101. Suit by un-registered partnership firm – Maintainability of suit – Objection as to non-compliance of Section (2) of Partnership Act -- Stage of -- It is settled that the provisions of Section 69 (2) of Indian Partnership Act, 1932 bear mandatory character -- Registration of a firm is to be a sine-qua-non for institution of suit falling within the mischief of Section 69 (2) of the Act -- Noncompliance has been held to be a jurisdictional defect -- It has also been held that the objection as to noncompliance of Section 69 (2) of Indian Partnership Act can be taken even at the stage of execution -- Non-compliance of Section 69 (2), if established, will go to the root of the controversy having effect on the jurisdiction of civil court to entertain the suit. (H.P. HC) Reserved on: 13.8.2025 Decided on: 21.08.2025

102. Adverse possession against private person – Protection of possession -- Writ jurisdiction -- Petitioners are claiming that they have perfected their title over the land in question by way of adverse possession -- All these pleadings are in the realm of Civil Court and if the owner of the land or some other person, may be at his behest or otherwise, is trying to disturb their possession, as is alleged, the petitioner can always go to the Civil Court and seek appropriate reliefs including police assistance -- Writ petition is not maintainable, the same is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Civil Court for the redressal of their grievance. (H.P. HC) Decided on: 21.08.2025

103. Disciplinary proceedings – Allegation of corruption – Removal from service with superannuation benefits -- Inquiry Officer appreciated the evidence led by five loanees who categorically deposed that they had paid money to the respondents for coordinating sanction of their loans despite their documents being deficit -- PW-6, Field Officer stated that all the accounts were irregular -- When respondent appeared in response to a show cause notice before imposition of penalty, points towards the direction where he apparently admitted his guilt and had sought mercy -- Leniency was shown by the Appellate Authority by reducing the penalty from ‘dismissal’ to ‘removal from service’ with superannuation benefits – High Court allowed the writ and respondent was directed to be reinstated with back wages – High Court order set aside, order passed by the Appellate Authority imposing punishment of ‘removal from service’ with superannuation benefits restored. (SC) Decided on: 20.08.2025

104. Bail by High Court – UAPA case -- High Court noticed that accused no. 11/ his connections with an organisation by the name of AL-Hind is not a banned organisation under the schedule to UAPA -- Apart from the above, impugned order by the High Court was passed on 21.04.2022 almost 3-1/2 years ago and as such, it may not be just and proper to interfere with the same at this stage -- Further, charges have not been framed so far and trial has not commenced – No justification to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court granting bail. (SC) Decided on: 20.08.2025

105. Temporary injunction – Finding on merit – Permissibility of – While dismissing the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC a categoric finding has been given by the Trial Court that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction which would amount to rejecting the suit at the stage of deciding the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC – Appeal also dismissed -- Held, impugned orders cannot be sustained, accordingly set aside. (P&H HC) Decided on: 20.08.2025

106. Amendment of written statement -- Amendment qua the detailing of the khasra numbers regarding a passage -- Application allowed, defendant-petitioners permitted to give the khasra numbers of the passage which already stands mentioned in the unamended written statement. (P&H HC) Decided on: 20.08.2025

107. Mode of partition -- Instrument of partition -- Mode of partition not assailed by the petitioner and challenge was laid only to the final partition -- It is settled law that until and unless the mode of partition is assailed by a party, it is precluded from assailing the same subsequently as well as the instrument of partition on the said ground. (H.P. HC) Decided on: 20.08.2025

108. Rejection of plaint -- A plaint can be rejected if it does not disclose a cause of action, if the relief claimed is under-valued and the plaintiff on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so, where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped and plaintiff on being required by Court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time fixed by the Court, fails to do so, where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law etc. (H.P. HC) Decided on: 20.08.2025

109. POCSO – Regular bail -- Challan filed on 18.04.2024 and supplementary Challan was filed on 29.06.2024 -- Trial was required to be concluded before 30.06.2025, in terms of Section 35 of the POCSO Act -- Charge-sheet was framed on 25.10.2024 -- After framing of charge, though dates repeatedly came to be fixed for recording the statement of prosecution witnesses, but not even a single prosecution witness has been examined -- Continued incarceration of bail petitioner during trial would not only amount to pre-trial conviction, but would also be violative of Article 21 – Bail allowed. (H.P. HC) Decided on: 20.08.2025

110. Multiple Appointments challenged -- Doctrine of severability – Detailed analysis – Requirements of -- Validity of an individual appointment must be assessed on the basis of the appointee's own merit, eligibility, and conformity to the applicable rules -- Courts must resist the tendency to issue blanket invalidations of entire batches of appointments merely on the basis of procedural infirmities that affect only a portion of the appointments – Principles of fairness, proportionality, and individual justice are foundational to administrative law and demand that a case-by-case analysis be undertaken before issuing sweeping orders of cancellation -- Where multiple appointments are challenged on general grounds, authorities and courts must undertake a detailed fact-specific analysis before concluding that all such appointments are void -- Doctrine of severability must not remain a mere theoretical doctrine but must guide real administrative action and judicial reasoning in service matters. (SC) Decided on: 19.08.2025

111. Acquisition of land -- Compensation for land acquired – Long pendency of Execution petition -- Execution application filed by the petitioners on 14.09.2022 is still pending and the petitioners are waiting to get their amount of compensation on the basis of order dated 16.03.2022 passed by this Court – The Court of Addl. District and Sessions Judge requested to dispose of the Executing Petition as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of next 04 months, as any further delay is going to cause serious prejudice to the rights of the petitioners/land owners. (P&H HC) Decided on: 19.08.2025

112. Rejection of plaint -- Ad-valorem court fee -- Sale deed – Challenge to – Plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 and 2 are owners in possession of 50% share of the property -- Challenge is to the sale deed and transfer letter executed by defendant Nos.2 and 3 in favour of defendant No.6-petitioner -- Plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 and 2 are neither the executant of the said documents nor they are seeking possession of the suit property as they are already in joint possession -- In the case of a non-executant of deed, who is already in possession of the property and seeks to get the document annulled then he would be required to pay court fees as applicable under Article 17(iii) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act, 1870 – Held, there would be no requirement to affix ad valorem court fees – Application dismissed. (P&H HC) Decided on: 19.08.2025

113. Suit dismissed in default – Restoration of suit -- Dead bodies of the applicant’s relatives recovered, due to which he could not appear on the date fixed -- Trial Court ought to have considered the matter from the right perspective and should have restored the suit -- Matters should always, as far as possible, be decided on merits and petitions should not be rejected on mere technicalities -- Application for restoration filed by the petitioner/plaintiff/applicant allowed, and the suit is ordered to be restored to its original number. (P&H HC) Decided on: 19.08.2025

114. Contempt of Court – Delayed payments – As per order dated 17.01.2018 outstanding amount was be paid within a period of three months -- Payments commenced in 2019, well beyond the timeline fixed – Explanation tendered refers to administrative hurdles post-merger of bank and retrieval of records dating back over three decades -- While such circumstances cannot justify laxity -- Element of mens rea, essential for sustaining a charge of civil contempt, cannot be inferred merely from the factum of delay – Petitioner was dismissed in 1985 and secured favourable orders as early as 2004, attained the age of superannuation in or around 2006 -- A reasonable lump sum payment is warranted -- Rule discharged -- Petitioner compensated, respondent-Bank directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- within a period of eight weeks, failing which interest at the rate of 8% will be payable till the date of disbursement. (SC) Decided on: 19.08.2025

115. Temporary labelled employees – Long-term extraction of labour – Equal protection – Financial stringency/ Budget – Excuse of -- Duty of Government -- “Ad-hocism” thrives where administration is opaque -- Union and the State governments is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer -- It cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions -- Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices -- Long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection -- Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines. (SC) Decided on: 19.08.2025

116. Stolen cash – Presumption -- Cash so recovered had no special or distinct identification characteristics and thus, the same could not be linked to amount allegedly stolen from the deceased even if such allegation was proved by tangible evidence -- To base a conviction u/s 411 IPC solely on the ground that both the accused were unable to account for being in possession of such huge amount of cash is both incorrect and untenable. (SC) Decided on: 19.08.2025

117. Declaration of the land as non-agricultural – Non- Registration of – Effect of -- Section 145 of the UPZALR Act does not cast any duty on the land owner to get it registered -- As per Section 145 of the UPZALR Act, it is the duty of the Assistant Collector-in-charge of the Sub-Division to forward a copy of the declaration made u/s 143 of the UPZALR Act to the Sub Registrar to do the needful -- Such registration is to be made free of cost notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Registration Act, 1908 -- No fee has to be paid as the relevant registration was free of cost -- Merely on account of deficiency by the officers, the appellant cannot be deprived of the benefits of the declaration so made. (SC) Decided on: 19.08.2025

118. Appointment of Local Commissioner – Right of parties -- Requirement of the provision is that it is the satisfaction of the Court which puts into motion the provision of Order XXVI Rule 9 – Said satisfaction obviously can also be on the basis of the application of the parties also -- But, the parties per se have no right under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC to call upon the Court to appoint a Local Commissioner as a matter of right to visit the site and thus collect evidence, which a party has not been able to place before the Court to prove its case -- Provisions of Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC are for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute and not creating any evidence in favour of either of the parties. (H.P. HC) Decided on: 19.08.2025

119. Rejection of plaint – Consideration of -- For the purpose of decision of an application moved under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only the averments in the plaint and the documents attached therewith are to be considered -- Averments made in the written statement or in the reply to the application for rejection of plaint are not required to be taken into consideration -- Rejection of plaint is a drastic power and must be exercised only when the plaint, on its face, discloses no cause of action or is barred by law. (P&H HC) Reserved on: 24.07.2025 Decided on: 19.08.2025

120. Notice to Judgment debtor – Service through wife – Permissibility of -- It is argued that the petitioner was not personally served and, therefore, he deserves an opportunity to contest the execution proceedings by raising objections on the application under Order XXI Rule 66 CPC – Held, notice had been duly served upon the petitioner through his wife -- Despite such service, the petitioner failed to appear before the executing Court, and was rightly proceeded against ex parte -- No illegality or infirmity in the impugned order -- Civil Revision Petition dismissed. (P&H HC) Decided on: 18.08.2025

121. Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Assessment of income -- Rs.9,000/- per month assessed by the Ld. Tribunal – Deceased left behind his widow, three minor children and old aged parents -- Minor children have their entire life ahead of them -- Their education has to be taken care of as well as the living expenses of all the claimants -- Compensation should at least be sufficient to mitigate the financial difficulties the family is likely to face – Keeping in view the rising prices as well as the fact that the education of the minor children is still at the threshold, Court deemed it appropriate not to interfere in the income of the deceased as assessed by the Tribunal -- Argument that the income ought to have been assessed as per the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 rejected. (P&H HC) Decided on: 18.08.2025

122. Life and liberty – Right to live with person of choice/ Married man – Bigamy -- Corpus has stated that she would like to live with the person with whom she had eloped/ married man -- She cannot be treated like Chasser -- Corpus 'X' is more than 18 years/ adult -- No law that prevents her from living along with the said person -- Only the first wife can register a case against her husband and her if such an eventuality takes place, to prosecute them for bigamy -- The person whom she wants to live with has already left his first wife and is proposing to take a divorce – The Court cannot pontificate on matters relating to morality -- Police requested to release the Corpus 'X' after taking an undertaking from her that she is going to live with the person of her choice and also take an endorsement from the person with whom she is living that he has accepted the company of the Corpus -- Petition disposed of. (M.P. HC) Decided on: 18.08.2025

123. Summons u/s 70 of CGST Act -- Initiation of proceedings -- Mere issuance of summons does not imply that the Department has decided to proceed against the taxpayer for recovery of liability – At that stage Department still retains the discretion not to initiate any proceedings -- A mere contemplation or possibility of initiating action cannot be equated with “proceedings”, as doing so would undermine the framework of cross-empowerment under the Act. Even when a discovery is made during the search proceedings under Section 67 of the CGST Act, the Department is required to bring such proceedings to a definitive conclusion, either by issuing a show cause notice under Section 74 or by dropping the matter altogether. (SC) Decided on: 14.08.2025

124. Complaint under PMLA – Cognizance by Magistrate – Opportunity of hearing to accused – Requirements of -- Since the complaint has been filed after 01.07.2024, cognizance cannot be taken without conferring an opportunity of hearing to the accused – Ld. Special Judge, dismissed the application of the petitioner u/s 223 of BNSS, 2023, seeking hearing at the time of taking cognizance of the complaint -- Petition allowed -- Trial Court directed to afford the petitioner an opportunity to be heard before taking cognizance. (Delhi HC) Decided on: 13.08.2025

125. Amendment of plaint – Delayed application – Ground of -- No doubt the plaintiff-petitioner has been remiss in not filing the application for amendment earlier, however, the same cannot be a ground for denying the amendment especially in view of the fact that the evidence is yet to be started -- Application allowed subject to payment of ?10,000/- as costs. (P&H HC) Decided on: 13.08.2025

126. Closing of evidence by Court order – Setting aside of -- Petitioners-plaintiffs did not lead any evidence inspite last opportunities -- Submission that the omission on their part in not examining witnesses or leading evidence cannot be construed as deliberate or intentional, inasmuch as compromise talks were in progress between the parties -- Further submitted that the respondent-defendant had failed to disclose that his mother and sisters also have a share in the suit property, and upon the petitioners-plaintiffs coming to know of the same, the respondent-defendant had assured that he would clear the title in all respects, but failed to do so -- Impugned order set aside, learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), directed to give two effective opportunities to the petitioners-plaintiffs to conclude their entire evidence. (P&H HC) Decided on: 13.08.2025

127. Revision petition for issuance of direction to Trial Court for pronouncing the judgment and decree in terms of Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC -- Contends that the deliberate delay on the part of the respondents-plaintiffs is causing constant emotional disturbance and relentless anxiety to the petitioner, apart from paving the way for multiplicity of proceedings in the interregnum – Learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) directed to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible. (P&H HC) Decided on: 13.08.2025

128. Appointment of District Judges – Bar Vacancy – Eligibility of judicial officer, who completed seven year in Bar – Actual date of eligibility -- Two issues are substantial question of law as to the interpretation of Article 233(2) of the Constitution: (i) Whether a judicial officer who has already completed seven years in Bar being recruited for subordinate judicial services would be entitled for appointment as Additional District Judge against the Bar vacancy? (ii) Whether the eligibility for appointment as a District Judge is to be seen only at the time of appointment or at the time of application or both? Court refer the aforesaid issues for consideration of a Constitution Bench of five Judges of this Court. (SC) Decided on: 12.08.2025

129. Scheduled Tribe -- Caste certificate -- Held, while dealing with documentary evidence, greater reliance may be placed on pre-Independence documents because they furnish a higher degree of probative value to the declaration of status of a caste, as compared to post-Independence documents -- Merely because the applicant does not match the tribe’s peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc., it cannot be solely taken into consideration for rejecting the claim of belonging to the Scheduled Tribe -- Pre-Independence document certifies that the appellant’s grandfather’s belongs to Tribe, a greater probative value ought to have been given to the said document -- Appeal allowed, Scrutiny Committee directed to issue Caste Validity Certificate to the appellant. (SC) Decided on: 12.08.2025

130. Corruption case – Demand and acceptance -- To convict a person under the aforesaid provision demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is a sine qua non -- It is no one’s case that A-2 ever demanded any illegal gratification -- He accepted the money on the directions of A-1 and kept the same with him -- So, there was no demand of illegal gratification on his part -- Demand made by A-1 cannot be attributed to A-2 as no evidence was adduced which could establish that A-2 was a habitual offender working in aid with A-1 or was facilitating A-1 in demanding and receiving illegal gratification -- Accordingly, in the absence of any allegation or evidence that A-2 demanded bribe from the complainant or he was acting in connivence with A-1, he cannot be prosecuted for the commission of the crime of demanding and receiving illegal gratification. (SC) Decided on: 12.08.2025

131. Ex-parte injunction -- Ordinarily an order of injunction may not be granted ex parte -- The opposite party must be issued a notice and heard before an injunction may be granted -- Rule 3 carves out an exception in favour of granting an injunction without notice to the opposite party where it appears that the object of granting injunction would be defeated by the delay -- Conferment of this privilege on the party seeking an injunction is accompanied by an obligation cast on the court to record reasons for its opinion and an obligation cast on the applicant to comply with the requirements of Clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso -- Both the provisions are mandatory. (SC) Decided on: 11.08.2025

132. Merger of Non-banking entity with Bank – Jurisdiction of Commercial court -- – Jurisdiction of DRT -- Section 31 cannot be interpreted in a vacuum -- Section 31 emphasizes that the bar u/s 18 is absolute and on and from the appointed day, no Court other than DRT shall have jurisdiction to deal with any matter, which falls under the jurisdiction of DRT -- Section 18 is couched in negative terms, which implies that it is absolutely mandatory -- On merger of original plaintiff (HDFC Limited) with respondent no.1 (HDFC Bank Limited), jurisdiction of Commercial Court will be barred to decide the, "application" -- After amalgamation, the suit answers description of the term "application" as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act and is of the nature of a proceeding referred u/s 19 of the Act -- Therefore, DRT will have jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit and jurisdiction of other Courts will be barred in view of Section 18 of RDB Act. (Bom. H.C.) Reserved on: 25.07.025 Decided on: 11.08.2025

133. Party to appear before other witnesses – Only exception is that the Court may permit him for reasons to be recorded in writing that he may appear as his own witness at a later stage – Application is bereft of any details as to who are the summoned witnesses required to step into the witness-box before he can appear as his own witness -- Reasons why these witnesses are to be examined before the plaintiff-petitioner steps into the witness-box are also woefully missing – Application under Order XVIII Rule 3A dismissed by Trial Court -- In the absence of any details regarding which witness and for what reason the said witness needs to be examined, no fault can be found with the order. (P&H HC) Decided on: 11.08.2025

134. Stay of execution of ex-parte decree -- Application for setting aside ex-parte judgment and decree pending -- Proceedings before the executing Court stayed until the application filed by the revisionist-petitioner under Order IX Rules 7 and 13, read with Section 151 of the CPC is adjudicated upon by the Court -- The learned lower Court directed to expedite the proceedings in the said application and dispose of the same within a period of two months from the next date of hearing fixed before it. (P&H HC) Decided on: 11.08.2025

135. Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Insurance policy -- Cheque towards premium was dishonoured – Third party liability -- 50% compensation awarded with intertest already paid by Insurance company pursuant to order passed by the court -- In larger interest of justice to all parties, no recovery deserves to be permitted for the said amount deposited and withdrawn from the claimants -- Appellant-Insurance Company, shall be at liberty to recover the said 50% amount along with interest deposited by it as above and received by the claimants from the owner of the offending vehicle in accordance with law -- As far as the balance of 50% amount along with interest is concerned, which remains, the claimants shall be entitled to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle in accordance with law. (SC) Decided on: 08.08.2025

136. Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Appeal against High Court order reducing the compensation -- Death of child aged 9 years – Multiplier -- Income taken as Rs. 5,000/- per month -- No question of any deduction for personal expenses and hence even if the multiplier adopted is 15, considering the mother’s age of 36, the total compensation for loss of dependency would be Rs.7,50,000/- -- Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-, loss of estate Rs.15000/-, Rs.80,000 fixed as loss of filial consortium as applicable to both the parents -- Transportation expenses Rs.5,000/- -- Loss of dress, ornaments and cycle, Rs.5,000/- assessed -- Total compensation would be Rs.8,70,000/- assessed -- No appeal from the quantum filed by the claimants, hence the order of the Tribunal restored -- Appeal allowed setting aside the order of the High Court. (SC) Decided on: 08.08.2025

137. Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- National of United States – Future prospects – Deceased was self-employed in U.S. -- Future prospects of a person self-employed in a foreign country like United States, compared to a person in this country, would become difficult for the simple reason that the socio-economic-political conditions in any foreign country would be different -- In order to determine the just compensation to a person who died in an accident occurred in India, the dictum of law in Pranay Sethi’s case (2017) 16 SCC 680 = (2017) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 10002 = 2018(1) L.A.R. 1 shall have to be followed and applied specially when no material evidence is offered to determine the future prospects in the foreign country -- Accordingly, the Court is inclined to extend the benefit of future prospects’ component for the compensation payable as per the principles in Pranay Sethi’s case – Total compensation comes to 1,60,15,280/- alongwith 5% interest p.a. (SC) Decided on: 08.08.2025

138. Public Utility Services – Imposition of tax by transport department – Jurisdiction of PLA -- At what rate, the tax will be imposed on the particular vehicle cannot be brought into the net of Public Utility Services -- Merely because transport vehicle for the carriage of passengers or goods by air, road or water has been mentioned in the definition of Section 22A(b) of the Act of 1987, it will not bring the subject matter of imposition of tax within the jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalat for adjudication. (Raj. HC) Decided on: 07.08.2025

139. Maintenance pendentelite proceedings – Maintainability of – Main case dismissed in default -- Restoration application – Effect of -- Proceedings u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are maintainable during the pendency of the proceedings as contemplated under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the liability to pay the amount will not come to an end merely because the proceedings are pending at the revisional stage, appellate stage or even in cases where the proceedings have been dismissed for want of prosecution and the restoration of the same is pending. (All. H.C.) Decided on: 07.08.2025

140. Recalling the order and providing opportunity to lead evidence -- Inherent powers -- Civil Court has inherent powers to do justice as per provision of Section 151 CPC – By impugned order defendants allowed two effective opportunities to lead evidence after recalling order -- Detailed order passed spelling out the reasons -- No merit in the revision petition, dismissed. (P&H HC) Decided on: 06.08.2025

141. Quashing of criminal proceedings -- Affidavit in support of complaint – Mandate of -- Complaint filed u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C., not being supported by a duly sworn affidavit of the complainant, suffers from a fatal procedural defect -- In the absence of such an affidavit, the complaint could not have been acted upon, and the order of the learned Magistrate directing registration of the FIR suffers from a jurisdictional error -- Rejection of the Petitioner’s discharge application, which is rooted in such procedurally defective initiation, cannot be sustained in law – Proceedings quashed. (Orissa HC) Decided on: 06.08.2025

142. Legal representatives of plaintiff – Class-II heirs impleaded as LR’s on the basis of Will – Ground that as per Section 8 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1956, after the death of a tenant/ plaintiff no.1, only his wife and son are entitled to inherit the tenancy rights -- Held, no illegality in the said order since the application was allowed only for the purpose of continuation of the suit -- The issue as to whether in terms of the provisions of Section 8 of the 1956 Act, plaintiff No.2 would be entitled to inherit the tenancy rights or not, would be determined by the trial Court when the suit is decided on merits -- No occasion for the trial Court to hold so at the time of dealing with an application for bringing on record the legal representative – Revision petition dismissed. (P&H HC) Decided on: 05.08.2025

143. Criminal Revision against conviction without surrender – Maintainability of – Suspension of sentence – Consideration of : I. A criminal revision petition against the judgments of conviction (as also an application for suspension of sentence, etc.) is maintainable before this High Court, without the petitioner-accused having surrendered or being in custody, in the absence of any rule in the extant Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules/Orders proscribing such maintainability. II (i) The mere maintainability of a revision petition (as also an accompanying application for suspension of sentence) does not, ipso facto, translate into its desirability; the latter is a matter of judicial discretion –– which is inexorably linked to the bona fides and overall conduct of the petitioner-accused, including the sufficiency of reasons proffered for nonappearance before the Appellate Court. (ii) Where the conduct of the petitioner-accused reflects evasion or contumacious disregard of process of law, the Court must lean against the grant of suspension of sentence, lest, it may tantamount to condoning inexplicable defiance of judicial process. (iii) No universal guidelines or parameters can possibly be enumerated for exercise of this judicial discretion by this High Court while considering such an application for suspension of sentence. (P&H HC) Decided on: 05.08.2025

144. Transfer of petition from one Bench to other Bench of same High Court or any other High court – Jurisdiction of – Held, the Court is not vested with any such power; the petitioner for this purpose is free to approach the appropriate Forum -- Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be exercised to assess the legality and validity of orders passed by the State or an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 by seeking one of the writs or for performance of any public function -- Remedy against an order passed by learned Single Judge in civil or criminal jurisdiction is either by filing an LPA by demonstrating that the Single Bench passed the order over-stepping the jurisdictional purviews, or by approaching the Higher Court i.e. the Apex Court. (P&H HC) Reserved on: 01.08.2025 Decided on: 04.08.2025

145. Debarment from tender -- Indefinite period – Permissibility of -- Debar from participating “in future tenders in the division” -- Debarment has been recognised as a method of disciplining deviant suppliers -- An order of debarment can never be for an indefinite period -- Order of debarment dated 01.03.2023 does not specify the period for its operation -- If it is assume to be for a period of one year, the said period is over by 01.03.2024 -- If it is assumed to be for two years, even that period is over -- Under these circumstances, we can declare that period of debarment is over. (SC) Decided on: 04.08.2025

146. Juvenile -- Determination of Age – Public servant – Public record -- Public documents -- Public School-the first attended school is not a Government School -- Held, neither the Headmaster/ Principal of the first attended school nor its records would qualify as ‘public servant’ or ‘public record’ or ‘public document’ respectively -- Deposition of the School’s Headmaster, especially to the effect that the birth-date was noted as per an oral representation by Respondent No.2’s father, makes the said certificate unreliable -- Other school certificates were issued following this and therefore, meet the same fate inasmuch as they cannot be treated as correct, in the face of conflicting public records and public documents as also the Medical Report which state to the contrary -- Respondent No.2 cannot be said to have been a ‘juvenile’ on the date of the unfortunate incident. (SC) Decided on: 01.08.2025

147. Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – No fault liability/ claim -- Whether claim u/s 163A MV Act restricted to third party? -- Supreme Court Refers the Issue to Larger Bench. -- A claim under Section 163A, as per the words employed in the provision, covers every claim and is not restricted to a third party claim; without any requirement of establishing the negligence, if death or permanent disability is caused by reason of the motor accident -- This would also take in the liability with respect to the death of an owner or a driver who stepped into the shoes of the owner, if the claim is made under Section 163A dehors the statutory liability under Section 147 or the contractual liability as reduced to writing in an insurance policy -- It would override the provisions under Sections 147 & 149 along with the other provisions of the M.V. Act and the law regulating insurance as also the terms of the policy confining the claim with respect to an owner-driver to a fixed sum. -- Dictum arising from the various decisions of different benches of two Judges is that the claim under Section 163A is restricted to third party risks – Section 163A, appears under the Chapter with the heading ‘Insurance of Vehicles Against Third Party Risks’ – But the non-obstante clause is in suppression of the entire Act, the other laws in force and any instrument valid in law – Court doubted, the decisions of co-ordinate Benches of two Judges which now will have to be placed before a larger Bench -- Registry directed to place the matter before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders. (SC) Decided on: 01.08.2025

148. Complaint for defamation – Re-tweet by accused – Report regarding tweet made or not awaiting – Effect of – Summoning of accused – Challenge to -- Accused residing beyond jurisdiction – Summoning of – Nature of enquiry -- Inquiry, as defined u/s 2(g) of the Code means, ‘every inquiry, other than a trial, conducted under this Code by a Magistrate or Court’ -- No particular mode of inquiry has been provided; the inquiry, therefore, refers to application of judicial mind by the Magistrate to the allegations in the complaint along with the statements recorded and material brought on record by way of preliminary evidence, as also to the outcome of investigation ordered or the report called for, with a view to ascertaining the offences alleged are prima facie made -- The requirement in law is an inquiry by the Magistrate into the complaint to be satisfied that the offences alleged are prima facie made out; receipt or non-receipt of a report called for after recording the evidence, cannot be the sole ground to issue or not to issue the process – Petition dismissed. (P&H HC) Decided on: 01.08.2025

149. Medical disability of employee -- Pre-mature retirement – Sustainability of -- Appellant was prematurely retired from service on medical grounds without any meaningful effort by the Respondent–Corporation to explore his suitability for alternate employment – Corporation’s omission to consider redeployment violates both statutory and constitutional obligations -- Duty to reasonably accommodate such employees is now part of our constitutional fabric, rooted in Articles 14 and 21 -- Respondent–Corporation directed to appoint the Appellant to a suitable post, consistent with his condition, and on the same pay grade as he held on 06.01.2016 – Appellant shall be entitled to 25% of the arrears of salary, allowances, and benefits from the date of his termination to the date of reinstatement -- Intervening period shall be reckoned as continuous service for all purposes. (SC) Decided on: 01.08.2025

150. Closing of evidence -- Dismissal of application to lead and conclude evidence – Challenge to -- No cogent reason given by the petitioner to explain as to why in a period of 3½ years, petitioner has been unable to conclude his evidence – Very valuable public time of the Court has been expended in affording 26-27 opportunities to the petitioner -- However, the same cannot be misused to endlessly drag the matter to the unfair advantage or disadvantage of either party -- No ground to interfere in the impugned order – Revision dismissed. (P&H HC) Decided on: 31.07.2025