(A) Contempt of Courts Act (70 of 1971), S. 2 (c) - Criminal contempt - Slandering judicialry - Denial to accept unconditonal apology - Appellant-contemnor issued a contemptuous circular titled 'How Democracy is being crushed by Judicial System' - High Court imposed sentenced her to one week of simple imprisonment and a fine for issuing such "contemptuous circular" - Appellant had tendered unconditional and unqualified apology in her reply-affidavit filed promptly after receiving the show-cause notice - Circular issud by appellant satisfied essential ingredients of criminal contempt - Rejection of apology was based on observation by High Court that remorse of appellant was merely perfunctory and not genuine - Court has ample power to remit punishment if satisfied that apology offered was bona fide - High Court however failed to exercise its contempt jurisdiction with due circumspection and ought to have considered remitting sentence once appellant expressed sincere and unconditional remorse at earliest opportunity - Appellant-contemnor had, from the very outset, expressed genuine remorse - Sentence was remitted. (Para 8, 8.1, 8.4, 9, 9.2, 9.4, 9.5, 9.6)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S. 482 - Quashing of FIR - Prima facie case - Offences of corruption, forgery and racial abuse - Allegation that accused-Officer conspired with co-accused to interfere with possession of land owned by informant, which they attempted by fabricating documents and informant was also abused using caste name - Accused had validly acquired land through a sale deed in 2020 - This was followed by a confirmation of title for predecessors of his vendor by Deputy Collector in 2012 - FIR was lodged simultaneously with a civil suit, but allegations in the FIR were unbelievable and contradictory to plaint - Offences of racial abuse was not made out, as there was no allegation of wrongful dispossession or alleged casteist slur occurred within public view - FIR was a clear abuse of the process of law given significant contradictions with concurrently filed civil suit and existing sale deed - FIR was quashed (Para 6 to 10)

(A) Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules (1972), R.36, R.26, R.48 - Constitution of India, Art.309 - Denial of pension - Forfeiture of service on resignation - Effect of - Employee was appointed as conductor in Trasnport Corporation - R.48 provides for about eligibility or grant of pension on completion of 30 years of qualifying service - Deceased employee had not completed 30 years of service but certainly had more than 20 years service to his credit - Admittedly employee resigned from service on 07.08.2014, which was accepted by competent authority on 19.09.2014 - Withdrawal of resignation after acceptance was declined by competent authority on 28.04.2015 - It was clear that employee had resigned from service and his withdrawal from resignation was not accepted - R.26 stipulates resignation from service entails forfeiture of past service - On resignation by employee, past services of employee stood forfeited - Denial of pension was justified. (Para 9.1, 9.3, 10.2)

(B) Payment of Gratuity Act (39 of 1972), S.4, S.5 - Gratuity and leave encashment - Denial of - Employee who was working as conductor claimed for release of his retiral benefits such as gratuity and leave encashment - Transport Corporation rejected employees claim on ground that he had resigned from service - S.4 provides that even in case of retirement or resignation from service, employee who had rendered not less than five years of service will be entitled to payment of gratuity - Deceased employee had completed more than 20 years of service - Undisputedly, no notification was issued by appropriate government exempting Transport Corporation from application of 1972 Act - Once it could not be established by corporation that 1972 Act does not apply to Corporation, claim of employee for release of gratuity cannot be denied even if he had resigned from service - Hence, LRs of deceased employee were entitled to receive gratuity in terms of provisions of 1972 Act for service rendered as well as amount towards leave encashment of deceased employee. (Para 9.2, 9.3, 10.1, 10.2, 12)

(A) Jharkhand Self-Supporting Cooperative Societies Act (2 of 1997), S.5(7) - Stamp Act (2 of 1899), S.9A (Bihar amendment) - Registration of document - Exemption from stamp duty - Additional recommendation of Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Society as pre-condition - Legality of administrative direction - Appellant, a co-operative society registered under S.5 acquiring status of body corporate, challenged memo issued by Secretary of Department of Registration mandating additional recommendation of Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society of the existence of a Cooperative Society, as a pre-condition for registration of a document on ground of being arbitrary and unreasonable - As per S.5, certificate of registration obtained by any registered cooperative society in Jharkhand is conclusive evidence of its existence - State and its instrumentalities are bound by certificate of registration issued under S.5 and no further question should arise about existence or authenticity of cooperative society - In lieu of certificate granted by Registrar of Cooperative Society, further requirement of recommendation by Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society was superfluous, unnecessary and irrelevant consideration leading to illegality in action - Requirement was further disruptive of ease of transaction, without any value addition to integrity of transaction - Also, such condition was clearly superfluous and in fact, unnecessary - Thus, memo issued by Principal Secretary was set aside on ground of illegality. (Para 12, 13, 14, 15)

(A) Hindu Marriage Act (25 of 1955), S. 13(1)(ia) - Decree of divorce - Grant of - Parties were residing separately for more than 13 years and no substantial or meaningful effort was made in restoring their matrimonial relationship - It was evident from material on record that relationship had become deeply embittered and acrimonious over years - They had a 17 year old daughter whose well-being, care, and future stability must remain paramount - There was no purpose in perpetuating a legal bond that had long ceased to have any substance - Continuing marital tie would serve neither spouses nor their child - Rather, it would only prolong hostility and impede their ability to move forward with dignity - Marriage had broken down beyond repair, and that dissolution was in interest of justice and in welfare of all concerned - Decree of divorce granted by High Court was upheld. (Para 4, 6, 7, 13)

(B) Hindu Marriage Act (25 of 1955), S. 25 - Permanent alimony - Enhancement of - Decree of divorce - Respondent husband was a serving Judicial Officer holding a responsible public position and was, therefore, under a heightened obligation to ensure fair, adequate, and dignified financial security for his wife and daughter - Appellant wife, who was presently not engaged in legal practice, was entitled to maintain a standard of living broadly commensurate with what she enjoyed during subsistence of marriage - Child, now 17 years of age and soon to pursue higher education, would also require continued financial support and stability - Considering income, status, and future prospects of husband, and to ensure that wife was placed in a position of reasonable financial independence, amount of permanent alimony of Rs.30,00,000/- as awarded by High Court was enhanced to Rs.50,00,000/-, which shall be paid by husband to wife - Order of High Court giving directions relating to permanent alimony was modified. (Para 8, 9, 13)