1. A proceeding in contempt is by its nature, a proceeding in personam and the authority/body corporate cannot be prosecuted under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

2. A private unaided educational institution, receiving only limited financial assistance or reimbursement of deficit from a public sector undertaking, cannot be regarded as “substantially financed” under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, in the absence of deep and pervasive control. Consequently, it does not qualify as a “public authority”, and invocation of Section 5 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 treating its Principal as a “deemed Public Information Officer” is without jurisdiction.

3. Quashing of FIR/charge-sheet/criminal proceeding is permissible only where defence material is unimpeachable, completely rules out prosecution case, remains unrefuted, and continuation of trial would amount to abuse of process. All conditions must be cumulatively satisfied; otherwise, matter must proceed to trial.

4. Where contractual non-performance is occasioned by extraordinary circumstances, imposition of blacklisting and forfeiture of security deposit, in the absence of fraud, or misconduct, is disproportionate and unsustainable, in view that order of blacklisting must satisfy the test of fairness.

5. Mere issuance of a show cause notice, without furnishing the relevant material relied upon and without affording an effective and meaningful opportunity of hearing, amounts to no real or adequate opportunity in the eye of law, being in violation of the principles of natural justice, and thereby vitiates the action on account of procedural impropriety.

6. An ineffective hearing at the initial stage vitiates the entire decision-making process and may result in a series of flawed orders at subsequent stages. Granting a hearing to the affected individual enables the authority to consider all relevant facts and circumstances, thereby facilitating informed and fair decision-making. It also assists Courts in effectively reviewing administrative actions. The essence of natural justice lies in ensuring fair, informed, and legally sustainable decisions at the very outset, thereby minimizing the likelihood of such decisions being overturned later.

7. The Police Officer investigating a crime has to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 107 of the BNSS to seek attachment of any property believed to be derived directly or indirectly from a criminal activity or commission of an offence. Attachment/hold under Section 107 of BNSS can be effected only upon orders of Magistrate.

8. Mere entrustment of additional charge of the Registrar under the Pharmacy Act, 1948 read with the Pharmacy Council Rules, 1978, pending regular appointment, does not amount to holding a substantive statutory office. In absence of a valid appointment, the essential requirement for issuance of writ of quo warranto under Article 226 is not satisfied.

9. Kidnapping for Ransom – Criminal Conspiracy – Minor Child – Conviction under Sections 364-A and 120-B IPC – Proof of Offence – The prosecution can be said to successfully established that the accused persons, in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy, kidnapped the minor child for ransom, When the offence stood proved through cogent and reliable oral evidence, identification memo, electronic evidence including Call Detail Records (CDR), and cyber analysis reports, which consistently connected the accused with the commission of the crime. The prior meeting of minds and coordinated acts of the accused persons in execution of the kidnapping and ransom demand, proving the charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC.

10. The draft District Survey Report (DSR) is required to be placed in the public domain for inviting objections and suggestions and only thereafter, the same can be finalized and approved by the competent authority/DEIAA in accordance with law and in the absence of a validly approved DSR, no mining activity or auction process can legally proceed.