on the following:
    • Parity: Nine of the twelve accused persons in the case had already been granted bail. Crucially, this included the two individuals (Akash and Suri) who were specifically alleged to have opened fire.
    • Witness Hostility: It was submitted that all three public witnesses of the prosecution had turned hostile during the trial proceedings.
  • Opposition to Bail:
    • The State opposed the application, pointing toward the criminal antecedents of the petitioner. However, the State did not dispute the bail status of the co-accused.
    • The complainant’s counsel further opposed the request, noting that the petitioner had absconded for six months before being arrested.
  • Court’s Reasoning and Decision: After considering the “overall circumstances,” particularly the fact that the alleged shooters were already at liberty and the public witnesses had turned hostile, the Court found it fit to grant relief.
  • Final Order: The bail application was allowed, and the petitioner was directed to be released upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹10,000/- with one surety of the like amount. The Court directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Jail Superintendent to inform the accused.

2026 DHC 5526

Kanna @ Bhuvnesh vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T) of Delhi (D.O.J. 10.07.2026)

2026 DHC 5526 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

Contempt: Unconditional Apology – Delay in complying with settlement terms

July 14, 2026 No Comments

In Pushpa Bansal vs. Mahaveer Bansal, the Delhi High Court resolved cross-contempt petitions stemming from the alleged violation of a 2024 Settlement Agreement concerning the use of the trademark ‘SHREE JI’. Justice Mini Pushkarna accepted an unconditional apology from the respondent, Mahaveer Bansal, who admitted to a delay in complying with the settlement terms but demonstrated that he had since withdrawn all related trademark and copyright applications. While the Court noted that residual packaging material was found during a local inspection, it accepted that these were old stocks and not part of ongoing manufacturing. The Court disposed of the petitions by directing the destruction of the seized goods and ordering Mahaveer Bansal to refund ₹2.50 lakhs to the petitioner to cover the costs of the Local Commissioner necessitated by the delayed compliance.

  • Background of the Dispute: The parties entered into a Settlement Agreement on November 24, 2024, to resolve intellectual property disputes. Two contempt petitions were subsequently filed: one by Pushpa Bansal alleging Mahaveer Bansal continued to use the restricted mark ‘SHREE JI’, and a cross-petition by Mahaveer Bansal alleging Pushpa Bansal violated the agreement by using the name ‘Bansal’ in a predominant manner on tax invoices.
  • Findings of the Local Commissioner: A Local Commissioner (LC) appointed by the Court inspected Mahaveer Bansal’s premises in April 2026. The LC recovered residual packaging material, Diwali coupons, and carry bags bearing the ‘SHREE JI’ mark.
  • Respondent’s Defense and Compliance:
    • Unconditional Apology: Mahaveer Bansal tendered an apology, asserting that any non-compliance was inadvertent and caused by a genuine misunderstanding rather than willful defiance.
    • Withdrawal of Applications: He confirmed the withdrawal of all trademark and copyright applications, oppositions, and assignments related to ‘SHREE JI’ and its derivatives.
    • Cessation of Use: He stated he had ceased all use of the ‘SHREE JI’ mark and was now using the marks ‘BANSAL JI’ or ‘BANSAL’ as permitted under the settlement.
    • Explanation of Recovered Goods: He clarified that the materials found by the LC were old, unused stock awaiting disposal and that no current manufacturing of ‘SHREE JI’ products was occurring.
  • Court’s Directions:
    • Destruction of Materials: The Court ordered Mahaveer Bansal to destroy the seized products in the presence of an authorized representative from Pushpa Bansal Trading (who must not be a family member).
    • Refund of Costs: Because the respondent’s delay necessitated the appointment of the Local Commissioner, the Court directed Mahaveer Bansal to refund the ₹2.50 lakh LC fee to Pushpa Bansal Trading within four weeks.
    • Online Takedowns: The Court noted that the respondent had already taken steps to remove online listings of the ‘SHREE JI’ mark and issued takedown requests to third-party portals.
  • Final Status: The Court concluded that no further orders were required as compliance had been achieved, though it kept other rights and contentions open for adjudication in appropriate proceedings.

2026 DHC 5552

Pushpa Bansal vs. Mahaveer Bansal(D.O.J. 09.07.2026)

2026 DHC 5552 click here to view full text of judgment

Next Story

Service Law: Termination Valid – Failure to meet mandatory eligibility criteria.

July 14, 2026 No Comments

In Ms. Shilpa vs. Solar Energy Corporation of India Ltd. (SECI) &Ors., the Delhi High Court upheld the termination of a petitioner’s services for failing to meet mandatory eligibility criteria. Justice Sanjeev Narula ruled that the petitioner, appointed as a Supervisor (Personnel & Administration), did not possess the required one year of specialized post-qualification experience in that field. The Court found that her previous role as an outsourced Junior Assistant involving general office tasks like typing and filing did not satisfy the specific recruitment requirements. Emphasizing that a conditional appointment remains subject to verification, the Court held that SECI was justified in withdrawing the offer once it was confirmed that the petitioner lacked the necessary credentials.

1. Background and Recruitment Terms

The dispute arose from Recruitment Notification No. 01/2021 issued by SECI for the post of Supervisor (P&A). The advertisement mandated a minimum of one year of post-qualification experience specifically in the field of Personnel & Administration and warned that candidature would be rejected if information was found to be non-conforming to these requirements.

2. Petitioner’s Claim and Provisional Selection

The petitioner applied for the post, claiming experience as a “Junior Assistant” at the National Institute of Immunology (NII), where she allegedly assisted in administrative, establishment, and service matters. She was provisionally selected and joined SECI on February 7, 2022, after a preliminary document verification.

3. Discrepancies Revealed During Verification

Upon seeking formal verification from NII, SECI discovered several inconsistencies:

  • Unauthorized Documentation: A certificate provided by the petitioner describing her as a “Personal Assistant” was disowned by NII, which stated it was not issued by a competent department or authorized officer.
  • Nature of Duties: NII clarified that the petitioner was an outsourced staff whose actual duties were limited to Hindi typing, day-to-day office work, and filing, rather than substantive Personnel & Administration functions.
  • Designation: Her actual designation at NII was “Junior Assistant,” not the “Personal Assistant” role suggested in her submitted certificate.

4. Court’s Analysis of Eligibility

Justice Narula emphasized that in public recruitment, essential qualifications cannot be diluted. The Court observed that merely “assisting” in an office or having a duration of employment is not equivalent to specialized experience in P&A (such as handling recruitment, vigilance, or disciplinary matters). Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument that the petitioner’s tenure at SECI could “cure” her initial deficiency, ruling that eligibility must be assessed as of the cut-off date prescribed in the advertisement.

5. Nature of the Termination

The Court dismissed the petitioner’s argument that her termination was “punitive” or violated the principles of natural justice. The Court held:

  • Conditional Appointment: Since her appointment was expressly subject to verification, she acquired no indefeasible right to remain in service if she failed to meet the threshold criteria.
  • Absence of Stigma: The withdrawal of an appointment due to lack of eligibility is not a punishment for misconduct but a correction of a non-conforming recruitment.
  • Futility of Remand: Because the record clearly showed she lacked the required experience, the Court found that requiring a formal show-cause notice at this stage would serve no useful purpose.

6. Final Conclusion

Finding that the petitioner failed to establish the mandatory experience required for the post, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, confirming that the respondent’s action was legally sound.

2026 DHC 5548

Ms. Shilpa vs. Solar Energy Corporation of India Ltd. (SECI) &Ors(D.O.J. 08.07.2026)

2026 DHC 5548 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

Long Pending Petition dismissed for Non-Prosecution: failure to take any active steps to pursue the matter

July 14, 2026 No Comments

In VirkaranAwasty vs. Hassad Netherlands B.V. &Ors., the Delhi High Court dismissed a commercial petition that had been pending since 2016 for non-prosecution. Justice Om Prakash Shukla noted that the petition had already been dismissed once in early 2024 for similar reasons and was subsequently restored. However, following the restoration, the petitioner failed to take any active steps to pursue the matter and repeatedly sought adjournments due to the unavailability of counsel. Concluding that the petitioner had lost interest in the case, the Court dismissed the petition.

  • Procedural History: The petition, O.M.P. (COMM) 306/2016, had been pending before the Court for a decade. It was previously dismissed for non-prosecution on April 30, 2024, due to the petitioner seeking repeated adjournments, but was later restored by a co-ordinate Bench on August 12, 2024.
  • Inactivity Post-Restoration: The Court observed that since the matter was restored, there was no evidence on record to show that the petitioner had taken any steps to move the case forward.
  • Repeated Adjournments: The respondent’s counsel submitted that the main counsel for the petitioner had been unavailable for the last five hearings. The court records revealed that adjournments were sought on five specific dates across 2025 and 2026 (January 16, May 1, July 25, and November 7, 2025; and March 11, 2026) solely due to the non-availability of the petitioner’s counsel.
  • Non-Appearance: During the proceedings on July 10, 2026, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner.
  • Court’s Conclusion: Given the prolonged history of adjournments and the lack of progress since the restoration of the case, the Court found that the petitioner appeared to have lost interest in pursuing the litigation.
  • Final Order: The petition was officially dismissed for non-prosecution.

2026 DHC 5545

VirkaranAwasty vs. Hassad Netherlands B.V. &Ors(D.O.J. 10.07.2026)

2026 DHC 5545 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

Arbitration Award Challenge withdrawal permitted on settlement

July 14, 2026 No Comments

In National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited vs. JKM-KCL (JV), the Delhi High Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw its challenge to an arbitral award. Justice Om Prakash Shukla disposed of the Section 34 petition after the parties Nature of the Petition: The petitioner, National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, filed a petition (O.M.P. (COMM) 43/2025) under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to contest an arbitral award.

  • The Settlement: During the course of the litigation, the parties engaged in settlement discussions. Counsel for the petitioner informed the Court that an amicable resolution had been reached between the parties.
  • Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme: The settlement was finalized under the “Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme-III”. This scheme is a government initiative aimed at resolving pending contractual disputes involving government undertakings to reduce litigation.
  • Procedural Action: To formalize the end of the dispute, the petitioner filed an application (I.A. 17732/2026) under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, specifically seeking to withdraw the main petition.
  • Court’s Directions: In view of the settlement, the Court allowed the withdrawal application. The Section 34 petition, along with any other pending applications, was officially disposed of as withdrawn.

2026 DHC 5531

National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited vs. JKM-KCL (JV)(D.O.J. 10.07.2026)

2026 DHC 5531 click here to view full text of judgment

Share

The specified slider does not exist.

Recent Articles

Hi Judgments Online

Subscribed
Logins