Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- All the claimants are major by age; having lived a considerable number of years of social life -- Petition allowed, order passed by the Court below; to the extent it has retained the 50% of the amount in the fixed deposits set aside, amount ordered to be released.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.07.2021

Police protection – Run-away marriage – Though the petitioners are shown to be 26 years and 25 years of age respectively, however, there is no firm proof of age of either of the petitioners other than their Aadhar Cards, which is actually no proof -- However, since protection of life and liberty is a fundamental right, petition disposed of with a direction to respondents no.2 and 3, to ensure that the lives and liberty of the petitioners are not put to any harm or threat.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.07.2021

Owner of -- In the land falling in abadi of the village, the person in possession is presumed to be owner unless proved otherwise.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.03.2020

Arbitration matter -- Attachment before judgment – Section 9 of the Arbitration Act confers wide power on the Court to pass orders securing the amount in dispute in arbitration, whether before the commencement of the arbitral proceedings, during the arbitral proceedings or at any time after making of the arbitral award, but before its enforcement in accordance with Section 36 of the Arbitration Act – Court exercising power u/s 9 of the Arbitration Act should not withhold relief on the mere technicality of absence of averments, incorporating the grounds for attachment before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 of the CPC.

(SC) Decided on : 14.09.2022

Accident within 30 days – Driving licence of driver held to be valid valid on the date of accident.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.11.2015

Claim petition at Gurugram -- Territorial jurisdiction for claiming compensation for motor accident is not tagged to any particular place.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.09.2021

Personal accident claim – Whether the insurance company is liable to pay any compensation to claimant who is neither the registered owner nor covered under any insurance policy – Payment on account of personal accident claim can be given to the person duly covered under the insurance policy and not to anybody else including brother of the person covered under such a policy -- Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.03.2015

Third party policy – No fault liability -- Deceased was borrower of the motorcycle, therefore, he stepped into shoes of the owner and cannot be treated as third party -- Claimants are not entitled to the compensation u/s 163-A of the M.V. Act, though the claimants are entitled to compensation for 'no fault liability' u/s 140 of the M.V. Act – Rs. 50,000/- awarded for ‘no fault liability’.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.03.2015

Obligation of Financer -- Borrower had the initial obligation to insure the vehicle, but without insurance he plied the vehicle on the road and the accident took place – Person in possession of the vehicle under the hypothecation agreement has been treated as the owner -- High Court has erroneously opined that the financer had the responsibility to get the vehicle insured, if the borrower failed to insure it. Liability could not have mulcted on the financer.

(SC) Decided on: 01.12.2014

Driving licence of driver was held to be valid on the date of accident.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.11.2015

Objections invited from land-owners before notification u/s 15(1) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 -- Enquiry conducted as required u/s 15(2) and after considering the objections and having been satisfied that the land is required for the purpose of Highways Department, the notification u/s 15(1) of the Act, 2001 issued – High Court was right in observing that there is a substantial compliance of Section 15 of the Act, 2001 read with Rule 5 of the Rules, 2003 -- Non-filing of a statement by way of answer to the objections by the Highways Department and/or non-furnishing the copy of the same to the original land owners shall not vitiate the entire process of acquisition process and/or the notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act, 2001 -- Acquisition, upheld.

(SC) Decided on : 02.09.2022

Assessment of market value of land – Reliance upon Market value of land subsequent to notification – Held, though appreciation in price can be presumed, but the market value cannot be assessed by applying suitable deduction in the market value of the land acquired by a subsequent notification.

(SC) Decided on: 05.05.2022

Major chunk of the land released -- Petitioners case is not different from those land owners whose land already stood released -- Denying to the prayer of the petitioners in not releasing their land would be a travesty of justice. Petitions allowed.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 17.03.2021 Decided on: 09.04.2021

Auction sale -- Setting aside of – Compensation assessed by Reference Court not paid – In Execution, Trust not appeared despite service of notice – Ex-parte warrant for sale of attached property issued and property sold to auction purchaser – No material irregularity or fraud causing substantial injury to Trust established – Though the right in property is not a fundamental right, it is still a constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India -- A person can be deprived of the rights of the property only in a manner known to law -- Acquisition proceedings in respect of the land in question sought to deprive the owners of their land which had to be paid for in terms of the provisions of the LA Act -- Executing Court’s order affirmed, with cost of Rs. 1 lac.

(SC) Decided on : 02.09.2022

Apportionment of compensation on the basis of agreement to sell – Right of -- Section 3(H)(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956, enables any person interested in the compensation, to file an application to the competent authority with a request to forward the dispute with regard to entitlement or apportionment to the Principal Civil Court -- Petitioners may apply to the competent authority under Section 3(H)(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956 -- Revision disposed of.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.06.2022

Eminent Domain -- Solatium amount is paid on account of compulsory acquisition of the land -- Such power of the government is in accordance with the doctrine of 'Eminent Domain' -- This compensation is paid by the government for involuntary taking over the land of an owner.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.08.2021

Statutory benefits – Interest thereupon -- Arbitrator can proceed to decide the entitlement with regard to statutory benefits, however, in any other eventuality, where the land owners do not dispute the correctness of the market value determined by the competent authority under sub section 1 or 2 of Section 3G of the 1956 Act, then, they cannot be forced to apply for appointment of Arbitrator only for the purpose of payment of the amount of statutory benefits -- Writ allowed, respondents directed to pay solatium amount equivalent to one hundred percent of the compensation amount determined by the competent authority under sub section (1) and (2) of Section 3G of the 1956 Act after adjusting the amount already paid -- Respondents shall also pay the amount with interest in accordance with Section 80 of the 2013 Act within two months.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.08.2021

Award by Arbitrator – Writ jurisdiction -- Objections to the award of the Arbitrator are maintainable before the District Court – Court did not find it appropriate to exercise its writ jurisdiction.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.07.2021

Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Merely acquittal would not absolve the insurance company of its responsibility to pay the amount of compensation.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.09.2021

Agreement to sell -- Trial Court dismissed the application, observing that since defendant No.1 has not admitted entering into any transaction with the plaintiff and defendant No.2 has also alleged that the agreement to sell and receipt set up by the plaintiff are forged and fabricated documents, the plaintiff had failed to prove prima facie case in her favour and balance of convenience also does not in her favour and she would also not suffer any irreparable loss if the injunction is not granted – Plaintiff’s appeal dismissed – Revision disposed of with observation that if on conclusion of trial, the plaintiff is able to prove her case then in terms of Section 144 CPC, she would be able to get possession of the plot in question after removal of construction, if any, raised by defendant No.2 and if the plot is sold further, that would be hit by principle of lis pendens and therefore, no necessity of grant of any ad-interim injunction to the plaintiff is there.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.10.2021

Suit for compensation/ damages for malicious prosecution – Trial Court directed the plaintiff-petitioner to affix ad valorem court fee on an amount of Rs.20 lakhs – Held, at the initial stage, in a suit for malicious prosecution, there cannot be any valuation in sure and certain terms and, hence, the Court is left with no other option at this stage but to accept the valuation offered by the plaintiff-petitioner -- Impugned order set aside, tentative court fee affixed by the plaintiff-petitioner shall be accepted by the Court and the Court shall proceed further with the suit in accordance with the law.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.05.2022

Rejection of plaint – Plaintiff has claimed a definite amount of Rs.6,35,00,000/- -- Suit is for recovery although, styled as suit for mandatory injunction -- Ad valorem court fee is payable according to the amount claimed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.05.2021

Allowing of the application for leading evidence filed by the respondents by the learned trial Court will delay the finalization of the proceedings, but delay cannot have precedence over substantial justice to be done to the parties to the litigation – Petitioners held entitled for costs of Rs.15,000/- instead of Rs.2,000/- as respondent/ plaintiff conceded to enhance the cost.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.03.2021

Judgment of earlier litigation – Contention of Plaintiff that the application was wrongly allowed which was for placing a judgement of the High Court on record arose out of the judgment in O.S. No.22 of 1970, which was not a part of the record in the Civil Court – Held no prejudice is caused to the Plaintiff by the judgment being permitted to be adduced as additional evidence in the appeal -- Appeal dismissed.

(SC) Decided on: 01.09.2021

Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Only reason pleaded in the application is that the award would cause wrongful loss to the appellant/insurance company -- Reason does not fulfill the requirements of Order XLI Rule 27 CPC.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.07.2021

Defendants carrying out construction in full swing -- In case the pending application is decided against them, they shall be equally responsible to remove the construction, at their own cost and risk, subject of course to the final outcome of the civil suit.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 31.03.2021

Relief inspite dismissal of suit -- A decision based on adjustment of equities between the parties will be far more beneficial than rendering a decision based on inferences drawn on contested facts and pure legalities -- Orders passed by the Trial Court, High Court as well as Supreme Court to keep aside eight acres of land was only to secure the probable share of the Appellants, in the event they succeeded -- Though, the Appellants have lost in the suit as well as in the appeal, a direction can be given for granting a portion of the said land to the Appellants so that their claim to some extent stands satisfied. – Both contesting the case for more than two decades -- Such an order could build and revive the relationship between the close members of the family -- Appellants held entitled to three acres, out of the eight acres of land set aside under the orders passed by the Trial Court, the High Court and also by Supreme Court.

(SC) Decided on : 23.09.2022

Withdrawal of admission -- Merely because the trial Court has not proceeded to pass any order or give any judgment having regard to the admission made, it affords no right to the party concerned to withdraw the admission.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 31.10.2022

Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Failure to re-examine medically – High Court directed re-examination to know physical condition as on date -- Medical condition on the date of accident remains undisputed and was assessed to have suffered 9% disability qua whole body -- There is no challenge to this finding by the respondents -- If the claimant failed to get himself re-examined, no adverse inference can be drawn against him.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.11.2022

Burdon of proof -- If the owner-cum-driver of the car were setting up a defence plea that the accident was a result of not his but the other vehicle driver’s carelessness or rashness, then the onus was on him to step into the witness box and explain as to how the accident had taken place -- Fact that he chose not to depose in support of what he has pleaded in his written statement, further suggests that he was himself at fault.

(SC) Decided on: 08.12.2020

FIR author not examined – Non-reporting of accident to police by eye-witness -- Eye witness (AW-3) accompanied deceased to hospital in his car -- It is quite natural that such a person who had accompanied the injured to the hospital for immediate medical aid, could not have simultaneously gone to the police station to lodge the FIR -- High Court ought not to have drawn any adverse inference against the witness for his failure to report the matter to Police.

(SC) Decided on: 08.12.2020

License of driver – According to the owner the licence had been renewed but the endorsement is not signed by any officer -- There is no explanation why the licence was not taken back to the authorities for their signatures -- The official who had come from the Licensing Authority had stated that there was no record of renewal pertaining to this licence -- Driver-owner failed to step into the witness box and an adverse inference should be drawn against them.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.07.2017

Co-sharer’s possession – Possession of one co-sharer is deemed to be possession of all, unless and until the said co-sharer can establish exclusive possession with the intention to oust the right of the other co-sharer.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.08.2021

Ad-interim injunction – Trial Court dismissed the application, observing that since defendant No.1 has not admitted entering into any transaction with the plaintiff and defendant No.2 has also alleged that the agreement to sell and receipt set up by the plaintiff are forged and fabricated documents, the plaintiff had failed to prove prima facie case in her favour and balance of convenience also does not in her favour and she would also not suffer any irreparable loss if the injunction is not granted – Plaintiff’s appeal dismissed – Revision disposed of with observation that if on conclusion of trial, the plaintiff is able to prove her case then in terms of Section 144 CPC, she would be able to get possession of the plot in question after removal of construction, if any, raised by defendant No.2 and if the plot is sold further, that would be hit by principle of lis pendens and therefore, no necessity of grant of any ad-interim injunction to the plaintiff is there.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.10.2021

Property already mortgage with bank – Criminal proceedings initiated – Effect on civil rights -- Merely because the plaintiff had also preferred criminal proceedings would not be a ground to deny the benefit of the decree to him – Appellant/accused acquitted by giving benefit of doubt in criminal proceedings – Suit decreed by civil court, upheld.

(P&H HC) Reserved on: 17.03.2021 Pronounced on: 23.04.2021

Wife of the appellant opposed the agreement by approaching the police -- Appellant himself applied for NOC to sell the property -- These factors would go on to show that the agreement had been entered into for the sale of the said property -- Almost 1/3rd of the amount had been received in advance and therefore, it would not lie in the mouth of the appellant to contend that the same had not been executed by him willingly

(P&H HC) Reserved on: 17.03.2021 Pronounced on: 23.04.2021

Mahatma Gandhi Rural Development Scheme -- Petition disposed of by directing Deputy Commissioner, to consider and take a decision on the representation within a period of two months -- In case, the claim of the petitioners is accepted, the consequential allotment and possession of the plots be handed over to them within a further period of six weeks.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.07.2021

Petitioner stated to have made various representations -- Respondent No.3 is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner by passing a speaking order within a period of two weeks.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 20.07.2021

Notice u/s 13(2) Notice of SARFAESI Act – Writ jurisdiction -- Limitation -- Insurance claim wrongly transferred by Bank – Default due to wrong Act of Bank -- Plea of -- Held, mainly challenged before the High Court was notice u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition -- Remedy available to the respondents/ loanee was to initiate proceedings u/s 17 of the SARFAESI Act – Respondents relegated to avail the alternative statutory remedy by way of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act – When such proceedings are initiated, the same be considered in accordance with law and on its own merits including the case on behalf of the original writ petitioners that nothing was due and payable, if the amount received as insurance claim would not have transferred to the Working Capital Account -- Appeal allowed to the aforesaid extent -- If such proceedings are initiated within a period of four weeks, the same be dealt with without raising the dispute with respect to limitation, however, subject to compliance of other requirements under the Act.

(SC) Decided on : 12.09.2022

Error had crept in due to inadvertence of the trial court, for no fault of the decree-holder -- From the record, it is clear that the LRs were brought on record of the case by the trial court and the name of GS was deleted from the array of parties, and this fact was missed by the trial court while passing the decree -- In the circumstances, the order of the Executing Court is sustained in the interest of justice.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.01.2020

Order II Rule 2 CPC operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for application thereof are satisfied and the field of amendment of pleadings falls far beyond its purview -- Plea of amendment being barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC is, thus, misconceived and hence negatived.

(SC) Decided on : 01.09.2022

All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side -- This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word “shall”, in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.

(SC) Decided on : 01.09.2022

Prayer for amendment is to be allowed: (i) if the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties, and (ii) to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided (a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side, (b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side and (c) the amendment does not raise a time barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations).

(SC) Decided on : 01.09.2022

Prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless; (i) by the amendment, a time barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration, (ii) the amendment changes the nature of the suit, (iii) he prayer for amendment is malafide, or (iv) by the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence.

(SC) Decided on : 01.09.2022

In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hypertechnical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs.

(SC) Decided on : 01.09.2022

Where the amendment would enable the court to pin-pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed. -- Where the amendment merely sought to introduce an additional or a new approach without introducing a time barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation. -- Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint. -- Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision.

(SC) Decided on : 01.09.2022

Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed -- Where, however, the amendment sought is only with respect to the relief in the plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is required to be allowed.

(SC) Decided on : 01.09.2022

Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court is required to be liberal in its approach -- The court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment -- As such, where the amendment does not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite party of an advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be allowed -- Equally, where the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between the parties, the amendment should be allowed.

(SC) Decided on : 01.09.2022

Subsequent purchaser as party-defendant – Suit for specific performance – By amendment plaintiff only seeks to introduce the subsequent events relating to the alienation of the suit property -- Application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.07.2022

Application moved by the plaintiffs for amendment does not relate to pleading of a material fact, rather talks of an admission by defendant -- At the most, the plaintiffs may come up with a plea of estoppel, however, under the circumstances, the amendment of the plaint is not found to be necessary for just decision of the case.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 31.08.2021

Suit challenging gift deed – Defendant executed lease deed – Trial Court dismissed application -- Held, any transaction with respect to the suit property during the pendency of the suit is governed by the principle of lis pendens -- Trial has already made substantial progress -- No ground to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.08.2021

Application dismissed – Observations of – Effect of -- It is well settled that observations made while deciding applications are never binding while finally deciding the suit.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.04.2021

Refund of earnest money -- Suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell -- Suit was at the stage of examination of defendant witnesses -- Trial Court allowed plaintiff to amend the plaint – Court do not find any manifest illegality in the order of the trial Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 20.02.2020

In the absence of any prejudice being pleaded or argued/ proved before High Court, the allowing of amendment of the prayer clause by the trial Court cannot be treated as arbitrary or beyond jurisdiction.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.08.2021

Denovo trail -- Not only is the date of payment, but also the name of the person to whom the payment is stated to have been paid, is sought to be changed -- Amendment sought would not only cause prejudice to the plaintiff-respondent but would also necessarily entail a de novo trial, which is at the fag end – Trial Court dismissed the application -- Revision against dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.03.2021

Amendment sought is only explanatory -- As per the provisions of Order VI Rule 2 CPC, the pleading has to be based upon the facts in concise manner -- Amendment of pleadings for the purpose of explanation cannot be allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.02.2021

Liability of Electricity Supplier – When an incident of this nature is involved, inference can surely be drawn that there has been an element of carelessness on the part of the Electricity Board in maintaining the supply line – Facts of the case lead to application of principle of “strict liability” -- Respondent-Nigam held liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

(P&H HC) Reserved on: 16.05.2022 Decided on: 20.05.2022

100% permanent physical impairment – Civil writ petition for compensation to victim -- Keeping in view the principles laid down for awarding compensation in Naval Kumar’s case (2017) 3 SCC 115, Rs.95 lakhs awarded to the petitioner with interest payable @7% per annum from the date of filing of the writ petition as compensation -- Amount enhanced considering the fact that 5 years have elapsed since the amount was awarded by the Supreme Court in almost similar circumstances and taking into account the cost of inflation, stated to be almost 15% as on date.

(P&H HC) Reserved on: 16.05.2022 Decided on: 20.05.2022

Hindu law -- Both the Courts below concurrently held that there is no evidence on record to establish ancestor property – Pedigree table in itself is no evidence of ancestry, nor can it be the basis to decide ancestral nature of property which can only be established by independent proof including the revenue records/ jamabandis -- It has to be proved beyond doubt that the property was undivided property of a Hindu family of four generations -- There is no such evidence on record -- No ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below on this issue.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.11.2022

Self-acquired property – It is well settled that unless the plaintiff proves and separately identifies the ancestral property, the entire property shall be construed to be self-acquired.

(P&H HC) Date of decision:28.07.2022 Reserved on: 20.07.2022

Maintainability of -- Dismissal of application for condonation of delay – Appeal u/s 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration Act, 1996 would be maintainable against an order refusing to condone delay in filing an application u/s 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 to set aside an award.

(SC) Decided on: 11.02.2021

Appellants not party to consent – Consent orders would consequently not have a binding effect on the Appellants -- Their rights could be examined independently in the substantive suit filed at their instance.

(SC) Decided on: 01.03.2021

Maintainability of appeal -- Order XLIII Rule 1A CPC provides that in an appeal against the decree passed in a suit for recording a compromise or refusing to record a compromise, it shall be open to the appellant to contest the decree on the ground that the compromise should or should not have been recorded -- Appeal before the High Court against the judgment and decree was maintainable.

(SC) Decided on: 12.02.2021

Non-decision upon – Writ petition -- Petition disposed of with directions that the stay application be heard and decided on 20.04.2021 by the learned Financial Commissioner -- In case there is any exigency in holding the Court on 20.04.2021, then the order be passed on the said application within a period of one week thereafter.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.03.2021

Execution of order -- Appellate Court specifically observed regarding arguable points involved in appeal – Held, it would be appropriate if the stay application filed by the petitioners is decided by the first Appellate Court on the date fixed or within two weeks thereafter -- Till the decision of the stay application, learned executing Court requested to defer the proceedings for some future date.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.03.2021

Execution of eviction order – Executing Court declined to stay the execution, warrants of possession issued – It is in the interest of justice that the Appellate authority be directed to take a final decision upon the appeal filed by the petitioner; and till then eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question be stayed – Direction issued to Appellate Authority to decide appeal within 3 months, dispossession stayed till the decision of appeal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.03.2021

Petitioner is a senior citizen and in possession of only one room in the family house -- Liberal approach has to be taken, keeping in view the provisions of Order 33 Rule 1 CPC -- Report of the Tehsildar would also go on to show that she does not possess any other immoveable property and therefore, merely because a report has come that the house was newly constructed, it would not imply that the petitioner had sufficient means, as such -- She is drawing Old Age Pension of Rs.2000/- per month would also go on to show the indigence of the petitioner and thus, requiring social security from the State on account of her weak financial position -- Petitioner, thus, does not seem to be of such means whereby she can be held to have the capacity to raise the money to pay the Court fees -- If the same is not permitted, her right to file a first appeal against the suit decreed for recovery would be taken away -- Access to justice cannot be denied to an individual merely because he does not have the means to pay the prescribed fee -- Application under Order 33 CPC allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 22.09.2021

Removal of Illegal occupation – Superintending Engineer dismissed the appeals by only observing that he agrees with the orders passed by the Executive Engineer -- Such an order shows no conscious application of mind and thus, cannot stand judicial scrutiny. Matter remitted back to the Appellate Authority for re-decision thereupon.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.05.2021

Writ jurisdiction -- Acquisition of land under National Highways Act, 1956 – Arbitrator can proceed to decide the entitlement with regard to statutory benefits, however, in any other eventuality, where the land owners do not dispute the correctness of the market value determined by the competent authority under sub section 1 or 2 of Section 3G of the 1956 Act, then, they cannot be forced to apply for appointment of Arbitrator only for the purpose of payment of the amount of statutory benefits -- Writ allowed, respondents directed to pay solatium amount equivalent to one hundred percent of the compensation amount determined by the competent authority under sub section (1) and (2) of Section 3G of the 1956 Act after adjusting the amount already paid -- Respondents shall also pay the amount with interest in accordance with Section 80 of the 2013 Act within two months.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.08.2021

Limitation of 3 years – No provision in Arbitration Act specifying period of limitation for filing an application u/s 11 of the Act -- One would have to take recourse to the Limitation Act, 1963, as per Section 43 of the Arbitration Act and it would be covered by the residual provision Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 -- Section 29A mandates that the arbitral tribunal will conclude the proceedings within a period of 18 months -- In view of the legislative intent, the period of 3 years for filing an application u/s 11 would run contrary to the scheme of the Act -- It would be necessary for Parliament to effect an amendment to Section 11, prescribing a specific period of limitation within which a party may move the court for making an application for appointment of the arbitration under Section 11 of the 1996 Act.

(SC) Decided on: 10.03.2021

Custody of minor child – Section 17 of the Guardian Act as well as Section 13 of the Minority Act leave no manner of doubt that the welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration to be kept in mind by the Court while appointing a guardian.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.03.2021

Appeal and stay application before FC – Non-decision upon – Writ petition disposed of with directions that the stay application be heard and decided on 20.04.2021 by the learned Financial Commissioner -- In case there is any exigency in holding the Court on 20.04.2021, then the order be passed on the said application within a period of one week thereafter.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.03.2021

Gathering evidence -- It is a settled law that in a suit for permanent injunction, the matter pertaining to the possession of the suit property would have to be decided by the Court on the basis of evidence, oral or documentary, which would be led by the parties and not through a Local Commissioner as it would amount to gathering of evidence.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.04.2021

Suit for partition -- Appointment of local commissioner cannot be made to collect the evidence for a party.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.04.2021

Demarcation of property – Opinion on encroachment – Permissibility of -- Local Commissioner should confine himself to only the demarcation of properties according to the revenue records without expressing any opinion on encroachment which is the judicial function to be performed by the trial court on the totality of evidence yet to be adduced by the parties.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.01.2020

Acquisition of land under National Highway Act, 1956 – Section 3(H)(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956, enables any person interested in the compensation, to file an application to the competent authority with a request to forward the dispute with regard to entitlement or apportionment to the Principal Civil Court -- Petitioners may apply to the competent authority under Section 3(H)(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956 -- Revision disposed of.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.06.2022

Existence of – Proof of – So far as section 37(1)(a) is concerned, where a party is referred to arbitration u/s 8, no appeal lies -- Whether the preliminary ground for moving the court u/s 8 is not made out either by not annexing the original arbitration agreement, or a duly certified copy, or on merits, the court finding that prima facie no valid agreement exists, an appeal lies under section 37(1)(a).

(SC) Decided on: 11.02.2021

Section 2(1)(e), 9, 14, 34 – Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (4 of 2016), Section 3, 10, 15, 21 – Arbitration matters in Commercial court -- Whether in exercise of powers u/s 3 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the State Government can confer jurisdiction to hear applications u/s 9, 14 and 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, upon Commercial Courts which are subordinate to the rank of the Principal Civil Judge in the District, contrary to the provisions of Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration Act? – Held, the Act, 2015 is the Act later in time and therefore when the Act, 2015 has been enacted, more particularly Sections 3 & 10, there was already a provision contained in Section 2(1)(e) of the Act, 1996 -- As per settled position of law, it is to be presumed that while enacting the subsequent law, the legislature is conscious of the provisions of the Act prior in time and therefore the later Act shall prevail -- There cannot be two fora with respect to different commercial disputes.

(SC) Decided on: 19.10.2022

Section 9, 36 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 38 Rule 5 -- Securing the amount -- Attachment before judgment – Absence of averment -- Section 9 of the Arbitration Act confers wide power on the Court to pass orders securing the amount in dispute in arbitration, whether before the commencement of the arbitral proceedings, during the arbitral proceedings or at any time after making of the arbitral award, but before its enforcement in accordance with Section 36 of the Arbitration Act –Court exercising power u/s 9 of the Arbitration Act should not withhold relief on the mere technicality of absence of averments, incorporating the grounds for attachment before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 of the CPC.

(SC) Decided on : 14.09.2022

Section 9 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 38 Rule 5 -- Securing the amount – Interim relief -- Attachment before judgment – Proof of actual attempts to deal with, remove or dispose of the property with a view to defeat or delay the realisation of an impending Arbitral Award is not imperative for grant of relief u/s 9 of the Arbitration Act -- A strong possibility of diminution of assets would suffice.

(SC) Decided on : 14.09.2022

Section 9, 37 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 38 Rule 5 -- Securing the amount by interim relief -- Essar House Private directed to deposit an amount of Rs.35.5 crores with the Prothonotary and Senior Master of the High Court or, in the alternative, to furnish bank guarantee of any nationalised bank for the entire amount along with interest thereon – Prima facie, the refundable security deposit is not being released to Arcellor on the purported ground of a convoluted series of internal arrangements between group companies for diversion of the security deposits towards liquidation of alleged dues of Essar Steel to third parties -- No infirmity in the well-reasoned judgment and order of the Division Bench -- Appeals dismissed.

(SC) Decided on : 14.09.2022

Section 31(7)(a)(b) – “unless otherwise agreed by the parties” -- “unless the award otherwise directs” – Post-award interest -- The words, “unless otherwise agreed by the parties” occurs at the beginning of clause (a) qualifying the entire provision -- However, in clause (b), the words, “unless the award otherwise directs” occurs after the words ‘a sum directed to be paid by an arbitral award shall’ and before the words ‘carry interest at the rate of eighteen per cent” -- Thereby, those words only qualify the rate of post-award interest.

(SC) Decided on : 01.09.2022

Section 31(7)(b) – Arbitration award -- Post-award interest – Discretion of Arbitrator -- Clause (b) does not fetter the discretion of the arbitrator to grant post-award interest -- It only contemplates a situation in which the discretion is not exercised by the arbitrator -- Therefore, the observations Hyder Consulting’s case (2013) 2 SCC 719 on the meaning of ‘sum’ will not restrict the discretion of the arbitrator to grant post-award interest -- There is nothing in the provision which restricts the discretion of the arbitrator for the grant of post-award interest which the arbitrator otherwise holds inherent to their authority.

(SC) Decided on : 01.09.2022

Section 31(7)(b) – Arbitration award – Purpose of Post-award interest – Discretion of Arbitrator -- Purpose of granting post-award interest is to ensure that the award-debtor does not delay the payment of the award -- With the proliferation of arbitration, issues involving both high and low financial implications are referred to arbitration -- Arbitrator takes note of various factors such as the financial standing of the award-debtor and the circumstances of the parties in dispute before awarding interest -- Discretion of the arbitrator can only be restricted by an express provision to that effect -- Clause (a) subjects the exercise of discretion by the arbitrator on the grant of pre-award interest to the arbitral award -- However, there is no provision in the Act which restricts the exercise of discretion to grant post-award interest by the arbitrator -- Arbitrator must exercise the discretion in good faith, must take into account relevant and not irrelevant considerations, and must act reasonably and rationally taking cognizance of the surrounding circumstances.

(SC) Decided on : 01.09.2022

Section 31(7)(a)(b) – Arbitration award -- Pre-award interest – Post-award interest – Discretion of Arbitrator -- Section 31(7)(a) confers a wide discretion upon the arbitrator in regard to the grant of pre-award interest -- Arbitrator has the discretion to determine the rate of reasonable interest, the sum on which the interest is to be paid, that is whether on the whole or any part of the principal amount, and the period for which payment of interest is to be made, whether it should be for the whole or any part of the period between the date on which the cause of action arose and the date of the award -- When a discretion has been conferred on the arbitrator in regard to the grant of pre-award interest, it would be against the grain of statutory interpretation to presuppose that the legislative intent was to reduce the discretionary power of the arbitrator for the grant of post-award interest under clause (b) -- Clause (b) only contemplates a situation where the arbitration award is silent on post-award interest, in which event the award-holder is entitled to a post-award interest of eighteen percent.

(SC) Decided on : 01.09.2022

Section 34 -- National Highways Act, 1956 (48 of 1956), Section 3G – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Acquisition of land – Award by Arbitrator – Writ jurisdiction -- Competent authority assessed the amount of compensation, matter referred to arbitrator for re-assessment -- As per sub-section 6 of Section 3G the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 shall apply to every arbitration under the Act -- Objections to the award of the Arbitrator are maintainable before the District Court -- Court did not find it appropriate to exercise its writ jurisdiction.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.07.2021

Section 11 -- Issue of Limitation – Jurisdiction of Arbitration Tribunal -- Issue of limitation, in essence, goes to the maintainability or admissibility of the claim, which is to be decided by the arbitral tribunal as a preliminary issue, or at the final stage after evidence is led by the parties.

(SC) Decided on: 10.03.2021

Section 11 -- Issue of Limitation – Time-barred claim – Power of Court – Scope of -- It is only in the very limited category of cases, where there is not even a vestige of doubt that the claim is ex facie time-barred, or that the dispute is non-arbitrable, that the court may decline to make the reference -- However, if there is even the slightest doubt, the rule is to refer the disputes to arbitration, otherwise it would encroach upon what is essentially a matter to be determined by the tribunal.

(SC) Decided on: 10.03.2021

Section 11 -- Issue of limitation -- Notice invoking arbitration was issued 5 ½ years after rejection of the claims -- Consequently, the notice invoking arbitration is ex facie time barred, and the disputes between the parties cannot be referred to arbitration in the facts of the case -- Application filed u/s 11 dismissed.

(SC) Decided on: 10.03.2021

Section 11 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5-20 -- Arbitration of dispute -- Period of limitation for issuing notice of arbitration would not get extended by mere exchange of letters or mere settlement discussions, where a final bill is rejected by making deductions or otherwise -- Sections 5 to 20 of the Limitation Act do not exclude the time taken on account of settlement discussions -- There must be a clear notice invoking arbitration setting out the “particular dispute” (including claims / amounts) which must be received by the other party within a period of 3 years from the rejection of a final bill, failing which, the time bar would prevail.

(SC) Decided on: 10.03.2021

Section 11 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 43, Article 137 -- Limitation for Arbitration -- Period of limitation for filing an application u/s 11 would be governed by Article 137 of the First Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963 -- Period of limitation will begin to run from the date when there is failure to appoint the arbitrator -- It has been suggested that the Parliament may consider amending Section 11 of the 1996 Act to provide a period of limitation for filing an application under this provision, which is in consonance with the object of expeditious disposal of arbitration proceedings; -- In rare and exceptional cases, where the claims are ex facie time-barred, and it is manifest that there is no subsisting dispute, the Court may refuse to make the reference.

(SC) Decided on: 10.03.2021

Section 11(6A), 16 -- Objection to arbitration -- Preliminary objections – Jurisdiction of – Doctrine of kompetenz-komptenz -- Court is required only to examine the existence of the arbitration agreement -- All other preliminary or threshold issues are left to be decided by the arbitrator u/s 16 -- 2019 Amendment Act has deleted sub-section (6A) in Section 11, however, the same is yet to be notified -- Consequently, sub-section (6A) continues to remain on the statute book, and governs the scope of power under Section 11 for the present.

(SC) Decided on: 10.03.2021

Section 11, 29-A, 43 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 43, Article 137 -- Appointment of Arbitrator -- Limitation of 3 years – No provision in Arbitration Act specifying period of limitation for filing an application u/s 11 of the Act -- One would have to take recourse to the Limitation Act, 1963, as per Section 43 of the Arbitration Act and it would be covered by the residual provision Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 -- Section 29A mandates that the arbitral tribunal will conclude the proceedings within a period of 18 months -- In view of the legislative intent, the period of 3 years for filing an application u/s 11 would run contrary to the scheme of the Act -- It would be necessary for Parliament to effect an amendment to Section 11, prescribing a specific period of limitation within which a party may move the court for making an application for appointment of the arbitration under Section 11 of the 1996 Act.

(SC) Decided on: 10.03.2021

Section 8, 16, 24, 37 – Arbitration agreement – Existence of – Proof of -- So far as section 37(1)(a) is concerned, where a party is referred to arbitration u/s 8, no appeal lies -- This is for the reason that the effect of such order is that the parties must go to arbitration, it being left to the ld. Arbitrator to decide preliminary points u/s 16 of the Act, which then become the subject matter of appeal u/s 37(2)(a) or the subject matter of grounds to set aside u/s 34 an arbitral award ultimately made, depending upon whether the preliminary points are accepted or rejected by the arbitrator -- In either case, i.e. whether the preliminary ground for moving the court u/s 8 is not made out either by not annexing the original arbitration agreement, or a duly certified copy, or on merits, the court finding that prima facie no valid agreement exists, an appeal lies under section 37(1)(a).

(SC) Decided on: 11.02.2021

Section 8, 16, 37(2)(a) -- U/s 37(2)(a), where a preliminary ground of the arbitrator not having the jurisdiction to continue with the proceedings is made out, an appeal lies under the said provision, as such determination is final in nature as it brings the arbitral proceedings to an end -- However, if the converse is held by the learned arbitrator, then as the proceedings before the arbitrator are then to carry on, and the aforesaid decision on the preliminary ground is amenable to challenge u/s 34 after the award is made, no appeal is provided.

(SC) Decided on: 11.02.2021

Section 34 – Limitation -- Condonation of delay beyond 120 days -- Application itself must be within time, and if not within a period of three months, must be accompanied with an application for condonation of delay, provided it is within a further period of 30 days -- Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply -- Any delay beyond 120 days cannot be condoned. Himachal Techno Engineers’s case (2010) 12 SCC 210 relied.

(SC) Decided on: 11.02.2021

Section 34, 27(1)(c) -- Dismissal of application for condonation of delay – Appeal – Maintainability of -- Appeal u/s 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration Act, 1996 would be maintainable against an order refusing to condone delay in filing an application u/s 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 to set aside an award.

(SC) Decided on: 11.02.2021

Pre-award interest – Post-award interest – Discretion of Arbitrator -- Section 31(7)(a) confers a wide discretion upon the arbitrator in regard to the grant of pre-award interest -- When a discretion has been conferred on the arbitrator in regard to the grant of pre-award interest, it would be against the grain of statutory interpretation to presuppose that the legislative intent was to reduce the discretionary power of the arbitrator for the grant of post-award interest under clause (b) -- Clause (b) only contemplates a situation where the arbitration award is silent on post-award interest, in which event the award-holder is entitled to a post-award interest of eighteen percent.

(SC) Decided on : 01.09.2022

Post-award interest – Discretion of Arbitrator -- Clause (b) does not fetter the discretion of the arbitrator to grant post-award interest -- It only contemplates a situation in which the discretion is not exercised by the arbitrator -- Therefore, the observations Hyder Consulting’s case (2013) 2 SCC 719 on the meaning of ‘sum’ will not restrict the discretion of the arbitrator to grant post-award interest -- There is nothing in the provision which restricts the discretion of the arbitrator for the grant of post-award interest which the arbitrator otherwise holds inherent to their authority.

(SC) Decided on : 01.09.2022

Discretion of Arbitrator -- Purpose of granting post-award interest is to ensure that the award-debtor does not delay the payment of the award -- With the proliferation of arbitration, issues involving both high and low financial implications are referred to arbitration -- Arbitrator takes note of various factors such as the financial standing of the award-debtor and the circumstances of the parties in dispute before awarding interest -- Discretion of the arbitrator can only be restricted by an express provision to that effect -- Clause (a) subjects the exercise of discretion by the arbitrator on the grant of pre-award interest to the arbitral award -- However, there is no provision in the Act which restricts the exercise of discretion to grant post-award interest by the arbitrator -- Arbitrator must exercise the discretion in good faith, must take into account relevant and not irrelevant considerations, and must act reasonably and rationally taking cognizance of the surrounding circumstances.

(SC) Decided on : 01.09.2022

The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is the Act later in time and therefore when the Act, 2015 has been enacted, more particularly Sections 3 & 10, there was already a provision contained in Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 -- As per settled position of law, it is to be presumed that while enacting the subsequent law, the legislature is conscious of the provisions of the Act prior in time and therefore the later Act shall prevail -- There cannot be two fora with respect to different commercial disputes.

(SC) Decided on: 19.10.2022

Cheque bounce case -- Award of Lok Adalat in complaint u/s 138 NI Act – Execution of award/ decree – Argument that the JD-respondent ought to be arrested for non-compliance of the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat cannot be accepted in view of the fact that arrest would be a measure of last resort and in the case, some property of the JD-respondent already stands attached and the Executing Court has directed the JD-respondent to file an affidavit stating all the particulars regarding his moveable and immoveable properties.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 21.10.2022 Decided on: 01.11.2022

Jurisdiction of civil court -- Civil Court will have no jurisdiction in respect of matters, which are within the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer u/s 126 of Electricity Act or an appellate authority u/s 127 of the Act or an Adjudicating Officer appointed under the Act – Thus, what is barred is a challenge to an order passed by the Assessing Officer after complying with the safeguards provided therein – Held, if, the statutory safeguards are violated, which also results in violation of the principles of natural justice, the same can always be challenged before the Civil Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.04.2021

Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Income Tax Return -- It is only on the basis of the said ITR that the income of the deceased and the consequent loss of dependency to the claimants, has been assessed by the Tribunal -- If the insurance company had any proof that before this year the deceased, who was self-employed, was not earning this much of money, then the insurance company was free to lead anything in evidence to that effect -- Court did not find any illegality in the findings recorded by the Tribunal; in this regard.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.09.2021

Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Income Tax Return – Non-examination of official of IT Department – Effect of -- Considering the scheme of the Act, which is a beneficial piece of legislation, the income-tax returns produced by the claimants ought not to be rejected merely because they have not been proved by some official from the Income Tax Department unless some serious doubts are raised qua the authenticity of the same.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.05.2022

Reliance upon market value of land subsequent to notification – Held, though appreciation in price can be presumed, but the market value cannot be assessed by applying suitable deduction in the market value of the land acquired by a subsequent notification.

(SC) Decided on: 05.05.2022

Arbitration matter -- Section 9 of the Arbitration Act confers wide power on the Court to pass orders securing the amount in dispute in arbitration, whether before the commencement of the arbitral proceedings, during the arbitral proceedings or at any time after making of the arbitral award, but before its enforcement in accordance with Section 36 of the Arbitration Act – Court exercising power u/s 9 of the Arbitration Act should not withhold relief on the mere technicality of absence of averments, incorporating the grounds for attachment before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 of the CPC.

(SC) Decided on : 14.09.2022

Arbitration matter -- Proof of actual attempts to deal with, remove or dispose of the property with a view to defeat or delay the realisation of an impending Arbitral Award is not imperative for grant of relief u/s 9 of the Arbitration Act -- A strong possibility of diminution of assets would suffice.

(SC) Decided on : 14.09.2022

Cheque bounce case -- Award of Lok Adalat in complaint u/s 138 NI Act – Execution of award/ decree -- Salary of the JD-respondent cannot be attached for a period of more than 24 months where such attachment is made in execution of one and the same decree -- Argument of DH-petitioner that the salary should be continued to be attached cannot be accepted in view of the clear provisions of Section 60(1)(i) of CPC.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 21.10.2022 Decided on: 01.11.2022

Evidence law -- Original attorney -- Plaintiff himself not appeared to testify in support of the plaint – Power of attorney holder/PW-4 failed to produce the original power of attorney on record -- Opportunities afforded, still could not bring the original on record -- It was, therefore, held that photocopy of the power of attorney cannot be read in evidence -- As the plaintiff himself has not deposed in the case, therefore, no exception can be taken to the adverse inference drawn against him on this account.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.11.2022

Non-acceptance of -- Merely on the deposit of the earnest money or 10% of the quoted bid amount, the successful/highest bidder would not be entitled to the issuance of Regular Letter of allotment unless acceptance of the bid -- Petitioner cannot press as a matter of right that he being the highest bidder, was entitled to acceptance of the said bid.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.03.2021

Non-fetching of market value – Rejection of bid – Legality of -- Rejection of the bid, by the competent authority, cannot be said to be without any basis, justification or arbitrary, rather it has acted in the public interest for ensuring that the public property is not sold at lower rates than the market value.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.03.2021

Setting aside of – Acquisition of land by Improvement Trust –Compensation assessed by Reference Court not paid – In Execution, Trust not appeared despite service of notice – Ex-parte warrant for sale of attached property issued and property sold to auction purchaser – No material irregularity or fraud causing substantial injury to Trust established – Though the right in property is not a fundamental right, it is still a constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India -- A person can be deprived of the rights of the property only in a manner known to law -- Acquisition proceedings in respect of the land in question sought to deprive the owners of their land which had to be paid for in terms of the provisions of the LA Act -- Executing Court’s order affirmed, with cost of Rs. 1 lac.

(SC) Decided on : 02.09.2022

Overruling of objection – Non-availing of remedy in time – Effect of -- As per Order XXI Rule 92, where an application is made under Order XXI Rule 89, Order XXI Rule 90 and Order XXI Rule 91 and the same is disallowed, the Court shall make an order confirming the sale and thereafter the sale shall become absolute -- As per Order XXI Rule 94, where a sale of immovable property has become absolute, the Court shall grant a certificate specifying the property sold and the name of the person who at the time of sale is declared to be the purchaser -- Such certificate shall bear the date on which the sale became absolute -- High Court ought not to have thereafter set aside the order dated 03.03.1998 overruling the objections raised by the judgment debtors, which order was not challenged by the judgment debtors before the High Court till the year 2000 – Impugned judgment cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(SC) Decided on: 12.02.2021

Setting aside of -- High Court hold auction purchaser cannot be said to be the bona fide purchaser as he was related to the judgment creditor and that he was a partner of the firm in whose favour the mortgage was executed – However, application for setting aside was not filed on above ground it was submitted on the ground that no proper publication was made to get the adequate market value -- Therefore, the High Court has gone beyond the case of the judgment debtors – Even on merit High Court is not correct in observing that the auction purchaser was not a bona fide purchaser -- Partnership firm was already dissolved much before and thereafter the plaintiff inherited the assets, claims and liabilities of the firm.

(SC) Decided on: 12.02.2021

Setting aside of -- JD did not deposit the amount of Rs.4,50,000/- i.e. sale consideration together with interest in terms of Order XXI Rule 90 CPC -- Not the case of the JD that there was any material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting the sale -- Objection is that the decree was obtained by fraud -- Application submitted by the original judgment debtors under Order XXI Rule 90 was required to be dismissed and was rightly dismissed by the learned Executing Court.

(SC) Decided on: 12.02.2021

Acquisition of land under National Highway Act, 1956 – Writ jurisdiction -- Competent authority assessed the amount of compensation, matter referred to arbitrator for re-assessment -- Objections to the award of the Arbitrator are maintainable before the District Court – Court did not find it appropriate to exercise its writ jurisdiction.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.07.2021

Cheque bounce case -- Execution of award/ decree -- Attachment of salary -- Salary of the JD-respondent cannot be attached for a period of more than 24 months where such attachment is made in execution of one and the same decree -- Argument of DH-petitioner that the salary should be continued to be attached cannot be accepted in view of the clear provisions of Section 60(1)(i) of CPC.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 21.10.2022 Decided on: 01.11.2022

Cheque bounce case -- Execution of award/ decree – Arrest of Judgment Debtor/ JD -- Argument that the JD-respondent ought to be arrested for non-compliance of the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat cannot be accepted in view of the fact that arrest would be a measure of last resort and in the case, some property of the JD-respondent already stands attached and the Executing Court has directed the JD-respondent to file an affidavit stating all the particulars regarding his moveable and immoveable properties.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 21.10.2022 Decided on: 01.11.2022

Cheque bounce case – Impounding of passport – Proclaimed Person – Petitioner appeared before the Judicial Magistrate, she was granted bail and, thus, the proclamation order ceased to be operative -- Said fact was well within the knowledge of respondent-Regional Passport Office -- Fundamental Rights of the petitioner breached -- Hence, the impugned action is highly deprecated -- Petition allowed with a costs of Rs.1.00 lakh to be paid by respondent-RPO to the petitioner -- Respondent-RPO directed to release the passport of the petitioner within 15 days.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.08.2020

Substituted service – Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh added a proviso to O 5 R 20 CPC which enables the Court to direct substituted service in such a manner as the court may deem fit -- Court after examining the various aspects, ordered service of the defendants through local proclamation (by beat of drum) and pasting of notice -- Case of the defendants themselves that they have shifted to Dubai -- Hence, there is sufficient compliance of Order 5 Rule 20 CPC.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.08.2021

Rent laws -- Resjudicata -- Previous petition was for seeking eviction on account of the personal necessity qua the son of the petitioner, whereas in the present petition, which is filed after 07 years, personal necessity is pleaded on account of the fact that the petitioner himself has retired and has already shifted to Mohali for which he requires his house – Petitioner-tenant failed to prove that the present petition is barred by the principle of res judicata -- Eviction order upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.09.2022

Auction sale in execution of consent decree – High Court hold auction purchaser cannot be said to be the bona fide purchaser as he was related to the judgment creditor and that he was a partner of the firm in whose favour the mortgage was executed – However, application for setting aside was not filed on above ground it was submitted on the ground that no proper publication was made to get the adequate market value -- Therefore, the High Court has gone beyond the case of the judgment debtors – Even on merit High Court is not correct in observing that the auction purchaser was not a bona fide purchaser -- Partnership firm was already dissolved much before and thereafter the plaintiff inherited the assets, claims and liabilities of the firm.

(SC) Decided on: 12.02.2021

Driving licence from Nagaland not on smart card – Notification by the State of Nagaland that such like licences would be deemed to be cancelled unless obtained in smart card – Insurance company did not examine any witness from the concerned licensing authority to prove that licence in question was not issued by the said authority – Held, if the driver had not obtained a licence in smart card form and drives a vehicle in the State of Nagaland, he may be challaned for non-possessing of a valid licence in that State but that fact ipso facto does not prove that the driver was not duly licensed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.09.2019

Accident within 30 days of expiry of license – Driving licence of driver was held to be valid on the date of accident.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.11.2015

Invalid driving license – Owner did not raise any contention that he has used due diligence in allowing the driver to drive the vehicle -- Appellant/ Insurance Company was directed to deposit the amount directing that the company may recover the same from respondent Nos.3 (Driver) and 4 (owner) – Executing Court dismissed Execution application being not maintainable, however Insurance Company was given independent right to recover the amount from insured (Owner and Driver) as per award through regular civil suit – High Court affirmed the order – Held, it would be travesty of justice, if the Insurance Company which is directed to pay the amount and then face immense difficulties in executing a decree -- Impugned judgments cannot be sustained -- Appeals are allowed, the executing courts are directed to proceed with the execution and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible.

(SC) Decided on: 04.08.2009

Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Continuation of business -- Argument that the business has continued and the claimants still have income from the business, cannot be accepted to reduce the amount of dependency of claimants.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.11.2015

Constitution of India, Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) -- Protest against CAA -- Shaheen Bagh protest – Blocking of roads – Legality of – Manner in which Administration should act is their responsibility and they should not hide behind the court orders or seek support therefrom for carrying out their administrative functions -- Courts adjudicate the legality of the actions and are not meant to give shoulder to the administration to fire their guns from -- Unfortunately, despite a lapse of a considerable period of time, there was neither any negotiations nor any action by the administration, thus warranting Court intervention -- Occupation of public ways, whether at the site in question or anywhere else for protests is not acceptable and the administration ought to take action to keep the areas clear of encroachments or obstructions -- Protests are subject to the legal position as enunciated above, with some sympathy and dialogue, but are not permitted to get out of hand.

(SC) Decided on: 07.10.2020

Loan transaction – Security cheque – Complaint u/s 138 of N.I. Act, 1881 -- Holder of the cheque/drawee would have the option of initiating the civil proceedings for recovery or the criminal proceedings for punishment in the fact situation, but in any event, it is not for the drawer of the cheque to dictate terms with regard to the nature of litigation.

(SC) Decided on: 28.10.2021

SARFAESI proceedings – Rejection of plaint – Bank’s application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint was allowed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) – Appeal against the said order was allowed by learned Additional District Judge – Where it cannot be disputed that an action under the Securitisation Act is based upon creation of an equitable mortgage jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred – Revision allowed, and impugned order passed by the Additional District Judge set aside, order passed by the trial Court is restored.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.08.2021

SARFAESI proceedings – Rejection of plaint -- Except for a vague assertion that the officials of the Bank are in league with respondent No.2, there is no pleading regarding fraud by the Bank -- Material averments in the plaint do not even remotely suggest as to how the action of the bank is fraudulent or absured or untenable -- Suit is barred u/s 34 of the SARFAESI Act – Order rejecting the plaint affirmed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.05.2021

Rejection of plaint -- Civil suit challenging partition proceedings on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice – Ld. trial Court is correct in observing that proceedings can always be challenged in case violation of principle of natural justice -- Section 158 bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in case a suit is filed for grant of relief, which can be provided by the Revenue Officers under the Act, 1887 – That is not the case in the suit -- Application dismissed by Trail court, order upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 22.02.2021

Amputation of both arms due to electrocution – Liability of Electricity Supplier – When an incident of this nature is involved, inference can surely be drawn that there has been an element of carelessness on the part of the Electricity Board in maintaining the supply line – Facts of the case lead to application of principle of “strict liability” -- Respondent-Nigam held liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

(P&H HC) Reserved on: 16.05.2022 Decided on: 20.05.2022

Amputation of both arms due to electrocution – 100% permanent physical impairment – Keeping in view the principles laid down for awarding compensation in Naval Kumar’s case (2017) 3 SCC 115, Rs.95 lakhs awarded to the petitioner with interest payable @7% per annum from the date of filing of the writ petition as compensation -- Amount enhanced considering the fact that 5 years have elapsed since the amount was awarded by the Supreme Court in almost similar circumstances and taking into account the cost of inflation, stated to be almost 15% as on date.

(P&H HC) Reserved on: 16.05.2022 Decided on: 20.05.2022

Accident at Rajasthan – Territorial jurisdiction for claiming compensation for motor accident is not tagged to any particular place.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.09.2021

Adverse possession -- Possession of one co-sharer is deemed to be possession of all, unless and until the said co-sharer can establish exclusive possession with the intention to oust the right of the other co-sharer -- Appellants has not been able to point out any evidence, which shows ouster – Appeal is without any merit and is dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.08.2021

Section 2(12), Order 20 Rule 12 -- Eviction of lessee -- Mesne profit – High Court has considered the fair rate of return @ 6.5% annually on the amount of Rs. 5.50 crores for which the appellant purchased the property in the year 2008, determining the monthly compensation @ Rs. 2,50,000/- – Aforesaid method cannot be accepted, High Court was required to undertake exercise and to determine the compensation at the same rate at which the landlord would have been able to let out the premises and earn rent if the tenant would have vacated the premises – Matter remitted back to High court.

(SC) Decided on: 09.11.2022

Section 9 -- Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 36, 37 – Injunction simplicitor – Maintainability of -- Ratio of the judgment passed in Anathula Sudhakar’s case, Civil Appeal No.6191 of 2001, dated 25.03.2008 passed by the Supreme Court is that the relief of injunction simplicitor cannot be sought by a person whose title over the property is in dispute -- Plaintiffs’ title over the suit property was not in dispute, though the defendants made a deplorable attempt to dispute the same by concealing relevant facts from the Court – Therefore, the defendants cannot raise any plea based upon the judgment.

(P&H HC) Reserved on 29.10.2022 Decided on: 04.11.2022

Section 24 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 – Transfer of Divorce petition -- Kapurthala to Fazilka -- It is well settled that while considering the transfer of a matrimonial dispute/case, at the instance of the wife, the Court is to consider the family condition of the wife, the custody of the minor child, economic condition of the wife, her physical health and earning capacity of the husband and most important the convenience of the wife i.e. she cannot travel alone without assistance of a male member of her family, connectivity of the place to and from her place of residence as well as bearing of the litigation charges and travelling expenses – Case transferred.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.11.2022

Order 20 Rule 12 – Mesne profit -- There is no provision for assessment of mesne profits in a suit for possession without an enquiry in terms of the Order XX Rule 12 of CPC -- No such enquiry has either been conducted by trial Court – Held, no justification for the lower appellate Court to fix the mesne profits and direct the petitioner to pay the amount along with arrears.

(P&H HC) Reserved on: 14.10.2022 Decided on: 01.11.2022

Order 20 Rule 12 – Mesne profit -- Suit property was never rented out to the petitioner, nor had its rent been assessed -- Therefore, the concept of depriving the landlord of rent during pendency of appeal does not apply -- Respondent cannot claim mesne profits based upon the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd., 2005 (1) RCR (Civil) 212.

(P&H HC) Reserved on: 14.10.2022 Decided on: 01.11.2022

Section 60(1)(i), Order 21 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Award of Lok Adalat in complaint u/s 138 NI Act – Execution of award/ decree -- Attachment of salary -- Salary of the JD-respondent cannot be attached for a period of more than 24 months where such attachment is made in execution of one and the same decree -- Argument of DH-petitioner that the salary should be continued to be attached cannot be accepted in view of the clear provisions of Section 60(1)(i) of CPC.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 21.10.2022 Decided on: 01.11.2022

Section 55 Order 21 Rule 30 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Award of Lok Adalat in complaint u/s 138 NI Act – Execution of award/ decree – Arrest of Judgment Debtor/ JD -- Argument that the JD-respondent ought to be arrested for non-compliance of the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat cannot be accepted in view of the fact that arrest would be a measure of last resort and in the case, some property of the JD-respondent already stands attached and the Executing Court has directed the JD-respondent to file an affidavit stating all the particulars regarding his moveable and immoveable properties.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 21.10.2022 Decided on: 01.11.2022

Order 21 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case -- Award of Lok Adalat in complaint u/s 138 NI Act – Execution of award -- Award passed by the Lok Adalat would be deemed to be a decree of the Civil Court executable by the Civil Court -- There can be no quarrel with the said proposition of law.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 21.10.2022 Decided on: 01.11.2022

Order 12 Rule 6 – Admission by parties – Withdrawal of admission -- Merely because the trial Court has not proceeded to pass any order or give any judgment having regard to the admission made, it affords no right to the party concerned to withdraw the admission -- Provision does not, either explicitly by necessary implication, permit the party making the admission to withdraw the same; it only enables the Court to make an order or give a judgment having regard to it.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 31.10.2022

Order 12 Rule 6 -- Statement of admission -- Withdrawal of statement -- Once a statement has been made on solemn affirmation, it cannot be allowed to be withdrawn.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 31.10.2022

Order 6 Rule 17, Order 14 Rule 5, Order 41 Rule 25 -- East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Additional issue – Disputing Landlord’ ownership -- Rent Controller declined the tenants’ application to raise additional issues disputing ownership of the landlord -- Subsequently, by two orders, the tenants were again not permitted to amend their written statement to dispute the ownership -- Said orders have attained finality – No occasion for the tenants to agitate the issue again before High Court – It is an abuse of the process of law – Orders were passed by the Rent Controller based upon the reasoning given in the orders, declined to frame the Issues -- It cannot by any stretch of imagination, therefore, be said that the Controller has “omitted to frame or try any issue, or to determine any question of fact” -- Therefore, provisions of Order XLI Rule 25 CPC are not applicable – Held, tenants could not invoke by filing the application, beseeching the Appellate Authority to frame additional issues disputing ownership of the landlord and refer the same to the Rent Controller for recording evidence thereupon -- Nor could the tenant file the other application Order XIV Rule 5 CPC for framing of issues -- Revision dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/-.

(P&H HC) Reserved on: 21.10.2022 Decided on: 31.10.2022

Order 7 Rule 11 -- Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (22 of 1984), Section 102, 128 – Jurisdiction of civil Court – Rejection of plaint -- Question of law is whether in view of Section 102 read with Section 128 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred? – Prayer is to grant a decree of mandatory injunction directing defendant No.1 to hand over the complete documents with a consequential relief of declaration that conveyance deed in favour of defendants No.1 to 3 is illegal and liable to be set aside. Though the trial Court allowed the application, however, the lower appellate Court recorded a finding that since in the civil suit, there is pleading of fraud with regard to execution of the conveyance deed, on the basis of certain documents, which were prepared by the defendants in collusion with each other, therefore, the Civil Court will have jurisdiction and the plaint is not liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The lower appellate Court also recorded a finding that Section 102 read with Sections 128 & 130 of the Act deals with reference of the dispute to an Arbitrator and regarding bar of jurisdiction of the Courts, however, nothing is stated under Section 128 of the Act that jurisdiction of the Civil Court will be barred, if a suit is filed on the basis of fraud. At the stage of deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the Court is primarily to see the pleadings in the plaint or the documents attached with the plaint. In the plaint, it is specifically pleaded that conveyance deed has been executed in favour of defendant No.2 by playing fraud -- Therefore, question of law decided in favour of respondent No.1-plaintiff -- No illegality or infirmity with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 20.09.2022

Order 1 Rule 10 – Subsequent purchaser as party-defendant -- Suit for declaration, permanent injunction and recovery of possession -- As per the settled position of law, the plaintiffs are the domius litis -- Unless the court suo motu directs to join any other person not party to the suit for effective decree and/or for proper adjudication as per Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, nobody can be permitted to be impleaded as defendants against the wish of the plaintiffs -- Appeal allowed, Impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and that of the trial Court allowing application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC quashed and set aside.

(SC) Decided on : 16.09.2022

Section 11 – East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Eviction of tenant -- Personal necessity – Resjudicata -- Previous petition was for seeking eviction on account of the personal necessity qua the son of the petitioner, whereas in the present petition, which is filed after 07 years, personal necessity is pleaded on account of the fact that the petitioner himself has retired and has already shifted to Mohali for which he requires his house – Petitioner-tenant failed to prove that the present petition is barred by the principle of res judicata -- Eviction order upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.09.2022

Order 38 Rule 5 -- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 9, 36 – Securing the amount -- Attachment before judgment – Absence of averment -- Section 9 of the Arbitration Act confers wide power on the Court to pass orders securing the amount in dispute in arbitration, whether before the commencement of the arbitral proceedings, during the arbitral proceedings or at any time after making of the arbitral award, but before its enforcement in accordance with Section 36 of the Arbitration Act –Court exercising power u/s 9 of the Arbitration Act should not withhold relief on the mere technicality of absence of averments, incorporating the grounds for attachment before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 of the CPC.

(SC) Decided on : 14.09.2022

Order 38 Rule 5 -- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 9 – Securing the amount – Interim relief -- Attachment before judgment – Proof of actual attempts to deal with, remove or dispose of the property with a view to defeat or delay the realisation of an impending Arbitral Award is not imperative for grant of relief u/s 9 of the Arbitration Act -- A strong possibility of diminution of assets would suffice.

(SC) Decided on : 14.09.2022

Order 38 Rule 5 -- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 9, 37 – Securing the amount by interim relief -- Essar House Private directed to deposit an amount of Rs.35.5 crores with the Prothonotary and Senior Master of the High Court or, in the alternative, to furnish bank guarantee of any nationalised bank for the entire amount along with interest thereon – Prima facie, the refundable security deposit is not being released to Arcellor on the purported ground of a convoluted series of internal arrangements between group companies for diversion of the security deposits towards liquidation of alleged dues of Essar Steel to third parties -- No infirmity in the well-reasoned judgment and order of the Division Bench -- Appeals dismissed.

(SC) Decided on : 14.09.2022

Order VII Rule 11 – Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (54 of 2002), Section 17(4A), 34 -- SARFAAESI proceedings – Lessee rights -- Rejection of plaint – Jurisdiction of civil Court – Once there is a specific amendment enabling the persons claiming tenancy or lease hold rights to file a petition before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the Civil Court has erred in rejecting the application -- Even the period of lease has already expired -- Civil Court directed to return the plaint to the plaintiff with liberty to file a petition before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.09.2022

Order 7 Rule 11 – Special Marriage Act, 1954 (43 of 1954), Section 28, 38 -- Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (32 of 1956), Section 6 -- Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890), Section 25 -- Suit for custody of child -- Rejection of plaint – Consideration of pleading other than plaint – Permissibility of – Previously divorce by mutual consent between the parties – Voluntarily statement of father for giving the custody of the child to the mother -- Though it is well settled principle of law that for the purpose of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the contents of the plaint/petition is to be seen, however it is a case of not deciding the rights of the parents but the custody of minor child, therefore welfare of the child should be the paramount consideration -- Circumstances from the date of birth of the child till date needs to be appreciated -- Respondent-husband has remedy to approach the said Court, which has passed the decree of divorce if any terms and condition were violated -- Petition u/s 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act held not maintainable and rejected, leaving the respondent-husband to avail alternative remedy, in accordance with law -- Application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. allowed.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 01.09.2022 Pronounced on : 06.09.2022

Order 21 Rule 54, 64, 66, 89, 90 -- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 18 – Constitution of India, Article 300A -- Auction sale -- Setting aside of – Acquisition of land by Improvement Trust – Trust failed to pay compensation assessed by Reference Court – In Execution, Trust not appeared despite service of notice – Ex-parte warrant for sale of attached property issued and property sold to auction purchaser – No material irregularity or fraud causing substantial injury to Trust established – Objector neither deposited the decreetal amount nor the amount equal to 5% of the purchase amount for payment to the auction purchaser as is required under Order XXI Rule 89 of the said Code – Though the right in property is not a fundamental right, it is still a constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India -- A person can be deprived of the rights of the property only in a manner known to law -- Acquisition proceedings in respect of the land in question sought to deprive the owners of their land which had to be paid for in terms of the provisions of the LA Act -- Executing Court’s order affirmed, with cost of Rs. 1 lac.

(SC) Decided on : 02.09.2022

Order 6 Rule 17, Order 2 Rule 2 -- Amendment of plaint -- Order II Rule 2 CPC operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for application thereof are satisfied and the field of amendment of pleadings falls far beyond its purview -- Plea of amendment being barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC is, thus, misconceived and hence negatived.

(SC) Decided on : 01.09.2022

Order 6 Rule 17 -- Amendment of plaint -- All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side -- This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word “shall”, in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.

(SC) Decided on : 01.09.2022

Order 6 Rule 17 -- Amendment of plaint -- Prayer for amendment is to be allowed: (i) if the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties, and (ii) to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided (a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side, (b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side and (c) the amendment does not raise a time barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations).

(SC) Decided on : 01.09.2022

Order 6 Rule 17 -- Amendment of plaint -- Prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless; (i) by the amendment, a time barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration, (ii) the amendment changes the nature of the suit, (iii) he prayer for amendment is malafide, or (iv) by the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence.

(SC) Decided on : 01.09.2022

Order 6 Rule 17 -- Amendment of pleadings -- In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hypertechnical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs.

(SC) Decided on : 01.09.2022

Order 6 Rule 17 – Amendment of pleadings -- Where the amendment would enable the court to pin-pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed. -- Where the amendment merely sought to introduce an additional or a new approach without introducing a time barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation. -- Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint. -- Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision.

(SC) Decided on : 01.09.2022

Order 6 Rule 17 – Amendment of plaint -- Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed -- Where, however, the amendment sought is only with respect to the relief in the plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is required to be allowed.

(SC) Decided on : 01.09.2022

Order 6 Rule 17 – Amendment of plaint -- Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court is required to be liberal in its approach -- The court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment -- As such, where the amendment does not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite party of an advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be allowed -- Equally, where the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between the parties, the amendment should be allowed.

(SC) Decided on : 01.09.2022

Order 1 Rule 10, Order 6 Rule 17 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 52 – Suit for specific performance – Subsequent purchaser as party-defendant – Amendment of plaint -- Doctrine of lis pendens – Effect of -- No doubt, by rule of lis pendens, subsequent purchaser is bound by the decree but at the same time, it cannot be said that the presence of the purchaser in the suit proceedings would be improper also – By amendment plaintiff only seeks to introduce the subsequent events relating to the alienation of the suit property -- Application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.07.2022

Order 12 Rule 6 – Object and the purport of Order 12 Rule 6 -- Provision has been brought with intent that if admission of facts raised by one side is admitted by other, and the Court is satisfied to the nature of admission, then the parties are not compelled for full-fledged trial and the judgment and order can be directed without taking any evidence -- Therefore, to save the time and money of the Court and respective parties, the said provision has been brought in the statute.

(SC) Decided on: 06.07.2022

Order 12 Rule 6 – Judgment on admission – Stage of – To pass a judgment on admission, the Court if thinks fit may pass an order at any stage of the suit.

(SC) Decided on: 06.07.2022

Order 12 Rule 6 – Judgment on admission – Discretion of court – Power is discretionary which should be only exercised when specific, clear and categorical admission of facts and documents are on record, otherwise the Court can refuse to invoke the power of Order XII Rule 6 – Power cannot be claimed as a matter of right. S.M. Asif’s case (2015) 9 SCC 287 relied.

(SC) Decided on: 06.07.2022

Section 100 -- Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (16 of 2016), Section 58 – RERA Appeal in High Court – Substantial question of law -- Appeal u/s 58 of the RERA, 2016, is maintainable only on one or more grounds specified in Section 100 of the CPC which provides for the substantial question of law.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 25.05.2022

Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 -- Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 12 -- Ad-interim injunction – Agreement to sell -- Trial Court dismissed the application, observing that since defendant No.1 has not admitted entering into any transaction with the plaintiff and defendant No.2 has also alleged that the agreement to sell and receipt set up by the plaintiff are forged and fabricated documents, the plaintiff had failed to prove prima facie case in her favour and balance of convenience also does not in her favour and she would also not suffer any irreparable loss if the injunction is not granted – Plaintiff’s appeal dismissed – Revision disposed of with observation that if on conclusion of trial, the plaintiff is able to prove her case then in terms of Section 144 CPC, she would be able to get possession of the plot in question after removal of construction, if any, raised by defendant No.2 and if the plot is sold further, that would be hit by principle of lis pendens and therefore, no necessity of grant of any ad-interim injunction to the plaintiff is there.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.10.2021

Order 33 Rule 1 – Order 44 -- Appeals by Indigent Persons -- Petitioner is a senior citizen and in possession of only one room in the family house -- Liberal approach has to be taken, keeping in view the provisions of Order 33 Rule 1 CPC -- Report of the Tehsildar would also go on to show that she does not possess any other immoveable property and therefore, merely because a report has come that the house was newly constructed, it would not imply that the petitioner had sufficient means, as such -- She is drawing Old Age Pension of Rs.2000/- per month would also go on to show the indigence of the petitioner and thus, requiring social security from the State on account of her weak financial position -- Petitioner, thus, does not seem to be of such means whereby she can be held to have the capacity to raise the money to pay the Court fees -- If the same is not permitted, her right to file a first appeal against the suit decreed for recovery would be taken away -- Access to justice cannot be denied to an individual merely because he does not have the means to pay the prescribed fee -- Application under Order 33 CPC allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 22.09.2021

Section 151 -- Inherent power of civil Court – Nature of -- It is a very vast power, which can be exercised by the Court for achieving ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of the Court -- Unnecessary interference in exercise of such power by the trial Court is uncalled for.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.09.2021

Section 151 -- Exhibition of documents – Replacement by original – Permissibility of -- Plaintiff placed on record copy of the sale deed, duly attested by Notary Public, which had been exhibited, though, it was subject to objection with regard to mode of proof and admissibility raised on behalf of the defendant -- Plaintiff sought to place on record the original sale deed and to exhibit it just to remove the technical objection -- Trial Court considering all the aspects of the case, exercising powers u/s 151 CPC had allowed that application -- Such exercise of power by the trial Court can certainly be not termed as arbitrary or perverse, rather, it comes out that such power has been exercised in a judicious manner for proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.09.2021

Order 18 Rule 3 – Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Suit for Permanent injunction – Handwriting and finger print expert in rebuttal evidence – Permissibility of – Defendants denied signatures on documents – Application to examine expert in rebuttal evidence -- Trial Court has rightly observed that the plaintiff had an opportunity to examine hand writing expert while leading evidence in affirmative -- Furthermore he could have called upon the defendants to admit or deny the documents in question which is not said to have been done -- He had an occasion to prove such documents during the course of his evidence -- He could not have possibly presumed that the documents would admit their signatures on family settlement and defendant No. 2 would concede the signatures on demarcation report -- Nature of the suit is one for grant of permanent injunction wherein main thing is to be seen is as to whether the plaintiff is in established possession of a particular piece of land and question of title is not to be decided – Revision dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.09.2021

Order 9 Rule 13 – Ex-parte judgment and decree – Setting aside of – Service through registered post and publication – Value of -- Trial Court while dismissing the application has observed that notice of the suit was sent to respondent as per registered AD post, which was not received back even after 30 days, therefore, presumption of service was drawn but as a matter of extra caution, notice to defendant was ordered to be given by way of publication in the newspaper “The Tribune” -- Publication was effected on 20.02.2010 but the defendant did not appear and was proceeded against ex parte -- Therefore, there was no reason for setting aside of ex parte order and ex parte decree -- Learned Addl. District Judge agreed with learned trial Court – Held, orders passed by the Courts below are quite detailed and well-reasoned, they do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, much less the same being arbitrary or in violation of settled legal position -- No ground to interfere.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.09.2021

Order 41 Rule 27 – Additional evidence at appellate stage – Judgment of earlier litigation – Relevancy of -- Contention of Plaintiff that the application was wrongly allowed which was for placing a judgement of the High Court on record arose out of the judgment in O.S. No.22 of 1970, which was not a part of the record in the Civil Court – Held no prejudice is caused to the Plaintiff by the judgment being permitted to be adduced as additional evidence in the appeal -- High Court thoroughly discussed the entire evidence to come to a conclusion that the Plaintiff has not made out any case for declaration of title over the disputed property in her favour -- Judgement of the learned Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court on appreciation of the evidence, with which we agree. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed.

(SC) Decided on: 01.09.2021

Order 6 Rule 2 – Amendment of plaint -- Application moved by the plaintiffs for amendment does not relate to pleading of a material fact, rather talks of an admission by defendant -- Plaintiffs are required to prove their own case, though, they may seek some help from admission made by one of the defendants but then the Court shall have to see as to under what circumstances, the admission was made, whether it binds the other defendants or not and what weightage is to be given to the same -- At the most, the plaintiffs may come up with a plea of estoppel, however, under the circumstances, the amendment of the plaint is not found to be necessary for just decision of the case.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 31.08.2021

Section 27, Order 5 Rule 20 -- Service through WhatsApp/ E-mail -- Prayer seeking direction to effect service upon the respondents by email and whatsapp – Applicant permitted, would furnish an affidavit to the effect that the email and whatsapp numbers are correct and that email sent has not bounced back as well as to take a screen-shot of the service of the summons through whatsapp upon both the respondents.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.08.2021

Order 9 Rule 8, 9 – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 – Dismissed in default – Restoration of – Delay in application – Trial Court adopted hyper-technical approach while dismissing the applications -- Rules of procedure provisions of law are meant to advance ends of justice -- Courts while dealing with such like matters should endeavour to see that a lis is decided on merits rather than non-suiting a party on technical grounds -- If a litigant is grossly negligent and casual in his approach with regard to the litigation in which he is involved, then he does not deserve any sympathy or leniency for the default committed by him with regard to putting in appearance in the Court -- However, if sufficient reasons are given for non-appearance, then a very rigid and technical view in the matter should not be taken.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.08.2021

Order 9 Rule 8, 9 – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 – Dismissed in default – Restoration of – Delay in application – Plaintiffs are Non-Resident Indians and are of very old age -- They have rendered a plausible and satisfactory explanation for their non representation in the Court, when the case was dismissed for non-prosecution -- Trial Court should have considered the prayer of the plaintiffs to get the suit restored by condoning the delay in filing of the application sympathetically -- Claim ought to be adjudicated on merits rather than being rejected for technical reasons – Revision petition accepted; the impugned order set aside and the case is remanded to the trial Court -- Trial Court may allow the applicants to lead evidence in support of their contentions, if so desired and then after hearing learned counsel for the applicants, a fresh order in accordance with law in the light of observations made in this order be passed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.08.2021

Section 114, Order 47 Rule 1 – Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Review after 56 years 6 days -- One can find no error apparent after 50 years for the Court to exercise the jurisdiction of review – It is an abuse of process of law and complete wastage of judicial time – SLP dismissed with costs of Rs. 5000/-.

(SC) Decided on: 13.08.2021

Section 114, Order 47 Rule 1 – Constitution of India, Article 136 -- SLP against review order – Maintainability of -- SLP would not lie against only a review order.

(SC) Decided on: 13.08.2021

Order 6 Rule 17 -- Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 52 -- Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Suit challenging gift deed – Defendant executed lease deed – Amendment of plaint – Revisional jurisdiction -- Trial Court dismissed application -- Held, any transaction with respect to the suit property during the pendency of the suit is governed by the principle of lis pendens -- Provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC ordinarily prohibits the amendment of the pleadings after the trial has commenced -- Trial has already made substantial progress -- Any transaction between the defendants and third party is not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs, particularly, when these are during the pendency of the suit -- Hence, no ground to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.08.2021

Order 7 Rule 11 – Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (54 of 2002), Section 13(2)(4) -- SARFAESI proceedings – Challenge in civil suit -- Rejection of plaint – Bank’s application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint was allowed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) – Appeal against the said order was allowed by learned Additional District Judge – Where it cannot be disputed that an action under the Securitisation Act is based upon creation of an equitable mortgage jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred – Revision allowed, and impugned order passed by the Additional District Judge set aside, order passed by the trial Court is restored.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.08.2021

Order 5 Rule 20 – Substituted service – Local proclamation – Beat of drum -- Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh added a proviso to O 5 R 20 CPC which enables the Court to direct substituted service in such a manner as the court may deem fit -- Court after examining the various aspects, ordered service of the defendants through local proclamation (by beat of drum) and pasting of notice -- Case of the defendants themselves that they have shifted to Dubai -- Hence, there is sufficient compliance of Order 5 Rule 20 CPC.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.08.2021

Order 6 Rule 17 -- Amendment in the prayer of plaint -- Challenge to the amendment can only be made in case any of the party feels aggrieved on the ground that the said amendment is causing prejudice -- In the absence of any prejudice being pleaded or argued/ proved before High Court, the allowing of amendment of the prayer clause by the trial Court cannot be treated as arbitrary or beyond jurisdiction.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.08.2021

Section 9 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 – Shamilat deh – Writ jurisdiction -- If the proprietors claim that the Shamilat land has never been reserved/used for common purposes, they can get their title decided from the Civil Court -- Writ petition is not the appropriate remedy. Jai Singh’s case 2003(2) PLR 658 relied.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.08.2021

Section 25 – Transfer petition – Ground of territorial jurisdiction – Scope of -- Suit for infringement of trade mark as also copyright infringement – Court find no scope of going into the question of as to whether the Court in which the suit is instituted has territorial jurisdiction to try and determine the suit or not in a petition for transfer of a suit invoking Section 25 of the CPC -- This point is required to be urged before the Court in which the suit is pending -- Plea of transfer of the said suit declined.

(SC) Decided on: 02.08.2021

Order 8 Rule 10 – Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13 -- Delay in written statement -- Court has the power and jurisdiction to accept written statement beyond the period of 90 days in appropriate cases -- Petition was listed for 23.08.2018 was adjourned on 21.08.2018 for 28.09.2018 as the presiding officer was availing casual leave -- Written statement was clearly ready on the said date -- Landlord has yet to lead evidence – Petitioner/tenant shall suffer irreparable loss and manifest injustice, in case, he is not permitted to file written statement and his defence is struck of -- Written statement of the petitioner should be taken on record.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.07.2021

Section 9 -- Pendency of Suit for 26 years – Early decision of suit -- A suit is pending at the first stage, and the Courts have to decide the appeal and the second appeals which would arise thereafter – Parties will cooperate for an early trial to the suit and the trial court will endeavor to give a quietus to the issues before it preferably in a period of one year.

(SC) Decided on: 22.07.2021

Section 100 -- Recovery suit decreed -- New plea in Second appeal – Permissibility of -- Defendants did not object to the passing of the decree on the ground that no decree could be passed against defendants no.2 and 3, personally -- During hearing of the first appeal, plaintiffs did not object to the decree passed by the learned trial court on this aspect -- It would not be appropriate to permit the appellants to put forth new plea.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 20.07.2021

Section 152, 153 -- Correction in pleadings after judgment – Permissibility of -- Application dismissed on the ground that such amendment cannot be allowed because the entire evidence had been led on the basis of the aforesaid pleadings – Held, once the court comes to a conclusion that the clerical or arithmetic mistake has crept in due to any accidental slip or omission, the same can be permitted to be corrected not only in the pleadings but also in the evidence as well as in the judgment and the decree passed -- Section 153 CPC further enables the court to amend any defect or error in any proceedings in a suit – Held, Ld. trial court was required to record the finding as to whether such error was result of clerical or arithmetic mistake or not – Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the scope of an application filed u/s 152 CPC in a correct perspective – Impugned order set aside with a direction to the learned trial court to re-decide the application in accordance with law.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.07.2021

Order 15 Rule 5 -- Mesne profit – Denial of possession – Stage of – Defendant-petitioner is canvassing that it had already vacated the suit premises and is, therefore, not liable to pay any mesne profits – However, there is no assertion by the defendant-petitioner in it’s written statement that it had handed over possession of the suit premises on such and such date to the plaintiffs-respondents – Nothing on record to show that the defendant-petitioner had handed over possession of the suit premises to the plaintiffs-respondents – Once the defendant-petitioner has not denied in it’s written statement that it is in possession of the suit premises it cannot take a contrary stand merely to avoid paying the mesne profits.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.07.2021

Order 9 Rule 13 -- Ex-parte proceedings – Setting aside of -- Defendant is a private limited company -- On the basis of notice sent through registered cover and report of the postman regarding refusal, the defendant was proceeded ex parte in the suit -- Postman has not been examined in evidence -- Plaintiff knew that the Director of the defendant-Company works in Paras Hospital, Gurugram, however, no effort was made to serve the defendant on that address -- Summons were served at the place of an under construction building -- Plaintiff itself was carrying on with the construction work on the aforesaid building – Ld. trial court allowed application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC -- No ground to interfere with the order.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.07.2021

Order 21 Rule 30 -- Execution of decretal amount -- Simultaneous attachment of property and detention in prison – Power of -- As per the provision of Order 21 Rule 30 CPC, both the procedure with respect to attachment and also detention in prison can be taken against the petitioners/Judgment Debtors either individually or simultaneously -- Even in a situation where the amount is partly recovered by attachment and sale, for the recovery of balance amount in any case, the detention in civil prison can be ordered.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.07.2021

Order 21 Rule 37 -- Execution of decretal amount – Conditional warrant of arrest -- Show cause notice was issued and, the petitioners were both served and petitioner No.1 appeared and sought time to make payment and thereafter, stopped appearing – In case the payment is made as per the calculation sheet, then the Judgment Debtor/petitioner No.2 is not to be arrested and it is only in case the payment is not made that he has to be arrested and produced before the Court -- Thus, the procedure adopted by the Executing Court for the issuance of conditional warrant of arrest is absolutely legal and in accordance with law.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.07.2021

Order 21 Rule 37 -- Execution of decretal amount – Warrant of arrest -- As per the provisions of Order 21 Rule 37 CPC, show cause notice is required to be issued to the Judgment Debtors to show cause why he should not be committed to civil prison -- As per Sub-Clause 2 of Rule 37 of Order 21, it has been stipulated that where appearance is not made in obedience to the notice, the Court shall, if the Decree Holder so requires, issue a warrant for the arrest of the Judgment Debtor.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.07.2021

Order 23 Rule 3 -- Suit for declaration -- Compromise beyond suit property – Permissibility of -- Compromise decree entered into between the parties in respect of land which was not the subject matter of the suit is valid and is thus a legal settlement.

(SC) Decided on: 06.07.2021

Order 41 Rule 27 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Additional evidence -- Only reason pleaded in the application is that the award would cause wrongful loss to the appellant/insurance company -- Reason does not fulfill the requirements of Order XLI Rule 27 CPC.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.07.2021

Order 41 Rule 27 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Insurance company has taken a stand that the claimants in collusion with the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle have filed the claim petition, whereas on the other hand, now the insurance company wants to examine the driver – Ld. Tribunal had given sufficient opportunities to the driver and the owner as well as to the insurance company to lead their evidence but they failed to do so -- Application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC for permission to lead additional evidence dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.07.2021

Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 – Temporary injunction against co-sharer – Exclusive possession – Pleading of – Application dismissed/ Appeal also dismissed – Revision against -- Petitioner nowhere pleaded in his suit that he is in exclusive possession of the suit property – Petitioner/ Plaintiff had relied on electricity bills, photographs of the house, gas connection, pass book etc. -- Respondent-defendants had placed on record electricity bills with payment receipts -- As the exclusive possession of the petitioner had not been pleaded and not been established there appears to be no ground to interfere with the orders of the Courts below -- Interest of the petitioner has been adequately protected by the observation that the defendant-respondents cannot claim any benefit or compensation for any construction made by them during the pendency of the suit and the same would be at their own risk and responsibility -- A suit for partition between the parties is already pending -- Rights and shares would be determined therein -- No merit in the revision.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.06.2021

Order 7 Rule 11 – Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (54 of 2002), Section 13(2)(4) -- SARFAESI proceedings – Civil suit – Maintainability of -- Rejection of plaint -- After the Bank had initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and issued a notice dated 09.08.2019 u/s 13(2) thereof, the petitioner filed the suit on 19.09.2019 wherein besides seeking declaration as to his share and challenging the Will, he has also sought injunction restraining the Bank from selling/auctioning the property -- The facts give a clear impression that the action has been taken by the petitioner with an intention to create a hurdle so that the Bank is not able to recover its dues – 'No Objection Certificate' has been given by him at the time the property was mortgaged with the Bank -- Section 34 of SARFAESI Act bars the jurisdiction of the civil court in respect of any matter which a Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is required to determine by or under the Act -- Except for a vague assertion that the officials of the Bank are in league with respondent No.2, there is no pleading regarding fraud by the Bank -- Material averments in the plaint do not even remotely suggest as to how the action of the bank is fraudulent or absured or untenable -- Suit is barred u/s 34 of the SARFAESI Act – Order rejecting the plaint affirmed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.05.2021

Order 9 Rule 13 -- Ex-parte decree – Setting aside of – Stay of dispossession -- Due to lockdown, the application has been adjourned to 06.07.2021 -- Executing Court has already got registered a sale deed in favour of the respondent and now the efforts are being made to dispossess the petitioner -- Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the dispossession of the petitioner shall remain stayed till next date of hearing i.e 06.07.2021 -- Trial court requested to take up the main application as well as the application for grant of interim on the date already fixed and pass appropriate orders.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.05.2021

Order 7 Rule 11 – Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7 (i) – Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Recovery suit as mandatory injunction – Advalorem court fee – Rejection of plaint – Prayer of -- Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC the court is entitled to carefully examine the contents of the plaint to arrive at a conclusion -- Plaintiff has claimed a definite amount of Rs.6,35,00,000/- -- Suit is for recovery although, styled as suit for mandatory injunction -- Ad valorem court fee is payable according to the amount claimed – Order of lower court, directing to pay the ad-valorem Court fee on the amount claimed -- No ground to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.05.2021

Order 9 Rule 8, 9 -- Wrong noting of date by counsel – Suit dismissed in default – Restoration of -- Serious prejudice would indeed be caused to the petitioner in case the order under challenge is not set-aside -- Respondents will not be prejudiced in case the suit is restored to its original position, as the same is at very preliminary stage, wherein the pleadings are also yet to be completed -- Bona fides of the petitioner are borne out from the fact that he had deposited heavy court fee and had been diligently following up with his counsel -- Default, if any, is attributable to his counsel -- Said default of counsel for the plaintiff/ petitioner has been justified by giving cogent reasons – Without issue notice to the respondents/ defendants, revision allowed -- Civil suit ordered to be restored subject to payment of Rs.25,000/- as costs.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.05.2021

Order 12 Rule 6 -- Oral partition – Admission of -- Legality of -- Parties to the suit implemented the same and are already enjoying their respective separate possession -- It is settled law that admission is the best piece of evidence which can be used against a party and since the plaintiffs have not disputed this fact that the oral partition took place -- Therefore, their claim for partition of suit property is without any merit.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.04.2021

Order 26 Rule 9 – Suit for partition -- Non-appointment of Local Commissioner – Right of – Onus to prove the claim raised in the suit was upon the plaintiffs, who not only failed to lead any evidence on this material issue, but admitted the defence of the defendants – Even otherwise, the appointment of local commissioner cannot be made to collect the evidence for a party.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.04.2021

Order 26 Rule 9 – Suit for permanent injunction – Appointment of Local Commissioner -- It is a settled law that in a suit for permanent injunction, the matter pertaining to the possession of the suit property would have to be decided by the Court on the basis of evidence, oral or documentary, which would be led by the parties and not through a Local Commissioner as it would amount to gathering of evidence.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.04.2021

Order 6 Rule 4 -- Evidence law -- Execution of agreement to sell – Willingness of -- Wife of the appellant opposed the agreement by approaching the police -- Appellant himself applied for NOC to sell the property -- These factors would go on to show that the agreement had been entered into for the sale of the said property -- Almost 1/3rd of the amount had been received in advance and therefore, it would not lie in the mouth of the appellant to contend that the same had not been executed by him willingly.

(P&H HC) Reserved on: 17.03.2021 Pronounced on: 23.04.2021

Order 6 Rule 4 -- Misrepresentation – Undue influence – Proof of – It is settled principle that allegations of misrepresentation or undue influence have to be given in full and precise particulars and then duly proved under Order 6 Rule 4 CPC.

(P&H HC) Reserved on: 17.03.2021 Pronounced on: 23.04.2021

Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 – Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Temporary injunction – Local Commissioner report showing the property measured 48'x74' and not 20'x80' and there was a dispute as such as to which portion of land the petitioner is in possession -- It would be a matter of evidence as to whether the petitioner is in possession of property measuring 20'x80' -- In absence of any material record having been produced before the Courts below the injunction has been declined -- No case as such is made out for interference, revision petition dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.04.2021

Order 8 Rule 10, Section 151 – Written statement not filed within 90 days – Defence struck off – Inherent power of Civil Court -- Trial court allowed the application without recalling the earlier order vide which defence of the defendant was struck off for non-payment of costs of Rs.500/-, as well as, having not filed the written statement within the permissible period of 90 days – Held, Trial court is vested with inherent powers u/s Section 151 CPC to correct any mistake and/or recall its own order in the interest of justice, at a later stage, if the circumstances are made out.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.04.2021

Section 9 -- Electricity Act, 2003 (36 of 2003), Section 126, 127, 135, 145 – Theft of electricity – Assessment of electricity charges – Suit for declaration and injunction -- Maintainability of -- Civil Court will have no jurisdiction in respect of matters, which are within the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer u/s 126 or an appellate authority u/s 127 of the Act or an Adjudicating Officer appointed under the Act – Thus, what is barred is a challenge to an order passed by the Assessing Officer after complying with the safeguards provided therein – Held, if, the statutory safeguards are violated, which also results in violation of the principles of natural justice, the same can always be challenged before the Civil Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.04.2021

Order 6 Rule 17 – Amendment in plaint – Application dismissed – Observations of – Effect of -- It is well settled that observations made while deciding applications are never binding while finally deciding the suit.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.04.2021

Order 7 Rule 1(i), 11 – Objection to drafting of plaint -- Rejection of plaint – Objection that plaint not drafted in accordance with Order 7 Rule 1 (i) – Held, matter can be examined by the court while finally adjudicating the suit.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.04.2021

Order 7 Rule 11 – Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Rejection of plaint -- Objection to proper court fee – Dismissal of application – Appeal/Revision against – Maintainability of -- No further appeal or revision at the hands of the defendants is maintainable.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.04.2021

Order 14 Rule 1 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 68 – Proof of Will – Onus of – Framing of issue – Onus was upon the plaintiff to get the issues framed rightly if he was wanting to set up the plea that the onus of the Will should have been upon the propounder.

(P&H HC) Reserved on: 19.03.2021 Pronounced on: 08.04.2021

Order 21 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Execution of order -- Revisional Court’s power -- Enhancement of compensation by High Court in Appeal was ordered to be invested in a FDR and the interest accruing thereon be paid to the petitioner/ claimant – Ordering any deviation in the mode of investment would tantamount to modification of the judgement – High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot modify the judgement and that too in proceedings arising out of execution of that very judgement.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.04.2021

Order 9 Rule 13, Section 151 -- Ex-parte judgment – Setting aside of -- Summon under NI Act was issued for 01.10.2016 and in the civil suit for appearance of respondent on 19.10.2016 -- Compromise between the daughter of Plaintiff/ petitioner and the respondent/defendant and after receiving the final installment, daughter of petitioner withdrew the complaint on 21.01.2017 -- Whether or not the present transaction was a part of compromise is clearly the subject matter of trial and shall be decided accordingly by the ld. trial Court on the basis of evidence -- Respondent successfully proved that he had sufficient reason for not appearing before the trial Court -- Trail Court has correctly allowed the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and set aside the ex-parte judgment.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.04.2021

Order 7 Rule 11 – Suit for permanent injunction -- Death of sole defendant -- Rejection of plaint -- Suit seeking permanent injunction against sole defendant for restraining him from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff or creating any hindrance or obstruction in the peaceful use and enjoyment for irrigation of the fields of the plaintiff from the tubewell/electric motor connection -- After the death of the sole defendant and the nature of the suit, the same cannot continue -- Application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC allowed -- Plaintiff will be within his jurisdiction to initiate any proceedings against legal representatives of sole defendant in a case aggrieved in any manner.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.04.2021

Section 39 Rule 1 & 2 – Adjourning of ad-interim prayer awaiting written statement – Defendants carrying out construction in full swing -- Challenge in revision -- Petition seems to have been filed prematurely and same is disposed of with an observation that any construction as alleged shall be at their sole risk and responsibility -- In case the pending application is decided against them, they shall be equally responsible to remove the construction, at their own cost and risk, subject of course to the final outcome of the civil suit.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 31.03.2021

Order 6 Rule 17 -- Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Application for amendment of written statement – Dismissal by Trial Court – Revision petition -- It is trite that the Courts are more liberal while allowing the amendment of a written statement viz-a-viz that of a plaint -- However, in the case not only the trial has commenced but the amendment sought by the defendant-petitioner would change the entire defence as raised by the him in his written statement -- Not only is the date of payment, but also the name of the person to whom the payment is stated to have been paid, is sought to be changed -- Amendment sought would not only cause prejudice to the plaintiff-respondent but would also necessarily entail a de novo trial, which is at the fag end -- Revision petition dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.03.2021

Order 21 -- Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Execution petition pending since 2016 – Revision against -- Warrants of possession have been issued on numerous dates but either the same have not been received back or have been returned back unexecuted – Direction given to Executing Court to finally decide the execution petition as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of two months.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.03.2021

Order 21 – Execution of order -- Pendency of Appeal/Stay application – Appellate Court specifically observed regarding arguable points involved in appeal – Held, it would be appropriate if the stay application filed by the petitioners is decided by the first Appellate Court on the date fixed or within two weeks thereafter -- Till the decision of the stay application, learned executing Court requested to defer the proceedings for some future date.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.03.2021

Order 7 Rule 11 -- Rejection of plaint – Pleadings -- For the purpose of decision of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only the pleadings in the plaint are to be seen and not their veracity or the truthfulness; as such.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 22.03.2021

Order 39 Rule 1 & 2, Order 43 Rule 1(r), Section 151 -- Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Dismissal of application u/o 39 R 1 & 2 by trial court -- Revisional jurisdiction – Petitioners have an alternate remedy available to them under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC of filing an appeal against the impugned order -- Revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 CPC is held to be not maintainable and is dismissed as such.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.03.2021

Order 7 Rule 11 – Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Rejection of plaint -- Respondent has unambiguously averred that after sale of the property in his favour he has become landlord and owner and that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties -- Grounds on which the petitioner is seeking rejection of the ejectment petition are a matter of evidence and are not germane for deciding the application filed by him under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC -- Though the property in the sale deed has been described as a house, however, the petitioner is not able to deny the fact that the description of the property is identical in both the sale deed as well as the ejectment petition – Rejection of the plaint at the threshold entails very serious consequences -- This power has to be used in exceptional circumstances and should be used only when the Court is absolutely sure that the plaintiff does not have an arguable case at all -- Application filed by the petitioner does not satisfy the requirements of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Application dismissed by Trial court – Revision against dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.03.2021

Order 7 Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint -- It is well settled that the relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC are the averments in the plaint, only the averments in the plaint are germane -- Where the plaint does not disclose a cause of action, the relief claimed is undervalued and not corrected within the time allowed by the Court, insufficiently stamped and not rectified within the time fixed by the Court, barred by any law, failed to enclose the required copies and the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9, the Court has no other option except to reject the same – It can be exercised by the Trial Court at any stage of the suit -- It is also settled that the averments in the written statement are immaterial and it is the duty of the Court to scrutinize the averments/pleas in the plaint.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.03.2021

Order 21 -- Rent laws -- Execution of eviction order – Appeal/ Stay application pending -- Executing Court declined to stay the execution, warrants of possession issued – It is in the interest of justice that the Appellate authority be directed to take a final decision upon the appeal filed by the petitioner; and till then eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question be stayed – Direction issued to Appellate Authority to decide appeal within 3 months, dispossession stayed till the decision of appeal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.03.2021

Section 24 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 9 – Constitution of India, Article 15(3), 51-A -- Restitution of conjugal rights – Transfer of case -- Complaint is already pending before the crime against women cell, Gurugram, it would be proper, appropriate and in the interest of justice if the same are tried and decided at one place -- Ethos as manifested under Article 51-A of Constitution of India envisage that it shall be fundamental duty of every citizen of India to uphold the dignity of woman -- In addition, per Article 15 (3), power has also been conferred on the State to make special provisions for women and children – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was amended w.e.f. 23.12.2003 that in case of a wife being the petitioner, jurisdiction was conferred to the Court within local limits of whose ordinary original civil jurisdiction, the wife is residing on the date of presentation of the petition -- Without going into the allegations/counter allegations, the transfer application allowed -- Petition transferred to the District Judge, Gurugram.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.03.2021

Order 9 Rule 13 -- East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Ex-parte eviction -- Service of summons -- Service was not only effected by process server in person on the predecessor-in-interests of petitioners, but by way of munadi and affixation as well -- Munadi is known to be valid mean of substitute service in case despite service a litigant does not cause appearance before the Court – Objection taken is that there was an irregularity as the copy of petition was not served -- Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that it was well within the knowledge of predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners that there was a case pending against her qua which service of summons was effected -- Even if it was not due complete service, but the fact that munadi was also effected, the petitioner cannot now be permitted to take refuge under the argument that it was a weak mode of evidence of service -- No grounds to interfere. Dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.03.2021

Order 18 Rule 17-A – Additional evidence -- Allowing of the application for leading evidence filed by the respondents by the learned trial Court will delay the finalization of the proceedings, but delay cannot have precedence over substantial justice to be done to the parties to the litigation – Petitioners held entitled for costs of Rs.15,000/- instead of Rs.2,000/- as respondent/ plaintiff conceded to enhance the cost.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.03.2021

Section 9 – Delay in decisioning of suit – Speedy disposal -- Suit was instituted in 2005, Court considered it appropriate to observe that the High Court may hear and dispose of Suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year.

(SC) Decided on: 01.03.2021

Sections 9, 96 – Consent decree -- Substantive suit to challenge the same – Appeal u/s 96 CPC as well -- Appellants not party to consent – Consent orders would consequently not have a binding effect on the Appellants -- High Court in appeal recorded a finding that since the Appellants were not a party to the proceedings, and the Order has been passed on the terms agreeable to the parties to the proceedings, it shall not be binding upon the Appellants, and their rights could be examined independently in the substantive suit filed at their instance – No interference called for.

(SC) Decided on: 01.03.2021

Section 25 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13(1)(ia), 13-B – Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Order VI Rule (1) -- Constitution of India, Article 142, 145 -- Divorce petition – Transfer application – Grant of divorce by exercising power under Article 142 of Constitution – Jurisdiction of -- While sitting singly Supreme Court does not have the jurisdiction to take a decision on that plea made in the joint application -- One of the preconditions for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142, the cause or the matter must be pending before it -- Transfer petition arose out of matrimonial dispute between the parties, but the expression ‘cause or matter pending before it’ cannot be stretched to cover all disputes originating from such matrimonial problem that can be resolved by Supreme Court, sitting singly, while hearing a transfer petition.

(SC) Decided on: 01.03.2021

Section 25 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13(1)(ia), 13-B – Constitution of India, Article 142 – Transfer petition -- Divorce by mutual consent -- Grant of divorce by exercising power under Article 142 of Constitution – Jurisdiction of -- Joint application ought to be dealt with by a Bench comprising of two or more Hon’ble Judges as the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India may consider appropriate -- Since the parties have settled their dispute through the process of mediation, the transfer petition has lost its utility and stands disposed of -- File to be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions for giving effect to the terms of settlement entered into by and between the parties and broadly reflected in the joint application.

(SC) Decided on: 01.03.2021

Order 6 Rule 2 – Amendment in written statement -- Amendment sought is only explanatory -- As per the provisions of Order VI Rule 2 CPC, the pleading has to be based upon the facts in concise manner -- Amendment of pleadings for the purpose of explanation cannot be allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.02.2021

Section 9, 80 – Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971) -- Public premises -- Unauthorised possession – Notice under PP Act -- Civil suit with application for exemption u/s 80 CPC – Rejection of application – Adequate opportunity was granted to the petitioner to appear before the competent authority under the Act, 1971 but he failed to do so -- When he did put in appearance, he could not produce evidence to show that he was not in unauthorized possession -- Thereafter, he filed a civil suit, although he could not establish his rights in proceedings under the Act, 1971 -- Under the circumstances there was no urgency in the matter and the trial Court was justified in dismissing the application.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 22.02.2021

Order 7, Rule 11 – Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 111, 158 – Partition proceedings of land – Challenged in Civil suit -- Rejection of plaint -- Civil suit challenging partition proceedings on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice – Ld. trial Court is correct in observing that proceedings can always be le of natural justice -- Section 158 bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in case a suit is filed for grant of relief, which can be provided by the Revenue Officers under the Act, 1887 – That is not the case in the suit -- Application dismissed by Trail court, order upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 22.02.2021

Section 100, 103 -- Second appeal – Substantial question of law – Question of fact – Power of High Court -- Settled position of law that a second appeal, u/s 100 of the CPC, lies only on a substantial question of law -- However, this does not mean that the High Court cannot, in any circumstance, decide findings of fact or interfere with those arrived at by the Courts below in a second appeal -- In fact, Section 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure explicitly provides for circumstances under which the High Court may do so -- High Court to decide an issue of fact, provided there is sufficient evidence on record before it, in two circumstances. -- First, when an issue necessary for the disposal of the appeal has not been determined by the lower Appellate Court or by both the Courts below. -- And second, when an issue of fact has been wrongly determined by the Court(s) below by virtue of the decision on the question of law under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(SC) Decided on: 17.02.2021

Section 100, 103 -- Second appeal – Substantial question of law – Question of fact – Power of High Court – Suit dismissed -- First Appellate Court reversed the finding and decreed the suit -- High Court allowed the second appeal dismissing the suit -- High Court, vide the impugned judgment, noted that the First Appellate Court had considered irrelevant material and had erred in appreciating the legal issue involved -- High Court did not note that the First Appellate Court, due to its erroneous approach, had failed to consider the evidence in the correct light – Held, in such a circumstance, it would have been appropriate for the High Court to remand the matter to the First Appellate Court to determine the factual issues in light of the legal point as decided by it, or should have itself taken a decision on the facts u/s 103 of the Civil Procedure Code -- Judgment of the High Court set aside, matter remanded back to High Court.

(SC) Decided on: 17.02.2021

Order 7 Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint – Plaint alongwith documents forms part of plaint – Scope of -- Claim in a suit is based on an agreement executed through a Power of Attorney holder, the Court is not debarred from looking into the Power of Attorney -- It is open to the Court to read the terms of the Power of Attorney along with the plaint in the same manner as documents appended to the plaint, which form part of the plaint – No clause permitting the attorney to sell the property or to enter into any agreement to sell -- Therefore, the purported pre-emption agreement does not give any right to the plaintiff to file the suit -- The suit is thus not maintainable – High Court has done substantial justice by nipping in the bud, a suit which is ex facie not maintainable for want of cause of action against the defendants or any of them, thereby saving precious judicial time as also inconvenience and expenditure to the parties to the suit – SLP dismissed.

(SC) Decided on: 12.02.2021

Order 7 Rule 11 -- Rejection of plaint – Scope of -- It is well settled that while considering an application, the question before the Court is whether the plaint discloses any cause of action or whether the suit is barred by any law, on the face of the averments contained in the plaint itself -- Court is not to look into the strength or weakness of the case of the plaintiff or the defence raised by the defendant.

(SC) Decided on: 12.02.2021

Order 7 Rule 11 -- Rejection of plaint – Scope of – It requires a meaningful reading of the plaint as a whole – Clever drafting creating illusions of cause of action are not permitted in law and a clear right to sue should be shown in the plaint -- Similarly the Court must see that the bar in law of the suit is not camouflaged by devious and clever drafting of the plaint -- Provisions of Order VII Rue 11 are not exhaustive and the Court has the inherent power to see that frivolous or vexatious litigations are not allowed to consume the time of the Court.

(SC) Decided on: 12.02.2021

Order 21 Rule 89, 90, 91, 92 -- Auction sale in execution of consent decree – Overruling of objection – Non-availing of remedy in time – Effect of -- As per Order XXI Rule 92, where an application is made under Order XXI Rule 89, Order XXI Rule 90 and Order XXI Rule 91 and the same is disallowed, the Court shall make an order confirming the sale and thereafter the sale shall become absolute -- As per Order XXI Rule 94, where a sale of immovable property has become absolute, the Court shall grant a certificate specifying the property sold and the name of the person who at the time of sale is declared to be the purchaser -- Such certificate shall bear the date on which the sale became absolute -- High Court ought not to have thereafter set aside the order dated 03.03.1998 overruling the objections raised by the judgment debtors, which order was not challenged by the judgment debtors before the High Court till the year 2000 – Impugned judgment cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(SC) Decided on: 12.02.2021

Order 21 Rule 90 – Auction sale in execution of consent decree – Setting aside of -- JD did not deposit the amount of Rs.4,50,000/- i.e. sale consideration together with interest in terms of Order XXI Rule 90 CPC -- Not the case of the JD that there was any material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting the sale -- Objection is that the decree was obtained by fraud -- Application submitted by the original judgment debtors under Order XXI Rule 90 was required to be dismissed and was rightly dismissed by the learned Executing Court.

(SC) Decided on: 12.02.2021

Order 21 Rule 90 – Auction sale in execution of consent decree – Setting aside of -- High Court hold auction purchaser cannot be said to be the bona fide purchaser as he was related to the judgment creditor and that he was a partner of the firm in whose favour the mortgage was executed – However, application for setting aside was not filed on above ground it was submitted on the ground that no proper publication was made to get the adequate market value -- Therefore, the High Court has gone beyond the case of the judgment debtors – Even on merit High Court is not correct in observing that the auction purchaser was not a bona fide purchaser -- Partnership firm was already dissolved much before and thereafter the plaintiff inherited the assets, claims and liabilities of the firm.

(SC) Decided on: 12.02.2021

Section 25 – Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), Section 212, 213, 250, 264, 273, 300 – Testamentary Succession -- Partition suit -- Will -- Probate of -- Transfer of suit -- Partition suit pending in District Court of Delhi is 8 years old -- Written statement was filed way back in November, 2012 – In reply petitioner has pleaded the execution of the disputed Will -- True copy of the Will is stated to have been annexed as D-1/5, to the written statement -- Obviously petitioner was convinced that there was no bar for him to establish his right as a legatee under the will, even without first obtaining letters of administration -- Legal contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the partition suit should follow the testamentary case, is liable to be rejected in the facts and circumstances of this case -- Testamentary Case pending on the file of the High Court of Uttarakhand is ordered to be transferred to the file of the High Court of Delhi – Partition suit shall stand transferred to the High Court of Delhi and clubbed along with the testamentary proceeding and taken up together for disposal -- Parties are at liberty to move applications for examination of the witnesses including the attesters of the Will, either through Video Conference or through Court appointed Commissioners and applications for such reliefs may be considered by the High Court favourably.

(SC) Decided on: 12.02.2021

Section 96(3), Order 43 Rule 1A – Consent decree – Appeal against – Maintainability of -- As per Section 96(3), the appeal against the decree passed with the consent of the parties shall be barred -- Order XLIII Rule 1A provides that in an appeal against the decree passed in a suit for recording a compromise or refusing to record a compromise, it shall be open to the appellant to contest the decree on the ground that the compromise should or should not have been recorded -- High Court rightly come to the conclusion that the appeal before the High Court against the judgment and decree was maintainable -- No error has been committed by the High Court in holding so.

(SC) Decided on: 12.02.2021

Section 9 -- East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948) -- Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34 -- Question of title – Jurisdiction of Revenue authorities -- Neither the authorities, constituted under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, nor the authorities under the Punjab Land Revenue Act (while deciding the mutations), have the jurisdiction to decide on the question of title.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.01.2021

Section 9 -- Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34 -- Question of title -- Mutation – Jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities -- Finding of civil court – Effect of -- Revenue authorities, while deciding mutations, do not have jurisdiction to decide the question of right, title or interest of the parties -- Revenue authorities are bound to implement the order finally passed by the Civil Court -- Writ petition disposed of with the observations that whenever the Civil Court finally decides the suit, the revenue authorities would be bound to give effect thereto in the revenue record.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.01.2021

Section 11 – Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 11 -- Shamilat deh – Res-judicata – Earlier plaintiff’s father petition was dismissed by Collector, affirmed by Division Bench of High Court -- Land in dispute is the same in the previous and subsequent litigation which came to be decided by the Division Bench -- Plaintiff as well as his witness admitted that the plaintiff's father also filed a similar suit in which he remained unsuccessful -- Keeping in view the principle of res judicata, the suit is a clear abuse of the process of the Court – Appeal dismissed in limini, with costs of Rs.25,000/-.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.01.2021

Order 8 Rule 1 -- Written statement – Non-filing of -- Defence struck off -- Non-framing of issues – Effect of -- Since the issues have not been framed till date, this revision allowed and order set aside with direction to the trial Court to allow the petitioner to file his written statement after giving one more opportunity subject to deposit of Rs.15,000/- as costs.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.01.2021

Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 -- Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994), Section 53 – Embezzlement by Sarpanch – Recovery from Sarpanch -- It would be a matter of evidence whether the construction was done or not though payments had been withdrawn -- Interest of the petitioner can be protected to the extent that if the amount is deposited by him before the Trial Court, the said amount can be put in a fixed deposit receipt – Direction given that on deposit of said amount of Rs.6,61,370/- with the Trial Court, the same shall be kept in a fixed deposit receipt to earn the highest rate of interest during the pendency of the suit – Amount should be disbursed to the successful party at the end of the trial.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.12.2020

Section 9 -- Suit for correction of mother’s name in matriculation certificate -- Birth certificate as well as aadhar card and ration card of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 bears the name of his mother as 'Laxmi' – It is only in the examination form, forwarded by the school authorities to the appellant-Board, the name of mother has been mentioned as 'Raj' -- Not a case of fraud or ulterior purposes, it is an inadvertent mistake, which needs to be corrected so that the child does not suffer for life – Suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1, for the correction of name of his mother allowed and appeal of the appellant-Board was rejected – Held, concurrent findings recorded by the learned Courts below, needs no intervention.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.11.2020

Order 1 Rule 7 -- Suit for permanent injunction against Municipal Committee – Impleadment application by petitioner/ local resident declined – Held, plaintiff is the master of the suit -- Nobody can be imposed upon the plaintiff to contest the suit especially in case when no relief is being sought against a particular person/authority by the plaintiff -- No ground to interfere in the impugned order -- Revision petition dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.10.2020

Order 7 Rule 11 – Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 1 -- Pleading that property was purchased in 2001 – Maintainability of suit – Rejection of plaint -- For deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, only the averments made in the plaint are to be taken into account -- There is no averment in the plaint, which shows that the construction was more than 10 years old with regard to the suit property so as to oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court -- Application on presumption that as the suit property has been purchased in the year 2001, the construction must be 10 years old -- Court has to arrive at a definite conclusion that on the basis of the pleadings in the suit, the suit is not maintainable -- Interpretation of the averment in a particular manner is not permissible – High Court found no ground to interfere in dismissal of application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.10.2020

Section 9 -- Punjab Rent Act, 1995 (13 of 2012), Section 20 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Tenant company under liquidation proceedings – Eviction of – Remedy of -- Writ petitioner is calling upon High court to decree a suit for possession of tenanted premises in occupation of a company which is stated to be under liquidation -- Company was admittedly inducted as a tenant in the premises in dispute -- Company still exists and has not been dissolved – Held, urban tenancy in the State of Punjab, is governed and regulated by the provisions of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 -- Thus, the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of filing a petition under the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 – If petitioner’s argument to the effect that the tenancy has come to an end, is accepted still the petitioner has a remedy of filing a civil suit seeking relief of possession – Writ petition disposed of by relegating the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.10.2020

Order 39 Rules 1 & 2, Section 151 – Temporary injunction against co-sharer -- Parties are in possession of their respective shares – Petitioner/ defendant is renovating his portion – Petitioner/defendant has given an undertaking that at a later stage, if it is found that construction/ renovation falls in the share of respondent/plaintiff, the petitioner will remove such renovated portion -- Application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC dismissed -- However, the petitioner-defendant shall remain bound by the undertaking given before this Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.10.2020

Order 13 Rule 4 -- Exhibition of documentation – Proof of -- Merely the admission in evidence and making exhibit of a document does not prove it automatically unless the same has been proved in accordance with the law.

(SC) Decided on: 13.05.2020

Order 21 -- Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Compromise between parties – Withdrawal of suit – Maintainability of Execution proceedings – Void ib initio – Delayed revision – Acceptance of -- Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, deals with the execution of the decree and order -- There exists neither any judgment nor a decree on the basis of the compromise -- There is merely an order, whereby the suit was dismissed as withdrawn -- In the absence of a decree or executable order, it is not understandable as to how the execution proceedings could have been initiated and further entertained by the Court below – Though, the revision petition has been filed after a delay of four years, yet to permit an illegal proceeding and an order, which is void ab initio, to stand would be travesty of justice -- Execution proceedings and all subsequent proceedings on the basis of the said execution proceedings are held illegal, null, and void.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.02.2020

Order 6 Rule 17 -- Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 22(2) – Amendment of plaint – Refund of earnest money -- Suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell -- Suit was at the stage of examination of defendant witnesses -- Trial Court allowed plaintiff to amend the plaint – Court do not find any manifest illegality in the order of the trial Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 20.02.2020

Order 14 Rule 5 -- Framing of additional issue – Application for -- Plaintiff sought declaration with regard to the Will being a forged and fabricated document and setting aside of the mutation effected in consequence thereto – Omission with regard to framing of an issue – Trail court allowed application and granted only one opportunity to both the parties to lead their evidence – No manifest illegality in the impugned order which would warrant interference while exercising revisional jurisdiction – Revision dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.02.2020

Section 9 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 482 -- Civil suit – Handwriting expert report – F.I.R. w.r.t. forged receipts – Sustainability of -- Quashing of FIR -- Handwriting expert in civil suit has opined that signatures in all the four receipts did not tally with the sample signatures which were of respondent No.2 -- It was only thereafter, FIR was registered -- In the Summary Suit, issue No.5 has been framed by the Court “whether the defendant proved that the plaintiff has fabricated the forged signature illegally and created forged receipts” – Held, when the issue as to the genuineness of the receipts is pending consideration in the civil suit, the FIR ought not to have been allowed to continue as it would prejudice the interest of the parties and the stand taken by them in the civil suit -- Based on the sole opinion of the handwriting expert, the FIR ought not to have been registered -- Continuation of FIR would amount to abuse of the process of Court – Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR allowed.

(SC) Decided on: 10.02.2020

Order 37 Rule 3 – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 -- Suit for recovery – Leave to defend – Condonation of delay -- Separate application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act may not have been absolutely necessary whether or not to condone the delay -- Once some reasoning was given in the application seeking leave to defend the suit, court was required to go into the grounds for delay, consider them and then pass a reasoned order accepting or rejecting the said reasons.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.01.2020

Order 26 Rule 9 -- Appointment of Local Commissioner – Demarcation of property – Opinion on encroachment – Permissibility of -- Local Commissioner should confine himself to only the demarcation of properties according to the revenue records without expressing any opinion on encroachment which is the judicial function to be performed by the trial court on the totality of evidence yet to be adduced by the parties -- He would only determine if there is any overlapping beyond the limits of land held by either of the parties.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.01.2020

Section 100 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 -- Delay of 312 days in filing appeal – Condonation of -- Submitted that there was construction going on in the office of the filing counsel and as such the file was erroneously misplaced and as such there has been a delay in filing of the present appeal -- Explanation for condoning 312 days delay not worthy of acceptance -- Appeal is dismissed on the ground of delay.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.01.2020

Section 152 -- Amendment/ Rectification in judgment by Executing Court -- Error had crept in due to inadvertence of the trial court, for no fault of the decree-holder -- From the record, it is clear that the LRs were brought on record of the case by the trial court and the name of GS was deleted from the array of parties, and this fact was missed by the trial court while passing the decree -- In the circumstances, the order of the Executing Court is sustained in the interest of justice.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.01.2020

Order 18 Rule 3 -- Rebuttal evidence – Trial court allowed application of plaintiff, whereby he sought permission to get photographs of the specimen signatures of the defendant, which are the disputed signatures and already on file – Held, onus of proving the issue was on the defendant, but the plaintiff did not reserve his right on leading evidence in rebuttal on the said issue and in fact closed his evidence without reserving such a right -- Impugned order set aside. Avtar Singh’s case 2015(1) Civil Court Cases 728 relied.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.01.2020

Section 9 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Cheque bounce case -- Acquittal in criminal case – Civil liability to pay -- Claim of the plaintiff was not based on dishonour of the cheques -- It was based on the basis of transaction of supply of poultry feed to the company and the bills raised therefore -- Merely, because defendant has been acquitted in criminal proceeding that does not mean that the claim of the plaintiff in civil proceedings ipso facto stand disproved.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.07.2017

Order 13, Rule 3, 6 – Exhibiting of documents – Non-objection of – Effect of -- Summons would not contain the particulars of the orders required to be summoned -- It is only from the file, the documents are put to the witness for the purpose of proving the case by either of the parties -- Exhibition of the documents was not objected to at the time of cross-examination -- Party cannot be prevented to take the objection to the aforementioned documents.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.04.2016

Order 21 Rule 66(2)(e), 3 – Proclamation for sale – Tenancy – Declaration of -- Sub rule (2) of Rule 66 cannot be read in isolation -- It must be read inter-alia with sub rule (3) of Rule 66 -- Proclamation ought to have specified fairly and accurately the tenancy in view of Order 21 Rule 66 (2) (e) which requires every other thing which the Court considers material for a purchaser to know in order to judge of the nature and value of the property to be specified -- Clause (e) is of the widest amplitude and everything which affects the value of the property must be specified/disclosed -- Value of a property with a sitting tenant can never be the same as its value without a tenant -- It is axiomatic, therefore, that clause (e) of Rule 66 (2) requires a proclamation to specify a tenancy in respect of a property to be sold in auction.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.03.2016

Section 374 -- Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (34 of 2006), Section 17(1)(a)(b) -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 141 – Food adulteration case -- Company not convicted – Nominated person held guilty – Legality of – Remand to fill lacuna of case – Permissibility of -- No material distinction between Section 141 of the NI Act and Section 17 of the Act which makes the Company as well as the Nominated Person to be held guilty of the offences and/or liable to be proceeded and punished accordingly -- Clauses (a) and (b) are not in the alternative but conjoint -- Therefore, in the absence of the Company, the Nominated Person cannot be convicted or vice versa -- Since the Company was not convicted by the trial court, finding of the High Court to revisit the judgment will be unfair to the appellant/Nominated Person who has been facing trial for more than last 30 years -- Order of remand to the trial court to fill up the lacuna is not a fair option exercised by the High Court as the failure of the trial court to convict the Company renders the entire conviction of the Nominated Person as unsustainable.

(SC) Decided on: 05.11.2020

Section 82 – Passports Act, 1967 (15 of 1967), Section 10 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Cheque bounce case -- Proclaimed Person – Released on bail – Impounding of passport – Legality of – Petitioner appeared before the Judicial Magistrate, she was granted bail and, thus, the proclamation order ceased to be operative -- Said fact was well within the knowledge of respondent-Regional Passport Office -- Moreover, in a bailable offence, no condition can be imposed by the Court regarding surrender of the passport -- Fundamental Rights of the petitioner breached -- Hence, the impugned action is highly deprecated -- Petition allowed with a costs of Rs.1.00 lakh to be paid by respondent-RPO to the petitioner -- Respondent-RPO directed to release the passport of the petitioner within 15 days.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.08.2020

Section 154, 482 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 – Civil suit – Handwriting expert report – F.I.R. w.r.t. forged receipts – Sustainability of -- Quashing of FIR -- Handwriting expert in civil suit has opined that signatures in all the four receipts did not tally with the sample signatures which were of respondent No.2 -- It was only thereafter, FIR was registered -- In the Summary Suit, issue No.5 has been framed by the Court “whether the defendant proved that the plaintiff has fabricated the forged signature illegally and created forged receipts” – Held, when the issue as to the genuineness of the receipts is pending consideration in the civil suit, the FIR ought not to have been allowed to continue as it would prejudice the interest of the parties and the stand taken by them in the civil suit -- Based on the sole opinion of the handwriting expert, the FIR ought not to have been registered -- Continuation of FIR would amount to abuse of the process of Court – Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR allowed.

(SC) Decided on: 10.02.2020

Section 3, 10, 15, 21 – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 2(1)(e), 9, 14, 34 – Arbitration matters in Commercial court -- Whether in exercise of powers u/s 3 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the State Government can confer jurisdiction to hear applications u/s 9, 14 and 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, upon Commercial Courts which are subordinate to the rank of the Principal Civil Judge in the District, contrary to the provisions of Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration Act? – Held, the Act, 2015 is the Act later in time and therefore when the Act, 2015 has been enacted, more particularly Sections 3 & 10, there was already a provision contained in Section 2(1)(e) of the Act, 1996 -- As per settled position of law, it is to be presumed that while enacting the subsequent law, the legislature is conscious of the provisions of the Act prior in time and therefore the later Act shall prevail -- There cannot be two fora with respect to different commercial disputes.

(SC) Decided on: 19.10.2022

Food adulteration case -- Nominated person held guilty – Remand to fill lacuna of case – In the absence of the Company, the Nominated Person cannot be convicted or vice versa -- Order of remand to the trial court to fill up the lacuna is not a fair option exercised by the High Court as the failure of the trial court to convict the Company renders the entire conviction of the Nominated Person as unsustainable.

(SC) Decided on: 05.11.2020

Acquisition of land by Improvement Trust – Auction sale -- Setting aside of – In Execution, Trust not appeared despite service of notice – Ex-parte warrant for sale of attached property issued and property sold to auction purchaser – No material irregularity or fraud causing substantial injury to Trust established – Though the right in property is not a fundamental right, it is still a constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India -- A person can be deprived of the rights of the property only in a manner known to law -- Acquisition proceedings in respect of the land in question sought to deprive the owners of their land which had to be paid for in terms of the provisions of the LA Act -- Executing Court’s order affirmed, with cost of Rs. 1 lac.

(SC) Decided on : 02.09.2022

Assessment of income – Income Tax Return -- It is only on the basis of the said ITR that the income of the deceased and the consequent loss of dependency to the claimants, has been assessed by the Tribunal -- If the insurance company had any proof that before this year the deceased, who was self-employed, was not earning this much of money, then the insurance company was free to lead anything in evidence to that effect -- Court did not find any illegality in the findings recorded by the Tribunal; in this regard.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.09.2021

Non-involvement of insured vehicle in accident – Despite taking a specific plea in the written statement that the vehicle insured by the appellant was not involved in the accident, the insurance company has not led any evidence to support this assertion made in the written statement -- Hence, their pleadings have gone totally unsubstantiated.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.09.2021

Registration of FIR – Requirement of -- Even if there had been no FIR registered in the matter, that would not have disentitled the claimants from compensation on account of death of deceased in the accident.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.09.2021

Territorial jurisdiction of MACT case -- Accident at Rajasthan – Claim petition at Gurugram -- Territorial jurisdiction for claiming compensation for motor accident is not tagged to any particular place.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.09.2021

Acquittal in criminal case – Merely acquittal would not absolve the insurance company of its responsibility to pay the amount of compensation.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.09.2021

Future prospects -- Rules contemplates addition of 20% of salary for future prospects -- If an indicia is made available in the form of a statutory instrument which affords a favourable treatment, the decision in Pranay Sethi’s case (2017) 16 SCC 680 cannot be taken to have limited the operation of such statutory provision specially when the validity of the Rules was not put under any challenge – Prescription of 15% in cases where the deceased was in the age bracket of 50-60 years as stated in Pranay Sethi cannot be taken as maxima -- In the absence of any governing principle available in the statutory regime, it was only in the form of an indication -- If a statutory instrument has devised a formula which affords better or greater benefit, such statutory instrument must be allowed to operate unless the statutory instrument is otherwise found to be invalid.

(SC) Decided on: 06.08.2021

Injured was operated for the fracture of his femur and fracture acetabulam left side and was operated twice in the hospital which charged Rs.2,90,000/- -- Similarly, Rs.36,049/- which was incurred on account of medicine charges was also brought on record – It is in such circumstances the Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- on account of pain and suffering and loss of income of Rs.33,714/-, to arrive at the amount of compensation of Rs.4,09,763/--- Injured was drawing a salary of Rs.16,857/- per month, which is the basis to grant the said compensation for the period he was not able to do duties on account of the fracture sustained -- No case is made out to interfere in the well-reasoned order passed by the Tribunal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.07.2021

50% amount in fixed deposits – Revision against -- All the claimants are major by age; having lived a considerable number of years of social life -- Petition allowed, order passed by the Court below; to the extent it has retained the 50% of the amount in the fixed deposits set aside, Entire amount ordered to be released to the petitioners.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.07.2021

Deceased was aged 32 years at the time of his death and he was un-married -- Income of the deceased proved to be Rs.12,455/- per month minus the applicable income tax -- No deduction is to be made from the salary qua other allowances etc. -- Multiplier is required to be applied as per the age of the deceased -- Multiplier of 16 and the eligible claimant is entitled to the benefit of future prospects @ 50% -- Appellant no. 1 is entitle for Rs.40,000/- as compensation on account of loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- on account of loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses -- By taking 50% dependency amount of compensation enhanced from Rs. 3,36,000/- to 16,36,816/- -- Interest @ 6% per annum awarded from the date of filing of the petition till its realization on enhanced compensation of Rs.13,00,816/-.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.07.2021

Daily diary report – Evidential value -- Daily dairy report was entered on the statement of respondent No.6, who was, at the relevant time, driving the motorcycle he cannot be expected to admit his negligence – In support of the claim petition, eyewitness has appeared before the Court to depose, he has been thoroughly cross examined by putting searching questions -- His deposition has been found creditable by the Tribunal -- Hence, the contention is without substance.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.07.2021

Pleadings of negligence – Insurance company while filing the written statement did not plead that deceased was not wearing the helmet -- Still further, the insurance company did not lead any evidence to prove this fact and also failed to raise this point before the Tribunal -- Still further, insurance company has failed to draw the attention of the Court to the cross examination of eye-witness on this aspect -- In such circumstances, the argument of insurance company do not deserve acceptance.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.07.2021

Additional evidence -- Only reason pleaded in the application is that the award would cause wrongful loss to the appellant/insurance company -- Reason does not fulfill the requirements of Order XLI Rule 27 CPC.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.07.2021

Plea of Collusion -- Insurance company has taken a stand that the claimants in collusion with the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle have filed the claim petition, whereas on the other hand, now the insurance company wants to examine the driver – Ld. Tribunal had given sufficient opportunities to the driver and the owner as well as to the insurance company to lead their evidence but they failed to do so -- Application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC for permission to lead additional evidence dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.07.2021

Plea of collusion – Proof of -- Insurance company has not led any evidence to prove its plea of collusion between the claimants on the one hand and the owner and driver on the other hand – No ground to interfere in the award passed by the ld. Tribunal is made out -- Appeal dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.07.2021

Car was on hire – No evidence that the car was being plied on hire at the relevant time -- Insurance Company did not plead this fact in its written statement -- Consequently, the Tribunal did not frame any issue on this aspect – Held, Insurance Company has failed to lay any foundation by pleading the aforesaid fact and thereafter, corroborate the same by leading any evidence -- Hence, the contention is rejected.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.04.2021

Pleading -- Manner of accident disputed – Counsel failed to draw the attention of the Court to such defence in the written statement and any discussion before the Tribunal on this aspect -- Driver of the offending vehicle did not appear in evidence, who could have deposed about the manner in which the accident took place -- Counsel also failed to draw attention of the Court to the cross examination of PW2, eye-witness on this aspect – Court expresses inability to accept the argument.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.04.2021

Salary slip show deceased drew total salary of Rs.76,163/- -- Tribunal after deducting the amount towards AFPP fund subscription, AFPP refund and the amount of income tax came to income of the deceased as Rs.63,182/- per month, of which annual income works out to Rs.7,58,184/- per annum – Deceased was 39 years of age at the time of his death, therefore, 50% addition of actual salary on account of future prospects made out -- Tribunal applied 1/4th deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased, who has left behind four dependents -- Tribunal has arrived at a figure of Rs.8,52,957/- as annual dependency -- No error to interfere in the award passed by the Tribunal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.04.2021

Seven persons were travelling in the vehicle whereas the registered seating capacity of the vehicle is of five only – Held, Insurer is liable to the extent of persons permitted under the carriage permit – Vehicle was permitted to be occupied by five persons, only five claim petitions were filed -- No ground to admit the appeals.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.04.2021

Execution of order -- Revisional Court’s power -- Enhancement of compensation by High Court in Appeal was ordered to be invested in a FDR and the interest accruing thereon be paid to the petitioner/ claimant – Ordering any deviation in the mode of investment would tantamount to modification of the judgement – High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot modify the judgement and that too in proceedings arising out of execution of that very judgement.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.04.2021

Petition u/s 163-A of MV Act held not maintainable -- It was held that petition u/s 163-A was not maintainable as income of the claimant was much more than Rs. 40,000/- p.a. – Under the circumstances, there was no bar upon the claimant to file a petition u/s 166 of the Act on the basis of fault liability.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.03.2021

Simultaneous proceedings u/s 163-A and 166 of the Act cannot be undertaken as the remedies therein are separate and independent.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.03.2021

Lapse of land acquisition proceedings under 1894 Act -- Finding of High Court that compensation was not offered to the land owners and therefore the deposit in the Court cannot be regarded as payment of compensation is not tenable – Order passed by the High Court set aside.

(SC) Decided on: 06.05.2022

Maintainability of Execution proceedings – Withdrawal of suit – Execution proceedings and all subsequent proceedings on the basis of the said execution proceedings are held illegal, null, and void.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.02.2020

Compromise decree entered into between the parties in respect of land which was not the subject matter of the suit is valid and is thus a legal settlement.

(SC) Decided on: 06.07.2021

Execution of decretal amount – Show cause notice was issued and, the petitioners were both served and petitioner No.1 appeared and sought time to make payment and thereafter, stopped appearing – In case the payment is made as per the calculation sheet, then the Judgment Debtor/petitioner No.2 is not to be arrested and it is only in case the payment is not made that he has to be arrested and produced before the Court -- Thus, the procedure adopted by the Executing Court for the issuance of conditional warrant of arrest is absolutely legal and in accordance with law.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.07.2021

NCLT/NCLAT has the discretion to entertain an application/appeal after the prescribed period of limitation -- Condition precedent for exercise of such discretion is the existence of sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal and/or the application within the period prescribed by limitation -- Condition precedent for condonation of the delay in filing an application or appeal, is the existence of sufficient cause -- Whether the explanation furnished for the delay would constitute “sufficient cause” or not would be dependent upon facts of each case -- There cannot be any straitjacket formula for accepting or rejecting the explanation furnished by the Appellant/applicant for the delay in taking steps.

(SC) Decided on : 19.09.2022

Consumer complaint -- Delay in filing written statement -- Application was filed prior to the judgment of the Constitution Bench – Held, said application for condonation of delay ought to have been considered on merits and should not have been dismissed on the basis of the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited, (2020) 5 SCC 757, because the said judgment was to operate prospectively.

(SC) Decided on: 08.07.2021

Condonation of delay beyond 120 days – Arbitration case -- Application itself must be within time, and if not within a period of three months, must be accompanied with an application for condonation of delay, provided it is within a further period of 30 days -- Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply -- Any delay beyond 120 days cannot be condoned. Himachal Techno Engineers’s case (2010) 12 SCC 210 relied.

(SC) Decided on: 11.02.2021

Suit for recovery – Leave to defend – Separate application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act may not have been absolutely necessary whether or not to condone the delay -- Once some reasoning was given in the application seeking leave to defend the suit, court was required to go into the grounds for delay, consider them and then pass a reasoned order accepting or rejecting the said reasons.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.01.2020

Delay of 312 days in filing appeal – Submitted that there was construction going on in the office of the filing counsel and as such the file was erroneously misplaced and as such there has been a delay in filing of the present appeal -- Explanation for condoning 312 days delay not worthy of acceptance -- Appeal is dismissed on the ground of delay.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.01.2020

Appellants not party to consent – Consent orders would consequently not have a binding effect on the Appellants -- Their rights could be examined independently in the substantive suit filed at their instance.

(SC) Decided on: 01.03.2021

Maintainability of Appeal -- Order XLIII Rule 1A CPC provides that in an appeal against the decree passed in a suit for recording a compromise or refusing to record a compromise, it shall be open to the appellant to contest the decree on the ground that the compromise should or should not have been recorded -- Appeal before the High Court against the judgment and decree was maintainable.

(SC) Decided on: 12.02.2021

Plaintiff invoked the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in the year 1996 -- Wakf Board and the appellant filed an application for transfer of the suit to the Wakf Tribunal – Though the Wakf Tribunal could not grant declaration as claimed by the plaintiff, but such objection cannot be permitted to be raised either by the Wakf Board or by the appellant as the order was passed by the Civil Court at their instance and was also upheld by the High Court -- Such order has thus attained finality inter-parties -- Parties cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate in the same breath.

(SC) Decided on: 05.04.2021

Substantive relief – Once the plaintiff has failed to get any substantive relief of cancellation of the sale deed and failed to get any declaratory relief, relief of injunction can be said to be a consequential relief must fail.

(SC) Decided on: 03.03.2022

Suit for declaration -- Once the rights of the parties are adjudicated and the defendant No.1 is held to be the true owner on the basis of the registered sale deed and on payment of full sale consideration, it can be said that due process of law has been followed and thereafter the plaintiff is not entitled to any permanent injunction against the true owner.

(SC) Decided on: 03.03.2022

Rejection of plaint – Suit for custody of child -- Though it is well settled principle of law that for the purpose of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the contents of the plaint/petition is to be seen, however it is a case of not deciding the rights of the parents but the custody of minor child, therefore welfare of the child should be the paramount consideration -- Circumstances from the date of birth of the child till date needs to be appreciated -- Respondent-husband has remedy to approach the said Court, which has passed the decree of divorce if any terms and condition were violated -- Petition u/s 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act held not maintainable and rejected, leaving the respondent-husband to avail alternative remedy, in accordance with law -- Application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. allowed.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 01.09.2022 Pronounced on : 06.09.2022

Article 226 -- Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), Section 62 – Banking default case -- One Time Settlement/ OTS – Extension of time – Writ jurisdiction -- Borrower as a matter of right cannot claim extension of time – By the impugned judgment and order rescheduling the payment under the OTS Scheme and granting extension of time would tantamount to rewriting the contract which is not permissible while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India – Impugned judgment/ order quashed and set aside -- Consequently, the original writ petition filed by the respondent/borrower stands dismissed.

(SC) Decided on: 04.11.2022

Article 226 -- Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (54 of 2002), Section 13(2), 17 – Insurance claim wrongly transferred by Bank – Default due to wrong Act of Bank -- Plea of -- Challenge to Section 13(2) Notice of SARFAESI Act – Writ jurisdiction -- Alternative remedy – Limitation -- Held, mainly challenged before the High Court was notice u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition -- Remedy available to the respondents/ loanee was to initiate proceedings u/s 17 of the SARFAESI Act – Respondents relegated to avail the alternative statutory remedy by way of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act – When such proceedings are initiated, the same be considered in accordance with law and on its own merits including the case on behalf of the original writ petitioners that nothing was due and payable, if the amount received as insurance claim would not have transferred to the Working Capital Account -- Appeal allowed to the aforesaid extent -- If such proceedings are initiated within a period of four weeks, the same be dealt with without raising the dispute with respect to limitation, however, subject to compliance of other requirements under the Act.

(SC) Decided on : 12.09.2022

Article 300A -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 Rule 54, 64, 66, 89, 90 -- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 18 – Auction sale -- Setting aside of – Acquisition of land by Improvement Trust – Trust failed to pay compensation assessed by Reference Court – In Execution, Trust not appeared despite service of notice – Ex-parte warrant for sale of attached property issued and property sold to auction purchaser – No material irregularity or fraud causing substantial injury to Trust established – Objector neither deposited the decreetal amount nor the amount equal to 5% of the purchase amount for payment to the auction purchaser as is required under Order XXI Rule 89 of the said Code – Though the right in property is not a fundamental right, it is still a constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India -- A person can be deprived of the rights of the property only in a manner known to law -- Acquisition proceedings in respect of the land in question sought to deprive the owners of their land which had to be paid for in terms of the provisions of the LA Act -- Executing Court’s order affirmed, with cost of Rs. 1 lac.

(SC) Decided on : 02.09.2022

Article 136, 323-B -- National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (19 of 2010), Section 14, 15, 18, 29 – Re-constructing of resort – Public Interest litigation -- Construction was challenged in High Court –Jurisdiction/ Power of National Green Tribunal -- Interim order by High Court “In the meanwhile, the construction activities and other allied activities in relation to the subject project, if any undertaken, shall be strictly in accordance with the permission accorded by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, as well as the existing master plan.” – In proceedings before NGT, interim order that no further construction to be undertaken – Application for vacation of stay was rejected – Held, no law is necessary to state that insofar as the Tribunals are concerned, they would be subordinate to the High Court insofar as the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court is concerned – It was not appropriate on the part of the learned NGT to have continued with the proceedings before it, specifically, when it was pointed that the High Court was also in seisin of the matter and had passed an interim order permitting the construction -- Orders passed by the constitutional courts would be prevailing over the orders passed by the statutory tribunals – Continuation of the proceedings before the learned NGT for the same cause of action, which is seized with the High Court, would not be in the interest of justice – Proceedings pending before the learned NGT quashed and set aside.

(SC) Decided on: 01.06.2022

Article 226 -- Civil writ petition for compensation to victim -- Amputation of both arms due to electrocution – 100% permanent physical impairment – Keeping in view the principles laid down for awarding compensation in Naval Kumar’s case (2017) 3 SCC 115, Rs.95 lakhs awarded to the petitioner with interest payable @7% per annum from the date of filing of the writ petition as compensation -- Amount enhanced considering the fact that 5 years have elapsed since the amount was awarded by the Supreme Court in almost similar circumstances and taking into account the cost of inflation, stated to be almost 15% as on date.

(P&H HC) Reserved on: 16.05.2022 Decided on: 20.05.2022

Article 226 -- Civil writ petition for compensation to victim -- Amputation of both arms due to electrocution – Liability of Electricity Supplier – Onus of proof – Strict liability -- In case of an incident involving electricity line, burden is essentially on the Electricity Board to plead and prove that it was not their fault and the snapping of the live wire can be described to be an act of negligence – When an incident of this nature is involved, inference can surely be drawn that there has been an element of carelessness on the part of the Electricity Board in maintaining the supply line – Facts of the case lead to application of principle of “strict liability” -- Respondent-Nigam held liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

(P&H HC) Reserved on: 16.05.2022 Decided on: 20.05.2022

Article 226 -- National Highways Act, 1956 (48 of 1956), Section 3(E) – Demolition of shops and residence – Damages for – Writ jurisdiction -- Non-following of procedure as envisaged under Section 3(E) of The NH Act, 1956 alleged -- Since demolition had already taken place and damages are being prayed for, an alternative and efficacious remedy is available to the petitioners by way of leading evidence -- Writ petition dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction for the redressal of their grievances.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.05.2022

Article 227 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 18, Rule 3 – Suit for Permanent injunction – Handwriting and finger print expert in rebuttal evidence – Permissibility of – Defendants denied signatures on documents – Application to examine expert in rebuttal evidence -- Trial Court has rightly observed that the plaintiff had an opportunity to examine hand writing expert while leading evidence in affirmative -- Furthermore he could have called upon the defendants to admit or deny the documents in question which is not said to have been done -- He had an occasion to prove such documents during the course of his evidence -- He could not have possibly presumed that the documents would admit their signatures on family settlement and defendant No. 2 would concede the signatures on demarcation report -- Nature of the suit is one for grant of permanent injunction wherein main thing is to be seen is as to whether the plaintiff is in established possession of a particular piece of land and question of title is not to be decided – Revision dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.09.2021

Article 136 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 114, Order 47 Rule 1 -- Review after 56 years 6 days -- One can find no error apparent after 50 years for the Court to exercise the jurisdiction of review – It is an abuse of process of law and complete wastage of judicial time – SLP dismissed with costs of Rs. 5000/-.

(SC) Decided on: 13.08.2021

Article 136 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 114, Order 47 Rule 1 – SLP against review order – Maintainability of -- SLP would not lie against only a review order.

(SC) Decided on: 13.08.2021

Article 227 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 -- Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 52 -- Suit challenging gift deed – Defendant executed lease deed – Amendment of plaint – Revisional jurisdiction -- Trial Court dismissed application -- Held, any transaction with respect to the suit property during the pendency of the suit is governed by the principle of lis pendens -- Provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC ordinarily prohibits the amendment of the pleadings after the trial has commenced -- Trial has already made substantial progress -- Any transaction between the defendants and third party is not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs, particularly, when these are during the pendency of the suit -- Hence, no ground to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.08.2021

Section 227 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13-B – Divorce by mutual consent – Waiver of six month period for second motion -- It is a case of broken marriage between the spouses with little chances of their resuming cohabitation and living together -- Spouses are stated to have settled all the issues between them in an amicable manner and asking them to wait for a period of six months shall only amount to prolong their agony -- Petition accepted, parties to move an application for preponing the date of hearing and then the Court may pass appropriate order in light of the order passed in the revision petition.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.08.2021

Article 226 -- Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (54 of 2002), Section 13(2)(4) -- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971), Section 12, 19 – SARFAESI proceedings -- Contempt of Court -- Undertaking before the High Court to make payment on specific dates – Non-honouring of commitment – Held, series of acts committed by the petitioners (i) in issuing post-dated cheques, which were dated beyond the date within which they had agreed to make payment; (ii) in allowing those cheques to be dishonoured; (iii) in not appearing before the Court on the first date of hearing with an excuse that was found to be false; (iv) in coming up with an explanation about their own debtors committing default; and (v) in getting exposed through the report of the SFIO, convinced the High Court to believe that the undertaking given by the petitioners was not based upon good faith but intended to hoodwink the Court – No fault with the High Court holding the petitioners guilty of contempt -- No dispute on facts that the mortgaged properties have now been sold and with extraordinary efforts, the Bank has also taken possession -- Petitioners have also spent 11 days in custody out of the total period of imprisonment of three months imposed by the High Court -- In such circumstances, it is sufficient punishment for the petitioners – Sentence reduced to already undergone.

(SC) Decided on: 09.08.2021

Article 226 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Shamilat deh – Writ jurisdiction -- If the proprietors claim that the Shamilat land has never been reserved/used for common purposes, they can get their title decided from the Civil Court -- Writ petition is not the appropriate remedy. Jai Singh’s case 2003(2) PLR 658 relied.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.08.2021

Article 227 -- Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 7, 13-A (Haryana) – Eviction from Gram Panchayat land – Writ jurisdiction -- At the time when the decision was rendered on an application moved u/s 7 of the Act, 1961, the application/petition which was moved by the petitioners u/s 13-A of the Act for declaring them as owners of the land in question stood dismissed, the appeal against which was also dismissed by learned Commissioner and revision before financial Commissioner was also dismissed – Writ against those orders pending -- Mere pendency of an issue before a writ Court or a revisional Court where there is no stay granted with regard to possession, cannot be a ground for keeping the proceedings pending for all time to comes -- Pendency of the matter before the higher Court specially when a declaration sought for has been declined by the competent Court would not be an impediment for passing an order of eviction under Section 7 of Act, 1961.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.08.2021

Article 226 – Live-in-relationship – Police protection – Petitioner No.2 (boy) is of the age of 19 years and 9 months whereas petitioner No.1 (girl) is of the age of 20 years and 6 months – Petition disposed of with a direction to Station House Officer, that representation, if any, filed seeking protection of life and liberty, be got looked into and contents thereof be duly verified and if necessary, requisite steps be taken, strictly in accordance with law for grant of protection of life and liberty to the petitioners.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.07.2021

Article 21, 226 -- Live-in relationship -- Girl aged 23 years and boy 20 years – Protection of life and liberty -- Dismissal of protection petition – Latter Patent Appeal against – Having chosen to stay together, the appellants have exercised their choice out of their own free will -- Apprehension of the appellants cannot be said to be misplaced at this stage, especially when they have highlighted a grievance in this regard in their representation submitted to the SSP – Appeal allowed, impugned order set-aside and a direction issued to the SSP to look into the representation and if some substance is found therein, appropriate steps in accordance with law be taken so that the life and liberty of the appellants is not jeopardized in any manner, except in accordance with law.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 20.07.2021

Article 21, 226 – Live-in relationship – Life and liberty -- Police protection – Right of -- Petitioners are over 18 years of age, are in a live-in-relationship and they have an apprehension that the private respondents might cause physical harm to them -- Petition disposed of with a direction to SSP to look into the representation and take steps, if necessary, in accordance with law to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 20.07.2021

Article 226 -- Parole – Criminal writ petition -- On earlier parole, petitioner surrendered back on time and was not involved in any criminal activity – Present parole rejected -- It is disturbing that once a particular set of reasons have been specifically rejected by Court, the SSP has mentioned same reasons again -- 6 weeks' parole granted to the petitioner -- Respondent No.4 to file personal affidavit as to why identically same reasons were stated when first set of reasons had been rejected by High Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 20.07.2021

Article 226 – Valuation of marks – Interference in -- Writ jurisdiction -- Petitioner secured 63 marks in the written examination and 05 marks have been awarded to her for socio economic criteria, thus making aggregate secured total as 68 marks -- Petitioner self-acclaims to have secured 64 marks in written on the basis of some purported self-evaluation/ self-calculations, which has no legal sanctity – High Court cannot sit in appeal to re-evaluate the declared result and the valuation of marks awarded to the candidates by the expert examiners -- Merely because the petitioner has filed an affidavit, claiming therein, that she has secured 64 marks, is no ground to interfere.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 20.07.2021

Articles 226, 227 – Allotment of liquor vend license in residential area – Challenge to -- Petitioner stated to have made various representations -- Respondent No.3 is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner by passing a speaking order within a period of two weeks.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 20.07.2021

Article 227 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- 50% amount in fixed deposits – Revision against -- All the claimants are major by age; having lived a considerable number of years of social life -- While lying in F.D., the money may not generate the same additional value as it can create through a business enterprise or other means of income, which can be created through this money -- Petition allowed, order passed by the Court below; to the extent it has retained the 50% of the amount in the fixed deposits set aside -- Hence, entire amount ordered to be released to the petitioners, in accordance with law.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.07.2021

Article 21, 226 -- Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (6 of 2007), Section 3, 15 -- Run-away marriage – Police protection given – Marriage with minor – Voidable -- If upon actual verification, the age of the petitioners, especially petitioner no.1/girl, is found to be below marriageable age in terms of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, the order will not bar proceedings under the provisions of that Act -- In terms of Section 3 of the said Act, a marriage performed by a child (as defined under that Act), may not be void but only voidable upon the said minor attaining maturity -- However, that still does not bar proceedings under that Act for entering into a marriage before the legally marriageable age as per the Act.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.07.2021

Article 21, 226 -- Run-away marriage – Police protection – Aadhar Card as proof of age – Admissibility of -- Though the petitioners are shown to be 26 years and 25 years of age respectively, however, there is no firm proof of age of either of the petitioners other than their Aadhar Cards, which is actually no proof as no documentary proof is asked for at the time of applying for the Aadhar card or the issuance thereof -- However, since protection of life and liberty is a fundamental right of every citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, petition disposed of with a direction to respondents no.2 and 3, to ensure that the lives and liberty of the petitioners are not put to any harm or threat.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.07.2021

Article 226 -- National Highways Act, 1956 (48 of 1956), Section 3G – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 34 -- Acquisition of land – Award by Arbitrator – Writ jurisdiction -- Competent authority assessed the amount of compensation, matter referred to arbitrator for re-assessment -- As per sub-section 6 of Section 3G the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 shall apply to every arbitration under the Act -- Objections to the award of the Arbitrator are maintainable before the District Court -- Court did not find it appropriate to exercise its writ jurisdiction.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.07.2021

Article 226 -- Live-in relationship – Police protection – Right of -- Petitioners aged about 21 and 19 years -- Petitioners being major are entitled to live together in live-in-relationship and are also entitled to protection of their life and liberty against any harm from respondents No.4 and 5 -- Direction given to Senior Superintendent of Police to look into the grievances of the petitioners and take appropriate action for protection of their life and liberty as may be warranted by the circumstances.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.07.2021

Article 226 -- Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 47-A – Stamp Duty and penalty imposed – Challenged in writ -- Delay and laches -- Opportunity of hearing – Joint sale deed -- One of the co-sharers has duly been served and has represented the matter before the concerned authority -- Even qua the present petitioner, as per the record, the notice was sent to him and it has been received by an adult member of the family -- Mere alleged non-receipt of a notice by the petitioner, cannot be any ground to set aside the order – Otherwise also, the petitioner not substantiated as to how the deficiency in the stamp duty paid by the petitioner has been wrongly assessed -- Order was passed in the year 2016, petition has been filed only in the year 2021 -- Petition suffers from delay and laches, as well -- No ground for interference, the present petition is dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.07.2021

Article 226 -- Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (39 of 1987), Section 22C – Repudiation of insurance claim – Award by PLA -- Small amount involved – Writ jurisdiction -- Scooter was stolen FIR in this respect was duly registered -- Police authorities not being able to trace the vehicle, submitted an untraced report – Permanent Lok Adalat directed the payment of Rs.43,655/-along with interest on account of theft of a scooter along with Rs.5000/- each for mental agony, harassment and litigation charges -- Keeping in view the petty amount involved, Court did not find it a fit case for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.07.2021

Article 226 -- Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (54 of 2002), Section 13(2)(4), 14 -- SARFAESI proceedings – Writ jurisdiction -- Vide impugned order, the District Magistrate appointed a receiver to take possession of the secured assets of the petitioner-firm -- Petitioner-firm has failed to point out any illegality in the procedure adopted by the respondent-Bank and also the petitioner-firm not approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal for efficacious remedy -- When appropriate forum is provided under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, High Court stands injuncted from interfering with any matter arising out of the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act -- Finding no merit, present petition ordered to be dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.07.2021

Article 226 – Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (22 of 1984), Section 115 – Non-disposal of revision/stay – Writ petition against -- Revision petition pending has neither been listed nor any orders on stay application passed -- It would be suffice to direct the respondent No. 1 to dispose off the revision petition including stay application, preferably, within a period of two months -- In the meanwhile, no order adverse to the interest of the petitioner shall be passed by the respondents.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.07.2021

Article 226 -- Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (24 of 1973), Section 181 -- Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 (24 of 1972), Section 4 -- Illegal encroachment on road – Non-removal of -- Writ of mandamus – Maintainability of -- Remedy of writ petition is not panacea to each and every inaction on the part of the State officials -- Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not meant to short-circuit or circumvent the alternative statutory remedies -- Writ petition is an extraordinary remedy which can be invoked only after having attempted to get the desired relief by exploring all other options -- When the dispute relates to enforcement of a right or obligation and a specific remedy is provided under law, the High Court should not deviate from the general view and decline to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India except in compelling circumstances -- Ordinarily, writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked in the first instance -- Petitioners are relegated to the alternative remedy.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.07.2021

Article 226 -- Tender matter – EPF Certificate – Requirement of -- Submission that as per clause 34 of the terms and conditions of the tender notice, the petitioner-society having less than 50 employees is not required to file any EPF certificate and an affidavit to this effect has already been submitted -- Respondent-State submits that orders on the issues raised by the petitioner society shall be passed expeditiously in accordance with law – In view the statement/undertaking the petition stands disposed of -- However, the aforesaid exercise may be undertaken by the Municipal Council, Zirakpur, preferably before finalizing the tender proceedings.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.07.2021

Article 226 – Release of payment for carrying out various works for government agencies/departments -- Writ petition – Amount as claimed is admittedly due -- Writ petition disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to decide legal notice in accordance with law by passing a speaking order within a period of two months and in case any payment is found due towards the petitioner, the same be released to him within six weeks thereafter.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.07.2021

Article 226 -- Live-in relationship – Police Protection – Right of -- Petitioner No.1 (male partner) is though married but his wife has deserted him to live with another partner -- Out of his wedlock, he has two children i.e. son aged 19 years old and daughter aged 16 years old, who are in his custody -- While on the other hand, petitioner No.2 is stated to be a widow and out of her wedlock she too is blessed with two children i.e. two sons aged 12 years and 7 years, respectively – Petitioners submits that the live-in-relationship is merely for the sake of better upbringing of the four children – Both the petitioners have decided to live under the same roof for providing them better co-parenting – Senior Superintendent of Police shall look into the threat perception of petitioner No.2 and in case, so warranted, provide her with mobile number of a lady police official to whom she can approach, in case of any untoward incident at odd hours, in case, she feels any threat to her life.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.06.2021

Article 226 -- Child marriage – Void-abinitio -- Hon'ble Supreme Court in Independent Thought's case, has given a suggestion to the Government of India and the State Governments to follow the decision of the State of Karnataka, which had declared child marriage as void ab initio through an amendment – This suggestion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was given in the year 2017, but the same is yet to attract the attention of the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh, therefore, court feels it necessary to remind the States to consider this important issue to eradicate menace of child marriage.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.06.2021

Article 226 -- Live-in relationship with minor girl – Police protection – Petition for -- Petitioner No.2 being only 14 years and 8 months old is a minor -- Petitioner No.1 is representing her, claiming himself to be the next friend of minor -- Petitioner No.1 is already an accused in case FIR and is accused of kidnapping the minor daughter of respondent No.5, therefore, his stand to claim himself as lawful representative of minor girl is not worth acceptance -- Writ petition dismissed -- SP, directed to depute a responsible police officer to ensure that the custody of the minor girl is restored to her parents.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.06.2021

Article 226 -- Live-in relationship – Police Protection – Right of -- Both the petitioners have attained the age of majority -- Petitioner No.1 is married with respondent No.4 and the marriage is still subsisting -- Petitioner No.2 is unmarried -- Petitioners are stated to be in live-in relationship and they are apprehending threat and danger to their life and liberty at the instance of respondents No.4 to 7 – Petition disposed of with a direction to respondent Senior Superintendent of Police to look into the grievance of the petitioners as projected in the representation.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.06.2021

Article 21, 226 -- Live-in relationship – Minor girl -- Police protection – Right of -- Concept of a live-in relationship may not be acceptable to all, but it cannot be said that such a relationship is an illegal one or that living together without the sanctity of marriage constitutes an offence – Petitioners have taken a decision to reside together without the sanctity of marriage and it is not for the courts to judge them on their decision – Petition disposed of with directions to Senior Superintendent of Police to decide the representation of the petitioners within a period of one week and grant them protection, if any threat to their life and liberty is perceived.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.06.2021

Article 21, 226 -- Live-in-relationship without divorce – Police protection – Right of – Matter referred to larger Bench -- Hon'ble Chief Justice requested to constitute a Larger Bench to decide the following questions:- 1. Where two persons living together seek protection of their life and liberty by filing an appropriate petition, whether the Court is required to grant them protection, per se, without examining their marital status and the other circumstances of that case? 2. If the answer to the above is in the negative, what are the circumstances in which the Court can deny them protection?

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.05.2021

Article 21, 226 -- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005), Section 2(a)(f)(q) -- Live-in relationship – Life and liberty – Protection of -- Petitioners have not approached court either seeking permission to marry or for approval of their relationship – Concept of a live in relationship may not be acceptable to all, but it cannot be said that such a relationship is an illegal one or that living together without the sanctity of marriage constitutes an offence – Even under D V Act, 2005, a woman who is in a ‘domestic relationship’ has been provided protection, maintenance etc. -- Thus, the female live-in-partners and the children of live-in-couples have been accorded adequate protection by the Parliament -- Petition disposed of with directions to grant them protection, if any threat to their life and liberty is perceived.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.05.2021

Article 21, 226 -- Police protection petition -- Validity of marriage -- Scope of -- Present petition is only regarding the protection of life and liberty of the petitioners and, therefore, the validity of the marriage cannot be a ground for denial of such protection.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.05.2021

Article 226 -- Custody of child – Writ of habeas corpus – Extra-marital relationship of mother -- Effect of – Extramarital relationship, the same by itself cannot lead to the conclusion that she would not be a good mother to deny her the custody of her child – Petitioner-mother and respondent-husband have divorced and a decree in this regard has been passed by a court in Australia -- These allegations against the petitioner being wholly unsubstantiated are not considered relevant to adjudicate the issue of custody of the minor child -- Child is under five years of age, she is an Australian citizen and the petitioner is fairly well settled in Australia – It would be in the best interest and welfare of the child if her custody is handed to the petitioner-mother.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.05.2021

Article 226 -- Custody of child – Writ of habeas corpus – Foreign judgment of divorce and custody – Effect of -- Parties had gone to Australia in furtherance of their career prospects -- Child was born in Australia and in initial years was brought up there – Petitioner-mother and respondent-father have divorced and a decree in this regard has been passed by a court in Australia – Order had been passed by the Federal court in Australia, directing the respondent-father to return the child to Australia -- Judgment of a foreign court would not be the only factor while considering the issue of custody of a child to a parent -- It would only be one of the factors for consideration and would be subservient to the paramount consideration of the interest and welfare of the child – When there is an order of the Australian Court, the child is under five years of age, she is an Australian citizen and the petitioner is fairly well settled in Australia – Court considered that it would be in the best interest and welfare of the child if her custody is handed to the petitioner-mother.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.05.2021

Article 226 -- Custody of child – Writ of habeas corpus – Paramount consideration – For issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for the custody of a child as what is of paramount consideration is the interest and welfare of the child.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.05.2021

Article 227 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7 (i) – Recovery suit as mandatory injunction – Advalorem court fee – Rejection of plaint – Prayer of -- Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC the court is entitled to carefully examine the contents of the plaint to arrive at a conclusion -- Plaintiff has claimed a definite amount of Rs.6,35,00,000/- -- Suit is for recovery although, styled as suit for mandatory injunction -- Ad valorem court fee is payable according to the amount claimed – Order of lower court, directing to pay the ad-valorem Court fee on the amount claimed -- No ground to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.05.2021

Article 226 – Auction sale by Bank/ Financial Institution -- Stay of -- Covid 19 pandemic situation -- Directions issued in suo motu PIL – Any Bank or Financial Institution shall not take action for auction in respect of any property of any citizen or person or party or any Body corporate till 30th June, 2021.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.04.2021

Article 226 -- Civil Suit – Extension of time for filing written statement -- Covid 19 pandemic situation -- Directions issued in suo motu PIL – Time for filing of written-statement or return in any Suit or proceeding pending before any Civil Court or any other forum, unless specifically directed, shall stand extended till 30th of June, 2021 -- It is however will not preclude the parties from filing such written-statement or return before 30th June, 2021.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.04.2021

Article 226 -- Covid 19 pandemic situation -- Directions issued in suo motu PIL – Interim orders/directions/ protection – Extension of -- All the interim orders/directions issued or protection granted including any order requiring any compliance by the parties to such proceedings, passed by High Court or any other Court subordinate to it or any Family Court or Labour Court or any Tribunal or any other Judicial or Quasi-Judicial forum, over which High Court has power of superintendence, which are subsisting today shall stand extended till 30th June, 2021 -- If undue hardship and prejudice of any extreme nature, to any of the parties to such proceeding(s), such parties would be at liberty to seek appropriate relief by moving appropriate application(s) before the Competent Court(s), Tribunal, Judicial or Quasi-Judicial Forum.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.04.2021

Article 226 – Covid 19 pandemic situation -- Directions issued to Government bodies in suo motu PIL – If the Government of Punjab, Haryana, Union Territory, Chandigarh, and/or any of its Departments and/or functionaries, Central Government and/or its departments or functionaries or any Public Sector Undertakings or any Public or Private Companies or any Firm or any individual or person is/are, by the order of this Court or any Court subordinate to it or the Tribunals, required to do a particular thing or carry out certain direction in a particular manner, in a time frame, which is going to expire at any time from now up to 30th June, 2021, the time for compliance of such order shall stand extended up to 30th June, 2021, unless specifically directed otherwise by the Court concerned.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.04.2021

Article 226 – Eviction/ Demolition by government/ Corporation/ Council/ Board/ Panchayat etc. – Stay of -- Covid 19 pandemic situation -- Directions issued in suo motu PIL – State Governments, Union Territory, Chandigarh, or any of its Departments or any Municipal Corporation / Council / Board or any Gram Panchayat or any other local body or any other agency and instrumentality of the State shall not take any action for eviction and demolition in respect of any property, over which any citizen or person or party or any Body Corporate, has physical or symbolic possession as on today till 30th June, 2021.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.04.2021

Article 226 -- Execution of eviction, dispossession, demolition etc. -- Covid 19 pandemic situation -- Directions issued in suo motu PIL – Orders of eviction, dispossession, demolition, etc. passed by High Court or any Court subordinate to it or any Tribunal or Judicial or Quasi-Judicial forum, which have so far remained unexecuted, shall remain in abeyance till 30th of June 2021.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.04.2021

Article 227 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 – Temporary injunction – Local Commissioner report showing the property measured 48'x74' and not 20'x80' and there was a dispute as such as to which portion of land the petitioner is in possession -- It would be a matter of evidence as to whether the petitioner is in possession of property measuring 20'x80' -- In absence of any material record having been produced before the Courts below the injunction has been declined -- No case as such is made out for interference, revision petition dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.04.2021

Article 227 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13-B -- Divorce by mutual consent – Waiver of six months – Denial of -- Revisional against -- Marriage between the parties has irretrievably broken and now they have decided to part their ways, so that they both have an opportunity to live their lives in the manner they like and in the given situation -- Insistence of the Court below to wait to another six months would result in adding to their woes -- Revision petition allowed, Family Court, shall entertain the joint petition by waiving off six months period.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.04.2021

Article 14 -- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4, 6 – Acquisition of land – Challenge to -- Major chunk of the land released -- Petitioners case is not different from those land owners whose land already stood released -- Purpose for which the land was acquired is already vitiated as the proposed plan for which the land was acquired cannot be fulfilled by retaining the land of the petitioners -- Hence, denying to the prayer of the petitioners in not releasing their land would be a travesty of justice -- Action of the State in declining their prayer for release of their respective acquired land is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India -- Petitions allowed.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 17.03.2021 Decided on: 09.04.2021

Article 227 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7, Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint -- Objection to proper court fee – Dismissal of application – Appeal/Revision against – Maintainability of -- No further appeal or revision at the hands of the defendants is maintainable.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.04.2021

Article 227 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Execution of order -- Revisional Court’s power -- Enhancement of compensation by High Court in Appeal was ordered to be invested in a FDR and the interest accruing thereon be paid to the petitioner/ claimant – Ordering any deviation in the mode of investment would tantamount to modification of the judgement – High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot modify the judgement and that too in proceedings arising out of execution of that very judgement.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.04.2021

Article 227 – Waqf Act, 1995 (43 of 1995), Section 83 – Order of Wakf Tribunal -- Writ jurisdiction – Revisional jurisdiction -- Against an order of the Wakf Tribunal before the High Court, the High Court exercises the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India -- It is wholly immaterial that the petition was titled as a writ petition -- Certain High Courts, petition under Article 227 is titled as writ petition, in certain other High Courts as revision petition and in certain others as a miscellaneous petition -- In the light of proviso to sub-section (9) of Section 83 of the Act, the High Court exercised jurisdiction only under the Act -- Jurisdiction of the High Court is restricted to only examine the correctness, legality or propriety of the findings recorded by the Wakf Tribunal -- High Court in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred under proviso to sub-section (9) of Section 83 of the Act does not act as the appellate court -- Petition styled as one under Article 226 would not bar the High Court to exercise jurisdiction under the Act and/or under Article 227 of the Constitution.

(SC) Decided on: 05.04.2021

Article 227 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 -- Execution petition pending since 2016 – Revision against -- Warrants of possession have been issued on numerous dates but either the same have not been received back or have been returned back unexecuted – Direction given to Executing Court to finally decide the execution petition as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of two months.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.03.2021

Article 227 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 -- Application for amendment of written statement – Dismissal by Trial Court – Revision petition -- It is trite that the Courts are more liberal while allowing the amendment of a written statement viz-a-viz that of a plaint -- However, in the case not only the trial has commenced but the amendment sought by the defendant-petitioner would change the entire defence as raised by the him in his written statement -- Not only is the date of payment, but also the name of the person to whom the payment is stated to have been paid, is sought to be changed -- Amendment sought would not only cause prejudice to the plaintiff-respondent but would also necessarily entail a de novo trial, which is at the fag end -- Revision petition dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.03.2021

Article 227 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1909), Order 39 Rule 1 & 2, Order 43 Rule 1(r), Section 151 -- Dismissal of application u/o 39 R 1 & 2 by trial court -- Revisional jurisdiction – Petitioners have an alternate remedy available to them under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC of filing an appeal against the impugned order -- Revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 CPC is held to be not maintainable and is dismissed as such.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.03.2021

Article 226 -- Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas (Restriction of Unregulated Development) Act, 1963 (41 of 1963), Section 7 -- Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (8 of 1975), Section 2(c) -- Illegal colonies – Competent authority not taking any action – Writ petition -- Petitioner had been earlier approaching the respondents by way of representations followed by a subsequent notice through counsel which till date has not been responded to -- Competent authority seized of the matter, writ petition disposed of with a direction to the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana to consider the legal notice and take a decision thereon positively within a period of two months.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.03.2021

Article 227 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint -- Respondent has unambiguously averred that after sale of the property in his favour he has become landlord and owner and that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties -- Grounds on which the petitioner is seeking rejection of the ejectment petition are a matter of evidence and are not germane for deciding the application filed by him under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC -- Though the property in the sale deed has been described as a house, however, the petitioner is not able to deny the fact that the description of the property is identical in both the sale deed as well as the ejectment petition – Rejection of the plaint at the threshold entails very serious consequences -- This power has to be used in exceptional circumstances and should be used only when the Court is absolutely sure that the plaintiff does not have an arguable case at all -- Application filed by the petitioner does not satisfy the requirements of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Application dismissed by Trial court – Revision against dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.03.2021

Article 226 -- Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), Section 26 -- Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 14 -- Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (6 of 2007) -- Live-in relationship – Deed of live-in relationship – Legality of -- Protection of life and liberty -- Since such type of deed is not permissible in law, no benefit can be claimed by the petitioners -- Even otherwise, under the provisions of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, petitioner No.2 is not competent to perform marriage and as such he is not competent to have a live-in-relationship with petitioner No.1 as he has not attained the age of marriage – As the terms and conditions of live-in-relationship relied upon by the petitioners referred to above, especially stating that it is not a ‘Marital Relationship’ is nothing but the misuse of the process of law as it cannot be morally accepted in society -- Petition dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.03.2021

Article 226 – Writ jurisdiction – Interim order --Nature of modification which has been made by the High Court vide order impugned in the form of an ad-hoc interim arrangement, is exceeding its jurisdiction, and not within the realm of power of judicial review to be exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution -- It is well settled that by an interim order, even the final relief ordinarily should not be granted – Impugned order quashed and set aside.

(SC) Decided on: 10.03.2021

Article 15(3), 51-A -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 24 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 9 – Restitution of conjugal rights – Transfer of case -- Complaint is already pending before the crime against women cell, Gurugram, it would be proper, appropriate and in the interest of justice if the same are tried and decided at one place -- Ethos as manifested under Article 51-A of Constitution of India envisage that it shall be fundamental duty of every citizen of India to uphold the dignity of woman -- In addition, per Article 15 (3), power has also been conferred on the State to make special provisions for women and children – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was amended w.e.f. 23.12.2003 that in case of a wife being the petitioner, jurisdiction was conferred to the Court within local limits of whose ordinary original civil jurisdiction, the wife is residing on the date of presentation of the petition -- Without going into the allegations/counter allegations, the transfer application allowed -- Petition transferred to the District Judge, Gurugram.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.03.2021

Article 226 -- Parole – Marriage of relative – Conviction in NDPS case – Relative whose marriage is statedly fixed is not very closely related to the petitioner, Court not inclined to pass any order to allow emergency parole -- However, in the interest of justice, the petitioner ordered to be sent to the venue of the marriage in custody.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.03.2021

Article 226 -- Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 16 – Appointment of Lambardar – Appeal and stay application before FC – Non-decision upon – Writ petition -- Appeal came up for preliminary hearing on 02.02.2021 but was adjourned to 20.04.2021 as the said officer did not hold the Court on that day – Application for preponement was listed on 23.02.2021, but has again been adjourned to 20.04.2021 -- Petition disposed of with directions that the stay application be heard and decided on 20.04.2021 by the learned Financial Commissioner -- In case there is any exigency in holding the Court on 20.04.2021, then the order be passed on the said application within a period of one week thereafter.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.03.2021

Article 226 -- Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971), Section 9 – Public premises – Eviction of -- Statutory appeal and stay application pending – Non-decisioning of -- Statutory appeal accompanied with an application for stay within the period of limitation, the same ought to be decided on merits -- Bank occupying the premises facing an eviction also involves the interest of the public as also customers of the bank -- Writ petition disposed of in terms of accepting the statement as regards the statutory appeal u/s 9 of 1973 Act to be decided expeditiously and for the stay application in any event to be decided within a period of one week -- Keeping in view the interest of the customers/public who would be availing the banking services in the premises in question, Municipal Corporation directed to de-seal the premises forthwith.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.03.2021

Article 226 -- Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (54 of 2002), Section 13(2)(4) – Possession notice – Challenge to -- After the deposit of Rs.20 lacs on conditional stay, the account of the petitioners was regularized on the direction of the court -- After regularization, the account again declared NPA on account of defaults – After the declaration of NPA afresh, fresh proceedings are to be initiated under the SARFAESI Act and the previous action, which is under challenge before Court, would need no adjudication -- A fresh cause of action would arise in favour of the petitioners after the initiation of fresh proceedings under the SARFAESI Act -- Petition rendered infructuous.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.03.2021

Article 226, 227 -- Non-allotment of Chamber -- Refund of amount -- Petitioner deposited Rs.3.5 lacs for allotment of chamber -- Draw of lots was held on 20.01.2019 but the name of the petitioner was not included in the list of eligible candidates -- Request was made to refund but the same has not been done – Direction given to refund the amount of Rs.3.5 lakhs to the petitioner along with interest @ 7% per annum from 01.02.2019 to be paid within a period of 2 months.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.03.2021

Article 226 -- Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (32 of 1956), Section 6 (a) – Custody of minor – Writ of habeas corpus – Maintainability of -- Writ of habeas corpus would be maintainable to seek the custody of the minor child who is at the tender age of about 4 years -- Petitioner, a mother, entitled to maintain the writ of habeas corpus -- Detenue being a minor and under the age of 5 years should ordinarily be in the custody of the mother as stipulated u/s 6 (a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, unless the respondent is able to establish that she is unfit to do so – Writ allowed, custody given to the petitioner – Respondent no. 5 / Father is at liberty to approach the Guardian Court/Civil Judge for custody of the minor in accordance with law.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.03.2021

Article 142 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13(1)(ia), 13-B – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 25 – Transfer petition -- Divorce by mutual consent -- Grant of divorce by exercising power under Article 142 of Constitution – Jurisdiction of -- Joint application ought to be dealt with by a Bench comprising of two or more Hon’ble Judges as the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India may consider appropriate -- Since the parties have settled their dispute through the process of mediation, the transfer petition has lost its utility and stands disposed of -- File to be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions for giving effect to the terms of settlement entered into by and between the parties and broadly reflected in the joint application.

(SC) Decided on: 01.03.2021

Article 142 – Power and jurisdiction of Single Judge under Article 142 of Constitution -- Provisions of Article 142 of the Constitution of India vests Supreme Court with the jurisdiction to pass any order or decree to do complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it -- A Judge sitting singly has the power and jurisdiction to issue orders or pass decrees as specified in the said Article.

(SC) Decided on: 01.03.2021

Article 142, 145 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13(1)(ia), 13-B – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 25 – Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Order VI Rule (1) -- Divorce petition – Transfer application – Grant of divorce by exercising power under Article 142 of Constitution – Jurisdiction of -- While sitting singly Supreme Court does not have the jurisdiction to take a decision on that plea made in the joint application -- One of the preconditions for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142, the cause or the matter must be pending before it -- Transfer petition arose out of matrimonial dispute between the parties, but the expression ‘cause or matter pending before it’ cannot be stretched to cover all disputes originating from such matrimonial problem that can be resolved by Supreme Court, sitting singly, while hearing a transfer petition.

(SC) Decided on: 01.03.2021

Article 21, 226 -- Live-in relationship – Life and liberty -- Police protection -- Petitioner no.1/ Lady left the house of husband and living with petitioner no. 2 in live-in-relationship – Petition disposed of with a direction to Superintendent of Police to look into the matter and to dispose of the representation in accordance with law, in case there is a genuine threat to the lives and liberty of the petitioners, then necessary steps warranted under law be taken thereupon at the earliest so as to ensure that no harm is caused to the petitioners.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.02.2021

Article 21, 32 -- Inter-caste love marriage – FIR for missing of petitioner/girl – Protection of Life and liberty -- I.O. insisting for visit to police station for recording statement – Requirement of -- Marriage certificate received by I.O. and the conversation already been held with petitioner/girl, where she clearly stated that she was married to petitioner/boy and that she was feeling threatened and apprehensive of coming to the police station – Intervention of Court would really not have been required if the I.O. had conducted himself more responsibly in closing the complaint and if he really wanted to record the statement of the petitioner/girl, should have informed that he would visit her and recorded the statement instead of putting her under threat of action against petitioner/boy to come to the police station -- Police authorities are expected to take action in this behalf in the next eight weeks to lay down some guidelines and training programmes how to handle such socially sensitive cases -- FIR quashed.

(SC) Decided on: 08.02.2021

Article 226 -- Punjab Rent Act, 1995 (13 of 2012), Section 20 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Tenant company under liquidation proceedings – Eviction of – Remedy of -- Writ petitioner is calling upon High court to decree a suit for possession of tenanted premises in occupation of a company which is stated to be under liquidation -- Company was admittedly inducted as a tenant in the premises in dispute -- Company still exists and has not been dissolved – Held, urban tenancy in the State of Punjab, is governed and regulated by the provisions of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 -- Thus, the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of filing a petition under the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 – If petitioner’s argument to the effect that the tenancy has come to an end, is accepted still the petitioner has a remedy of filing a civil suit seeking relief of possession – Writ petition disposed of by relegating the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.10.2020

Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) -- Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 (47 of 2019) – Protest against CAA -- Shaheen Bagh protest – Blocking of roads – Legality of – Manner in which Administration should act is their responsibility and they should not hide behind the court orders or seek support therefrom for carrying out their administrative functions -- Courts adjudicate the legality of the actions and are not meant to give shoulder to the administration to fire their guns from -- Unfortunately, despite a lapse of a considerable period of time, there was neither any negotiations nor any action by the administration, thus warranting Court intervention -- Occupation of public ways, whether at the site in question or anywhere else for protests is not acceptable and the administration ought to take action to keep the areas clear of encroachments or obstructions -- Protests are subject to the legal position as enunciated above, with some sympathy and dialogue, but are not permitted to get out of hand.

(SC) Decided on: 07.10.2020

Article 21 -- Passports Act, 1967 (15 of 1967), Section 10 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 – Cheque bounce case -- Proclaimed Person – Released on bail – Impounding of passport – Legality of – Petitioner appeared before the Judicial Magistrate, she was granted bail and, thus, the proclamation order ceased to be operative -- Said fact was well within the knowledge of respondent-Regional Passport Office -- Moreover, in a bailable offence, no condition can be imposed by the Court regarding surrender of the passport -- Fundamental Rights of the petitioner breached -- Hence, the impugned action is highly deprecated -- Petition allowed with a costs of Rs.1.00 lakh to be paid by respondent-RPO to the petitioner -- Respondent-RPO directed to release the passport of the petitioner within 15 days.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.08.2020

Article 227 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 -- Compromise between parties – Withdrawal of suit – Maintainability of Execution proceedings – Void ib initio – Delayed revision – Acceptance of -- Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, deals with the execution of the decree and order -- There exists neither any judgment nor a decree on the basis of the compromise -- There is merely an order, whereby the suit was dismissed as withdrawn -- In the absence of a decree or executable order, it is not understandable as to how the execution proceedings could have been initiated and further entertained by the Court below – Though, the revision petition has been filed after a delay of four years, yet to permit an illegal proceeding and an order, which is void ab initio, to stand would be travesty of justice -- Execution proceedings and all subsequent proceedings on the basis of the said execution proceedings are held illegal, null, and void.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.02.2020

Delay in filing written statement -- Condonation of delay – Application was filed prior to the judgment of the Constitution Bench – Held, said application for condonation of delay ought to have been considered on merits and should not have been dismissed on the basis of the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited, (2020) 5 SCC 757, because the said judgment was to operate prospectively.

(SC) Decided on: 08.07.2021

Section 12 -- Illegal seizure of Hypothecated vehicle – Compensation to owner -- Complainant shall be entitled to the compensation/loss suffered because of not plying of the vehicle seized and sold illegally -- Nothing on record regarding loss suffered because of not plying the vehicle -- Appellant directed to pay the compensation/damages towards loss suffered because of not plying of the vehicle at Rs. 5000/- per month from the date of the picking up of the vehicle i.e., 19.12.2004 till 31.12.2007 with interest @ 7.5% from December, 2004 till the actual payment within a period of six weeks.

(SC) Decided on: 04.11.2022

Section 13(2)(a) -- Consumer complaint -- Delay in filing written statement -- Condonation of delay – Application was filed prior to the judgment of the Constitution Bench – Held, said application for condonation of delay ought to have been considered on merits and should not have been dismissed on the basis of the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited, (2020) 5 SCC 757, because the said judgment was to operate prospectively.

(SC) Decided on: 08.07.2021

Section 13 – Written statement by opposite party – Extension of time – Power of District Forum -- District Forum has no power to extend the time for filing the response to the complaint beyond the period of 15 days in addition to 30 days as is envisaged under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act -- Judgment to operate prospectively. Referred questions answered.

(SC) Decided on: 04.03.2020

Section 13 – Written statement by opposite party – Commencing date -- Commencing point of limitation of 30 days under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act would be from the date of receipt of the notice accompanied with the complaint by the opposite party, and not mere receipt of the notice of the complaint -- Judgment to operate prospectively. Referred questions answered.

(SC) Decided on: 04.03.2020

Section 13(2)(a)(b) – Service of summons without complaint – Written statement – Non-receipt of complaint with summons – Objection of -- Objection of not having received a copy of the complaint along with the notice should be raised on the first date itself and not thereafter, otherwise if permitted to be raised at any point later would defeat the very purpose of the Act, which is to provide simple and speedy redressal of consumer disputes. Judgment to operate prospectively.

(SC) Decided on: 04.03.2020

Section 23 -- Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017, Rule 15 -- Delayed possession of flat – Refund with interest – Right of Flat purchaser –Appellant/ Builder failed in obtaining the Occupancy Certificate and offering possession of the flat to the Respondent/ Purchaser within the time stipulated in the Agreement, or within a reasonable time thereafter – Respondent/ Flat Purchaser could not be compelled to take possession of the flat, even though it was offered almost 2 years after the grace period under the Agreement expired – Respondent/ Flat Purchaser held entitled for refund of the entire amount deposited by him with Interest – National Commission rightly awarded Interest @10.7% S.I. p.a. by applying Rule 15 of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation And Development) Rules, 2017 from the date of each installment till 05.02.2017 i.e. till the date after which the Order of stay of cancellation of the allotment was passed; and thereafter, from the date of the Commission’s final Order till the date on which the amount is refunded with Interest -- Civil Appeals dismissed, and the Final Judgment and Order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission affirmed.

(SC) Decided on : 02.04.2019

Section 23 -- Purchase of flat – Unfair terms and conditions – Effect of -- Terms of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement were wholly one-sided and unfair to the Respondent/ Flat Purchaser – Appellant/ Builder could not seek to bind the Respondent with such one-sided contractual terms.

(SC) Decided on : 02.04.2019

SARFAESI proceedings -- Undertaking before the High Court to make payment on specific dates – Non-honouring of commitment – Held, series of acts committed by the petitioners (i) in issuing post-dated cheques, which were dated beyond the date within which they had agreed to make payment; (ii) in allowing those cheques to be dishonoured; (iii) in not appearing before the Court on the first date of hearing with an excuse that was found to be false; (iv) in coming up with an explanation about their own debtors committing default; and (v) in getting exposed through the report of the SFIO, convinced the High Court to believe that the undertaking given by the petitioners was not based upon good faith but intended to hoodwink the Court – No fault with the High Court holding the petitioners guilty of contempt -- No dispute on facts that the mortgaged properties have now been sold and with extraordinary efforts, the Bank has also taken possession -- Petitioners have also spent 11 days in custody out of the total period of imprisonment of three months imposed by the High Court -- In such circumstances, it is sufficient punishment for the petitioners – Sentence reduced to already undergone.

(SC) Decided on: 09.08.2021

Section 12, 19 – Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (54 of 2002), Section 13(2)(4) -- Constitution of India, Article 226 -- SARFAESI proceedings -- Contempt of Court -- Undertaking before the High Court to make payment on specific dates – Non-honouring of commitment – Held, series of acts committed by the petitioners (i) in issuing post-dated cheques, which were dated beyond the date within which they had agreed to make payment; (ii) in allowing those cheques to be dishonoured; (iii) in not appearing before the Court on the first date of hearing with an excuse that was found to be false; (iv) in coming up with an explanation about their own debtors committing default; and (v) in getting exposed through the report of the SFIO, convinced the High Court to believe that the undertaking given by the petitioners was not based upon good faith but intended to hoodwink the Court – No fault with the High Court holding the petitioners guilty of contempt -- No dispute on facts that the mortgaged properties have now been sold and with extraordinary efforts, the Bank has also taken possession -- Petitioners have also spent 11 days in custody out of the total period of imprisonment of three months imposed by the High Court -- In such circumstances, it is sufficient punishment for the petitioners – Sentence reduced to already undergone.

(SC) Decided on: 09.08.2021

Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Businessman deceased -- Argument that claimants still have income from the business, cannot be accepted to reduce the amount of dependency of claimants.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.11.2015

Labour law -- Jurisdiction of civil court -- Issue involved relates only to the correction of the date of birth -- Jurisdiction of the civil court is not ousted, as this is not a case relating to enforcement of a right or an obligation under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(SC) Decided on: 03.08.2022

Labour law -- Correction in date of birth – Issue involved relates only to the correction of the date of birth -- Jurisdiction of the civil court is not ousted, as this is not a case relating to enforcement of a right or an obligation under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(SC) Decided on: 03.08.2022

Permissibility of -- Once the court comes to a conclusion that the clerical or arithmetic mistake has crept in due to any accidental slip or omission, the same can be permitted to be corrected not only in the pleadings but also in the evidence as well as in the judgment and the decree passed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.07.2021

Birth certificate as well as aadhar card and ration card of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 bears the name of his mother as 'Laxmi' – It is only in the examination form, forwarded by the school authorities to the appellant-Board, the name of mother has been mentioned as 'Raj' -- Not a case of fraud or ulterior purposes, it is an inadvertent mistake, which needs to be corrected so that the child does not suffer for life – Suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1, for the correction of name of his mother allowed and appeal of the appellant-Board was rejected – Held, concurrent findings recorded by the learned Courts below, needs no intervention.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.11.2020

Plaint was termed as being one for declaration and mandatory injunction, however, in effect what is sought is recovery of the excess amount alleged to have been paid by the plaintiff-petitioner -- Substantial relief claimed in the suit is for recovery of an amount of Rs.6,25,57,341/- charged in excess -- Plaintiff simply by playing around the words cannot avoid payment of Court fees.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.02.2021

Section 7 -- Suit for compensation/ damages for malicious prosecution – Ad-valorem court fees – Trial Court directed the plaintiff-petitioner to affix ad valorem court fee on an amount of Rs.20 lakhs – Perusal of the plaint reveals that the damages are not being quantified, however, a vague statement has been made that the damages have been suffered by the plaintiff-petitioner of over Rs.20 lakhs -- However, in para it has clearly been stated that the exact value of the relief cannot be ascertained and the quantification of the damages would be determined by the Court, hence, a tentative court fee of Rs.50/- has been affixed with the plaint – Held, at the initial stage, in a suit for malicious prosecution, there cannot be any valuation in sure and certain terms and, hence, the Court is left with no other option at this stage but to accept the valuation offered by the plaintiff-petitioner -- Impugned order set aside, tentative court fee affixed by the plaintiff-petitioner shall be accepted by the Court and the Court shall proceed further with the suit in accordance with the law.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.05.2022

Section 7 (i) – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Recovery suit as mandatory injunction – Advalorem court fee – Rejection of plaint – Prayer of -- Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC the court is entitled to carefully examine the contents of the plaint to arrive at a conclusion -- Plaintiff has claimed a definite amount of Rs.6,35,00,000/- -- Suit is for recovery although, styled as suit for mandatory injunction -- Ad valorem court fee is payable according to the amount claimed – Order of lower court, directing to pay the ad-valorem Court fee on the amount claimed -- No ground to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.05.2021

Section 7 – Suit for declaration and mandatory injunction – Consequential/ Substantive relief is for refund of excess amount charged/ Recovery suit -- Court fees -- Plaint was termed as being one for declaration and mandatory injunction, however, in effect what is sought is recovery of the excess amount alleged to have been paid by the plaintiff-petitioner -- Substantial relief claimed in the suit is for recovery of an amount of Rs.6,25,57,341/- charged in excess -- Plaintiff simply by playing around the words cannot avoid payment of Court fees.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.02.2021

Lockdown – Computing/ Extension of limitation period – 1. In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall stand excluded. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 15.03.2020, if any, shall become available with effect from 15.03.2021. -- 2. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 15.03.2021. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 15.03.2021, is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. -- 3. The period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings. -- 4. The Government of India shall amend the guidelines for containment zones, to state. “Regulated movement will be allowed for medical emergencies, provision of essential goods and services, and other necessary functions, such as, time bound applications, including for legal purposes, and educational and job-related requirements.

(SC) Decided on: 08.03.2021

Cheque bounce matters – Object of Chapter XVII of the NIA is not only punitive but also compensatory and restitutive -- Provisions of NIA envision a single window for criminal liability for dishonour of cheque as well as civil liability for realisation of the cheque amount -- There needs to be a consistent approach towards awarding compensation and unless there exist special circumstances, the Courts should uniformly levy fine up to twice the cheque amount along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

(SC) Decided on: 10.02.2021

Cheque bounce case -- Acquittal of accused – Claim of the plaintiff was not based on dishonour of the cheques -- It was based on the basis of transaction of supply of poultry feed to the company and the bills raised therefore -- Merely, because defendant has been acquitted in criminal proceeding that does not mean that the claim of the plaintiff in civil proceedings ipso facto stand disproved.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.07.2017

Cheque bounce case -- Acquittal in criminal case – Merely, because defendant has been acquitted in criminal proceeding that does not mean that the claim of the plaintiff in civil proceedings ipso facto stand disproved.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.07.2017

Divorce -- Long separation – Whether the relationship of the husband and wife has come to an end and if the respondent-wife is not ready to give mutual divorce to the appellant-husband, whether this act of her, would amount to cruelty towards husband, keeping in view the fact that she is not staying with her husband for the last about 23 years and there is no scope that they can cohabit as husband and wife again – Decree of divorce granted in favour of the appellant-husband.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.05.2022

Writ of habeas corpus – Extra-marital relationship of mother -- Effect of – Extramarital relationship, the same by itself cannot lead to the conclusion that she would not be a good mother to deny her the custody of her child – Petitioner-mother and respondent-husband have divorced and a decree in this regard has been passed by a court in Australia -- Child is under five years of age, she is an Australian citizen and the petitioner is fairly well settled in Australia – It would be in the best interest and welfare of the child if her custody is handed to the petitioner-mother.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.05.2021

Writ of habeas corpus – Foreign judgment of divorce and custody – Effect of -- Parties had gone to Australia in furtherance of their career prospects -- Child was born in Australia and in initial years was brought up there – Petitioner-mother and respondent-father have divorced and a decree in this regard has been passed by a court in Australia – Order had been passed by the Federal court in Australia, directing the respondent-father to return the child to Australia -- Judgment of a foreign court would not be the only factor while considering the issue of custody of a child to a parent -- It would only be one of the factors for consideration and would be subservient to the paramount consideration of the interest and welfare of the child – When there is an order of the Australian Court, the child is under five years of age, she is an Australian citizen and the petitioner is fairly well settled in Australia – Court considered that it would be in the best interest and welfare of the child if her custody is handed to the petitioner-mother.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.05.2021

Writ of habeas corpus – Paramount consideration – For issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for the custody of a child as what is of paramount consideration is the interest and welfare of the child.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.05.2021

Minor daughter -- In the application pleaded case that the petitioner is a postgraduate and that she worked as a teacher in Delhi Public School for 10 long years not controverted by the respondent in his written statement and thus, it can safely be concluded that the petitioner is a well-educated and qualified lady -- During the course of arguments, it has been submitted that she has taken up a job as a teacher in a school in Panchkula in June-July, 2019 after she resigned from Delhi Public School in February, 2019 -- Respondent has not been able to controvert this statement and thus, it can also be concluded that she possesses means to maintain her children -- Best interests of the children lie in the custody of their mother – Girl is under 05 years of age and in view of Section 6(a) of the Minority Act, her best interests would definitely be served in the custody of the mother – Other daughter cannot be separated from his sister as the same would traumatize both of them -- Impugned order passed by the trial Court is set aside, direction given for transfer of custody of the minor children to the petitioner within 07 days -- Respondent/ father shall have visitation rights on 1st and 3rd Saturday of every month.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.03.2021

Minor child – Appointment of Guardian -- Section 17 of the Guardian Act as well as Section 13 of the Minority Act leave no manner of doubt that the welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration to be kept in mind by the Court while appointing a guardian.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.03.2021

Minor – Writ of habeas corpus – Maintainability of -- Writ of habeas corpus would be maintainable to seek the custody of the minor child who is at the tender age of about 4 years.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.03.2021

Minor children below 5 years -- On the date of separation from the husband, the daughter was about 2 ½ years of age and the son was about 5 years of age -- Application for interim custody by mother rejected on the ground that the father is looking after the minor children very well – At the time of passing impugned order, boy was 8 years and girl 4-1/2 years old – Held, proviso to Section 6(a) states that custody of a minor below 5 years of age shall ordinarily be with the mother, it does not stipulate that under all circumstances a child below 5 years must remain in the company of the mother -- Children are getting all the love, affection and care from their father -- There is no bar in law in their custody remaining with the father -- Revision petition filed by mother dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.02.2021

Better education – Respondent-mother is an educated lady and when the custody of the daughter was given to her mother during the examinations period, her results were good, meaning thereby, the respondent-mother is more capable of providing quality education to her daughter than the appellant-father which is the most essential ingredient for the welfare, betterment and all round developments of the minor girl -- Thus, there is no occasion to displace her residence by giving custody of the girl child to the appellant-father.

(P&H HC) Reserved on 05.02.2021 Decided on: 25.02.2021

Female child – Respondent-mother is the best person to educate and bring up her minor daughter and to effectively take care of her interest and welfare -- Mother shapes child’s world from the cradle by rocking, nurturing and instructing her child -- Particularly, the company of a mother is more valuable to a growing up female child unless there are compelling and justifiable reasons, a child should not be deprived of the company of the mother -- Especially for a growing girl of the age of 13 years which is her crucial phase of life being the major shift in thinking biologically which may help her to understand more effectively with the help of her mother and at this crucial teen age, her custody with the mother is necessary for her growth -- At this growing age, daughter looks for mother/a female companion with whom she can share and discuss certain issues comfortably -- There would be so many things which a daughter could not discuss with her father and as such mother shall be the best person to take care of her daughter at this growing age.

(P&H HC) Reserved on 05.02.2021 Decided on: 25.02.2021

Female child – Visiting rights to father -- Keeping in view the fact that a child needs the love and affection of both the father and the mother and anticipating optimistically that the girl child may serve as a bridge to fill the gap between the parents and the father-appellant also being the natural guardian of the girl child, the appellant-father is given visitation rights for meeting his daughter and for this purpose, he shall be at liberty to visit the child twice a month preferably on 2nd and 4th Saturday(s) at the place and time mutually agreed between the parties and the respondent-mother shall not object to him meeting with the child and the respondent-mother will also allow the child to meet with the father during school vacations or on appropriate occasions.

(P&H HC) Reserved on 05.02.2021 Decided on: 25.02.2021

Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Evidential value -- Daily dairy report was entered on the statement of respondent No.6, who was, at the relevant time, driving the motorcycle he cannot be expected to admit his negligence – In support of the claim petition, eyewitness has appeared before the Court to depose, he has been thoroughly cross examined by putting searching questions -- His deposition has been found creditable by the Tribunal -- Hence, the contention is without substance.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.07.2021

Pensionary/retiral benefits – Writ for mandamus -- Petition disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 to decide the legal notice of the petitioners and take a conscious decision thereon by passing a speaking order; within a period of 3 months -- If the petitioners are found entitled to any pecuniary benefits; then the said pecuniary benefits shall also be released to the petitioners within a further period of 3 months.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.07.2021

Writ jurisdiction -- Since demolition had already taken place and damages are being prayed for, an alternative and efficacious remedy is available to the petitioners by way of leading evidence -- Writ petition dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction for the redressal of their grievances.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.05.2022

Deposition of author of DDR before Tribunal -- Evidential value -- Any statement made by a person, including the DDR, recorded before the police is not on oath and as such, it cannot be kept at the same pedestal as the deposition made by a witness before a Court of law.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.04.2022

Suit for permanent injunction -- After the death of the sole defendant and the nature of the suit, the same cannot continue -- Application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.04.2021

Proclamation for sale – Sub rule (2) of Rule 66 CPC cannot be read in isolation -- It must be read inter-alia with sub rule (3) of Rule 66 -- Proclamation ought to have specified fairly and accurately the tenancy in view of Order 21 Rule 66 (2) (e) which requires every other thing which the Court considers material for a purchaser to know in order to judge of the nature and value of the property to be specified -- Clause (e) is of the widest amplitude and everything which affects the value of the property must be specified/disclosed -- Value of a property with a sitting tenant can never be the same as its value without a tenant -- It is axiomatic, therefore, that clause (e) of Rule 66 (2) requires a proclamation to specify a tenancy in respect of a property to be sold in auction.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.03.2016

Legality of -- Since such type of deed is not permissible in law, no benefit can be claimed by the petitioners.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.03.2021

Plea of -- Challenge to Section 13(2) Notice of SARFAESI Act – Writ jurisdiction -- Alternative remedy – Limitation -- Held, mainly challenged before the High Court was notice u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition -- Remedy available to the respondents/ loanee was to initiate proceedings u/s 17 of the SARFAESI Act – Respondents relegated to avail the alternative statutory remedy by way of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act – When such proceedings are initiated, the same be considered in accordance with law and on its own merits including the case on behalf of the original writ petitioners that nothing was due and payable, if the amount received as insurance claim would not have transferred to the Working Capital Account -- Appeal allowed to the aforesaid extent -- If such proceedings are initiated within a period of four weeks, the same be dealt with without raising the dispute with respect to limitation, however, subject to compliance of other requirements under the Act.

(SC) Decided on : 12.09.2022

Written statement not filed within 90 days – Inherent power of Civil Court -- Trial court allowed the application without recalling the earlier order vide which defence of the defendant was struck off for non-payment of costs of Rs.500/-, as well as, having not filed the written statement within the permissible period of 90 days – Held, Trial court is vested with inherent powers u/s Section 151 CPC to correct any mistake and/or recall its own order in the interest of justice, at a later stage, if the circumstances are made out.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.04.2021

Non-filing of Written statement – Non-framing of issues – Effect of -- Since the issues have not been framed till date, this revision allowed and order set aside with direction to the trial Court to allow the petitioner to file his written statement after giving one more opportunity subject to deposit of Rs.15,000/- as costs.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.01.2021

Interest on delay possession -- Apartment-buyer held entitled to interest for the delayed delivery of possession of the apartment – Contention of the appellant that the project was completed within the time prescribed, however, the government did not issue the occupancy certificate to the promoter – Held, This is a matter between the appellant and the government, apartment-buyer cannot be penalized for the same – Appeal dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 14.07.2022

Refund with interest – Right of Flat purchaser –Appellant/ Builder failed in obtaining the Occupancy Certificate and offering possession of the flat to the Respondent/ Purchaser within the time stipulated in the Agreement, or within a reasonable time thereafter – Respondent/ Flat Purchaser could not be compelled to take possession of the flat – Respondent/ Flat Purchaser held entitled for refund of the entire amount deposited by him with Interest – National Commission rightly awarded Interest @10.7% S.I. p.a. by applying Rule 15 of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation And Development) Rules, 2017 from the date of each installment till 05.02.2017 i.e. till the date after which the Order of stay of cancellation of the allotment was passed; and thereafter, from the date of the Commission’s final Order till the date on which the amount is refunded with Interest.

(SC) Decided on : 02.04.2019

Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Deceased was running business -- Argument that the business has continued and the claimants still have income from the business, cannot be accepted to reduce the amount of dependency of claimants.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.11.2015

Section 10(2)(l) – Constitution of India, Article 14, 19(1)(g) -- Lock down period during pandemic Covid-19 – Full wages to employees for 50 days – Notification/Order issued by Union of India – Power of – Challenged being violative of Article 14, 19(1)(g) -- Both Industry and Labourers need each other -- No Industry or establishment can survive without employees/labourers and vice versa – Held, efforts should be made to sort out the differences and disputes between the workers and the employers regarding payment of wages of above 50 days and if any settlement or negotiation can be entered into between them without regard to the order dated 29.03.2020, the said steps may restore congenial work atmosphere – Directions issued for following interim measures which can be availed by all the private establishment, industries, factories and workers Trade Unions/ Employees Associations etc. which may be facilitated by the State Authorities: - i) The private establishment, industries, employers who are willing to enter into negotiation and settlement with the workers/employees regarding payment of wages for 50 days or for any other period as applicable in any particular State during which their industrial establishment was closed down due to lockdown, may initiate a process of negotiation with their employees organization and enter into a settlement with them and if they are unable to settle by themselves submit a request to concerned labour authorities who are entrusted with the obligation under the different statute to conciliate the dispute between the parties who on receiving such request, may call the concerned Employees Trade Union/workers Association/ workers to appear on a date for negotiation, conciliation and settlement. In event a settlement is arrived at, that may be acted upon by the employers and workers irrespective of the order dated 29.03.2020 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs. ii) Those employers’ establishments, industries, factories which were working during the lockdown period although not to their capacity can also take steps as indicated in direction No.(i). iii) The private establishments, industries, factories shall permit the workers/employees to work in their establishment who are willing to work which may be without prejudice to rights of the workers/employees regarding unpaid wages of above 50 days. The private establishments, factories who proceed to take steps as per directions (i) and (ii) shall publicise and communicate about their such steps to workers and employees for their response/participation. The settlement, if any, as indicated above shall be without prejudice to the rights of employers and employees which is pending adjudication in these writ petitions. iv) The Central Government, all the States/UTs through their Ministry of Labour shall circulate and publicise this order for the benefit of all private establishment, employers, factories and workers/employees.

(SC) Decided on: 12.06.2020

Arbitration award -- Pre-award interest – Post-award interest – Section 31(7)(a) confers a wide discretion upon the arbitrator in regard to the grant of pre-award interest -- When a discretion has been conferred on the arbitrator in regard to the grant of pre-award interest, it would be against the grain of statutory interpretation to presuppose that the legislative intent was to reduce the discretionary power of the arbitrator for the grant of post-award interest under clause (b) -- Clause (b) only contemplates a situation where the arbitration award is silent on post-award interest, in which event the award-holder is entitled to a post-award interest of eighteen percent.

(SC) Decided on : 01.09.2022

Arbitration award -- Post-award interest – Clause (b) does not fetter the discretion of the arbitrator to grant post-award interest -- It only contemplates a situation in which the discretion is not exercised by the arbitrator -- Therefore, the observations Hyder Consulting’s case (2013) 2 SCC 719 on the meaning of ‘sum’ will not restrict the discretion of the arbitrator to grant post-award interest -- There is nothing in the provision which restricts the discretion of the arbitrator for the grant of post-award interest which the arbitrator otherwise holds inherent to their authority.

(SC) Decided on : 01.09.2022

Arbitration award – Purpose of granting post-award interest is to ensure that the award-debtor does not delay the payment of the award -- With the proliferation of arbitration, issues involving both high and low financial implications are referred to arbitration -- Arbitrator takes note of various factors such as the financial standing of the award-debtor and the circumstances of the parties in dispute before awarding interest -- Discretion of the arbitrator can only be restricted by an express provision to that effect -- Clause (a) subjects the exercise of discretion by the arbitrator on the grant of pre-award interest to the arbitral award -- However, there is no provision in the Act which restricts the exercise of discretion to grant post-award interest by the arbitrator -- Arbitrator must exercise the discretion in good faith, must take into account relevant and not irrelevant considerations, and must act reasonably and rationally taking cognizance of the surrounding circumstances.

(SC) Decided on : 01.09.2022

Judgment on admission – Power is discretionary which should be only exercised when specific, clear and categorical admission of facts and documents are on record, otherwise the Court can refuse to invoke the power of Order XII Rule 6 of CPC – Power cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

(SC) Decided on: 06.07.2022

Additional issue -- Rent Controller declined the tenants’ application to raise additional issues disputing ownership of the landlord -- Subsequently, by two orders, the tenants were again not permitted to amend their written statement to dispute the ownership -- Orders were passed by the Rent Controller based upon the reasoning given in the orders, declined to frame the Issues -- Provisions of Order XLI Rule 25 CPC are not applicable.

(P&H HC) Reserved on: 21.10.2022 Decided on: 31.10.2022

Cruelty – Long separation – Whether the relationship of the husband and wife has come to an end and if the respondent-wife is not ready to give mutual divorce to the appellant-husband, whether this act of her, would amount to cruelty towards husband, keeping in view the fact that she is not staying with her husband for the last about 23 years and there is no scope that they can cohabit as husband and wife again – Decree of divorce granted in favour of the appellant-husband.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.05.2022

Suit for specific performance – Amendment of plaint -- Subsequent purchaser as party-defendant – No doubt, by rule of lis pendens, subsequent purchaser is bound by the decree but at the same time, it cannot be said that the presence of the purchaser in the suit proceedings would be improper also – By amendment plaintiff only seeks to introduce the subsequent events relating to the alienation of the suit property -- Application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.07.2022

Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Driving license to minor -- Driving license issued to less than 18 years of age in contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of M.V. Act, 1988 – Driving licence was renewed for the first time only after the accident had taken place – License was invalid at the time of its issuance -- Renewal is of no consequence – Driver is son of the owner – It cannot said that appellant-father was not in knowledge about the fact that his son obtained driving licence when he was underage -- Insurer discharged his burden by establishing that appellants intentionally committed breach of insurance policy – Recovery rights given by Tribunal to Insurance company – Appeal by owner/driver dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.06.2020

Driving licence from Nagaland -- Driver of offending vehicle resident of Amritsar – Insurance company did not call upon driver of the vehicle to appear in the witness box to explain the circumstances under which he obtained licence from an authority in Nagaland – Held, insurance company cannot be heard to say that he was either not resident of Nagaland or could not obtain a licence from an authority at Kohima.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.09.2019

Driving licence from Nagaland not on smart card – No witness from Licensing authority examined – Notification by the State of Nagaland that such like licences would be deemed to be cancelled unless obtained in smart card – Held, that fact ipso facto does not prove that the driver was not duly licensed for the purpose of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.09.2019

Accident within 30 days of expiry of license – Effect of -- Driving license was valid upto 20.8.2011 and was renewed on 19th September, 2011 – Accident took place on 5.9.2011 – In view of Proviso to Section 14 of M.V. Act, 1988 , the driving licence of driver was held to be valid on the date of accident.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.11.2015

Section 13 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17, Order 14 Rule 5, Order 41 Rule 25 -- Additional issue – Disputing Landlord’ ownership -- Rent Controller declined the tenants’ application to raise additional issues disputing ownership of the landlord -- Subsequently, by two orders, the tenants were again not permitted to amend their written statement to dispute the ownership -- Said orders have attained finality – No occasion for the tenants to agitate the issue again before High Court – It is an abuse of the process of law – Orders were passed by the Rent Controller based upon the reasoning given in the orders, declined to frame the Issues -- It cannot by any stretch of imagination, therefore, be said that the Controller has “omitted to frame or try any issue, or to determine any question of fact” -- Therefore, provisions of Order XLI Rule 25 CPC are not applicable – Held, tenants could not invoke by filing the application, beseeching the Appellate Authority to frame additional issues disputing ownership of the landlord and refer the same to the Rent Controller for recording evidence thereupon -- Nor could the tenant file the other application Order XIV Rule 5 CPC for framing of issues -- Revision dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/-.

(P&H HC) Reserved on: 21.10.2022 Decided on: 31.10.2022

Section 13 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 11 – Eviction of tenant -- Personal necessity – Resjudicata -- Previous petition was for seeking eviction on account of the personal necessity qua the son of the petitioner, whereas in the present petition, which is filed after 07 years, personal necessity is pleaded on account of the fact that the petitioner himself has retired and has already shifted to Mohali for which he requires his house – Petitioner-tenant failed to prove that the present petition is barred by the principle of res judicata -- Eviction order upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.09.2022

Forfeiture for non-payment of rent -- U/s 114A of the TP Act a condition for issue of notice prior to filing suit of ejectment is provided so as to enable the lessee to remedy the breach – Held, same cannot be construed as a statutory protection nor as a hard and fast rule in all cases to waive the forfeiture -- It is a provision enabling exercise of equitable jurisdiction in appropriate cases as a matter of discretion.

(SC) Decided on: 18.12.2020

Section 3, 4 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 149(2)(a)(ii) -- Expiry of driving license – Non-renewal of – Injury to driver -- Liability of owner – Once the basic care of verifying the driving licence has to be taken by the employer, though a detailed enquiry may not be necessary, the owner of the vehicle would know the validity of the driving licence as is set out in the licence itself -- It cannot be said that thereafter he can wash his hands off the responsibility of not checking up whether the driver has renewed the licence – Appellant-owner showed gross negligence in verifying the same -- Here it was a commercial vehicle being a truck -- Appellant has to, thus, bear responsibility and consequent liability of permitting the driver to drive with an expired licence over a period of three years – Proceedings here being under the Compensation Act, the consequences are not flowing to the first respondent as the initial negligent person.

(SC) Decided on: 23.09.2020

Section 51E, 53, 61 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166, 167 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Employment injury – Claim petition by employee – Maintainability of – Mere incorporation of the Section 51E cannot, per se, exclude the claim under the Motor Vehicle Act for an accident which happened during the time when person was, allegedly, going to his home after the duty hours -- Ingredients of Section 51 E of the Act has to be pleaded and proved by the Insurance Company to invoke Section 53 of the Act.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 13.12.2017

Section 51E, 53, 61 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166, 167 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Claim petition by employee/dependents – Maintainability of – These would be two different and independent remedies available to a person -- Whatever the dependents are getting is partly a product of the contribution made by the employee himself during his life time and partly the contribution of employer -- Employer of the deceased employee may be absolved of any liability of making any payment under any other law relating to the employment injury; qua to the entitlement of the deceased as an employee, however, such periodic payment, which is in the nature of family pension, would not absolve a stranger to the employment from discharging its independent liability created under any other statute -- No provision has been made by the legislature in the Motor Vehicle Act to specifically exclude the liability of the insurer of the offending vehicle; in case of motor vehicle accident; if the dependents of the employee are getting compensation or benefits under ESI Act (unlike compensation under Workmen Compensation Act) in the capacity of the deceased being an employee -- Despite the fact that the dependents of the employee may be having some benefits under the ESI Act in the capacity of the deceased being an employee would not debar them from claiming compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act for the said accident.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 13.12.2017

Section 53, 61 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166, 167 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Claim petition by employee – Maintainability of -- If the relation between the claimant and the Insurance Company is of a stranger then the claim petition by such a person against such an Insurance Company shall not be barred by Section 53 of ESI Act -- “Any Person” in Section 53 has to be read as a person/entity to whom this Act applies -- Section 61 prohibits only receiving twice the 'similar benefits' by an employee with respect to his employment injuries, nothing beyond that – Bar created by Section 53 would be applicable only in case injuries sustained by of injured/deceased is an employment injury and the same is sustained by injured/deceased in his capacity as employee and only if he is claiming subsequent compensation in his capacity as an employee under this Act.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 13.12.2017

Section 20 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 157 -- Compensation to employee – Liability of Insurance company -- Transfer of vehicle – Intimation to Insurance company – Requirement of – No intimation of transfer was given to Insurance Company -- Even if vehicle stand transferred to the name of another person, the liability of insurer to pay compensation to third party shall not cease -- Section 157 sub-section(1) contains the deeming provision that “the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of this transfer.”

(SC) Decided on: 14.07.2017

Section 2(8) -- 'Employment injury' – Interpretation of -- 'employment injury' given by the Act shows that the injury shall be deemed to be an 'employment injury' only if it is caused by an accident or an occupational disease arising out of and in the course of the employment of insured, if he is in an insurable employment – Injury would be an 'employment injury' only if he sustains such injury as an employee under this Act -- If the injury sustained by the injured or the death of the insured occurs outside the scope of the employment; the same cannot be considered to be an 'employment injury'.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 23.08.2017

Section 53 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation for motor vehicle accident case – Employee covered under ESI Act – Claim of -- Prohibition of receipt of compensation or damages by the insured or his dependents under Employees State Insurance Act operates only if it is claimed in respect of an employment injury and it is claimed as an employee under that Act.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 23.08.2017

Section 53 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation for motor vehicle accident case – Employees status -- While traveling, by any means, on the public road a person is not travelling as an employee under the Act, as is required by Section 53 of the Act -- Therefore, Section 53 of the Act cannot be deemed to be a provision for excluding the entitlement of the dependents of the deceased to receive compensation as provided under Motor Vehicles Act.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 23.08.2017

Mesne profit – High Court has considered the fair rate of return @ 6.5% annually on the amount of Rs. 5.50 crores for which the appellant purchased the property in the year 2008, determining the monthly compensation @ Rs. 2,50,000/- – Aforesaid method cannot be accepted, High Court was required to undertake exercise and to determine the compensation at the same rate at which the landlord would have been able to let out the premises and earn rent if the tenant would have vacated the premises – Matter remitted back to High court.

(SC) Decided on: 09.11.2022

Deposition of author of DDR before Tribunal -- Any statement made by a person, including the DDR, recorded before the police is not on oath and as such, it cannot be kept at the same pedestal as the deposition made by a witness before a Court of law.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.04.2022

Cheque bounce case -- Attachment of salary -- Salary of the JD-respondent cannot be attached for a period of more than 24 months where such attachment is made in execution of one and the same decree -- Argument of DH-petitioner that the salary should be continued to be attached cannot be accepted in view of the clear provisions of Section 60(1)(i) of CPC.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 21.10.2022 Decided on: 01.11.2022

Cheque bounce case -- Arrest of Judgment Debtor/ JD -- Argument that the JD-respondent ought to be arrested for non-compliance of the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat cannot be accepted in view of the fact that arrest would be a measure of last resort and in the case, some property of the JD-respondent already stands attached and the Executing Court has directed the JD-respondent to file an affidavit stating all the particulars regarding his moveable and immoveable properties.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 21.10.2022 Decided on: 01.11.2022

Cheque bounce case -- Execution of award -- Award passed by the Lok Adalat would be deemed to be a decree of the Civil Court executable by the Civil Court -- There can be no quarrel with the said proposition of law.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 21.10.2022 Decided on: 01.11.2022

Cheque bounce case -- Award of Lok Adalat in complaint u/s 138 NI Act – Award passed by the Lok Adalat would be deemed to be a decree of the Civil Court executable by the Civil Court -- There can be no quarrel with the said proposition of law.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 21.10.2022 Decided on: 01.11.2022

Non-objection of – Effect of -- Summons would not contain the particulars of the orders required to be summoned -- It is only from the file, the documents are put to the witness for the purpose of proving the case by either of the parties -- Exhibition of the documents was not objected to at the time of cross-examination -- Party cannot be prevented to take the objection to the aforementioned documents.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.04.2016

Non-renewal of – Liability of owner – Once the basic care of verifying the driving licence has to be taken by the employer, though a detailed enquiry may not be necessary, the owner of the vehicle would know the validity of the driving licence as is set out in the licence itself -- Appellant-owner showed gross negligence in verifying the same -- Appellant has to, thus, bear responsibility and consequent liability of permitting the driver to drive with an expired licence over a period of three years.

(SC) Decided on: 23.09.2020

Accident within 30 days – Driving license was valid upto 20.8.2011 and was renewed on 19th September, 2011 – Accident took place on 5.9.2011 – in view of Proviso to Section 14 of M.V. Act, 1988 , the driving licence of driver was held to be valid on the date of accident.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.11.2015

One Time Settlement/ OTS – Writ jurisdiction -- Borrower as a matter of right cannot claim extension of time – Granting extension of time would tantamount to rewriting the contract which is not permissible while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(SC) Decided on: 04.11.2022

Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Adverse inference -- High Court directed re-examination to know physical condition as on date -- Medical condition on the date of accident remains undisputed and was assessed to have suffered 9% disability qua whole body -- There is no challenge to this finding by the respondents -- If the claimant failed to get himself re-examined, no adverse inference can be drawn against him.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.11.2022

Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Liability of Insured-owner -- Merely because the driving license of the driver is fake, would not be a sufficient ground by itself to absolve the insurance company of its liability to indemnify the insured -- Owner could not be expected to carry out a roving enquiry into the authenticity of the driving license, more so, when driving license in question had been regularly renewed -- Insurance company is held liable to indemnify the insured and pay the amount of compensation to the claimants.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.10.2022

Renewal of passport – NOC from Trial Court -- As per condition to appear in exam, the candidates must bring to the appointment a valid, non-expired passport meeting specific country issuance criteria -- Application declined by ASJ – Court concerned is competent to grant the NOC – Renewal of the passport at this stage is only for the purpose of requirement of the petitioner to appear in the said exam -- Held, Ld. Additional Sessions Judge has fallen in error in declining the request made by the petitioner -- ASJ to decide application afresh .

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.06.2022

Company not convicted – Nominated person held guilty – Remand to fill lacuna of case – In the absence of the Company, the Nominated Person cannot be convicted or vice versa -- Order of remand to the trial court to fill up the lacuna is not a fair option exercised by the High Court as the failure of the trial court to convict the Company renders the entire conviction of the Nominated Person as unsustainable.

(SC) Decided on: 05.11.2020

Section 17(1)(a)(b) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 141 – Food adulteration case -- Company not convicted – Nominated person held guilty – Legality of – Remand to fill lacuna of case – Permissibility of -- No material distinction between Section 141 of the NI Act and Section 17 of the Act which makes the Company as well as the Nominated Person to be held guilty of the offences and/or liable to be proceeded and punished accordingly -- Clauses (a) and (b) are not in the alternative but conjoint -- Therefore, in the absence of the Company, the Nominated Person cannot be convicted or vice versa -- Since the Company was not convicted by the trial court, finding of the High Court to revisit the judgment will be unfair to the appellant/Nominated Person who has been facing trial for more than last 30 years -- Order of remand to the trial court to fill up the lacuna is not a fair option exercised by the High Court as the failure of the trial court to convict the Company renders the entire conviction of the Nominated Person as unsustainable.

(SC) Decided on: 05.11.2020

Disputing Landlord’ ownership -- Rent Controller declined the tenants’ application to raise additional issues disputing ownership of the landlord -- Subsequently, by two orders, the tenants were again not permitted to amend their written statement to dispute the ownership -- Orders were passed by the Rent Controller based upon the reasoning given in the orders, declined to frame the Issues -- Provisions of Order XLI Rule 25 CPC are not applicable.

(P&H HC) Reserved on: 21.10.2022 Decided on: 31.10.2022

Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Permanent disability -- Loss of future earning -- Assessment of compensation under the head ‘loss of future earning’, would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on earning capacity – Assessment is not to be done mechanically only on the percentage of physical disability – Age, profession, nature of work, and the related factors, as well as the permanent disability suffered need to be taken into account for that purpose.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.11.2022

Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Permanent disability -- Loss of future earning -- Accident on 7.5.1994 -- Income taken as Rs. 5,000 per month -- Disability of 15% qua the affected limb has been found to be 9% qua the whole body -- At the time of accident, he was 42 years of age, and in active practice as an advocate before High Court -- Disability suffered, leading to shortening of leg by ½ inch, and the resultant difficulty in running, squatting and free movements to the claimant, would naturally have affected his professional life as well as the earning capacity – Loss of earning capacity treated as 10% of the assessed income -- Multiplier of 14 applied – Appellant-claimant held entitled to Rs. 84,000 as compensation for loss of future earnings with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till its actual realization.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.11.2022

Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Deceased mason aged 48/52 years – High Court awarded compensation towards loss of dependency at Rs. 2,97,000/- considering the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- p.m. after deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenditure of the deceased – Total Rs.3,92,000/- under different heads along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition awarded – Held, while awarding loss of dependency, future prospects and rise in income ought to have been considered -- 25% of Rs. 3,000/- per month considered towards future prospects -- It can be said to be just compensation -- Claimants held entitled to a total sum of Rs. 4,25,000/- under different heads along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till its realization.

(SC) Decided on : 19.09.2022

Section 25 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Special Marriage Act, 1954 (43 of 1954), Section 28, 38 -- Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (32 of 1956), Section 6 -- Suit for custody of child -- Rejection of plaint – Consideration of pleading other than plaint – Permissibility of – Previously divorce by mutual consent between the parties – Voluntarily statement of father for giving the custody of the child to the mother -- Though it is well settled principle of law that for the purpose of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the contents of the plaint/petition is to be seen, however it is a case of not deciding the rights of the parents but the custody of minor child, therefore welfare of the child should be the paramount consideration -- Circumstances from the date of birth of the child till date needs to be appreciated -- Respondent-husband has remedy to approach the said Court, which has passed the decree of divorce if any terms and condition were violated -- Petition u/s 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act held not maintainable and rejected, leaving the respondent-husband to avail alternative remedy, in accordance with law -- Application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. allowed.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 01.09.2022 Pronounced on : 06.09.2022

Section 7 -- Death of Parents – Interim custody of Child – Grandparents compare to maternal aunt -- Custody of the minor remained with the grandfather pursuant to the interim order passed by the High Court -- Nothing observed by the High Court that during the interim custody period, the appellant-paternal grandparents did not take proper care of the minor and acted detrimental to the interest of the minor – Minor also shown willingness to stay with the appellant – They have also managed to get admission of the minor in a school in Ahmedabad -- Minor will get better education in Ahmedabad, which is a Metro City compared to the education in Dahod where maternal aunt resides -- Being a retired person, the paternal grandparents would devote more time and take care of minor better than respondent No. 4 who is serving in the government department – Income and/or the age and/or the bigger family cannot be the sole criteria to tilt the balance and not to give the custody of the grandson to the paternal grandparents – Held, High Court has committed an error in not handing over and/or continuing the custody of the corpus-grandson to the appellant-paternal grandparents and to give custody of the corpus to respondent No. 4-maternal aunt of the corpus -- Custody ordered to be given to grand-parents subject to the final outcome of the proceedings u/s 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, pending before the competent court.

(SC) Decided on: 09.06.2022

F.I.R. w.r.t. forged receipts – Quashing of FIR -- Handwriting expert in civil suit has opined that signatures in all the four receipts did not tally with the sample signatures which were of respondent No.2 -- It was only thereafter, FIR was registered -- Continuation of FIR would amount to abuse of the process of Court – Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR allowed.

(SC) Decided on: 10.02.2020

Rule 15 -- Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986), Section 23 -- Delayed possession of flat – Refund with interest – Right of Flat purchaser –Appellant/ Builder failed in obtaining the Occupancy Certificate and offering possession of the flat to the Respondent/ Purchaser within the time stipulated in the Agreement, or within a reasonable time thereafter – Respondent/ Flat Purchaser could not be compelled to take possession of the flat, even though it was offered almost 2 years after the grace period under the Agreement expired – Respondent/ Flat Purchaser held entitled for refund of the entire amount deposited by him with Interest – National Commission rightly awarded Interest @10.7% S.I. p.a. by applying Rule 15 of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation And Development) Rules, 2017 from the date of each installment till 05.02.2017 i.e. till the date after which the Order of stay of cancellation of the allotment was passed; and thereafter, from the date of the Commission’s final Order till the date on which the amount is refunded with Interest -- Civil Appeals dismissed, and the Final Judgment and Order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission affirmed.

(SC) Decided on : 02.04.2019

Section 1 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Pleading that property was purchased in 2001 – Maintainability of suit – Rejection of plaint -- For deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, only the averments made in the plaint are to be taken into account -- There is no averment in the plaint, which shows that the construction was more than 10 years old with regard to the suit property so as to oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court -- Application on presumption that as the suit property has been purchased in the year 2001, the construction must be 10 years old -- Court has to arrive at a definite conclusion that on the basis of the pleadings in the suit, the suit is not maintainable -- Interpretation of the averment in a particular manner is not permissible – High Court found no ground to interfere in dismissal of application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.10.2020

Section 13 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 24 -- Transfer of Divorce petition -- Kapurthala to Fazilka -- It is well settled that while considering the transfer of a matrimonial dispute/case, at the instance of the wife, the Court is to consider the family condition of the wife, the custody of the minor child, economic condition of the wife, her physical health and earning capacity of the husband and most important the convenience of the wife i.e. she cannot travel alone without assistance of a male member of her family, connectivity of the place to and from her place of residence as well as bearing of the litigation charges and travelling expenses – Case transferred.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.11.2022

Section 13, 25 – Divorce -- Cruelty – Long separation – Non-giving consent to mutual divorce -- Whether the relationship of the husband and wife has come to an end and if the respondent-wife is not ready to give mutual divorce to the appellant-husband, whether this act of her, would amount to cruelty towards husband, keeping in view the fact that she is not staying with her husband for the last about 23 years and there is no scope that they can cohabit as husband and wife again -- Marriage between the parties had broken down irretrievably since long and there is no chance of their coming together, or living together again – Not to grant decree of divorce would be disastrous for the parties -- Firstly efforts were made to resolve the matrimonial dispute through the process of mediation, which is one of the effective mode of alternative mechanism in resolving the personal dispute but the mediation failed between the parties -- Appeal allowed, decree of divorce granted in favour of the appellant-husband -- Appellant-husband to make an F.D. of Rs.10 lakhs as permanent alimony in the name of the respondent-wife.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.05.2022

Section 6 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Special Marriage Act, 1954 (43 of 1954), Section 28, 38 -- Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890), Section 25 -- Suit for custody of child -- Rejection of plaint – Consideration of pleading other than plaint – Permissibility of – Previously divorce by mutual consent between the parties – Voluntarily statement of father for giving the custody of the child to the mother -- Though it is well settled principle of law that for the purpose of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the contents of the plaint/petition is to be seen, however it is a case of not deciding the rights of the parents but the custody of minor child, therefore welfare of the child should be the paramount consideration -- Circumstances from the date of birth of the child till date needs to be appreciated -- Respondent-husband has remedy to approach the said Court, which has passed the decree of divorce if any terms and condition were violated -- Petition u/s 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act held not maintainable and rejected, leaving the respondent-husband to avail alternative remedy, in accordance with law -- Application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. allowed.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 01.09.2022 Pronounced on : 06.09.2022

Section 6 -- Joint Hindu Family coparcenary property -- Ancestral property – Self-acquired property – Sale challenged claiming co-parcenery -- Plaintiff did not make any attempt to identify the ancestral property -- Thus, the ancestral property got blended with the self-acquired property -- It is well settled that unless the plaintiff proves and separately identifies the ancestral property, the entire property shall be construed to be self-acquired -- Both the courts below, correctly, dismissed the suit – Regular Second Appeal dismissed.

(P&H HC) Date of decision:28.07.2022 Reserved on: 20.07.2022

Compensation to owner -- Complainant shall be entitled to the compensation/loss suffered because of not plying of the vehicle seized and sold illegally -- Appellant directed to pay the compensation/damages towards loss suffered because of not plying of the vehicle at Rs. 5000/- per month from the date of the picking up of the vehicle i.e., 19.12.2004 till 31.12.2007 with interest @ 7.5% from December, 2004 till the actual payment within a period of six weeks.

(SC) Decided on: 04.11.2022

Cheque bounce case – Proclaimed Person – Released on bail – Petitioner appeared before the Judicial Magistrate, she was granted bail and, thus, the proclamation order ceased to be operative -- Said fact was well within the knowledge of respondent-Regional Passport Office -- Fundamental Rights of the petitioner breached -- Hence, the impugned action is highly deprecated -- Petition allowed with a costs of Rs.1.00 lakh to be paid by respondent-RPO to the petitioner -- Respondent-RPO directed to release the passport of the petitioner within 15 days.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.08.2020

Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Non-examination of official of IT Department – Effect of -- Considering the scheme of the Act, which is a beneficial piece of legislation, the income-tax returns produced by the claimants ought not to be rejected merely because they have not been proved by some official from the Income Tax Department unless some serious doubts are raised qua the authenticity of the same.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.05.2022

Section 62 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Banking default case -- One Time Settlement/ OTS – Extension of time – Writ jurisdiction -- Borrower as a matter of right cannot claim extension of time – By the impugned judgment and order rescheduling the payment under the OTS Scheme and granting extension of time would tantamount to rewriting the contract which is not permissible while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India – Impugned judgment/ order quashed and set aside -- Consequently, the original writ petition filed by the respondent/borrower stands dismissed.

(SC) Decided on: 04.11.2022

Section 65 – Secondary evidence -- As a general rule, the parties must prove documents by leading primary evidence except in cases covered by Section 65 of the Act.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.05.2022

Section 63, 65 – Secondary evidence -- Roznamcha – Roznamcha is a document maintained by the revenue officials, therefore, the original of this document could have been produced only by the officials concerned – Original document is not available and only the photocopy of the same is available on record, which does not bear the signatures of any competent officer – Nothing to suggest that the photocopy available in the records of the office of the Deputy Commissioner, was ever made or compared with the original -- Photocopy of such a copy would not fall within the ambit of 'secondary evidence' – Order of Trial Court dismissing application for leading secondary evidence, upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.05.2022

Section 137 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- DDR of accident – Deposition of author of DDR before Tribunal -- Evidential value -- Any statement made by a person, including the DDR, recorded before the police is not on oath and as such, it cannot be kept at the same pedestal as the deposition made by a witness before a Court of law -- On the one hand, it is the case of the appellant-Insurance Company that PW-2 was a planted witness and was not present when the occurrence in question took place, however, in the same breath, learned counsel while placing reliance upon the DDR recorded by PW-2, is trying to demolish the case of the claimants by urging that he had stated therein that the accident in question had happened suddenly and thus no one was at fault -- PW-2, while stepping into the witness-box gave a vivid account of the accident in question -- He was subjected to lengthy cross-examination, however, he stood his ground and the respondents were unable to create any dent in his testimony – Appeal of Insurance company against award passed by Tribunal dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.04.2022

Section 63 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 68 -- Proof of Will -- Attesting witness – Non-examination of -- One can appreciate that the plaintiff would not have been able to get defendant depose in his/her favour but it remains unexplained as to why the plaintiff could not examine the other attesting witness -- Testimony of the scribe cannot be substituted for testimony of an attesting witness – Court find no reason differ with concurrent finding that, plaintiff is unable to prove the genuineness of the Will.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.09.2020

Section 33C(2) – Labour law -- Correction in date of birth – Jurisdiction of civil court -- Issue involved relates only to the correction of the date of birth -- Jurisdiction of the civil court is not ousted, as this is not a case relating to enforcement of a right or an obligation under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(SC) Decided on: 03.08.2022

Plaintiff failed to get any declaratory relief and the defendant No.1 is held to be a true and absolute owner on the basis of the registered sale deed on payment of full sale consideration thereafter the plaintiff’s possession cannot be said to be “lawful possession” -- Plaintiff is not entitled to any permanent injunction against the true owner.

(SC) Decided on: 03.03.2022

Injunction may be granted even against the true owner of the property, only when the person seeking the relief is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the property and also legally entitled to be in possession, not to disposes him, except in due process of law -- Once the rights of the parties are adjudicated and the defendant No.1 is held to be the true owner on the basis of the registered sale deed and on payment of full sale consideration, it can be said that due process of law has been followed and thereafter the plaintiff is not entitled to any permanent injunction against the true owner.

(SC) Decided on: 03.03.2022

Maintainability of suit -- Relief of injunction simplicitor cannot be sought by a person whose title over the property is in dispute -- Plaintiffs’ title over the suit property was not in dispute, though the defendants made a deplorable attempt to dispute the same by concealing relevant facts from the Court – Therefore, the defendants cannot raise any plea.

(P&H HC) Reserved on 29.10.2022 Decided on: 04.11.2022

Section 7, 9 – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 – Condonation of delay -- NCLT/NCLAT has the discretion to entertain an application/appeal after the prescribed period of limitation -- Condition precedent for exercise of such discretion is the existence of sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal and/or the application within the period prescribed by limitation -- Condition precedent for condonation of the delay in filing an application or appeal, is the existence of sufficient cause -- Whether the explanation furnished for the delay would constitute “sufficient cause” or not would be dependent upon facts of each case -- There cannot be any straitjacket formula for accepting or rejecting the explanation furnished by the Appellant/applicant for the delay in taking steps.

(SC) Decided on : 19.09.2022

Section 7, 9 – Proceedings u/s 7 and 9 of the IBC – Relevant date for limitation -- Date of enforcement of the IBC and/or the date on which an application could have first been filed under the IBC are not relevant in computation of limitation -- It would be absurd to hold that the CIRP could be initiated by filing an application u/s 7 or Section 9 of the IBC, within three years from the date on which an application under those provisions of the IBC could have first been made before the NCLT even though the right to sue may have accrued decades ago -- What is material is the date on which the right to sue accrues, and whether the cause of action continuous.

(SC) Decided on : 19.09.2022

Section 7,9,61 – Liability acknowledged in 2013 -- Pendency of Winding up proceedings under Companies Act 1956 in High Court – Limitation for proceedings u/s 7 and 9 of the IBC -- On 30th March 2018, the Respondent filed petition u/s 9 of the IBC for initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) in the NCLT -- Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) rejected the application as barred by limitation – Respondent appealed to the NCLAT u/s 61 of the IBC -- By the impugned judgment and order, the NCLAT set aside the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) rejecting the application of the Respondent u/s 9 of the IBC and has remitted the case to the Adjudicating Authority for admission after notice to the parties. Held, For the purpose of limitation, the relevant date is the date on which the right to sue accrues which is the date when a default occurs -- Pendency of the proceedings in a parallel forum, invoked by the Respondent, is not sufficient cause for the delay in filing an application u/s 9 of the IBC -- By the time the application was filed, the claim had become barred by limitation -- Madras High Court neither suffered from any defect of jurisdiction to entertain the winding up application nor was unable to entertain the winding up application for any other cause of a like nature – Limitation for initiation of winding up proceedings in the Madras High Court stopped running on the date on which the Winding Up petition was filed -- Initiation of proceedings in Madras High Court would not save limitation for initiation of proceedings for initiation of CIRP in the NCLT u/s 7 of the IBC -- A claim may not be barred by limitation -- It is the remedy for realisation of the claim, which gets barred by limitation. Impugned order of the NCLAT is unsustainable in law, set aside -- Appeal allowed.

(SC) Decided on : 19.09.2022

Section 14 –Object of moratorium -- Insolvency resolution process -- Object of a moratorium provision such as Section 14 is to see that there is no depletion of a corporate debtor’s assets during the insolvency resolution process so that it can be kept running as a going concern during this time, thus maximising value for all stakeholders -- Idea is that it facilitates the continued operation of the business of the corporate debtor to allow it breathing space to organise its affairs so that a new management may ultimately take over and bring the corporate debtor out of financial sickness, thus benefitting all stakeholders, which would include workmen of the corporate debtor.

(SC) Decided on: 01.03.2021

Object of moratorium -- Object of a moratorium provision such as Section 14 is to see that there is no depletion of a corporate debtor’s assets during the insolvency resolution process so that it can be kept running as a going concern during this time, thus maximising value for all stakeholders -- Idea is that it facilitates the continued operation of the business of the corporate debtor to allow it breathing space to organise its affairs so that a new management may ultimately take over and bring the corporate debtor out of financial sickness, thus benefitting all stakeholders, which would include workmen of the corporate debtor.

(SC) Decided on: 01.03.2021

Default due to wrong Act of Bank -- Plea of -- Challenge to Section 13(2) Notice of SARFAESI Act – Writ jurisdiction -- Alternative remedy – Limitation -- Held, mainly challenged before the High Court was notice u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition -- Remedy available to the respondents/ loanee was to initiate proceedings u/s 17 of the SARFAESI Act – Respondents relegated to avail the alternative statutory remedy by way of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act – When such proceedings are initiated, the same be considered in accordance with law and on its own merits including the case on behalf of the original writ petitioners that nothing was due and payable, if the amount received as insurance claim would not have transferred to the Working Capital Account -- Appeal allowed to the aforesaid extent -- If such proceedings are initiated within a period of four weeks, the same be dealt with without raising the dispute with respect to limitation, however, subject to compliance of other requirements under the Act.

(SC) Decided on : 12.09.2022

Delay due to non-issuance of occupancy certificate – Apartment-buyer held entitled to interest for the delayed delivery of possession of the apartment – Contention of the appellant that the project was completed within the time prescribed, however, the government did not issue the occupancy certificate to the promoter – Held, This is a matter between the appellant and the government, apartment-buyer cannot be penalized for the same – Appeal dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 14.07.2022

Acquisition of land under National Highway Act, 1956 -- Arbitrator can proceed to decide the entitlement with regard to statutory benefits, however, in any other eventuality, where the land owners do not dispute the correctness of the market value determined by the competent authority under sub section 1 or 2 of Section 3G of the 1956 Act, then, they cannot be forced to apply for appointment of Arbitrator only for the purpose of payment of the amount of statutory benefits -- Writ allowed, respondents directed to pay solatium amount equivalent to one hundred percent of the compensation amount determined by the competent authority under sub section (1) and (2) of Section 3G of the 1956 Act after adjusting the amount already paid -- Respondents shall also pay the amount with interest in accordance with Section 80 of the 2013 Act within two months.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.08.2021

Grandparents compare to maternal aunt -- Death of Parents – Custody of the minor remained with the grandfather pursuant to the interim order passed by the High Court -- Minor also shown willingness to stay with the appellant – They have also managed to get admission of the minor in a school in Ahmedabad -- Minor will get better education in Ahmedabad, which is a Metro City compared to the education in Dahod where maternal aunt resides -- Being a retired person, the paternal grandparents would devote more time and take care of minor better than respondent No. 4 who is serving in the government department – Income and/or the age and/or the bigger family cannot be the sole criteria to tilt the balance and not to give the custody of the grandson to the paternal grandparents – Custody ordered to be given to grand-parents subject to the final outcome of the proceedings u/s 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, pending before the competent court.

(SC) Decided on: 09.06.2022

Attachment before judgment – Arbitration matter -- Proof of actual attempts to deal with, remove or dispose of the property with a view to defeat or delay the realisation of an impending Arbitral Award is not imperative for grant of relief u/s 9 of the Arbitration Act -- A strong possibility of diminution of assets would suffice.

(SC) Decided on : 14.09.2022

Stage of suit – Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC – To pass a judgment on admission, the Court if thinks fit may pass an order at any stage of the suit.

(SC) Decided on: 06.07.2022

Object and the purport of Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC -- Provision has been brought with intent that if admission of facts raised by one side is admitted by other, and the Court is satisfied to the nature of admission, then the parties are not compelled for full-fledged trial and the judgment and order can be directed without taking any evidence -- Therefore, to save the time and money of the Court and respective parties, the said provision has been brought in the statute.

(SC) Decided on: 06.07.2022

Discretion of court – Power is discretionary which should be only exercised when specific, clear and categorical admission of facts and documents are on record, otherwise the Court can refuse to invoke the power of Order XII Rule 6 of CPC – Power cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

(SC) Decided on: 06.07.2022

SARFAAESI proceedings – Lessee rights -- Civil Court directed to return the plaint to the plaintiff with liberty to file a petition before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.09.2022

Public Interest litigation in High Court -- Interim order by High Court “In the meanwhile, the construction activities and other allied activities in relation to the subject project, if any undertaken, shall be strictly in accordance with the permission accorded by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, as well as the existing master plan.” – In proceedings before NGT, interim order that no further construction to be undertaken – Application for vacation of stay was rejected – Held, orders passed by the constitutional courts would be prevailing over the orders passed by the statutory tribunals – Continuation of the proceedings before the learned NGT for the same cause of action, which is seized with the High Court, would not be in the interest of justice – Proceedings pending before the learned NGT quashed and set aside.

(SC) Decided on: 01.06.2022

Section 18 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 Rule 54, 64, 66, 89, 90 -- Constitution of India, Article 300A -- Auction sale -- Setting aside of – Acquisition of land by Improvement Trust – Trust failed to pay compensation assessed by Reference Court – In Execution, Trust not appeared despite service of notice – Ex-parte warrant for sale of attached property issued and property sold to auction purchaser – No material irregularity or fraud causing substantial injury to Trust established – Objector neither deposited the decreetal amount nor the amount equal to 5% of the purchase amount for payment to the auction purchaser as is required under Order XXI Rule 89 of the said Code – Though the right in property is not a fundamental right, it is still a constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India -- A person can be deprived of the rights of the property only in a manner known to law -- Acquisition proceedings in respect of the land in question sought to deprive the owners of their land which had to be paid for in terms of the provisions of the LA Act -- Executing Court’s order affirmed, with cost of Rs. 1 lac.

(SC) Decided on : 02.09.2022

Section 4, 6, 11 -- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), Section 24(2) -- Acquisition of land under 1894 Act -- Lapse of land acquisition proceedings -- Subsequent purchaser – Right of -- Respondent is a purchaser after the publication of notice u/s 4 and 6 of the Act, 1894 and in fact after the award of the Land Acquisition Collector -- Subsequent purchaser is not entitled to claim lapsing of the proceedings under the 2013 Act.

(SC) Decided on: 06.05.2022

Section 4, 6, 11 -- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), Section 24(2) -- Lapse of land acquisition proceedings under 1894 Act -- Compensation not offered to the land owners -- Finding of High Court that compensation was not offered to the land owners and therefore the deposit in the Court cannot be regarded as payment of compensation is not tenable – Order passed by the High Court set aside -- Writ petition filed by the respondent dismissed. Manoharlal’s case (2020) 8 SCC 129 = (2020) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15233 relied.

(SC) Decided on: 06.05.2022

Section 18, 23 -- Acquisition of land -- Market value of acquired land – Assessment of -- Reliance upon market value of land subsequent to notification – Held, though appreciation in price can be presumed, but the market value cannot be assessed by applying suitable deduction in the market value of the land acquired by a subsequent notification.

(SC) Decided on: 05.05.2022

Compensation not offered to the land owners -- Finding of High Court that compensation was not offered to the land owners and therefore the deposit in the Court cannot be regarded as payment of compensation is not tenable – Order passed by the High Court set aside.

(SC) Decided on: 06.05.2022

Subsequent purchaser – Right of -- Respondent is a purchaser after the publication of notice u/s 4 and 6 of the Act, 1894 and in fact after the award of the Land Acquisition Collector -- Subsequent purchaser is not entitled to claim lapsing of the proceedings under the 2013 Act.

(SC) Decided on: 06.05.2022

SARFAAESI proceedings – Jurisdiction of civil Court – Civil Court directed to return the plaint to the plaintiff with liberty to file a petition before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.09.2022

Amputation of both arms due to electrocution – When an incident of this nature is involved, inference can surely be drawn that there has been an element of carelessness on the part of the Electricity Board in maintaining the supply line – Facts of the case lead to application of principle of “strict liability” -- Respondent-Nigam held liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

(P&H HC) Reserved on: 16.05.2022 Decided on: 20.05.2022

Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Fake driving license -- Merely because the driving license of the driver is fake, would not be a sufficient ground by itself to absolve the insurance company of its liability to indemnify the insured -- Owner could not be expected to carry out a roving enquiry into the authenticity of the driving license, more so, when driving license in question had been regularly renewed -- Insurance company is held liable to indemnify the insured and pay the amount of compensation to the claimants.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.10.2022

Notice u/s 13(2) Notice of SARFAESI Act – Writ jurisdiction -- Alternative remedy – Mainly challenged before the High Court was notice u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition -- Remedy available to the respondents/ loanee was to initiate proceedings u/s 17 of the SARFAESI Act – Respondents relegated to avail the alternative statutory remedy by way of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act – If such proceedings are initiated within a period of four weeks, the same be dealt with without raising the dispute with respect to limitation, however, subject to compliance of other requirements under the Act.

(SC) Decided on : 12.09.2022

Section 5 – Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (31 of 2016), Section 7, 9 – Condonation of delay -- NCLT/NCLAT has the discretion to entertain an application/appeal after the prescribed period of limitation -- Condition precedent for exercise of such discretion is the existence of sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal and/or the application within the period prescribed by limitation -- Condition precedent for condonation of the delay in filing an application or appeal, is the existence of sufficient cause -- Whether the explanation furnished for the delay would constitute “sufficient cause” or not would be dependent upon facts of each case -- There cannot be any straitjacket formula for accepting or rejecting the explanation furnished by the Appellant/applicant for the delay in taking steps.

(SC) Decided on : 19.09.2022

Liability acknowledged in 2013 -- Pendency of Winding up proceedings under Companies Act 1956 in High Court – On 30th March 2018, the Respondent filed petition u/s 9 of the IBC for initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) in the NCLT -- Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) rejected the application as barred by limitation – Respondent appealed to the NCLAT u/s 61 of the IBC -- By the impugned judgment and order, the NCLAT set aside the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) rejecting the application of the Respondent u/s 9 of the IBC and has remitted the case to the Adjudicating Authority for admission after notice to the parties. Held, For the purpose of limitation, the relevant date is the date on which the right to sue accrues which is the date when a default occurs -- Pendency of the proceedings in a parallel forum, invoked by the Respondent, is not sufficient cause for the delay in filing an application u/s 9 of the IBC -- By the time the application was filed, the claim had become barred by limitation -- Madras High Court neither suffered from any defect of jurisdiction to entertain the winding up application nor was unable to entertain the winding up application for any other cause of a like nature – Limitation for initiation of winding up proceedings in the Madras High Court stopped running on the date on which the Winding Up petition was filed -- Initiation of proceedings in Madras High Court would not save limitation for initiation of proceedings for initiation of CIRP in the NCLT u/s 7 of the IBC -- A claim may not be barred by limitation -- It is the remedy for realisation of the claim, which gets barred by limitation. Impugned order of the NCLAT is unsustainable in law, set aside -- Appeal allowed.

(SC) Decided on : 19.09.2022

Cheque bounce case – Civil remedy -- Security cheque – Complaint u/s 138 of N.I. Act, 1881 -- Holder of the cheque/drawee would have the option of initiating the civil proceedings for recovery or the criminal proceedings for punishment in the fact situation, but in any event, it is not for the drawer of the cheque to dictate terms with regard to the nature of litigation.

(SC) Decided on: 28.10.2021

Civil remedy -- Security cheque – Complaint u/s 138 of N.I. Act, 1881 -- Holder of the cheque/drawee would have the option of initiating the civil proceedings for recovery or the criminal proceedings for punishment in the fact situation, but in any event, it is not for the drawer of the cheque to dictate terms with regard to the nature of litigation.

(SC) Decided on: 28.10.2021

Cruelty -- Divorce -- Whether the relationship of the husband and wife has come to an end and if the respondent-wife is not ready to give mutual divorce to the appellant-husband, whether this act of her, would amount to cruelty towards husband, keeping in view the fact that she is not staying with her husband for the last about 23 years and there is no scope that they can cohabit as husband and wife again – Decree of divorce granted in favour of the appellant-husband.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.05.2022

Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Permanent disability -- Functional disability – Assessment of compensation under the head ‘loss of future earning’, would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on earning capacity – Assessment is not to be done mechanically only on the percentage of physical disability – Age, profession, nature of work, and the related factors, as well as the permanent disability suffered need to be taken into account for that purpose.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.11.2022

Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Permanent disability -- Functional disability – Accident on 7.5.1994 -- Income taken as Rs. 5,000 per month -- Disability of 15% qua the affected limb has been found to be 9% qua the whole body -- At the time of accident, he was 42 years of age, and in active practice as an advocate before High Court -- Disability suffered, leading to shortening of leg by ½ inch, and the resultant difficulty in running, squatting and free movements to the claimant, would naturally have affected his professional life as well as the earning capacity – Loss of earning capacity treated as 10% of the assessed income -- Multiplier of 14 applied – Appellant-claimant held entitled to Rs. 84,000 as compensation for loss of future earnings with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till its actual realization.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.11.2022

Reliance upon market value of land subsequent to notification – Held, though appreciation in price can be presumed, but the market value cannot be assessed by applying suitable deduction in the market value of the land acquired by a subsequent notification.

(SC) Decided on: 05.05.2022

Eviction of lessee -- High Court has considered the fair rate of return @ 6.5% annually on the amount of Rs. 5.50 crores for which the appellant purchased the property in the year 2008, determining the monthly compensation @ Rs. 2,50,000/- – Aforesaid method cannot be accepted, High Court was required to undertake exercise and to determine the compensation at the same rate at which the landlord would have been able to let out the premises and earn rent if the tenant would have vacated the premises – Matter remitted back to High court.

(SC) Decided on: 09.11.2022

There is no provision for assessment of mesne profits in a suit for possession without an enquiry in terms of the Order XX Rule 12 of CPC -- No such enquiry has either been conducted by trial Court – Held, no justification for the lower appellate Court to fix the mesne profits and direct the petitioner to pay the amount along with arrears.

(P&H HC) Reserved on: 14.10.2022 Decided on: 01.11.2022

Suit property was never rented out to the petitioner, nor had its rent been assessed -- Therefore, the concept of depriving the landlord of rent during pendency of appeal does not apply -- Respondent cannot claim mesne profits based upon the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd., 2005 (1) RCR (Civil) 212.

(P&H HC) Reserved on: 14.10.2022 Decided on: 01.11.2022

Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Permanent disability -- Functional disability – Failure to re-examine medically – Adverse inference -- High Court directed re-examination to know physical condition as on date -- Medical condition on the date of accident remains undisputed and was assessed to have suffered 9% disability qua whole body -- There is no challenge to this finding by the respondents -- If the claimant failed to get himself re-examined, no adverse inference can be drawn against him.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.11.2022

Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Permanent disability -- Functional disability – Loss of future earning -- Assessment of compensation under the head ‘loss of future earning’, would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on earning capacity – Assessment is not to be done mechanically only on the percentage of physical disability – Age, profession, nature of work, and the related factors, as well as the permanent disability suffered need to be taken into account for that purpose.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.11.2022

Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Injury case -- Permanent disability -- Functional disability – Loss of future earning -- Accident on 7.5.1994 -- Income taken as Rs. 5,000 per month -- Disability of 15% qua the affected limb has been found to be 9% qua the whole body -- At the time of accident, he was 42 years of age, and in active practice as an advocate before High Court -- Disability suffered, leading to shortening of leg by ½ inch, and the resultant difficulty in running, squatting and free movements to the claimant, would naturally have affected his professional life as well as the earning capacity – Loss of earning capacity treated as 10% of the assessed income -- Multiplier of 14 applied – Appellant-claimant held entitled to Rs. 84,000 as compensation for loss of future earnings with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till its actual realization.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.11.2022

Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Fake driving license -- Renewal of fake driving licencee – Liability of Insured-owner -- Merely because the driving license of the driver is fake, would not be a sufficient ground by itself to absolve the insurance company of its liability to indemnify the insured -- Driving license periodically renewed -- It can be safely inferred that owner while employing driver, had not only satisfied himself about his driving skills but also qua the validity of his driving license -- Owner could not be expected to carry out a roving enquiry into the authenticity of the driving license, more so, when driving license in question had been regularly renewed -- Insurance company is held liable to indemnify the insured and pay the amount of compensation to the claimants.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.10.2022

Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident -- Deceased 28 years of age – Notional Income -- Future prospects – Consortium – Funeral expenses and loss of estate – Claimants are wife, minor daughter, father and sister of the deceased -- Notional income considered as 6,500/- per month, 40% added towards future prospects -- 1/3rd deducted towards personal expense – Multiplier of 17 applied – Claimant also held entitled to Rs. 40,000/- towards parental consortium for minor child; Rs. 40,000/- towards wife and Rs. 40,000/- towards filial consortium for the father totaling Rs. 1,20,000/- -- Claimants shall also be entitled to Rs. 30,000/- under the conventional head (funeral expense and loss of estate) -- Appellants held entitled to a total sum of Rs. 13,78,790/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization towards the compensation for the death of the deceased.

(SC) Decided on: 17.10.2022

Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Deceased mason aged 48/52 years – Future prospects -- High Court awarded compensation towards loss of dependency at Rs. 2,97,000/- considering the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- p.m. after deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenditure of the deceased – Total Rs.3,92,000/- under different heads along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition awarded – Held, while awarding loss of dependency, future prospects and rise in income ought to have been considered -- 25% of Rs. 3,000/- per month considered towards future prospects -- It can be said to be just compensation -- Claimants held entitled to a total sum of Rs. 4,25,000/- under different heads along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till its realization.

(SC) Decided on : 19.09.2022

Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Deceased driving Activa on wrong side – Pleadings – Requirement of -- Driver of the offending vehicle stepped into the witness box as RW1 and stated that the deceased was driving the Scooter on the wrong side -- However, except statement of the driver no other details as to where the deceased had tried to cross the slip road in a rash and negligent manner are forthcoming from the statement or from the pleadings -- Pleadings are totally bereft of any details which could even remotely show that the deceased was driving the Activa Scooter on the wrong side of the road – A conjoint reading of the statement of the eye-witness as well as of the driver leaves no manner of doubt that the accident had taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.6 -- Argument raised by the appellant-Insurance Company, hence rejected.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.05.2022

Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Assessment of Income of deceased -- Income Tax Return – Non-examination of official of IT Department – Effect of -- Proceedings before the Tribunal are summary in nature and do not admit strict principles of law of evidence to be applied – Considering the scheme of the Act, which is a beneficial piece of legislation, the income-tax returns produced by the claimants ought not to be rejected merely because they have not been proved by some official from the Income Tax Department unless some serious doubts are raised qua the authenticity of the same – High Court finds no reason not to accept the income calculation of the deceased as adopted by the Tribunal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.05.2022

Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Nature of evidence -- MACT cases stand on a different footing and cannot be kept at par with the criminal cases -- In MACT cases, the claimants are required to prove their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities while in criminal cases, the case of the prosecution is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.04.2022

Section 166 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 137 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- DDR of accident – Deposition of author of DDR before Tribunal -- Evidential value -- Any statement made by a person, including the DDR, recorded before the police is not on oath and as such, it cannot be kept at the same pedestal as the deposition made by a witness before a Court of law -- On the one hand, it is the case of the appellant-Insurance Company that PW-2 was a planted witness and was not present when the occurrence in question took place, however, in the same breath, learned counsel while placing reliance upon the DDR recorded by PW-2, is trying to demolish the case of the claimants by urging that he had stated therein that the accident in question had happened suddenly and thus no one was at fault -- PW-2, while stepping into the witness-box gave a vivid account of the accident in question -- He was subjected to lengthy cross-examination, however, he stood his ground and the respondents were unable to create any dent in his testimony – Appeal of Insurance company against award passed by Tribunal dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.04.2022

Section 14 – Driving license – Expiry of – Accident within 30 days – Effect of -- Driving license was valid upto 20.8.2011 and was renewed on 19th September, 2011 – Accident took place on 5.9.2011 – Proviso to Section 14 read as “Provided that every driving licence shall, notwithstanding its expiry under this sub-section continue to be effective for a period of thirty days from such expiry.” -- In view of the above provision, the driving licence of driver was held to be valid on the date of accident.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.11.2015

Section 166 -- Compensation in Motor Vehicle accident case -- Deceased was running business -- Argument that the business has continued and the claimants still have income from the business, cannot be accepted to reduce the amount of dependency of claimants.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.11.2015

Section 14, 15, 18, 29 – Constitution of India, Article 136, 323-B -- Re-constructing of resort – Public Interest litigation -- Construction challenged in High Court –Jurisdiction/ Power of National Green Tribunal -- Interim order by High Court “In the meanwhile, the construction activities and other allied activities in relation to the subject project, if any undertaken, shall be strictly in accordance with the permission accorded by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, as well as the existing master plan.” – In proceedings before NGT, interim order that no further construction to be undertaken – Application for vacation of stay was rejected – Held, no law is necessary to state that insofar as the Tribunals are concerned, they would be subordinate to the High Court insofar as the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court is concerned – It was not appropriate on the part of the learned NGT to have continued with the proceedings before it, specifically, when it was pointed that the High Court was also in seisin of the matter and had passed an interim order permitting the construction -- Orders passed by the constitutional courts would be prevailing over the orders passed by the statutory tribunals – Continuation of the proceedings before the learned NGT for the same cause of action, which is seized with the High Court, would not be in the interest of justice – Proceedings pending before the learned NGT quashed and set aside.

(SC) Decided on: 01.06.2022

Section 3(H)(4) -- Acquisition of land under National Highway Act, 1956 – Apportionment of compensation on the basis of agreement to sell – Right of -- Section 3(H)(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956, enables any person interested in the compensation, to file an application to the competent authority with a request to forward the dispute with regard to entitlement or apportionment to the Principal Civil Court -- Petitioners may apply to the competent authority under Section 3(H)(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956 -- Revision disposed of.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.06.2022

Section 3(E) – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Demolition of shops and residence – Damages for – Writ jurisdiction -- Non-following of procedure as envisaged under Section 3(E) of The NH Act, 1956 alleged -- Since demolition had already taken place and damages are being prayed for, an alternative and efficacious remedy is available to the petitioners by way of leading evidence -- Writ petition dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction for the redressal of their grievances.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.05.2022

In MACT cases, the claimants are required to prove their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities while in criminal cases, the case of the prosecution is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.04.2022

Section 138 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 60(1)(i), Order 21 -- Award of Lok Adalat in complaint u/s 138 NI Act – Execution of award/ decree -- Attachment of salary -- Salary of the JD-respondent cannot be attached for a period of more than 24 months where such attachment is made in execution of one and the same decree -- Argument of DH-petitioner that the salary should be continued to be attached cannot be accepted in view of the clear provisions of Section 60(1)(i) of CPC.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 21.10.2022 Decided on: 01.11.2022

Section 138 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 55 Order 21 Rule 30 -- Award of Lok Adalat in complaint u/s 138 NI Act – Execution of award/ decree – Arrest of Judgment Debtor/ JD -- Argument that the JD-respondent ought to be arrested for non-compliance of the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat cannot be accepted in view of the fact that arrest would be a measure of last resort and in the case, some property of the JD-respondent already stands attached and the Executing Court has directed the JD-respondent to file an affidavit stating all the particulars regarding his moveable and immoveable properties.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 21.10.2022 Decided on: 01.11.2022

Section 138 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 – Cheque bounce case -- Award of Lok Adalat in complaint u/s 138 NI Act – Execution of award -- Award passed by the Lok Adalat would be deemed to be a decree of the Civil Court executable by the Civil Court -- There can be no quarrel with the said proposition of law.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 21.10.2022 Decided on: 01.11.2022

Section 118 – Deed of undertaking – Denial of genuineness – Relevance of -- Appellants’ mere bald denial regarding genuineness of the Deed of Undertaking, despite admitting the signatures of Appellant No. 2 thereupon, does not cast any doubt on the genuineness of the said document.

(SC) Decided on: 10.02.2021

Sections 138, 139, Chapter XVII – Cheque bounce matters – Criminal and civil liability – Redressal of -- Object of Chapter XVII of the NIA is not only punitive but also compensatory and restitutive -- Provisions of NIA envision a single window for criminal liability for dishonour of cheque as well as civil liability for realisation of the cheque amount -- There needs to be a consistent approach towards awarding compensation and unless there exist special circumstances, the Courts should uniformly levy fine up to twice the cheque amount along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

(SC) Decided on: 10.02.2021

Section 141 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374 -- Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (34 of 2006), Section 17(1)(a)(b) -- Food adulteration case -- Company not convicted – Nominated person held guilty – Legality of – Remand to fill lacuna of case – Permissibility of -- No material distinction between Section 141 of the NI Act and Section 17 of the Act which makes the Company as well as the Nominated Person to be held guilty of the offences and/or liable to be proceeded and punished accordingly -- Clauses (a) and (b) are not in the alternative but conjoint -- Therefore, in the absence of the Company, the Nominated Person cannot be convicted or vice versa -- Since the Company was not convicted by the trial court, finding of the High Court to revisit the judgment will be unfair to the appellant/Nominated Person who has been facing trial for more than last 30 years -- Order of remand to the trial court to fill up the lacuna is not a fair option exercised by the High Court as the failure of the trial court to convict the Company renders the entire conviction of the Nominated Person as unsustainable.

(SC) Decided on: 05.11.2020

Section 138 -- Passports Act, 1967 (15 of 1967), Section 10 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Cheque bounce case -- Proclaimed Person – Released on bail – Impounding of passport – Legality of – Petitioner appeared before the Judicial Magistrate, she was granted bail and, thus, the proclamation order ceased to be operative -- Said fact was well within the knowledge of respondent-Regional Passport Office -- Moreover, in a bailable offence, no condition can be imposed by the Court regarding surrender of the passport -- Fundamental Rights of the petitioner breached -- Hence, the impugned action is highly deprecated -- Petition allowed with a costs of Rs.1.00 lakh to be paid by respondent-RPO to the petitioner -- Respondent-RPO directed to release the passport of the petitioner within 15 days.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.08.2020

Section 138 -- Advocate Client relationship – Issuance of cheque by client – Dishonour of – Complaint u/s 138 of NI Act -- Mere issuance of cheque by the client may not debar him from contesting the liability -- If liability is disputed, the advocate has to independently prove the contract.

(SC) Decided on: 05.12.2017

Section 138 -- Advocate Client relationship – Professional misconduct -- Issuance of cheque by client as percentage – Dishonour of – Complaint u/s 138 of NI Act – Maintainability of -- Claim based on percentage of subject matter in litigation cannot be the basis of a complaint u/s 138 of the Act -- Claim of the respondent advocate being against public policy and being an act of professional misconduct, proceedings in the complaint filed by him have to be held to be abuse of the process of law and have to be quashed -- Issue of professional misconduct is left to be dealt with at the appropriate forum.

(SC) Decided on: 05.12.2017

Section 138 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Cheque bounce case -- Acquittal in criminal case – Civil liability to pay -- Claim of the plaintiff was not based on dishonour of the cheques -- It was based on the basis of transaction of supply of poultry feed to the company and the bills raised therefore -- Merely, because defendant has been acquitted in criminal proceeding that does not mean that the claim of the plaintiff in civil proceedings ipso facto stand disproved.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.07.2017

Renewal of passport – FIR pending against petitioner -- As per condition to appear in exam, the candidates must bring to the appointment a valid, non-expired passport meeting specific country issuance criteria -- Application declined by ASJ – Court concerned is competent to grant the NOC – Renewal of the passport at this stage is only for the purpose of requirement of the petitioner to appear in the said exam -- Held, Ld. Additional Sessions Judge has fallen in error in declining the request made by the petitioner -- ASJ to decide application afresh .

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.06.2022

Food adulteration case -- Company not convicted – Remand to fill lacuna of case – In the absence of the Company, the Nominated Person cannot be convicted or vice versa -- Order of remand to the trial court to fill up the lacuna is not a fair option exercised by the High Court as the failure of the trial court to convict the Company renders the entire conviction of the Nominated Person as unsustainable.

(SC) Decided on: 05.11.2020

Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Income Tax Return – Considering the scheme of the Act, which is a beneficial piece of legislation, the income-tax returns produced by the claimants ought not to be rejected merely because they have not been proved by some official from the Income Tax Department unless some serious doubts are raised qua the authenticity of the same.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.05.2022

Effect of -- Summons would not contain the particulars of the orders required to be summoned -- It is only from the file, the documents are put to the witness for the purpose of proving the case by either of the parties -- Exhibition of the documents was not objected to at the time of cross-examination -- Party cannot be prevented to take the objection to the aforementioned documents.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.04.2016

Writ jurisdiction -- Alternative remedy – Limitation -- Insurance claim wrongly transferred by Bank – Default due to wrong Act of Bank -- Plea of -- Held, mainly challenged before the High Court was notice u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition -- Remedy available to the respondents/ loanee was to initiate proceedings u/s 17 of the SARFAESI Act – Respondents relegated to avail the alternative statutory remedy by way of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act – When such proceedings are initiated, the same be considered in accordance with law and on its own merits including the case on behalf of the original writ petitioners that nothing was due and payable, if the amount received as insurance claim would not have transferred to the Working Capital Account -- Appeal allowed to the aforesaid extent -- If such proceedings are initiated within a period of four weeks, the same be dealt with without raising the dispute with respect to limitation, however, subject to compliance of other requirements under the Act.

(SC) Decided on : 12.09.2022

Provision has been brought with intent that if admission of facts raised by one side is admitted by other, and the Court is satisfied to the nature of admission, then the parties are not compelled for full-fledged trial and the judgment and order can be directed without taking any evidence -- Therefore, to save the time and money of the Court and respective parties, the said provision has been brought in the statute.

(SC) Decided on: 06.07.2022

Insolvency resolution process -- Object of a moratorium provision such as Section 14 is to see that there is no depletion of a corporate debtor’s assets during the insolvency resolution process so that it can be kept running as a going concern during this time, thus maximising value for all stakeholders -- Idea is that it facilitates the continued operation of the business of the corporate debtor to allow it breathing space to organise its affairs so that a new management may ultimately take over and bring the corporate debtor out of financial sickness, thus benefitting all stakeholders, which would include workmen of the corporate debtor.

(SC) Decided on: 01.03.2021

Extension of time – Writ jurisdiction -- Borrower as a matter of right cannot claim extension of time – Granting extension of time would tantamount to rewriting the contract which is not permissible while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(SC) Decided on: 04.11.2022

Amputation of both arms due to electrocution – Liability of Electricity Supplier – In case of an incident involving electricity line, burden is essentially on the Electricity Board to plead and prove that it was not their fault and the snapping of the live wire can be described to be an act of negligence -- Facts of the case lead to application of principle of “strict liability” -- Respondent-Nigam held liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

(P&H HC) Reserved on: 16.05.2022 Decided on: 20.05.2022

Evidence law -- Attorney appeared as witness – Plaintiff himself not appeared to testify in support of the plaint – Power of attorney holder/PW-4 failed to produce the original power of attorney on record -- Opportunities afforded, still could not bring the original on record -- It was, therefore, held that photocopy of the power of attorney cannot be read in evidence -- As the plaintiff himself has not deposed in the case, therefore, no exception can be taken to the adverse inference drawn against him on this account.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.11.2022

Section 9 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376(2)(n), 506, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Renewal of passport – FIR pending against petitioner -- NOC from Trial Court -- As per condition to appear in exam, the candidates must bring to the appointment a valid, non-expired passport meeting specific country issuance criteria -- Application declined by ASJ – Court concerned is competent to grant the NOC – Held, Ld. Additional Sessions Judge has fallen in error in declining the request made by the petitioner – ASJ would take into consideration the submissions made by the parties and decide his application afresh -- Renewal of the passport at this stage is only for the purpose of requirement of the petitioner to appear in the said exam -- However, the same would not be deemed to the grant of permission to the petitioner to travel abroad -- Petition disposed of.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.06.2022

Section 10 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Cheque bounce case -- Proclaimed Person – Released on bail – Impounding of passport – Legality of – Petitioner appeared before the Judicial Magistrate, she was granted bail and, thus, the proclamation order ceased to be operative -- Said fact was well within the knowledge of respondent-Regional Passport Office -- Moreover, in a bailable offence, no condition can be imposed by the Court regarding surrender of the passport -- Fundamental Rights of the petitioner breached -- Hence, the impugned action is highly deprecated -- Petition allowed with a costs of Rs.1.00 lakh to be paid by respondent-RPO to the petitioner -- Respondent-RPO directed to release the passport of the petitioner within 15 days.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.08.2020

Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Functional disability – Loss of future earning -- Accident on 7.5.1994 -- Income taken as Rs. 5,000 per month -- Disability of 15% qua the affected limb has been found to be 9% qua the whole body -- At the time of accident, he was 42 years of age, and in active practice as an advocate before High Court -- Disability suffered, leading to shortening of leg by ½ inch, and the resultant difficulty in running, squatting and free movements to the claimant, would naturally have affected his professional life as well as the earning capacity – Loss of earning capacity treated as 10% of the assessed income -- Multiplier of 14 applied – Appellant-claimant held entitled to Rs. 84,000 as compensation for loss of future earnings with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till its actual realization.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.11.2022

Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Functional disability – Loss of future earning -- Assessment of compensation under the head ‘loss of future earning’, would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on earning capacity – Assessment is not to be done mechanically only on the percentage of physical disability – Age, profession, nature of work, and the related factors, as well as the permanent disability suffered need to be taken into account for that purpose.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.11.2022

Amputation of both arms due to electrocution – 100% permanent physical impairment -- Civil writ petition for compensation to victim -- Keeping in view the principles laid down for awarding compensation in Naval Kumar’s case (2017) 3 SCC 115, Rs.95 lakhs awarded to the petitioner with interest payable @7% per annum from the date of filing of the writ petition as compensation -- Amount enhanced considering the fact that 5 years have elapsed since the amount was awarded by the Supreme Court in almost similar circumstances and taking into account the cost of inflation, stated to be almost 15% as on date.

(P&H HC) Reserved on: 16.05.2022 Decided on: 20.05.2022

Deceased driving Activa on wrong side – Pleadings are totally bereft of any details which could even remotely show that the deceased was driving the Activa Scooter on the wrong side of the road – A conjoint reading of the statement of the eye-witness as well as of the driver leaves no manner of doubt that the accident had taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.6 -- Argument raised by the appellant-Insurance Company, hence rejected.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.05.2022

The words, “unless otherwise agreed by the parties” occurs at the beginning of clause (a) qualifying the entire provision -- However, in clause (b), the words, “unless the award otherwise directs” occurs after the words ‘a sum directed to be paid by an arbitral award shall’ and before the words ‘carry interest at the rate of eighteen per cent” -- Thereby, those words only qualify the rate of post-award interest. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 31(7)(a)(b).

(SC) Decided on : 01.09.2022

Pre-award interest – Discretion of Arbitrator -- Section 31(7)(a) confers a wide discretion upon the arbitrator in regard to the grant of pre-award interest -- When a discretion has been conferred on the arbitrator in regard to the grant of pre-award interest, it would be against the grain of statutory interpretation to presuppose that the legislative intent was to reduce the discretionary power of the arbitrator for the grant of post-award interest under clause (b) -- Clause (b) only contemplates a situation where the arbitration award is silent on post-award interest, in which event the award-holder is entitled to a post-award interest of eighteen percent.

(SC) Decided on : 01.09.2022

Arbitration award -- Discretion of Arbitrator -- Clause (b) does not fetter the discretion of the arbitrator to grant post-award interest -- It only contemplates a situation in which the discretion is not exercised by the arbitrator -- Therefore, the observations Hyder Consulting’s case (2013) 2 SCC 719 on the meaning of ‘sum’ will not restrict the discretion of the arbitrator to grant post-award interest -- There is nothing in the provision which restricts the discretion of the arbitrator for the grant of post-award interest which the arbitrator otherwise holds inherent to their authority.

(SC) Decided on : 01.09.2022

Post-award interest – Discretion of Arbitrator -- Section 31(7)(a) confers a wide discretion upon the arbitrator in regard to the grant of pre-award interest -- When a discretion has been conferred on the arbitrator in regard to the grant of pre-award interest, it would be against the grain of statutory interpretation to presuppose that the legislative intent was to reduce the discretionary power of the arbitrator for the grant of post-award interest under clause (b) -- Clause (b) only contemplates a situation where the arbitration award is silent on post-award interest, in which event the award-holder is entitled to a post-award interest of eighteen percent.

(SC) Decided on : 01.09.2022

Declaration of Tenancy – Sub rule (2) of Rule 66 CPC cannot be read in isolation -- It must be read inter-alia with sub rule (3) of Rule 66 -- Proclamation ought to have specified fairly and accurately the tenancy in view of Order 21 Rule 66 (2) (e) which requires every other thing which the Court considers material for a purchaser to know in order to judge of the nature and value of the property to be specified -- Clause (e) is of the widest amplitude and everything which affects the value of the property must be specified/disclosed -- Value of a property with a sitting tenant can never be the same as its value without a tenant -- It is axiomatic, therefore, that clause (e) of Rule 66 (2) requires a proclamation to specify a tenancy in respect of a property to be sold in auction.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.03.2016

Jurisdiction/ Power of National Green Tribunal -- Interim order by High Court “In the meanwhile, the construction activities and other allied activities in relation to the subject project, if any undertaken, shall be strictly in accordance with the permission accorded by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, as well as the existing master plan.” – In proceedings before NGT, interim order that no further construction to be undertaken – Application for vacation of stay was rejected – Held, orders passed by the constitutional courts would be prevailing over the orders passed by the statutory tribunals – Continuation of the proceedings before the learned NGT for the same cause of action, which is seized with the High Court, would not be in the interest of justice – Proceedings pending before the learned NGT quashed and set aside.

(SC) Decided on: 01.06.2022

Section 111, 158 – Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7, Rule 11 – Partition proceedings of land – Challenged in Civil suit -- Rejection of plaint -- Civil suit challenging partition proceedings on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice – Ld. trial Court is correct in observing that proceedings can always be challenged in case violation of principle of natural justice -- Section 158 bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in case a suit is filed for grant of relief, which can be provided by the Revenue Officers under the Act, 1887 – That is not the case in the suit -- Application dismissed by Trail court, order upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 22.02.2021

Section 34 -- East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948) -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Question of title – Jurisdiction of Revenue authorities -- Neither the authorities, constituted under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, nor the authorities under the Punjab Land Revenue Act (while deciding the mutations), have the jurisdiction to decide on the question of title.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.01.2021

Section 20 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Tenant company under liquidation proceedings – Eviction of – Remedy of -- Writ petitioner is calling upon High court to decree a suit for possession of tenanted premises in occupation of a company which is stated to be under liquidation -- Company was admittedly inducted as a tenant in the premises in dispute -- Company still exists and has not been dissolved – Held, urban tenancy in the State of Punjab, is governed and regulated by the provisions of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 -- Thus, the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of filing a petition under the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 – If petitioner’s argument to the effect that the tenancy has come to an end, is accepted still the petitioner has a remedy of filing a civil suit seeking relief of possession – Writ petition disposed of by relegating the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.10.2020

Unfair terms and conditions – Effect of -- Terms of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement were wholly one-sided and unfair to the Respondent/ Flat Purchaser – Appellant/ Builder could not seek to bind the Respondent with such one-sided contractual terms.

(SC) Decided on : 02.04.2019

Discretion of Arbitrator -- Purpose of granting post-award interest is to ensure that the award-debtor does not delay the payment of the award -- Arbitrator must exercise the discretion in good faith, must take into account relevant and not irrelevant considerations, and must act reasonably and rationally taking cognizance of the surrounding circumstances.

(SC) Decided on : 01.09.2022

F.I.R. w.r.t. forged receipts – Handwriting expert report – Handwriting expert in civil suit has opined that signatures in all the four receipts did not tally with the sample signatures which were of respondent No.2 -- It was only thereafter, FIR was registered -- Continuation of FIR would amount to abuse of the process of Court – Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR allowed.

(SC) Decided on: 10.02.2020

M utation – Jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities -- Finding of civil court – Revenue authorities, while deciding mutations, do not have jurisdiction to decide the question of right, title or interest of the parties -- Revenue authorities are bound to implement the order finally passed by the Civil Court -- Writ petition disposed of with the observations that whenever the Civil Court finally decides the suit, the revenue authorities would be bound to give effect thereto in the revenue record.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.01.2021

Section 58 – Interest on delay possession -- Delay due to non-issuance of occupancy certificate – Ground of -- Apartment-buyer held entitled to interest for the delayed delivery of possession of the apartment – Contention of the appellant that the project was completed within the time prescribed, however, the government did not issue the occupancy certificate to the promoter – Held, This is a matter between the appellant and the government, apartment-buyer cannot be penalized for the same – Appeal dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 14.07.2022

Section 58 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100 -- RERA Appeal in High Court – Substantial question of law -- Appeal u/s 58 of the RERA, 2016, is maintainable only on one or more grounds specified in Section 100 of the CPC which provides for the substantial question of law.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 25.05.2022

Delayed possession of flat – Right of Flat purchaser –Appellant/ Builder failed in obtaining the Occupancy Certificate and offering possession of the flat to the Respondent/ Purchaser within the time stipulated in the Agreement, or within a reasonable time thereafter – Respondent/ Flat Purchaser could not be compelled to take possession of the flat – Respondent/ Flat Purchaser held entitled for refund of the entire amount deposited by him with Interest – National Commission rightly awarded Interest @10.7% S.I. p.a. by applying Rule 15 of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation And Development) Rules, 2017 from the date of each installment till 05.02.2017 i.e. till the date after which the Order of stay of cancellation of the allotment was passed; and thereafter, from the date of the Commission’s final Order till the date on which the amount is refunded with Interest.

(SC) Decided on : 02.04.2019

Jurisdiction of civil Court – Question of law is whether in view of Section 102 read with Section 128 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred? – Prayer is to grant a decree of mandatory injunction directing defendant No.1 to hand over the complete documents with a consequential relief of declaration that conveyance deed in favour of defendants No.1 to 3 is illegal and liable to be set aside. Though the trial Court allowed the application, however, the lower appellate Court recorded a finding that since in the civil suit, there is pleading of fraud with regard to execution of the conveyance deed, on the basis of certain documents, which were prepared by the defendants in collusion with each other, therefore, the Civil Court will have jurisdiction and the plaint is not liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The lower appellate Court also recorded a finding that Section 102 read with Sections 128 & 130 of the Act deals with reference of the dispute to an Arbitrator and regarding bar of jurisdiction of the Courts, however, nothing is stated under Section 128 of the Act that jurisdiction of the Civil Court will be barred, if a suit is filed on the basis of fraud. At the stage of deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the Court is primarily to see the pleadings in the plaint or the documents attached with the plaint -- In the plaint, it is specifically pleaded that conveyance deed has been executed in favour of defendant No.2 by playing fraud -- Therefore, question of law decided in favour of respondent No.1-plaintiff -- No illegality or infirmity with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 20.09.2022

SARFAAESI proceedings – Lessee rights -- Jurisdiction of civil Court – Civil Court directed to return the plaint to the plaintiff with liberty to file a petition before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.09.2022

Suit for custody of child -- Consideration of pleading other than plaint – Permissibility of – Though it is well settled principle of law that for the purpose of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the contents of the plaint/petition is to be seen, however it is a case of not deciding the rights of the parents but the custody of minor child, therefore welfare of the child should be the paramount consideration -- Circumstances from the date of birth of the child till date needs to be appreciated -- Respondent-husband has remedy to approach the said Court, which has passed the decree of divorce if any terms and condition were violated -- Petition u/s 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act held not maintainable and rejected, leaving the respondent-husband to avail alternative remedy, in accordance with law -- Application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. allowed.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 01.09.2022 Pronounced on : 06.09.2022

Partition proceedings of land – Civil suit -- Civil suit challenging partition proceedings on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice – Ld. trial Court is correct in observing that proceedings can always be challenged in case violation of principle of natural justice -- Section 158 bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in case a suit is filed for grant of relief, which can be provided by the Revenue Officers under the Act, 1887 – That is not the case in the suit -- Application dismissed by Trail court, order upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 22.02.2021

Market value of acquired land -- Held, though appreciation in price can be presumed, but the market value cannot be assessed by applying suitable deduction in the market value of the land acquired by a subsequent notification.

(SC) Decided on: 05.05.2022

Adjustment of equities between the parties -- A decision based on adjustment of equities between the parties will be far more beneficial than rendering a decision based on inferences drawn on contested facts and pure legalities -- Orders passed by the Trial Court, High Court as well as Supreme Court to keep aside eight acres of land was only to secure the probable share of the Appellants, in the event they succeeded -- Though, the Appellants have lost in the suit as well as in the appeal, a direction can be given for granting a portion of the said land to the Appellants so that their claim to some extent stands satisfied. – Both contesting the case for more than two decades -- Such an order could build and revive the relationship between the close members of the family -- Appellants held entitled to three acres, out of the eight acres of land set aside under the orders passed by the Trial Court, the High Court and also by Supreme Court.

(SC) Decided on : 23.09.2022

Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Liability of Insured-owner -- Merely because the driving license of the driver is fake, would not be a sufficient ground by itself to absolve the insurance company of its liability to indemnify the insured -- Owner could not be expected to carry out a roving enquiry into the authenticity of the driving license, more so, when driving license in question had been regularly renewed -- Insurance company is held liable to indemnify the insured and pay the amount of compensation to the claimants.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.10.2022

FIR pending against petitioner -- NOC from Trial Court -- As per condition to appear in exam, the candidates must bring to the appointment a valid, non-expired passport meeting specific country issuance criteria -- Application declined by ASJ – Court concerned is competent to grant the NOC – Renewal of the passport at this stage is only for the purpose of requirement of the petitioner to appear in the said exam -- Held, Ld. Additional Sessions Judge has fallen in error in declining the request made by the petitioner -- ASJ to decide application afresh .

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.06.2022

Substantial question of law -- Appeal u/s 58 of the RERA, 2016, is maintainable only on one or more grounds specified in Section 100 of the CPC which provides for the substantial question of law.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 25.05.2022

Rent laws -- Personal necessity -- Previous petition was for seeking eviction on account of the personal necessity qua the son of the petitioner, whereas in the present petition, which is filed after 07 years, personal necessity is pleaded on account of the fact that the petitioner himself has retired and has already shifted to Mohali for which he requires his house – Petitioner-tenant failed to prove that the present petition is barred by the principle of res judicata -- Eviction order upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.09.2022

Delayed possession of flat – Refund with interest – Appellant/ Builder failed in obtaining the Occupancy Certificate and offering possession of the flat to the Respondent/ Purchaser within the time stipulated in the Agreement, or within a reasonable time thereafter – Respondent/ Flat Purchaser could not be compelled to take possession of the flat – Respondent/ Flat Purchaser held entitled for refund of the entire amount deposited by him with Interest – National Commission rightly awarded Interest @10.7% S.I. p.a. by applying Rule 15 of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation And Development) Rules, 2017 from the date of each installment till 05.02.2017 i.e. till the date after which the Order of stay of cancellation of the allotment was passed; and thereafter, from the date of the Commission’s final Order till the date on which the amount is refunded with Interest.

(SC) Decided on : 02.04.2019

Section 24(2) -- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4, 6, 11 -- Acquisition of land under 1894 Act -- Lapse of land acquisition proceedings -- Subsequent purchaser – Right of -- Respondent is a purchaser after the publication of notice u/s 4 and 6 of the Act, 1894 and in fact after the award of the Land Acquisition Collector -- Subsequent purchaser is not entitled to claim lapsing of the proceedings under the 2013 Act.

(SC) Decided on: 06.05.2022

Section 24(2) -- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4, 6, 11 -- Lapse of land acquisition proceedings under 1894 Act -- Compensation not offered to the land owners -- Finding of High Court that compensation was not offered to the land owners and therefore the deposit in the Court cannot be regarded as payment of compensation is not tenable – Order passed by the High Court set aside -- Writ petition filed by the respondent dismissed. Manoharlal’s case (2020) 8 SCC 129 = (2020) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15233 relied.

(SC) Decided on: 06.05.2022

As a general rule, the parties must prove documents by leading primary evidence except in cases covered by Section 65 of the Evidence Act, 1872.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.05.2022

Roznamcha – Original document is not available and only the photocopy of the same is available on record, which does not bear the signatures of any competent officer – Nothing to suggest that the photocopy available in the records of the office of the Deputy Commissioner, was ever made or compared with the original -- Photocopy of such a copy would not fall within the ambit of 'secondary evidence' – Order of Trial Court dismissing application for leading secondary evidence, upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.05.2022

Arbitration matter -- Essar House Private directed to deposit an amount of Rs.35.5 crores with the Prothonotary and Senior Master of the High Court or, in the alternative, to furnish bank guarantee of any nationalised bank for the entire amount along with interest thereon – Prima facie, the refundable security deposit is not being released to Arcellor on the purported ground of a convoluted series of internal arrangements between group companies for diversion of the security deposits towards liquidation of alleged dues of Essar Steel to third parties -- No infirmity in the well-reasoned judgment and order of the Division Bench -- Appeals dismissed.

(SC) Decided on : 14.09.2022

Section 13(2), 17 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Insurance claim wrongly transferred by Bank – Default due to wrong Act of Bank -- Plea of -- Challenge to Section 13(2) Notice of SARFAESI Act – Writ jurisdiction -- Alternative remedy – Limitation -- Held, mainly challenged before the High Court was notice u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition -- Remedy available to the respondents/ loanee was to initiate proceedings u/s 17 of the SARFAESI Act – Respondents relegated to avail the alternative statutory remedy by way of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act – When such proceedings are initiated, the same be considered in accordance with law and on its own merits including the case on behalf of the original writ petitioners that nothing was due and payable, if the amount received as insurance claim would not have transferred to the Working Capital Account -- Appeal allowed to the aforesaid extent -- If such proceedings are initiated within a period of four weeks, the same be dealt with without raising the dispute with respect to limitation, however, subject to compliance of other requirements under the Act.

(SC) Decided on : 12.09.2022

Section 17(4A), 34 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order VII Rule 11 – SARFAAESI proceedings – Lessee rights -- Rejection of plaint – Jurisdiction of civil Court – Once there is a specific amendment enabling the persons claiming tenancy or lease hold rights to file a petition before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the Civil Court has erred in rejecting the application -- Even the period of lease has already expired -- Civil Court directed to return the plaint to the plaintiff with liberty to file a petition before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.09.2022

Loan transaction – Civil remedy -- Complaint u/s 138 of N.I. Act, 1881 -- Holder of the cheque/drawee would have the option of initiating the civil proceedings for recovery or the criminal proceedings for punishment in the fact situation, but in any event, it is not for the drawer of the cheque to dictate terms with regard to the nature of litigation.

(SC) Decided on: 28.10.2021

Ancestral property – It is well settled that unless the plaintiff proves and separately identifies the ancestral property, the entire property shall be construed to be self-acquired.

(P&H HC) Date of decision:28.07.2022 Reserved on: 20.07.2022

Cheque bounce case – Respondent, in any case, is entitled to receive the cheque amount of Rs.11.20 lakhs which the appellant has already deposited with the Registry of Court -- Appellant No.2 shall not be required to undergo the awarded sentence -- Registry is directed to transfer the amount of Rs.11.20 lakhs along with interest accrued thereupon to the respondent within two weeks.

(SC) Decided on: 10.02.2021

Acquisition of land under National Highway Act, 1956 – Solatium amount is paid on account of compulsory acquisition of the land -- Such power of the government is in accordance with the doctrine of 'Eminent Domain' -- This compensation is paid by the government for involuntary taking over the land of an owner.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.08.2021

Section 28, 38 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (32 of 1956), Section 6 -- Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890), Section 25 -- Suit for custody of child -- Rejection of plaint – Consideration of pleading other than plaint – Permissibility of – Previously divorce by mutual consent between the parties – Voluntarily statement of father for giving the custody of the child to the mother -- Though it is well settled principle of law that for the purpose of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the contents of the plaint/petition is to be seen, however it is a case of not deciding the rights of the parents but the custody of minor child, therefore welfare of the child should be the paramount consideration -- Circumstances from the date of birth of the child till date needs to be appreciated -- Respondent-husband has remedy to approach the said Court, which has passed the decree of divorce if any terms and condition were violated -- Petition u/s 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act held not maintainable and rejected, leaving the respondent-husband to avail alternative remedy, in accordance with law -- Application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. allowed.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 01.09.2022 Pronounced on : 06.09.2022

Alternative relief of refund -- Agreement of sale provided that in the event the permission was not obtained within 75 days, the purchaser shall be entitled to get back his advance money paid after 75 days but not later than 90 days under any circumstances – Defendant/ owner terminated the agreement on 12th April 1982 stating therein that permission from the ULC Authorities could not be obtained – Plaintiff/ Purchaser did not take any step till 19th February 1984 -- Only after the ULC permission was granted on 7th February 1984, the plaintiff had issued a legal notice to the defendant on 19th February 1984 – High Court denied the relief for specific performance to the plaintiff, it has directed the respondents-defendants to refund the advance amount of Rs.15,000/- along with accrued interest or a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- in all – Defendant had, in fact, received an amount of Rs.15,000/- as early as 1978, Supreme Court directed the respondents-defendants to pay an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- to the appellants-plaintiffs within a period of 3 months.

(SC) Decided on : 27.09.2022

Section 36, 37 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Injunction simplicitor – Maintainability of -- Ratio of the judgment passed in Anathula Sudhakar’s case, Civil Appeal No.6191 of 2001, dated 25.03.2008 passed by the Supreme Court is that the relief of injunction simplicitor cannot be sought by a person whose title over the property is in dispute -- Plaintiffs’ title over the suit property was not in dispute, though the defendants made a deplorable attempt to dispute the same by concealing relevant facts from the Court – Therefore, the defendants cannot raise any plea based upon the judgment.

(P&H HC) Reserved on 29.10.2022 Decided on: 04.11.2022

Sections 10, 16 (c), 20, 21, 22, 23 – Specific performance of agreement – Alternative relief of refund -- Agreement of sale provided that in the event the permission was not obtained within 75 days, the purchaser shall be entitled to get back his advance money paid after 75 days but not later than 90 days under any circumstances – Defendant/ owner terminated the agreement on 12th April 1982 stating therein that permission from the ULC Authorities could not be obtained – Plaintiff/ Purchaser did not take any step till 19th February 1984 -- Only after the ULC permission was granted on 7th February 1984, the plaintiff had issued a legal notice to the defendant on 19th February 1984 – High Court denied the relief for specific performance to the plaintiff, it has directed the respondents-defendants to refund the advance amount of Rs.15,000/- along with accrued interest or a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- in all – Defendant had, in fact, received an amount of Rs.15,000/- as early as 1978, Supreme Court directed the respondents-defendants to pay an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- to the appellants-plaintiffs within a period of 3 months.

(SC) Decided on : 27.09.2022

Section 34, 37, 38 -- Suit for declaration and permanent injunction – Injunction against true owner -- Plaintiff failed to get any declaratory relief and the defendant No.1 is held to be a true and absolute owner on the basis of the registered sale deed on payment of full sale consideration thereafter the plaintiff’s possession cannot be said to be “lawful possession” -- Plaintiff is not entitled to any permanent injunction against the true owner.

(SC) Decided on: 03.03.2022

Section 34, 37, 38 -- Substantive relief – Consequential relief -- Once the plaintiff has failed to get any substantive relief of cancellation of the sale deed and failed to get any declaratory relief, relief of injunction can be said to be a consequential relief must fail.

(SC) Decided on: 03.03.2022

Section 34, 37, 38 -- Suit for declaration -- Consequential relief of injunction – Injunction against true owner -- It is not a suit for declaration simpliciter, it is a suit for declaration with a further relief -- Injunction may be granted even against the true owner of the property, only when the person seeking the relief is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the property and also legally entitled to be in possession, not to disposes him, except in due process of law -- Once the rights of the parties are adjudicated and the defendant No.1 is held to be the true owner on the basis of the registered sale deed and on payment of full sale consideration, it can be said that due process of law has been followed and thereafter the plaintiff is not entitled to any permanent injunction against the true owner.

(SC) Decided on: 03.03.2022

Withdrawal of statement -- Once a statement has been made on solemn affirmation, it cannot be allowed to be withdrawn.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 31.10.2022

Amputation of both arms due to electrocution – Liability of Electricity Supplier – In case of an incident involving electricity line, burden is essentially on the Electricity Board to plead and prove that it was not their fault and the snapping of the live wire can be described to be an act of negligence -- Facts of the case lead to application of principle of “strict liability” -- Respondent-Nigam held liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

(P&H HC) Reserved on: 16.05.2022 Decided on: 20.05.2022

Lapse of land acquisition proceedings under 1894 Act -- Right of -- Respondent is a purchaser after the publication of notice u/s 4 and 6 of the Act, 1894 and in fact after the award of the Land Acquisition Collector -- Subsequent purchaser is not entitled to claim lapsing of the proceedings under the 2013 Act.

(SC) Decided on: 06.05.2022

Plaintiffs are the domius litis -- Unless the court suo motu directs to join any other person not party to the suit for effective decree and/or for proper adjudication as per Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, nobody can be permitted to be impleaded as defendants against the wish of the plaintiffs.

(SC) Decided on : 16.09.2022

Doctrine of lis pendens – Effect of -- Suit for specific performance – No doubt, by rule of lis pendens, subsequent purchaser is bound by the decree but at the same time, it cannot be said that the presence of the purchaser in the suit proceedings would be improper also.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.07.2022

RERA Appeal in High Court – Appeal u/s 58 of the RERA, 2016, is maintainable only on one or more grounds specified in Section 100 of the CPC which provides for the substantial question of law.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 25.05.2022

Consequential relief -- Once the plaintiff has failed to get any substantive relief of cancellation of the sale deed and failed to get any declaratory relief, relief of injunction can be said to be a consequential relief must fail.

(SC) Decided on: 03.03.2022

Ad-valorem court fees – Trial Court directed the plaintiff-petitioner to affix ad valorem court fee on an amount of Rs.20 lakhs – Held, at the initial stage, in a suit for malicious prosecution, there cannot be any valuation in sure and certain terms and, hence, the Court is left with no other option at this stage but to accept the valuation offered by the plaintiff-petitioner -- Impugned order set aside, tentative court fee affixed by the plaintiff-petitioner shall be accepted by the Court and the Court shall proceed further with the suit in accordance with the law.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.05.2022

Rejection of plaint – Consideration of pleading other than plaint – Permissibility of – Though it is well settled principle of law that for the purpose of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the contents of the plaint/petition is to be seen, however it is a case of not deciding the rights of the parents but the custody of minor child, therefore welfare of the child should be the paramount consideration -- Circumstances from the date of birth of the child till date needs to be appreciated -- Respondent-husband has remedy to approach the said Court, which has passed the decree of divorce if any terms and condition were violated -- Petition u/s 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act held not maintainable and rejected, leaving the respondent-husband to avail alternative remedy, in accordance with law -- Application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. allowed.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 01.09.2022 Pronounced on : 06.09.2022

Consequential relief of injunction – Once the rights of the parties are adjudicated and the defendant No.1 is held to be the true owner on the basis of the registered sale deed and on payment of full sale consideration, it can be said that due process of law has been followed and thereafter the plaintiff is not entitled to any permanent injunction against the true owner.

(SC) Decided on: 03.03.2022

Surplus land – Jurisdiction of civil court -- When the proceedings or orders of the quasi-judicial Tribunal are challenged before the Civil Court, one is not required to challenge the order in the strict sense as he is not bound by the same -- Hence, such person is entitled to file a suit for declaration that such orders do not affect his rights

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.01.2021

Injunction against true owner -- Plaintiff failed to get any declaratory relief and the defendant No.1 is held to be a true and absolute owner on the basis of the registered sale deed on payment of full sale consideration thereafter the plaintiff’s possession cannot be said to be “lawful possession” -- Plaintiff is not entitled to any permanent injunction against the true owner.

(SC) Decided on: 03.03.2022

Subsequent purchaser as party-defendant – Amendment of plaint -- Doctrine of lis pendens – Effect of -- No doubt, by rule of lis pendens, subsequent purchaser is bound by the decree but at the same time, it cannot be said that the presence of the purchaser in the suit proceedings would be improper also – By amendment plaintiff only seeks to introduce the subsequent events relating to the alienation of the suit property -- Application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.07.2022

Jurisdiction/ Power of National Green Tribunal -- Construction was challenged in Public Interest litigation in High Court -- Interim order by High Court “In the meanwhile, the construction activities and other allied activities in relation to the subject project, if any undertaken, shall be strictly in accordance with the permission accorded by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, as well as the existing master plan.” – In proceedings before NGT, interim order that no further construction to be undertaken – Application for vacation of stay was rejected – Held, orders passed by the constitutional courts would be prevailing over the orders passed by the statutory tribunals – Continuation of the proceedings before the learned NGT for the same cause of action, which is seized with the High Court, would not be in the interest of justice – Proceedings pending before the learned NGT quashed and set aside.

(SC) Decided on: 01.06.2022

Section 15(1)(2) -- Tamil Nadu Highways Rules, 2003, Rule 5 -- Acquisition of land – Objections invited from land-owners before notification u/s 15(1) of the Act, 2001 -- Enquiry conducted as required u/s 15(2) and after considering the objections and having been satisfied that the land is required for the purpose of Highways Department, the notification u/s 15(1) of the Act, 2001 issued – High Court was right in observing that there is a substantial compliance of Section 15 of the Act, 2001 read with Rule 5 of the Rules, 2003 -- Non-filing of a statement by way of answer to the objections by the Highways Department and/or non-furnishing the copy of the same to the original land owners shall not vitiate the entire process of acquisition process and/or the notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act, 2001 -- Acquisition, upheld.

(SC) Decided on : 02.09.2022

Section 15(2) -- Tamil Nadu Highways Rules, 2003, Rule 5 -- Acquisition of land – Validity of Rule 5 of Tamil Nadu Highways Rules, 2003 -- Rule 5 cannot be said to be inconsistent with Section 15(2) of the Act.

(SC) Decided on : 02.09.2022

Rule 5 -- Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 (34 of 2002), Section 15(1)(2) -- Acquisition of land – Objections invited from land-owners before notification u/s 15(1) of the Act, 2001 -- Enquiry conducted as required u/s 15(2) and after considering the objections and having been satisfied that the land is required for the purpose of Highways Department, the notification u/s 15(1) of the Act, 2001 issued – High Court was right in observing that there is a substantial compliance of Section 15 of the Act, 2001 read with Rule 5 of the Rules, 2003 -- Non-filing of a statement by way of answer to the objections by the Highways Department and/or non-furnishing the copy of the same to the original land owners shall not vitiate the entire process of acquisition process and/or the notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act, 2001 -- Acquisition, upheld.

(SC) Decided on : 02.09.2022

Rule 5 -- Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 (34 of 2002), Section 15(2) -- Acquisition of land – Validity of Rule 5 of Tamil Nadu Highways Rules, 2003 -- Rule 5 cannot be said to be inconsistent with Section 15(2) of the Act.

(SC) Decided on : 02.09.2022

Grievances of defendant -- Notice, in terms of the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, terminating the tenancy has been issued -- Defendants would have no grievance to defend the ejectment and have to surrender the possession as and when the interference of the Court is sought.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.04.2016

Kapurthala to Fazilka -- Court is to consider the family condition of the wife, the custody of the minor child, economic condition of the wife, her physical health and earning capacity of the husband and most important the convenience of the wife i.e. she cannot travel alone without assistance of a male member of her family, connectivity of the place to and from her place of residence as well as bearing of the litigation charges and travelling expenses – Case transferred.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.11.2022

Section 52 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 10, Order 6 Rule 17 – Suit for specific performance – Subsequent purchaser as party-defendant – Amendment of plaint -- Doctrine of lis pendens – Effect of -- No doubt, by rule of lis pendens, subsequent purchaser is bound by the decree but at the same time, it cannot be said that the presence of the purchaser in the suit proceedings would be improper also – By amendment plaintiff only seeks to introduce the subsequent events relating to the alienation of the suit property -- Application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.07.2022

Section 106 – Termination of tenancy – Grievances of defendant -- Notice, in terms of the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, terminating the tenancy has been issued -- Defendants would have no grievance to defend the ejectment and have to surrender the possession as and when the interference of the Court is sought.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.04.2016

Purchase of flat – Terms of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement were wholly one-sided and unfair to the Respondent/ Flat Purchaser – Appellant/ Builder could not seek to bind the Respondent with such one-sided contractual terms.

(SC) Decided on : 02.04.2019

Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Pleadings and evidence -- Liability of insurance company -- Without disclosing the name of the driver in the Written Statement or producing any evidence to substantiate the fact that the copy of the driving licence produced in support was of a person who, in fact, was authorised to drive the offending vehicle at the relevant time, the owner of the vehicle cannot be said to have extricated himself from his liability -- Insurance Company would become liable only after such foundational facts are pleaded and proved by the owner of the offending vehicle.

(SC) Decided on : 19.01.2018

Onus of proof -- Onus would shift on the Insurance Company only after the owner of the offending vehicle pleads and proves the basic facts within his knowledge that the driver of the offending vehicle was authorised by him to drive the vehicle and was having a valid driving licence at the relevant time.

(SC) Decided on : 19.01.2018

Accident within 30 days of expiry of license – Proviso to Section 14 read as “Provided that every driving licence shall, notwithstanding its expiry under this sub-section continue to be effective for a period of thirty days from such expiry.” -- In view of the above provision, the driving licence of driver was held to be valid on the date of accident.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.11.2015

Rule 5 cannot be said to be inconsistent with Section 15(2) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001.

(SC) Decided on : 02.09.2022

Merely because the trial Court has not proceeded to pass any order or give any judgment having regard to the admission made, it affords no right to the party concerned to withdraw the admission.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 31.10.2022

Statement of admission -- Once a statement has been made on solemn affirmation, it cannot be allowed to be withdrawn.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 31.10.2022

One Time Settlement/ OTS – Extension of time – Borrower as a matter of right cannot claim extension of time – Granting extension of time would tantamount to rewriting the contract which is not permissible while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(SC) Decided on: 04.11.2022

Notice u/s 13(2) Notice of SARFAESI Act – Alternative remedy – Limitation -- Insurance claim wrongly transferred by Bank – Default due to wrong Act of Bank -- Plea of -- Held, mainly challenged before the High Court was notice u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition -- Remedy available to the respondents/ loanee was to initiate proceedings u/s 17 of the SARFAESI Act – Respondents relegated to avail the alternative statutory remedy by way of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act – When such proceedings are initiated, the same be considered in accordance with law and on its own merits including the case on behalf of the original writ petitioners that nothing was due and payable, if the amount received as insurance claim would not have transferred to the Working Capital Account -- Appeal allowed to the aforesaid extent -- If such proceedings are initiated within a period of four weeks, the same be dealt with without raising the dispute with respect to limitation, however, subject to compliance of other requirements under the Act.

(SC) Decided on : 12.09.2022

Damages for Demolition of shops and residence –Since demolition had already taken place and damages are being prayed for, an alternative and efficacious remedy is available to the petitioners by way of leading evidence -- Writ petition dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction for the redressal of their grievances.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.05.2022

“unless the award otherwise directs” – Post-award interest -- The words, “unless otherwise agreed by the parties” occurs at the beginning of clause (a) qualifying the entire provision -- However, in clause (b), the words, “unless the award otherwise directs” occurs after the words ‘a sum directed to be paid by an arbitral award shall’ and before the words ‘carry interest at the rate of eighteen per cent” -- Thereby, those words only qualify the rate of post-award interest. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 31(7)(a)(b).

(SC) Decided on : 01.09.2022

“unless otherwise agreed by the parties” -- Post-award interest -- The words, “unless otherwise agreed by the parties” occurs at the beginning of clause (a) qualifying the entire provision -- However, in clause (b), the words, “unless the award otherwise directs” occurs after the words ‘a sum directed to be paid by an arbitral award shall’ and before the words ‘carry interest at the rate of eighteen per cent” -- Thereby, those words only qualify the rate of post-award interest. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 31(7)(a)(b).

(SC) Decided on : 01.09.2022