701. Appointment of Lambardar – Interference in – Once, the authorities after evaluating the claims of all eligible, found respondent No.1 as a better suited for the post of Lambardar, unless and until, the respondent No.1 is ineligible to hold the said post or, the said appointment is causing prejudice to the residents of the area in any manner, no interference can be done. (P&H HC) Decided on: 01.12.2025

702. Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Deceased was minor/ 16 years of age – Multiplier – Future prospects -- Claimants are deceased’s parents – Income assessed as per the minimum wage for a skilled worker @ Rs. 10,382/- per month and a multiplier of ‘18’ would be applicable -- Future prospects added at 40% -- Keeping in view the age of the child, 50% deduction would also be applicable – Loss of estate Rs.18,000/-, Funeral expenses Rs.18,000/-, Loss of consortium Filial [Rs.48,000/- x 2] = Rs.96,000/- -- Total compensation comes to Rs.17,01,762/- -- Will attract interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of the entire amount. (P&H HC) Decided on: 01.12.2025

703. Recovery of weapons – Acquittal in revision -- Grounds : i) that the weapon of offence was never test fired. Thus, the report of Arms Act Expert (PW-5) could not have been believed with regard to the fact that the weapon was in working condition; ii) that the sanction order was defective as the weapon was never produced before the sanctioning authority; iii) that the link evidence was missing as the storekeeper in whose custody the weapon was kept had not been examined; iv) that the weapon was not produced in sealed condition before the arms expert, which shows that it was not sealed on the spot. Thus, the tampering of case property in this case cannot be ruled out; v) that despite the fact that recovery had taken place at a crowded place, any independent witness has not been joined; vi) that the testimony of witnesses of recovery i.e. PW-2 and PW-4 were contrary with regard to material witnesses; If the cumulative effect of all the above mentioned factors is taken into consideration, it leads to a conclusion that the story set-out by the prosecution, with regard to recovery of country-made pistol from the possession of petitioner, fails to inspire confidence – Held, there is sufficient scope for indulgence and interference in the findings returned by the learned trial Court -- Charge for the commission of offence punishable u/s 25 of Arms Act was not proved against the petitioner – Petitioner acquitted. (P&H HC) Reserved on: 14.11.2025 Decided on: 01.12.2025

704. Statement u/s 313 of Cr.P.c. – Mandate of -- Statements given by all three persons are carbon copies of each other -- How such statements can pass muster at the hands of the learned Trial Judge is understandable -- Out of the four questions asked, directly related to the sequence of events, were only two -- The second question was as general as can be, with reference to only the bare allegations, to which an omnibus denial was issued -- The third was also of similar nature, saying that it has been alleged and evidenced, and nothing further -- This cannot be said to be the putting of every material circumstance -- Desire to secure a conviction for the accused persons, the prosecutor also let their duty of assisting the Court in conducting the examination of the accused under this section fall by the wayside -- Prosecutor is an officer of the Court and holds a solemn duty to act in the interest of justice -- Appeals allowed and the matter sent back to the concerned Trial Court to recommence from the state of the recording of the Section 313 CrPC statements. (SC) Decided on: 01.12.2025

705. Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Injury case -- Age appox. 40 years -- Amputation of the right arm above the elbow -- Functional disability assessed as of 80% -- Significantly impairing earning capacity -- Considering lifelong suffering, loss of amenities, mental stress, future medical needs (prosthetics, physiotherapy), and loss of dignity attached to such a disability, enhancement is justified u/s 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act -- As such, compensation for loss of future earning is assessed as: * Notional annual income: Rs.36,000/- per annum * After Addition of 40% future prospects: Rs.50,400/- per annum * Multiplier: 15 * Functional disability: 80% Loss of earning capacity = (Rs.50,400 × 80%) × 15 = Rs.6,04,800/- High Court is empowered to reassess these amounts to ensure just compensation under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Total Compensation assessed as 9,14,800/-, rounded to: Rs. 9,15,000/- -- Claimant shall be entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.4,65,000/-, over and above the award of the Tribunal, along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. (P&H HC) Reserved on: 28.11.2025 Decided on: 29.11.2025

706. Joint land – Restraining co-sharer from construction – Mandate of -- Suit for partition is pending and the respondents are in exclusive possession of their respective portions -- A co-sharer in physical possession of a specific portion of joint land, whose possession is admitted, cannot be restrained from raising construction thereupon -- Any construction raised by the respondents over their exclusive portion shall, however, remain subject to the final outcome of the partition proceedings – Ld. Additional District Judge rightly declined to grant stay and has dismissed the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs – Revision petition dismissed. (P&H HC) Decided on: 29.11.2025

707. Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Plying vehicle with no-permit – Principle to pay and recover for Insurance company -- Accident took place within the territorial limits of the State of Haryana (Sonepat) -- Offending vehicle was having a permit to ply in the State of Punjab only -- It had no permit to ply in the State of Haryana – In such cases, the liability to pay compensation would be that of the driver/owner -- Nevertheless, the Insurance Company would pay the compensation amount in the first instance and would then be entitled to recover the same from the driver/owner. (P&H HC) Reserved on: 20.11.2025 Decided on: 28.11.2025

708. Attachment before judgment – Sale prior to filing of suit – Ground of fraudulent transfer -- Effect of -- Scope of Rule 5 is confined to securing the plaintiff’s prospective decree by preventing the defendant from frustrating execution through alienation or concealment of his property during pendency of the suit -- Essential condition, however, is that the property sought to be attached must belong to the defendant on the date of institution of the suit; property already transferred prior to the suit cannot be attached under this provision -- In cases where such prior transfer is alleged to be fraudulent, the remedy lies under Section 53 of the T.P. Act and not under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC. (SC) Decided on: 28.11.2025

709. Appeal against acquittal – Leave to appeal before High Court -- Direction given to learned Session Judge to treat the application/appeal as filed u/s 372 of Cr.P.C -- Registry directed to send the complete paper-book and record of the case to learned Sessions Judge, forthwith. Celestium Financial’s case 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208 relied. (P&H HC) Decided on: 28.11.2025

710. Murder -- Regular bail – Parity as a ground -- Bail has often been stated to be the rule, and jail, the exception -- At the same time, this, however, does not mean that the relief of bail is to be granted without due regard to the circumstances involved in the alleged offence for which the accused person has been arrested – High Court erroneously granted bail to the accused-respondent on the sole ground of parity which it has misunderstood as a tool of direct application as opposed to parity being focused on the role played by the accused and not the thread of the same offence being the only common factor between the accused persons -- Parity is not the sole ground on which bail can be granted – Bail cancelled. (SC) Decided on: 28.11.2025

711. Dowry death – Presumption – Regular bail by High Court – Cancellation of -- Marriage took place on 22.02.2023, and the death occurred on 05.06.2023 i.e. within four months of marriage – Dying declarations to the father and elder sister, coupled with consistent testimony of relatives and post-mortem noting of an abrasion suggestive of restraint, satisfy the foundational requirements of Section 304B IPC -- Consequently, the presumption u/s 113B of the Evidence Act arises inexorably against Respondent No. 1/ husband -- High Court, however, failed to take this statutory presumption into account, and instead relied solely on general bail principles -- Courts has to evaluate the gravity of the offence, the nature of accusations and the prima facie evidence while considering bail – Held, such heinous offences strike at the very root of human dignity and violate the constitutional guarantees of equality and life with dignity under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India -- They corrode the moral fibre of the community, normalize violence against women, and erode the foundations of a civilized society -- Judicial passivity or misplaced leniency in the face of such atrocities would only embolden perpetrators and undermine public confidence in the administration of justice -- A firm and deterrent judicial response is, therefore, imperative, not only to uphold the majesty of law and do justice in the present case, but also to send an unequivocal message that neither law nor society will countenance barbarities born out of the evil of dowry -- Bail cancelled. (SC) Decided on: 28.11.2025

712. Appointment of Arbitrator – Unilateral power with one party -- Remedy -- Where a clause contains an otherwise defective unilateral appointment mechanism, the Court may sever the offending portion and exercise its power u/s 11(6) to appoint an independent arbitrator, thereby giving effect to the parties’ genuine intention to arbitrate -- Refusing to sever such clauses would effectively confer on the dominant party a “nuclear veto”, wholly inconsistent with the pro-arbitration policy of the Act and violative of Article 14 -- Court is empowered under Section 11(6) to cure the defect and appoint an independent arbitrator. (SC) Decided on: 28.11.2025

713. Appointment of Lambardar – Subsequent disqualification – Effect of -- Eligibility and disqualification is to be seen upto the date of appointment as Lambardar -- In case any such disqualification is adapt prior to the appointment, the same will invalidate the appointment itself but in case any disqualification is suffered after the appointment that can only lead to taking action against the Lambardar, in accordance with law. (P&H HC) Decided on: 27.11.2025

714. Summoning of given-up witness -- By virtue of application any new witness has not been introduced by the prosecution -- Rather a witness, whose name already found mentioned in the list of witnesses, and was given up, has been sought to be examined and this necessity arose due to death of police official – Held, in change circumstances mala fide cannot be attributed to the prosecution -- Purpose of any trial is to do justice -- Application rightly allowed. (P&H HC) Decided on: 27.11.2025

715. Cheque bounce complaint -- Bank statements in application u/s 311 of Cr.P.C -- Permissibility of -- Documents allowed to be proved by the learned trial Court are the statement of account being maintained by the Public Bank in usual course of its business -- If the respondent/ complainant is seeking the assistance of some documents, i.e. statement of account of the parties, it cannot be held that the respondent-complainant has created an evidence in his favour during the pendency of the case -- No illegality committed by the learned trial Court while permitting the respondent-complainant to prove the documents. (P&H HC) Decided on: 27.11.2025

716. Service law -- Change of category – Sports SC (M&B) to SC (M&B) -- Permissibility of -- At the time of filling the application form for the post of Multipurpose Health Worker, the petitioner has applied under Sports SC (M&B) category -- At fag end, when the selection process for the said post(s) is over, the petitioner cannot be allowed to change her category from Sports SC (M&B) to SC (M&B). (P&H HC) Reserved on: 18.11.2025 Decided on: 27.11.2025

717. Regular bail – Stringent conditions imposed -- Modification in a condition restricting the movement of an accused – Permissibility of -- Judicial orders which determine issues arising between the parties to the lis bind them and its conclusive nature ensures resolution of disputes so that justice is served -- If any modification of such condition is made now and thereby the stringency relaxed, that would not only amount to overstepping the order of this Court granting bail but would send a wrong message of this Court being unconcerned with the principle of finality of judicial decisions -- Stringent condition imposed by the bench while granting bail being justified on facts and in the circumstances, and there being no significant change in circumstances, court see no reason to interfere. (SC) Decided on: 26.11.2025

718. Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Duty of MACT/ Tribunal – Compensation has to be awarded once and for all as victim is not at fault and it is the duty of the Tribunal to award just compensation -- Considering overall facts and circumstances relating to treatment, mental agony, pain, disablement, loss of wages and expenditure in the hospital for nutritious diet and other expenditure incurred by the family members and other charges for attendant is also required to be considered -- Disablement and mental pain, shock and suffering qua loss of amenities -- Adopting a sensitive approach is crucial for the Tribunal -- It plays a key and vital role in ensuring not only justice to the victim of the motor accident but also to determine just and fair compensation -- The Tribunal is expected to have empathy and to prevent subsequent trauma by taking a sensitive approach to feeling the pain of the victim of the road accident because the victim of the road accident and their family often deal with physical and emotional trauma and an empathetic approach can provide them a sense of support and understanding. (Gujarat HC) Decided on: 26.11.2025

719. Insurance / renewal of Passport – Criminal trial pending – Effect of -- NOC granted by the trial court and passport validity restricted to one year – Again approached the trial court for grant of NOC for obtaining passport for five years – Application dismissed by trial court primarily, on the ground that the same is premature because the earlier NOC granted by the said court is valid upto 23.02.2026 -- Another ground that he has not produced any documentary proof that would go on to show that he was required to travel abroad in connection with his business – Held, every citizen has a legal right to hold a passport and that the said right can be taken away only in accordance with law – Held, petitioner is entitled to get his passport renewed for further as the expiry of his passport is approaching -- A criminal court while considering an application for grant of NOC has only to advert itself to the question as to whether the accused, if allowed to travel abroad, would be available to face the trial -- No other factor should influence the decision of the criminal court while considering an application for grant of NOC in favour of an accused who intends to obtain a passport/travel document -- Petition allowed, matter remanded to the court to decide the application of the petitioner for grant of NOC afresh. (J&K&L HC) Decided on: 26.11.2025

720. Change in the selection criteria – Permissibly of -- Weightage points allotted to a B.Sc. Degree in Forestry was 25 points was altered only after interviews were held, that is, when all the stages of participation by a candidate in the selection process were over -- Evaluation procedure was altered on representation of candidates -- Such alteration, cannot be termed transparent and does not have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved in as much as the academic qualification required for the post was barely 10+2 with science and stress was more on physical attributes of a candidate including viva voce -- Held, a change in the selection criteria, after interviews were held, was rightly not countenanced by the High Court – No merit in appeal, dismissed. (SC) Decided on: 26.11.2025

721. Raising slogan ‘Pakistan Zindabad’ when the war was going on between India and Pakistan – Regular bail -- Petitioner was arrested on 10.05.2025 has suffered incarceration of 06 months and 11 days as on 24.11.2025 -- Petitioner is not involved in any other case -- Challan has already been presented and charges are yet to be framed -- Veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after the conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by both the parties before the trial Court – Bail allowed. (P&H HC) Decided on: 26.11.2025

722. Appeal against acquittal – Presumption of innocence -- An order of acquittal is not to be interfered with lightly because presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal -- Interference is called for only under compelling circumstances, where impugned findings are perverse, unreasonable and convincing material on record has been ignored unjustifiably by the trial Court. (P&H HC) Reserved on: 30.10.2025 Decided on: 26.11.2025

723. GST -- Show cause notice – Opportunity for hearing – On the date given for personal hearing, the petitioner intimated the respondent that he was travelling out of the country -- Respondent authority failed to grant any adjournment – Adverse order passed – Matter remitted back to the authority to recommence from the stage of personal hearing. (UK HC) Decided on: 25.11.2025

724. Auction sale in execution -- Challenge to – Right of -- Given the insertion of Order XXI Rule 90(3) in the statute book with effect from 01.02.1977, it would be incumbent upon a judgment debtor or any other interested person who applies for setting aside an execution sale, held thereafter, to satisfy the executing Court that the ground upon which the application was made could not have been taken on or before the date on which the proclamation of sale was drawn up – Held, if such a ground could have been taken by that applicant who seeks setting aside of the sale but he failed to do so at the appropriate stage, he would stand barred, by Order XXI Rule 90(3) CPC, from doing so at a subsequent stage. (SC) Decided on: 25.11.2025

725. Cheating – Criminal breach of trust – Cannot co-exist together -- In case of criminal breach of trust, the offender is lawfully entrusted with the property, and he dishonestly misappropriated the same -- Whereas, in case of cheating, the offender fraudulently or dishonestly induces a person by deceiving him to deliver a property -- In such a situation, both offences cannot co-exist simultaneously -- Consequently, the complaint cannot contain both the offences that are independent and distinct -- Said offences cannot coexist simultaneously in the same set of facts as they are antithetical to each other. (SC) Decided on: 24.11.2025

726. Rape -- False promise to marry – Quashing of FIR -- Respondent No.2 continued to meet the appellant and indulged in physical relations with him even though she was already married -- FIR also states that in September 2022, when respondent No.2 found out that she was pregnant with the appellant’s child, she told the appellant, “You live your life and I will live my life” -- At that time, the appellant assured her that they would get married and asked for some time from respondent No.2, to which she refused -- However, despite her refusal to be with the appellant, respondent No.2 continued to meet him at Hotel and engaged in physical relations with him – Held, not a case where the appellant lured respondent No.2 solely for physical pleasures and then vanished -- Relationship continued for a period of three long years, which is a considerable period of time -- They remained close and emotionally involved -- In such cases, physical intimacy that occurred during the course of a functioning relationship cannot be retrospectively branded as instances of offence of rape merely because the relationship failed to culminate in marriage – FIR quashed. (SC) Decided on: 24.11.2025

727. Conviction in cheque bounce complaint – Whether Moral turpitude -- Not justifiable to categorize a matter involving dishonor of a cheque, issued in a personal capacity, as an offence involving moral turpitude. (P&H HC) Reserved on: 17.11.2025 Decided on: 21.11.2025

728. Death of dismissed employee -- Compassionate assistance to family – Dismissal on 04.12.1989, during the pendency of writ, he passed away on 22.02.1995 and writ was allowed on 22.02.2010 quashing the dismissal and directing release of all retiral benefits -- Legal fiction is that the employee was never dismissed, unless the Court restricts relief -- Rule 6 of the 2006 Rules clarify that all the pending cases, such as that of the petitioner shall be covered under the 2006 Rules – Claim denied on the ground that petitioner applied belatedly – Order does not consider the effect of the 2010 judgment, the retrospective restoration of service, the settled law on compassionate claims, or the humanitarian object underlying the scheme -- An administrative authority exercising statutory discretion is required to record reasons that demonstrate meaningful application of mind -- Failure to do so renders the action of the respondents arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India – Impugned order set aside, respondents directed to extend financial assistance within a period of 4 weeks. (P&H HC) Decided on: 21.11.2025

729. Execution of money decree – Arrest and detention -- If a person has no means to pay, in absence of any mala fide or dishonest intention, the arrest and detention cannot be resorted to. (P&H HC) Reserved on: 17.11.2025 Decided on: 21.11.2025

730. Eviction of tenant – Arrears of rent -- Power of Appellate Rent Authority -- While hearing the appeal, the Appellate Authority has full discretion to pass any order in accordance with law, including an order dismissing the Appeal and/or extending the time to deposit/pay the arrears of rent, or if it finds substantial merit in the Appeal, it may issue notice and unconditionally stay the impugned order of eviction, or if it finds that the Appeal raises an argument which is plausible but improbable, it may direct the Appellant to pay/deposit the amount determined by the Rent Controller pending the hearing of the Appeal -- Though the power of the Appellate Authority cannot be put in a straitjacket, yet normally speaking, a tenant must be directed to pay/deposit the amount determined by the Rent Controller before an Appeal is heard by the Appellate Authority and that too when a money decree has been passed by a Civil Court which has not been stayed by the Appellate Court. (SC) Decided on: 21.11.2025

731. Execution -- Decree for permanent injunction – Subsequent dispossession – Restoration of possession – Permissibility of -- Finding of fact was recorded that decree holder was in possession of the suit property, the same carried presumption of her possession as on the date of filing of suit till the date of its adjudication -- In any subsequent execution based on dispossession at the hands of judgment debtor, the non-mentioning of specific particulars in the shape of date or month of forcible dispossession was not of much relevance – Order for warrant of possession, upheld. (P&H HC) Decided on: 20.11.2025

732. Rejection of plaint – Issue of limitation/ resjudicata/ Order II Rule 2 of the CPC -- High Court restored the suit dismissing the application for rejection of plaint -- Contention that High Court observed that Trial Court should proceed with the case on merits, thereby implying that the issues concerning limitation, res judicata and those arising under Order II Rule 2 of the CPC ought not to be considered at all – Held, this is not an implication of the judgment of the High Court, nor can such a construction be given to its observations -- All that the High Court meant was that the suit is restored on the file of the Trial Court and that it has to be decided in accordance with law, which would include all the above issues apart from the issues on the merits of the case. (SC) Decided on: 20.11.2025

733. Agreement to sell of year 1990 – Suit for specific performance decreed – 35 year delayed payment of balance sale consideration – Equitable/ Discretionary relief : -- Equitable answer does not lie either in denying specific performance altogether, or in enforcing the contract mechanically at the 1990 price – Where there is a long passage of time and substantial rise in prices, the Court, while upholding the decree for specific performance, may mould the relief by directing the purchaser to pay an enhanced amount so that the enforcement of the contract does not operate harshly against the vendor nor confer an unfair bonanza upon the purchaser. -- Discretion u/s 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (pre-amendment) is meant precisely to address such situations and to secure what is substantive justice between the parties. -- An amount equal to seventy times (double the time gap between date of agreement and order) balance sale consideration under the agreement is payable by plaintiff/ buyer within three months -- In case the plaintiff fails to deposit the aforesaid amount of within the time stipulated, the decree for specific performance shall stand vacated. (P&H HC) Reserved on: 07.11.2025 Decided on: 20.11.2025

734. Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Deceased 48 years old – Homemaker – Notional income – Accident, occurred on 24.02.2015 -- Notional income of the deceased assessed at Rs.15,000/- per month – Since housewives fall under the category of self-employed and considering the age of the deceased (48 years), the correct addition to the income of the deceased will be 25% (future prospects) -- Total Compensation assessed at Rs.21,38,350/- -- Amount shall carry an interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till the date of realization. (P&H HC) Reserved on: 17.11.2025 Decided on: 20.11.2025

735. Blanket anticipatory bail – Permissibility of -- When no criminal case or FIR is registered against a person, the grant of anticipatory bail is impermissible as doing so would amount to issuing a blanket protection against all possible future accusations -- Law does not contemplate granting such omnibus relief u/s 482 of the BNSS nor can a blanket order be passed to restrain the authorities from arresting an individual in the absence of a specific and existing criminal case. (P&H HC) Decided on: 20.11.2025

736. Photocopy of document – Validation of – Permissibility of -- Ld. Civil Judge proceeded to validate the photocopy of the agreement to sell on the condition that the petitioner deposits the deficient stamp duty along with a penalty quantified at ten times the sale consideration -- One page of the original document is available while the remaining page is only a photocopy – Held, even if a portion of the document exists in its original form, the instrument as a whole cannot thereby be deemed an original document -- In such circumstances, the composite document must necessarily be treated as a copy -- A copy whether partial or complete cannot be validated for the purposes of stamping -- Impugned order suffers from a manifest and material illegality, as the learned Civil Judge has exercised jurisdiction not vested in him under the law – Order set aside. (P&H HC) Decided on: 20.11.2025

737. Compensation for acquired land – Rent – Interest – Act 1997 facilitate land owners or interested persons to negotiate and arrive at an agreement on the amount of compensation to be paid -- Once such an agreement is arrived at, it becomes a concluded contract under Section 3 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. (SC) Decided on: 19.11.2025

738. Assignment of Decree for Specific Performance -- Does not require Registration -- When the decree itself which is for specific performance does not create or purport to create any right, title or interest in any immovable property, the question of registering an instrument assigning such a decree cannot arise -- Section 17(1)(b) would also not be applicable -- Assignment deed assigning the decree of specific performance did not require registration. (SC) Decided on: 19.11.2025

739. Cancellation of arms license -- Cartridges were expended only during testing and cleaning of the weapon -- Petitioner has specifically denied that the petitioner has ever used the weapon for public firing in any wedding or any other public place – Held, it is necessary that the authority forms an opinion as to whether any licensed fire arm was either not carried in the proper protective gear or was brandished, discharged or whether any blank firing took place in any public place or fire arm free zone -- Such considerations and opinions are sine qua non for invocation of Rule 32 under the Rules, 2016 -- District Magistrate has not given any finding with regard to any of the conditions enumerated under Rule 32, violation of which would allow the authority to pass an order for cancellation and seizure -- Appellate authority also failed to indicate as to how Rule 32 is applicable in the case and also failed to give a clear finding with regard to violations of any of the conditions as enumerated under Rule 32 – Orders quashed, licence of the petitioner restored. (All. H.C.) Decided on: 19.11.2025

740. Appointment of Arbitrator – Prima-facie existence of arbitration clause -- High Court at the time of reference u/s 11 of the Act is only to see prima facie the existence of an arbitration clause and is not to conduct any mini-trial -- Since neither the arbitration clause nor the terms and conditions of the auction are in dispute, Court deems it fit and proper to allow the present petition and appoint a Sole Arbitrator. (P&H HC) Decided on: 19.11.2025

741. Permanent Lok Adalat – Award/ Deemed decree – Challenge – Maintainability of writ petition -- Every award of a Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court -- It shall be final and binding on the parties to the dispute, and that no appeal shall lie against it – Award cannot be called in question in any original suit, application or execution proceeding -- Writ petition challenging the award was maintainable. (SC) Decided on: 18.11.2025

742. Criminal jurisprudence – Police complaint against public servant by Gram Pradhan – Maintainability of -- No provision in the Cr.P.C., which bars a citizen from filing a complaint for prosecution of a public servant or any other person who has allegedly committed an offence -- No specific provision in the 1984 Act which limits the eligibility of the person making the complaint – Held, High Court manifestly erred in law in holding that since the Gram Pradhan was not the competent authority to lodge an FIR, the action of the Special Judge in taking cognizance and summoning the accused is bad in law -- Impugned order passed by the High Court set aside. (SC) Decided on: 18.11.2025

743. Interim protection in Appeal – Permissibility of -- Just because the original suit came to be dismissed, that does not mean that in the pending appeal, the appellate court cannot grant appropriate relief -- Application seeking to maintain the status quo filed before the appellate court cannot be dismissed solely because the suit for specific performance stood dismissed -- Reliance placed by the first appellate court on Order XLI Rule 5, while declining to grant status quo, is grossly misplaced. -- appeal is considered a continuation of the original suit, and the appellate court has co-extensive power to grant appropriate interim relief to prevent irreparable injury and preserve the status quo pending the final disposal of the appeal. -- interim relief is designed to aid the main relief and ensure that the proceedings are not rendered infructuous. It aims to prevent irreparable harm that might be caused while the case is pending final determination. -- grant of appropriate relief is a discretionary power of the appellate court, and the same must be exercised judicially based on the well-settled principles of a prima facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience. (SC) Decided on: 18.11.2025

744. Non-filing of protest petition – Maintainability of complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. – Quashing of proceedings -- Double jeopardy -- Charge-sheet by police in FIR, and negative report against appellant – Respondent no.2/ complainant failed to file protest petition, chose to file a private complaint invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. after a lapse of two and a half years -- Question of double jeopardy would arise -- Appellants have made out a case for quashing of the proceedings -- High Court ought to have invoked its jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. by quashing the proceedings, which are nothing but vexatious -- Proceedings pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, qua the appellants quashed. (SC) Decided on: 18.11.2025

745. Offence under SC/ST Act – Anticipatory bail -- Essential ingredient for attracting Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC & ST Act is that such statement must be made within public view -- If a prima facie case is not made out, anticipatory bail can be granted -- Bar of Section 18 of the SC & ST Act does not apply where any prima facie case is not made out -- Appellant held entitled for the benefit of doubt, as prima facie the allegations contained in the FIR with regard to commission of any offence u/s 3 & 4 of the SC & ST Act, are not established -- Appeal allowed, directions given that in the event of arrest, the appellant shall be released on anticipatory bail to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer -- Appellant will join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer. (P&H HC) Reserved on: 17.11.2025 Decided on: 18.11.2025

746. Arbitral award – Interest on Pre-award/ Post award period – Mandate of -- Award is in two parts, the first part i.e., clause (a) deals with passing of an award which would include interest upto the date on which the award is made, while the second part, i.e., clause (b) deals with the grant of interest on the sum awarded by the arbitral tribunal -- Intent behind granting the pre-award interest is to compensate the claimant for the loss suffered from the time the cause of action arose till the passing of the arbitral award -- Similarly, the intent behind grant of post-award interest is to discourage the award-debtor from delaying the payment of the arbitral amount to the award-holder -- Grant of interest during the pre-award period is subject to the agreement as regard the rate of interest or unpaid sum between the parties – Grant of post-award interest under Section 31(7)(b) is mandatory -- Only discretion which the arbitral tribunal has is to decide the rate of interest to be awarded -- Where the arbitrator does not fix any rate of interest, then the statutory rate, as provided in Section 31(7)(b), shall apply -- Unless there is an express bar contained in the agreement, the arbitrator possesses the discretion and has jurisdiction to award interest including the post-award interest. (SC) Decided on: 18.11.2025

747. Excess payment to pensioners – Recovery of -- Permissibility of -- Petitioner is a pensioner and no material has been brought on record by the respondent/Corporation to show that any fraud or misrepresentation was committed by the petitioner while receiving the pension -- On the contrary, the explanation furnished is that excess pension payment was made to the petitioner, which is an administrative lapse -- In that eventuality, the petitioner cannot be blamed as he has not mislead the respondent/Corporation in order to secure higher amount of pension – Recovery from retired employees or their family pensioners impermissible -- Respondents directed to refund the amount if already recovered from the petitioner from the date of recovery till its actual realization, along with interest at the rate @ 6% per annum, within a period of three months. (P&H HC) Decided on: 18.11.2025

748. Suit for specific performance -- Fabricated document in Court – Enquiry ordered by Trial Court – Challenge to -- Sale agreement dated 04.04.2000 against the defendants -- Executants of the agreement passed away on 20.01.1995 and 05.07.1990 respectively – Submission that unless and until any concrete evidence is made available on the record in support of such contentions, any order, issuing directions for conducting an enquiry for ascertaining the correctness of the execution of the document, cannot be passed – Held, if any litigant approaches the Court with fabricated documents, a thorough enquiry is required in order to ascertain the truth -- This is because filing of false documents is a serious matter that can be considered a fraud played on the Court, potentially leading to legal consequences for the litigants – No merit in instant petition, dismissed. (Raj. HC) Decided on: 18.11.2025

749. Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Deceased, was a minor aged merely 12 years -- A minor, by virtue of tender age, is not engaged in employment, and therefore rigidly categorizing him as a “non-earner” would defeat the object of awarding just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- Proper method of determining compensation under the head “loss of income” is to adopt, at the very least, the minimum wages notified for a skilled worker in the relevant State at the relevant time -- Notional monthly income of the deceased assessed at Rs.10,300, being the minimum wages of a highly skilled worker notified for the relevant period in the State of Haryana – Future prospects 40%, multiplier of 18 applied – 50 deduction towards personal expenses -- Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/- -- Funeral Expenses Rs.18,150/- -- Loss of Consortium Filial : Rs. 48,400 x 2 Rs.96,800/- -- Total comes to Rs.16,90,460/- -- Interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of claim petition allowed. (P&H HC) Decided on: 18.11.2025

750. Offence under Insecticides Act – Limitation – Period of limitation begins from the date of the receipt of the report of the Public Analyst – Period of limitation is 03 years from the said date – However, the time spent in obtaining sanction is to be excluded – Sample was taken on 26.08.2011 – Report of the Public Analyst was made available is dated 28.09.2011 – Sanction for prosecution was applied on 06.08.2012 and was granted on 05.10.2012 – Sanction was received by the CAO on 15.10.2012 – Approximately 02 months elapsed between when sanction was sought and when it was granted – Complaint was instituted only on 23.04.2018 after a gap of 06 years, 06 months and 25 days from the date of the receipt of the report of the Public Analyst – Complaint case is hopelessly barred by time – Complaint and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom quashed. (P&H HC) Decided on: 18.11.2025