THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE SANDEEP V. MARNE

The High Court held that the petitioner fulfills the eligibility criteria prescribed in Clause 3(m)(c) of the tender document, as it can consolidate the number of helpers provided under multiple work orders in the same financial year to meet the requirement of 955 helpers. The Court set aside the order rejecting the petitioner's bid and directed the Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation to consider the petitioner's financial bid along with the other eligible bidders.

JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR, JUSTICE SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN

The High Court upheld the validity of Regulation 17(3)(D)(2) of the Development Control and Promotion Regulations, 2034 (DCPR 2034), which allows for partial use of lands reserved for public open spaces in Mumbai for slum rehabilitation schemes. The Court found that the Regulation is within the powers granted under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, and does not violate the principles of equality under Article 14 or the right to a clean environment under Article 21 of the Constitution. While the Court acknowledged the importance of protecting public open spaces, it held that the Regulation represents a reasonable and balanced approach to address the competing needs of slum rehabilitation and environmental preservation. The Court, however, issued detailed directions to ensure proper implementation of the Regulation, including requirements for retaining at least 35% of the land as functional public open space, its proper development and maintenance, and periodic review of the policy. The Court's decision recognizes the practical challenges faced by the authorities in dealing with the longstanding issue of slums occupying lands reserved for public purposes, and attempts to strike a fair compromise between the rights of slum dwellers and the public's interest in accessing open recreational spaces.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE SANDEEP V. MARNE

The High Court held that the tendering authority erred in applying the preference clause (Clause 4(IV)) of the tender document to the allotment of the Central Store Office, as the tender document had drawn a clear distinction between the 16 warehouses and the Central Store Office. The court found that the preference clause was only applicable to the allotment of the warehouses, and not the Central Store Office, as the clause specifically used the term "warehouses" and not "premises" in general. The court directed the tendering authority to invite the petitioner and the successful bidder (Respondent No. 4) for renegotiations on the bids for the Central Store Office, as they had quoted the same rate, and to allot the lease to the entity offering the higher rate.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE SANDEEP V. MARNE

The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the Petitioner, holding that the tendering authority was justified in considering the financial documents and experience of the partners of Respondent No. 6 (a partnership firm) in evaluating its eligibility, despite the Petitioner's objections. The court emphasized the need for judicial restraint in reviewing tender matters and found no arbitrariness or irrationality in the tendering authority's decision-making process. Accordingly, the court upheld the allotment of the warehouses to Respondent No. 6.

JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR

The High Court held that the Referral Court erred in relying on the exemplar deed (Exhibit-1) executed by the father of one of the claimants as the basis for assessing the market value for compensation. The court found that the consideration price shown in the exemplar deed was higher than the actual prevailing market rates, as evidenced by the five additional sale deeds executed in favor of Eastern Coalfields Limited (ECL) that SAIL sought to produce as evidence. The court allowed SAIL's applications to produce the five ECL deeds as additional evidence, as they were more reliable indicators of the correct market value. The court set aside the enhancement awards in all the appeals and remanded the matters to the Referral Court to re-hear the references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, taking into consideration the set forth market values in the ECL deeds. The court directed the Referral Court to complete the re-hearing within one year.

JUSTICE PRASENJIT BISWAS

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal, setting aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the seized coal was stolen property, as the prosecution witnesses admitted that there was no complaint about the coal being stolen and no allegations from any authority regarding theft of coal. The court ruled that to establish an offense under Section 414 IPC, the prosecution has to prove that the property recovered is stolen property and the accused provided help in its concealment and disposal, which was not the case here. The judgment set aside the impugned order of conviction passed by the trial court.

JUSTICE BIBHAS RANJAN DE

The High Court held that the charges under Section 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners were not valid. The court examined the key ingredients required to establish an offence under Section 420 IPC, namely "inducement" and "delivery of property", and found that the facts of the case did not prima facie satisfy these elements. Accordingly, the court quashed the impugned proceedings, concluding that the continuation of the case would amount to an abuse of the court's process.

JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK, JUSTICE MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI

The High Court held the contemnors - Samir Das, Krishna Ghosh, Narottam Ghosh, Biswajit Biswas, Supriyo Banerjee, Tapas Biswas, and Manoj Saha - guilty of contempt of court for their misbehavior and disruption of court proceedings in the Additional District Judge's court on April 5, 2024. The contemnors acknowledged the incidents but sought to justify them as emotional outbursts, and tendered unconditional apologies. One contemnor, Biswajit Biswas, was also suspended from practicing law for 6 months by the State Bar Council for the same incident. While the High Court found the contemnors guilty of contempt, it refrained from imposing any punishment or fine, given the lack of prior antecedents. However, the Court put the contemnors on notice that their conduct would be taken into account if they were found guilty of contempt in any subsequent proceedings.