301. Dowry case -- Summoning of additional accused – Quashing of -- Acquittal of main accused – Effect of -- If main accused are acquitted, no criminal proceedings can be sustained against other co-accused on the same set of witnesses – Whenever, there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction valuable time of the Court should not be wasted -- Criminal proceedings cannot be permitted to continue – Petition allowed, summoning the accused u/s 319 Cr.P.C. for facing trial quashed. (UK HC) Decided on: 09.04.2025

302. Recruitment initiated – Advertisement made – Non-challenge to – Effect of -- Private respondent did not challenge the advertisement in its entirety (nor did anyone else) -- Hence, the advertisement holds the field and it is only under this advertisement that the respective rights of the appellant and private respondent can be determined. (SC) Decided on: 09.04.2025

303. Acquittal of main accused – Trial of co-accused u/s 120B IPC -- Quashing of -- Main accused persons acquitted of the charges levelled against them u/s 386 and 120B IPC -- Applicant charge-sheeted only for the offence u/s 120B IPC for the same incident -- No fruitful purpose would be served, if the trial is proceeded against the present applicant -- Petition allowed -- Summoning order as well as the entire proceedings quashed. (UK HC) Decided on: 09.04.2025

304. Limitation – Pleadings -- Where the pleadings are silent, then it becomes the duty of the Court to ascertain from the evidence and the overall facts of the case, as pleaded by either party, and to render a finding on limitation where the question of limitation is to be treated as a question of law, since the Court cannot entertain frivolous or stale claims -- Question of law can be raised at any stage. (SC) Decided on: 09.04.2025

305. Minimum sentence prescribed – Effect of -- Section 9 does not prescribe a minimum sentence for the offence punishable under it -- By amendment minimum sentence made 2 years -- Amendment came into effect on 1st October 2012, whereas the offence was committed on 17th June 2010 and the order of sentence was issued on 11/13th November 2010 -- Said amendment would not be applicable -- Appellant has already been granted remission for the main offence u/s 302 IPC -- However, following the date of remission, the appellant has undergone an additional incarceration of approximately 10 months -- Sentence already undergone would subserve the ends of justice for the offence punishable under the Prisoners Act, 1988. (SC) Decided on: 08.04.2025

306. Construction of deed -- Court must look at the words used in the contract unless they are such that one may suspect that they do not covey the intention correctly -- If the words are clear, there is very little the court can do about it -- In constructing a deed, looking at the surrounding circumstances and subject matter is legitimate only if the words used are doubtful. (SC) Decided on: 08.04.2025

307. Opportunity to file objection -- NGT abdicated its adjudicatory role and let the GPCB and CPCB to proceed and act on their own reports -- GPCB called upon the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 8,16,30,000 in terms of the directions of the NGT -- Before accepting the reports and issuing directions based upon it, NGT ought to have given an opportunity to the appellant to rebut the report and question the compensation assessed therein -- This was not done -- Such action of the NGT cannot be countenanced – Order set aside, O.A. before NGT restored. (SC) Decided on: 08.04.2025

308. Cognizance by court -- Summoning order in printed form – Effect of -- Summoning order passed in a printed proforma by filing up the blanks which reveals that the Trial Court has not applied its judicial mind and in a very cursory manner the Trial Court took cognizance -- Summoning order is cryptic -- Cognizance/ summoning order quashed, Trial Court directed to exercise discretionary power and decide afresh while taking cognizance on the charge sheet after taking into consideration the entire materials and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. (UK HC) Decided on: 08.04.2025

309. Interim custody of the Excavator JCB Machine – Magistrate declined custody for want of registration certificate -- Machine was seized in connection with Crime alleging commission of the offence in relation to an incident, in which the operator of the machine died, when the machine accidentally fell from a height while engaged in the process of removing pieces of rubber wood from a property -- Seizure is of a machine and not a vehicle -- As such, there cannot be an insistence on production of registration certificate along with the application seeking its release -- Magistrate shall reconsider. (Kerala HC) Decided on: 08.04.2025

310. Hindu girl conducted marriage under Christian Marriage Act -- Chairman of Town Panchayat -- Reservation as Scheduled caste – Effect upon -- Having voluntarily embraced Christianity, she cannot blow hot and cold, claiming to be a Scheduled Caste for the purpose of 'public employment' -- She cannot identify herself a 'Hindu' after solemnization of marriage under the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 -- Conferment of scheduled caste communal status to the 4th respondent, who is a Christian by religion, is nothing but a fraud on the Constitution -- To retain the socio-religious identity of a personality in case of marriages between two persons from two different religions, the only way out which could be adopted by the persons concerned to retain their original religion is to resort to a civil marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. (Madras HC) Reserved on: 08.01.2025 Decided on: 08.04.2025

311. Defamation – Essential proof – To attract the offence of defamation there must be publication of imputation intending to harm reputation of the person who felt defamed -- The person, involving whom such publication is made, must prove that in estimation of others his moral or intellectual character is lowered down as a result of such false imputation -- Further, to prove the said aspect it is the duty cast on the complainant to lead all necessary evidence before whom his image is ill-effected and lowered -- Albeit the complainant-PW.1 in his private complaint and the evidence stated that, the imputations as per Exs.P1(a) to P1(d) sullied his reputation, however, that in itself would not suffice to attract the offence under Section 499 of IPC -- The damage of the reputation can be ascertained and determined by other persons’ estimation. (Karnataka HC) Date of Decision: 08.04.2025

312. Registration of sale deed – Refusal to register -- Power of Registrar – Rule 55A(i) declared ultra vires the 1908 Act -- None of Clauses (a) to (j) of Section 69 provides for framing Rules conferring power on the registering authority to refuse registration of a document of transfer -- No provision under the 1908 Act confers power on any authority to refuse registration of a transfer document -- Unless documents are produced evidencing title as required by Rule 55A(i), registration of the sale deed shall be refused. Held, registering officer is not concerned with the title held by the executant -- He has no adjudicatory power to decide whether the executant has any title -- Even if an executant executes a sale deed or a lease in respect of a land in respect of which he has no title, the registering officer cannot refuse to register the document if all the procedural compliances are made and the necessary stamp duty as well as registration charges/fee are paid – Rule-making power u/s 69 cannot be exercised to make a Rule that is inconsistent with the provisions of the 1908 Act -- Due to the inconsistency, Rule 55A(i) declared ultra vires the 1908 Act. (SC) Decided on: 07.04.2025

313. Rape – Promise to marry -- Discharge of accused -- Appellant and the Complainant came in contact in 2014, during the pendency of matrimonial disputes arising out of the Complainant’s marriage -- It is from day one, she had knowledge and was conscious of the fact, that the Appellant was in a subsisting marriage, though separated – Complainant was receiving financial help from the Appellant for herself and her son -- Complainant cannot plead ‘misconception of fact’ or ‘rape on the false pretext to marry’ -- No evidence to conclude that there was any fraudulent or dishonest inducement – No criminal intimidation -- There is a growing tendency of resorting to initiation of criminal proceedings when relationships turn sour -- Every consensual relationship, where a possibility of marriage may exist, cannot be given a colour of a false pretext to marry, in the event of a fall out -- It is such lis that amounts to an abuse of process of law -- Court deemed fit to terminate the proceedings at the stage of charge itself – Appeal allowed. (SC) Decided on: 07.04.2025

314. Rape – Discharge of accused – Rape – Promise to marry -- Mere fact that physical relations were established pursuant to a promise to marry will not amount to a rape in every case -- An offence u/s 375 IPC could only be made out, if promise of marriage was made by the accused solely with a view to obtain consent for sexual relations without having any intent of fulfilling said promise from the very beginning, and that such false promise of marriage had a direct bearing on the prosecutrix giving her consent for sexual relations – Ingredients of offences u/s 375/ 506 IPC not established -- Trial Court discharged the accused – High Court in revision set aside the order of discharge has undertaken an exhaustive analysis of the allegations in the FIR, and the Charge-sheet, while failing to consider that at the stage of framing of charges, the court must only adjudicate on the basis of material on record – Order of High Court set aside – Criminal proceedings terminated. (SC) Decided on: 07.04.2025

315. Judgment on admissions – Mandatory or discretionary -- Provisions of Rule 6 are enabling, discretionary and permissive -- They are not mandatory, obligatory or peremptory -- If the court is of the opinion that it is not safe to pass a judgment on admissions, or that a case involves questions which cannot be appropriately dealt with and decided on the basis of admission, it may, in exercise of its discretion, refuse to pass a judgment and may insist upon clear proof of even admitted facts. (SC) Decided on: 07.04.2025

316. Murder of wife – Plea of alibi -- Circumstantial evidence -- Acquittal of husband by Trial court -- High Court emphasized that the accused and the deceased were living together and hence, the accused should have an explanation regarding the death of his wife u/s 106 of the Act, 1872 reversed the acquittal without anything other than a finding on alibi having not been proved -- The alibi being a possible and probable explanation, the accused cannot also be found to be in the teeth of Section 106 of the Evidence Act -- Not enough material to upset the order of acquittal of the Trial Court, especially when there was also no evidence led regarding the death being a result of homicide -- No circumstance leading to the guilt of the accused -- Order of the High Court set aside -- Order of acquittal of the Trial Court restored. (SC) Decided on: 07.04.2025

317. Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Liability of Insurance company -- FIR against an unknown vehicle – Effect of – Mere fact that initially the FIR records the vehicle as unknown would not be fatal for the prosecution/ claimants -- Police upon investigation submitted a charge-sheet against the driver of the car -- Inspection report prepared by the Motor Vehicle Inspector discloses a bent on the front right side of the bumper of the car to indicate that it dashed against something, which could have been the scooter of the deceased -- MACT’s Award fastened liability jointly and severally on the owner of the vehicle and the insurance company -- Liability of the respondent no.1/ Insurance company set aside by High Court -- Owner has neither appeared before the MACT nor before the High Court and not even before Supreme Court despite valid service of notice -- Court left with no option but to presume that the owner of the alleged offending vehicle which was the cause of the accident had no defence to offer -- During the police investigation owner of the vehicle admitted to the accident in question having occurred – Appeal allowed, order of the High Court set aside and the order of the MACT restored. (SC) Decided on: 07.04.2025

318. Land acquisition – Corruption – Conspiracy – Quashing of FIR by High Court – Challenge to – Respondent/ Managing Director of the Cooperative Society obtained the lands after verification of the rights on the land from the Collector of the District – Acquisition was for a purpose of developing the land; which has already been completed and allottees of such lands have raised a residential colony in the location – No action u/s 28-A has been taken by the State to repossess the lands – No allegation against the respondent but for a bland allegation of connivance with the officers of the State – No personal benefit even alleged to have accrued to the party respondent – No reason to interfere with the well-reasoned order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court – Special Leave Petition dismissed. (SC) Decided on: 07.04.2025

319. Criminal Law – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Acquittal – Last seen theory -- Prosecution relied on last seen evidence, extra-judicial confessions, and circumstantial evidence including recovery of articles and fingerprints –PW-2 (alleged eyewitness) and PW-12 (last seen witness) disbelieved due to delayed statements – Extra judicial confessional statements disbelieved by High court – Recovery of slippers and a wheel spanner with alleged fingerprints of the accused was held insufficient to establish guilt in absence of a complete and credible chain of circumstantial evidence – Benefit of doubt extended to appellant – Conviction u/s 302 IPC set aside, holding prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence. (SC) Decided on: 04.04.2025

320. Objection u/s 34 of Arbitration Act -- Limitation of three calendar months as opposed to 90 days -- Statutory language of Section 34(3) clearly stipulates the limitation period as “three months”, as opposed to the condonable period as “thirty days” -- This difference in language unambiguously demonstrates the legislative intent that the limitation period is 3 calendar months as opposed to 90 days -- Argument that 3 months must be read as 90 days in the context of Section 34(3), rejected. (SC) Decided on: 03.04.2025

321. Default bail after 60 days – Non-prescribing of minimum punishment/ maximum upto 14 years -- Non-filing of challan -- Effect of -- Section-3 of the Act though, prescribes maximum punishment up to 14 years, there is no minimum punishment provided under the said provision -- Punishment prescribed for the offence punishable us/ 5 of the said Act, is maximum up to three years -- Since, the investigation was not completed in sixty days, the Respondent had become entitled to the default bail under Section 167(2)(a) of Cr.P.C -- High Court has rightly followed the Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. State of Assam, (2017) 15 SCC 67 and released the Respondent on bail. (SC) Decided on: 03.04.2025

322. Rejection of plaint – Non-existence of cause of action – Ground of -- A plaint can never be rejected for non-existence of cause of action, but, a plaint can be rejected for non-disclosure of cause of action -- Non-disclosure of cause of action in a plaint would fall within the ambit of Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint, but, whereas, non-existence of cause of action would not fall within the ambit of Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. for rejection of plaint. (Orissa HC) Decided on: 03.04.2025

323. Loss of confidence in employee – Non-approval by Labour Court -- Discharge/ Dismissal from service – Effect upon -- If the approval sought by the employer under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act is not granted by the learned Labour Court, then nothing more is required to be done by the employee as it will have to be deemed that the order of discharge or dismissal was never passed and consequence of it is that the employee is deemed to be in continuous service, entitling him all the benefits. (H.P. HC) Decided on: 03.04.2025

324. Cheating – Quashing of FIR -- Mere breach of promise to repay per se does not infer dishonest intention -- Appellant had clarified he had suffered continuous business setbacks -- Due to losses, he was unable to pay the 2nd non-applicant -- He had sold the coal to a brick manufacturer and suffered losses thereto -- Failure to pay due to unfortunate business losses cannot be clothed with culpability and the process of criminal law utilized to recover outstanding dues -- Proceeding arising out of FIR quashed. (SC) Decided on: 02.04.2025

325. President of Municipal Council -- Conversion of Municipal Council to Corporation – Contention that as term of Municipal Council is five years, in accordance with the Constitutional provisions, the Council has a right to continue for a period of five years – Held, Article 243-U shall have its forcibility provided the Council is still there -- If a decision is taken by the State to convert a Council into a Corporation then, as from the date when the Council become a Corporation, its term would end automatically. (H.P. HC) Decided on: 01.04.2025

326. Withdrawal of suit with liberty to file fresh -- Petitioner raised her grievance against execution of the gift deed and consequent attestation of mutation, but no specific relief has been prayed to declare the gift deed illegal, null or void and not binding on the rights of petitioner -- Such omission entails consequences under order 2 rule 2 of the Code -- Petitioner cannot sue again in respect of the omitted portion of the claim -- Since, the plea which had been left from incorporation, could not be said to be alien to the subject matter or cause of action of the suit, even the requirements of order 23 rule 1(3) (b) were satisfied -- Suit is at very initial stage, issues have not been framed; therefore, no prejudice likely to be caused to the respondents -- Petitioner permitted to withdraw the suit with permission to file afresh on the same cause of action. (H.P. HC) Reserved on: 22.03.3025 Decided on: 01.04.2025

327. Writ petition – Challenge to orders of quasi-judicial authorities -- Cause of action arose to father – Locus standi of son after 30 year -- Father of the petitioners died in the year 2015 -- Orders which now being assailed by the petitioners was in existence for almost 30 years as till the date when the father of the petitioners died and in his wisdom the father of the petitioner, never assailed it – Held, petitioners do not have any locus to file and maintain the writ petition. (H.P. HC) Decided on: 01.04.2025

328. Cognizable offence – Registration of FIR -- Sub-Section (3) of Section 173 of the BNSS makes a significant departure from Section 154 of CrPC. -- It provides that when information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence which is made punishable for 3 years or more but less than 7 years is received by an officer-in-charge of a police station, with the prior permission of a superior officer as mentioned therein, the police officer is empowered to conduct a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether there exists a prima facie case for proceeding in the matter. -- Sub-Section (3) of Section 173 of the BNSS is an exception to sub-Section (1) of Section 173. Under sub-Section (3) of Section 173 of the BNSS, after holding a preliminary inquiry, if the officer comes to a conclusion that a prima facie case exists to proceed, he should immediately register an FIR and proceed to investigate. But, if he is of the view that a prima facie case is not made out to proceed, he should immediately inform the first informant/complainant so that he can avail a remedy under sub-Section (4) of Section 173. (SC) Decided on: 28.03.2025

329. Maintenance to Senior citizen – Eviction of son – Property already transferred to daughter/ son-in-law – Effect of -- Exfacie Senior citizen ceases to be the owner of the property and it is up to the purchasers to initiate eviction proceedings, if any, against the occupants of any part of it -- Senior citizens are simply entitled to maintenance rather than eviction of their son/ relatives -- It was only in the contingency of son not behaving properly or continuing to humiliate or torture the parents that the eviction proceedings would be necessary against him -- Tribunal was justified in permitting him to continue living therein with the rider of drawing eviction proceedings if he indulges in any untoward behavior or interferes with the life of others. (SC) Decided on: 27.03.2025

330. Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Contributory negligence -- Learner’s License – Effect of -- B.D.O./ injured/ claimant had exercised his authority to travel pillion, despite being aware of the driver holding only a learners licence – Negligence is only a question of fact, when a person drives a vehicle without a licence, he commits an offence, which by itself cannot lead to a finding of negligence, leading to or as regards, the accident -- Mere fact that the driver of the scooter had only a learners licence would necessarily lead to a conclusion of contributory negligence on the part of the scooter driver -- There can be no negligence found on the scooter driver also by the mere fact that the accident occurred on a collision at the tail-end of a long trailer, when the scooter driver had better visibility; which is a question of fact liable to be proved and not merely presumed -- Appellant is entitled to compensation from the insurer of the offending vehicle. (SC) Decided on: 25.03.2025

331. Gift deed – Completion of -- Unilateral cancellation – Permissibility of -- Delivery of possession is not sine qua non to validate a gift or settlement -- Delivery of possession is only one of the methods to prove acceptance and not the sole method – If the original deed was returned after registration, the fact that it was already acted upon, cannot be altered -- Receipt of the original document by the plaintiff and registration of the same, would amount to acceptance of the gift and the transaction satisfies the requirement of Section 122 of the TP Act -- Once the document is declared as “gift”, Donor/ defendant No.1 had no right to cancel the same unilaterally and the Sub Registrar had no right to register the cancellation deed -- Unilateral cancellation of the document is void and as a natural corollary, the sale deed executed by Donor/ Defendant No.1 / father also is invalid. (SC) Decided on: 24.03.2025

332. Notice u/s 80 CPC – Importance of -- A statutory notice holds significance beyond mere formality -- Its purpose is to provide the Government or a public officer with an opportunity to reconsider the matter in light of established legal principles and make a decision in accordance with the law -- However, in practice, such notices have often become empty formalities -- Administration frequently remains unresponsive and fails to even inform the aggrieved party why their claim has been rejected – Held, Public Authorities must take statutory notice issued to them in all seriousness -- Public Authorities must not sit over such notices and force the citizens to the vagaries of litigation -- They are expected to let the plaintiff know their stand within the statutory period or in any case before he embarks upon the litigation -- In certain cases, courts may be obliged to draw adverse presumption against the Public Authorities for not acknowledging the notice or telling the plaintiff of its stand and in the absence of that, a stand taken during the course of trial may be considered as an afterthought. (SC) Decided on: 24.03.2025

333. NDPS -- Private conveyance – Search of vehicle – Compliance of Section 41(1) and 42(2) of NDPS Act – Requirement of -- Where secret information is received in terms of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, then the search of a private conveyance even in a public place/ transit would require compliance of Sections 41(1) and 42(2) of the NDPS Act i.e. the information so received must be taken down in writing and conveyed to the immediate superior officer within 72 hours -- However, where the search of a public conveyance is to be conducted in a public place/transit, no such compliance is required -- Whether a vehicle is a private conveyance or a public conveyance would be a question of fact in each case. (P&H HC) Decided on: 24.03.2025

334. Bail application – Direction to CBI to register FIR -- High Court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to register a case based on the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C and conduct investigation thereon; in a bail application – Held, there can be no such direction in a bail application -- Impugned order set aside to that extent. (SC) Decided on: 24.03.2025

335. Property owned by senior citizen -- Eviction order passed by the authorities – Writ jurisdiction -- Once, the property belongs to the senior citizen and the senior citizen is residing in a rented accommodation with another son, the claim of the petitioner that he has right to occupy the property in preference to the senior citizen is contrary to the objective of 2007 Act -- Nothing on record to show that the senior citizen is not going to occupy the property in question after vacating by the petitioner -- Writ petition dismissed. (P&H HC) Decided on: 21.03.2025

336. Regular Second Appeal – Condonation of delay -- State cannot be given any undue indulgence as compared to an ordinary litigant, especially in matters of limitation -- All parties, whether or not State under Article 12 of the Constitution, are required to act with due diligence and promptitude. (SC) Decided on: 21.03.2025

337. Interested witness -- First cousins witness -- It is settled position of law that merely because the witnesses are relatives of the deceased and as such are interested witnesses, that alone cannot be a ground to discard their testimony -- The only requirement is that the testimony of such witnesses has to be scrutinized with greater caution and circumspection. (SC) Decided on: 21.03.2025

338. Unlawful assembly -- Rioting – Bystander -- Appellants were residents of the same village where riots broke out, therefore their presence at the spot is natural and by itself not incriminating -- More so, because it is not the case of the prosecution that they came with arms or instruments of destruction -- In these circumstances, their presence at the spot could be that of an innocent bystander who had a right to move freely in absence of prohibitory orders -- In such a situation, to sustain their conviction, the prosecution ought to have led some reliable evidence to demonstrate that they were a part of the unlawful assembly and not just spectator -- Here no evidence has come on record to indicate that the appellants incited the mob, or they themselves acted in any manner indicative of them being a part of the unlawful assembly – Appellants’ arrest from the spot is not a guarantee of their culpability -- Mere presence of the appellants at the spot, or their arrest therefrom, was not sufficient to prove that they were a part of the unlawful assembly comprising of more than a thousand people – Appellants acquitted. (SC) Decided on: 21.03.2025

339. Consumer – Privity of contract -- Tripartite Agreement would lead to the conclusion that the essential transaction of sale was between the complainant-respondent and the borrower who was the buyer of the flat of the complainant-respondent for an agreed consideration of Rs.32,00,000/- -- Complainant-respondent, having no privity of contract with the appellant, cannot be termed a ‘consumer’ under the Act. (SC) Decided on: 20.03.2025

340. Appeal against conviction/ Acquittal -- Huge pendency of criminal appeals in High Courts – Preference of hearing -- Priority is usually given to the hearing of the appeals where the accused are in prison -- The appeals against conviction where the accused are on bail take a backseat -- However, a right balance has to be struck by taking up for hearing even some of the old criminal appeals against conviction where accused are on bail -- If the appeals against conviction where the accused are on bail and especially where a life sentence has been imposed are heard after a decade or more from its filing, if the appeal is dismissed, the question arises of sending the accused back to jail after a long period of more than a decade -- Therefore, it is desirable that certain categories of appeals against conviction where the accused are on bail should be given priority. (SC) Decided on: 20.03.2025

341. Regularization of daily wage employee – Pensionary benefits -- Petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis prior to 10.05.2001 and his services were regularized thereafter -- Petitioner shall be deemed to have retired on attaining the age of 60 years i.e. w.e.f. 12.07.2012 – A period of two years is to be added towards the qualifying service of petitioner to the period of 7 years 6 months and 12 days -- Petitioner rendered total eligible regular service of 9 years, 6 months and 12 days -- Petitioner has rendered more than 8 years of service though less than 10 years of service and for such reason his service is to be reckoned as 10 years, which makes him qualified for pensionary benefits. (H.P. HC) Reserved on: 10.03.2025 Decided on: 20.03.2025

342. Suit for declaration of absolute ownership – Pleadings -- One who comes before the court with a declaration that, he is the absolute owner of the schedule property, he must plead the correct property number, extent and also boundaries before the court with cogent and acceptable evidence. (SC) Decided on: 19.03.2025

343. Allotment in favour of two brothers -- Transfer of ownership to facilitate loan – Effect of -- UT Administration transferred the plot to facilitate the plaintiff to obtain loan -- Both the courts decreed the suit of mandatory injunction directing the defendant/ brother to leave and vacate two rooms – Property worth more than Rs.100/- cannot be transferred from one to another without registered instrument -- Once, there is documentary evidence to prove that the allotment was made in favour of two brothers and it was the plaintiff who applied for transferring the plot exclusively in his name because he wanted to borrow the loan, the courts erred in relying upon the oral evidence – Judgments passed by both the courts below, set aside -- Suit filed by the plaintiff dismissed. (P&H HC) Decided on: 19.03.2025

344. Temporary injunction -- Co-owner -- Electricity in name of defendant – Right of irrigation -- One of the cosharers of the tubewell cannot deprive the right of irrigation to the other co-sharer by unauthorisedly removing the common facility for irrigating the fields. (P&H HC) Decided on: 19.03.2025

345. Shamilat deh -- Jurisdiction of Collector/ Financial Commissioner -- Cancellation of lease by Financial Commissioner – Held, jurisdiction to rescind or cancel lease solitarily vested in the Collector of the Revenue District concerned -- Financial Commissioner or any other officer of the Government of Punjab, except the (P&H HC) Decided on: 19.03.2025

346. Shamilat deh -- Notice to vacate by BDPO – Challenge to -- Writ jurisdiction – Dispute relates to the question of title and possession over the panchayat land involving disputed questions of fact – Court declines to enter into merits of the matter and relegates the petitioner to approach the Collector u/s 11 of the Act of 1961. (P&H HC) Decided on: 19.03.2025

347. Consumer – Commercial transaction – Maintainability of complaint -- If the machine is purchased for self-employment purposes, it cannot be categorized as “commercial purpose’ -- Petitioner/ complainant was already running a business as a commercial venture and he purchased the machine to expand his business -- Petitioner himself was not operating the machine, but he had employed workmen who were doing the job for him -- No matter how small the venture is, it cannot be called ‘self-employment’ for the purposes of the Act – Order of dismissal of complaint on the ground that he was not a ‘consumer’, upheld -- In case the petitioner moves a Civil Suit within four weeks, he would be at liberty to rely upon Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law. (SC) Decided on: 18.03.2025

348. Writ jurisdiction – Three post of Steno advertised – Four additional person appointed, including appellants -- Termination – Non-payment of salary -- State as well as the High Courts are expected to be model litigants -- The High Court is not expected to take a hyper-technical view, when dealing with the case of payment of salary of the employees of the District Judiciary, who have actually put in eight years of service -- Respondents directed to pay the salary of the appellant and other similarly circumstances persons for the period during which they have actually worked in the District Court along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date on which the salaries ought to have been paid to them -- Appellant would also be entitled to costs quantified at Rs.1 lakh. (SC) Decided on: 18.03.2025

349. Delayed submission of Medical bill for re-imbursement of deceased employee beyond 90 days – Rejection of – Permissibility of -- If an employee has died during treatment, his wife/ heirs should not be harassed for technical reasons -- Such a rule that prescribes for submitting medical bills for reimbursement may at times be put to strict compliance where employee is alive but in case of heirs where employee has died during treatment, such rules should not be permitted to come in the way of reimbursement of genuine claims of medical bills -- Petitioner directed to submit again the medical bills within a period of four weeks, concerned respondent shall clear the same as per relevant rules by taking appropriate decision within a period of two weeks. (All. H.C.) Decided on: 17.03.2025

350. Time limit for arbitral award – Extension of – Delay in completion of proceedings beyond 18 months – Effect of -- Once the Learned Arbitrator permitted the parties to participate in arbitral proceedings beyond the permissible period of 18 months then, the Impugned Order passed by Arbitrator that he cannot proceed because his mandate stood terminated and the arbitral proceedings were kept in abeyance, certainly amounts to prejudicing the petitioner due to an act of Arbitrator herein which defeats the principle of “Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit” – Impugned order set aside, arbitration proceedings restored. (H.P. HC) Decided on: 17.03.2025