Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 9, 10 – POCSO -- Evidence establish the commission of offence – When the accused present in court removed his mask, the victim got frightened and did not even look at the accused -- Victim was required to be sent out of the courtroom, and recording of the evidence was stopped -- When the victim was found to be normal after some time, the recording of evidence though commenced had to be discontinued having regard to the mental status of the victim (PW-1) -- At the time when the victim was called again for tendering her evidence with her mother, she was crying and was not able to speak anything in the court as the victim PW-1 was frightened by the presence of the accused, hence, her examination was closed -- Whole sequence of events in course of recording of evidence of PW-1, was tale-telling -- Shock related to the happening of the incident which continued with the victim post-incident made its statement in the trauma-filled behaviour of the victim who was a 4 year-old girl -- Conviction of the appellant recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court upheld – Sentence reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 6 years with fine.

(Para 5-9)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 438, 442 – Conviction in cheque bounce complaint -- Compromise at revisional stage – Legality of cost imposed -- Acquittal order subject deposit of cost with State Legal Service Authority in accordance with the judgment of this Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., (2010) 5 SCC 663 – Held, construing it to be a law would discourage settlements at the revisional stage -- When the complainant has no objection, there cannot be any mandate of law directing the appellant to pay any further amount – Held, law laid down in the aforementioned judgment cannot be regarded as a binding precedent -- Direction imposing costs on the appellant cannot be sustained in the eye of law, particularly when the complainant does not want any further amount and the appellant has expressed his inability to comply with the same.

(Para 2-7)

A. Haryana Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Age – Education -- There is no hard and fast rule that a particular person i.e. younger in age or elder in age or more qualified or less qualified is to be appointed as a ‘Lambardar’ -- The best choice is the one who can effectively serve as a Lambardar of the village concerned.

(Para 5)

B. Haryana Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – FIR – Effect of -- At the time when the consideration was made, the record of respondent No.7 was found to be clean, whereas there was an allegation against the appellant qua which an FIR was also registered, though at a later point of time, he was acquitted in the said FIR -- Once, the Authorities concerned have applied their mind and found respondent No.7 to be a better candidate for the post of Lambardar, the order which has already been upheld by even the learned Single Judge, upsetting the same merely on the asking of the appellant only on the ground that he is better suited, cannot be done.

(Para 6)

A. Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Younger in age – Candidature of -- Difference in age between the appellant and respondent No. 4 is only of two years which cannot be made the basis to contend that 37 years old respondent No. 4 is incapable for discharging the duty on the post of Lambardar.

(Para 9)

B. Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 – Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Interference in -- Unless there are certain demerits which go to the root of the case qua the selected candidate which reflect upon his moral or capability to perform his duty of the officer, the appointment of respondent No. 4 to said post made by the Collector should not be interfered with, even if there are two views qua the same.

(Para 14)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 17 Rule 3 --  Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Closing of evidence – Fair trial -- Though the Ld. Civil Judge has acted well within the ambit of judicial discretion in regulating the recording of evidence – However, in the interest of justice and in order to balance procedural propriety with the right to a fair trial, the petition disposed of with the specific direction that the petitioner shall be granted one final and definitive opportunity to tender himself and his two witnesses for cross-examination strictly subject to cost of Rs.10,000/-.

(Para 3, 4)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 – Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 – Dismissal of Lambardar -- SS had two sons, however, the petitioner acting as Lambardar had attested wrong pedigree table (kursinama) of SS, wherein MS was shown as the only son of SS -- Collector dismissed him from the post of Lambardar and which order further affirmed by learned Divisional Commissioner and Financial Commissioner – Held, order does not call for any interference, petitioner as Lambardar, was required to ensure correct verification of the Kursinama (pedigree table/ family tree) relating to the legal heirs of the deceased -- Omission of one son in the mutation proceedings is not a minor lapse -- Civil writ petition dismissed.

(Para 5-7)

A. Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 – Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Choice of Collector – Age and education -- Though petitioner is younger in age by three years and more educated, however, respondent No. 5 (appointed candidate) is not ineligible for being considered for the post of Lambardar and in FIR case he was never convicted -- Learned Collector's choice has been further affirmed by learned Divisional Commissioner as well as learned Financial Commissioner – Held, in the matter of appointment of a Lambardar, the choice of learned Collector cannot be lightly interfered, even if two views are possible -- No compelling reasons to interfere in the concurrent view of the Revenue Authorities – Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 6-10)

B. Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Land holding – Requirements of -- Land revenue stood abolished in both the State of Punjab and Haryana, long back, thus owning land by the candidates for the post of Lambardar would not be of much significance any further.

(Para 6)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Death of other candidate – Effect of -- Appellant was appointed as Lambardar and he is not disqualified for appointment to said post under any provision of law and the case was only remanded back by the Commissioner as well as the Financial Commissioner, to consider the claim of respondent No. 4 – Held, upon the death of respondent No. 4, his claim stood extinguished -- No fresh consideration can be given to his claim -- Appellant ordered to remain continued to work on the post of Lambardar.

(Para 8, 9)

A. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971), Section 2(g), 5A -- Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937 -- Public premises – Land owned by Government of India, however, placed under the management of Jalandhar Cantonment Board -- Entries made in the GLR maintained under the Cantonment Land Administration Rules is conclusive evidence of title – Land on which shop has been raised and falls within the cantonment area i.e. Survey No. 283/2512, is a 'public premises' within the meaning of Section 2 (g) of 1971 Act.

(Para 7-7.2)

B. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971), Section 4, 5A – Public premises -- Notice at the time of making illegal construction – Requirement of -- Contention that no notice u/s 4 or Section 5-A (1) of 1971 Act was issued when the shop was being constructed about 20 years back – Held, there is no such requirement of issuing notice at the time when the illegal construction was being raised and mere non-issuance of such notice, does not vitiate the proceedings.

(Para 7.3)

Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (1 of 1914), Section 61 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Excise matter – Protracted trial – Sentenced to already undergone -- FIR of 15.08.2001 and petitioner was put to trial in 2001, convicted and sentenced on 12.03.2005 -- His appeal was dismissed on 19.12.2007 -- Ever since then, his revision petition pending – Held, petitioner has faced the agony of trial and pendency of his appeal/ revision etc. for the last almost 24 years -- He has already undergone sentence of three months and five days -- No history of the petitioner being a previous offender -- No useful purpose would be served by sending him to custody at this stage -- Order of sentence is modified to that already undergone by the petitioner.

(Para 10-12)

A. Rent laws -- Tenancy -- Oral assertions regarding subsistence of tenancy was not rebutted at all -- Defendant has not even appeared in the witness box -- Petitioner has placed on record house tax assessment showing that petitioner/ tenant was recorded as a tenant on monthly rent of Rs.1,750/- therein -- If the ocular account given by landlord is appreciated in the light of other material i.e. sale deed in favour of his parents, electricity connection in tenanted premises in his name and house rent assessment where respondent is shown as tenant, the conclusion would be regarding existence of tenancy.

(Para 7)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Punjab Rent Act, 1995 (13 of 2012), Section 20, 75 – Non-payment of rent -- Rent petition under Old Act – Maintainability of -- Landlord had sought eviction of tenant u/s 13 of Act, 1949 for non-payment of rent -- If the entire petition is read, it is clearly made out that landlord has sought eviction of tenant for non-payment of rent, therefore, merely by mentioning wrong provision of law landlord cannot be non-suited on this ground alone -- Plaint has to be read in totality -- Cause of action under Punjab Rent Act 1995, duly arises on reading of plaint and mere mentioning of wrong provision would not make any effect on the rights of either of the parties.

(Para 8, 9)

C. Punjab Rent Act, 1995 (13 of 2012), Section 20 -- Non-payment of rent -- Notice u/s 20(2)(a) – Not mandatory --  Section 20 is directory in nature and it would be sufficient to seek eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent from the date when tenant had notice regarding demand of rent, which is due against him -- No further notice shall be required for further defaults.

(Para 10, 11)

D. Punjab Rent Act, 1995 (13 of 2012), Section 20 -- Non-payment of rent -- Notice u/s 20(2)(a) – Denial of tenancy – Effect of -- Two months’ notice not required as petitioner/ tenant is denying tenancy itself.

(Para 11)

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971), Section 12 – Punjab Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Amendment Act, 2007 (11 of 2008), Section 7A (14) (Amended by 2021 Act, Section 6(14)) – Contempt -- Willful non-compliance of the order passed by the Educational Tribunal -- Petitioners are having a remedy under Section 6(14) of The Punjab Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Amendment Act, 2021 for execution of the order passed by the Educational Tribunal, Punjab --  Contempt petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy, as per law.

(Para 1-5)

A. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005), Section 12 -- Summoning u/s 12 of DV Act – Review of order – Permissibility of -- Proceedings u/s 12 of the DV Act cannot be equated with lodging of a criminal complaint or initiation of prosecution -- So, the trial Magistrate, after obtaining the response from the husband and his relatives etc. is well within his jurisdiction to revoke his order of issuing summons to them or he can even drop the proceedings against all or any of the relatives of the husband -- Since the proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act are not, in strict sense, criminal in nature, as such, bar to alter/revoke an order by a Magistrate is not attracted to these proceedings.

(Para 6)

B. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005), Section 12 -- Summoning u/s 12 of DV Act – Application for dropping of proceedings – Maintainability of -- Magistrate if, after receiving the version of the husband and his relatives in a proceeding u/s 12 of the DV Act, comes to a conclusion that no case for proceeding against either all of them or some of them is made out, he can drop the proceedings and he can even re-call his order of interim monetary compensation granted in favour of the aggrieved person -- In view of this legal position, it would be open to the petitioners to file an application before the learned trial Magistrate seeking an order for dropping of proceedings against them – Direction given to Magistrate shall, after hearing the parties, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of one month from the date such application is made by the petitioners before the learned Magistrate.

(Para 9)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8, 15, 21, 37 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- NDPS – Commercial quantity – Examination of evidence – Nature of -- At the stage of considering bail application of an accused, the evidence led by the prosecution cannot be meticulously examined -- It is only if from a cursory look at the evidence recorded during trial of the case, it is possible to frame an opinion that accused is not guilty of offence involving commercial quantity of drugs that he can be enlarged on bail -- If such an opinion can be framed only after meticulous examination and appreciation of the evidence on record, the same is to be left for determination at the final stage of the case and not while considering a plea for bail of the accused.

(Para 10)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8, 15, 21, 37 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- NDPS – Regular  bail -- Commercial quantity – Representative sample -- Only one bottle, out of seized 12 bottles of Cofmaster-C containing 100 ml solution each, has been sent to FSL for chemical analysis and as per the result, the said bottle was found to contain Codeine – In the seizure memo, the batch number and the nature of solution contained in the recovered bottles is not mentioned -- No material on record to suggest that the recovered bottles were bearing the same batch number – Held, the evidence on record does not, prima facie, show that the recovered bottles pertained to the same batch, which could have led to inference that all the recovered bottles contained the same stuff -- 11 kgs of Poppy Straw were also stated to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner-- There are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of offence of possession commercial quantity of contraband drugs – No previous history of having indulged in the trade of illicit drugs -- Custody of more than two years -- Bail allowed.

(Para 13-17)

Constitution of India, Article 22(5) -- Detention -- Article 22(5) mandates that each ground for detention must be individually specified and not vague, ensuring transparency and accountability in the detention process -- Grounds must not be vague, indefinite or general -- Vague allegations make it impossible for the detenu to understand the reasons and effectively challenge the detention -- Vagueness of grounds of detention vitiating the order of detention --  On this ground alone, the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside.

(Para 7-9)

A. Medical negligence -- Bolam Test -- Determining factor of Negligence” for the purpose of fastening liability under civil law and under criminal law is jurisprudentially different -- Generally it is the amount of damages incurred, which is the determinative factor of the extent of liability in tort, and it is the degree of negligence which is the determinative factor of liability as a crime -- While in a civil proceedings, mere preponderance of probability shall be sufficient for the plaintiff for making out a case, in criminal proceedings, complainant is required to prove guilt of the respondent beyond reasonable doubt because negligence to be established by the prosecution or the complainant, as the case may be, must be culpable or gross – To fasten liability in criminal law, the degree of negligence has to be higher than that of negligence enough to fasten liability for damages in civil law and essential ingredient of mens rea could not be excluded from the consideration when charge in criminal court consists of criminal negligence.

(Para 15, 16)

B. Medical negligence – Criminal liability -- In order to make out a case against a medical professional, the prosecution or the complainant, as the case may be is obliged not only to plead but prove by cogent and trustworthy evidence that the accused medical professional lacked requisite qualification or the skill or that he failed to exercise the requisite skill with reasonable competence.

(Para 17)

C. Medical negligence – A professional cannot be held liable for negligence till he is acting in accordance with acceptable norms of practice -- A professional can be held liable for negligence only when he is not possessed with requisite qualification or skill or he fails to exercise reasonable skill.

(Para 18)

D. Jammu and Kashmir State Ranbir Penal Code, Section 420, 109, 427, 504, 506, 540 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (XXIII of 1989), Section 482 -- Medical negligence – Criminal complaint and cognizance – Quashing -- Nothing in the impugned complaint to suggest that petitioner No. 1 was not possessed with the requisite qualification of surgery or that he failed to exercise the reasonable skill -- It was alleged by the complainant that he was referred by petitioner No. 1 to the PGI, Chandigarh due to tracor injury, as a consequence of surgery performed by petitioner No. 1 -- However, there is no prima facie evidence on the record in the form of credible opinion given by a competent doctor of PGI, where complainant was subsequently treated, or any other doctor or institute for that matter to support the allegation of gross negligence on the part of the accused doctor-petitioner No.1 -- Standard of criminal liability, particularly in case of medical negligence requires proof of gross negligence or significant departure from the expected standard of care, rather than a simple error or accident -- Impugned complaint, is an abuse of the process of law -- Complaint as also the impugned order of cognizance and process quashed.

(Para 19-26)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 -- Rejection of plaint – Court its own motion -- If a plaint has missing or deficiency of fact/s on the basis of which a given cause of action intended to be agitated can be said or assumed to be constituted, then a plaint is self-warranting its rejection sooner than later, be it on court’s own indulgence or on asking of a defendant.

(Para 9)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 -- Rejection of plaint – Replication can be looked into – Pleadings in the sense where, even after the stage of written statement, if there is a replication filed, in a given situation the same can also be looked into to see whether there is any admission on the part of the plaintiff.

(Para 14)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 -- Rejection of plaint – Cause of action – Averment in plaint – If the facts put up in a factual statement in the plaint are presenting or introducing a cause of action, then a civil court has no discretion reserved to it to reject such a plaint by borrowing outside reference, howsoever persuasive it may be, from the defendant’s end to discredit a plaint and the factual averments made in written statement.

(Para 9)

D. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Order 7 Rule 11 -- Rejection of plaint – Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 enables a person to file a suit of civil nature excepting those whose cognizance by civil court is expressly or by necessary implication barred -- Rejection of a plaint is a matter of very attentive application of mind rather than routine following of motion on the part of a civil court.

(Para 11, 12)

E. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 -- Rejection of plaint – Rejection of a plaint is a sort of digression of that nature of adjudication of a civil suit and as such, such a digression is not to be served to a civil suit unless and until a plaint is self-inviting the same for its rejection -- This is what is essence of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is.

(Para 13)

A. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4, 6, 23(1) – Land Acquisition case – Market value of acquired land -- Market value deemed to be the just and fair compensation for the acquired land -- "market value" would be the price of the land prevailing on the date of publication of the preliminary notification u/s 4(1) of the Act -- Acid test for determining the market value of the land is the price, which a willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser -- In determining the market value, the factors enumerated in Section 23 are to be taken into consideration -- There cannot be any mathematical accuracy in ascertaining the amount of compensation payable -- Existing amenities like, water, electricity, possibility of their further extension, whether near about town is developing or has prospect of development have to be taken into consideration.

(Para 9)

B. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4, 6, 23(1) – Land Acquisition case – Market value of acquired land – Sale transaction relating to a smaller parcel of land – Reliance upon -- A sale transaction relating to a smaller parcel of land can be considered for the purpose of assessing the market value in respect of a large tract of land, after making appropriate deductions such as for development of land, for providing space for roads, sewers, drains, expenses involved in formation of a layout, lumpsum payments, as well as for the waiting period required for selling the sites that would be formed and other expenses involved therein, but before doing so, the evidentiary value of such a sale deed is required to be carefully scrutinized.

(Para 13)

C. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4, 6, 23(1) – Land Acquisition case – Market value of acquired land – Nature of use – Consideration of -- Where the entire area is similarly situated, the value of the land under acquisition is to be assessed as a single unit irrespective of its classification and nature ignoring the purpose to which it was being put prior to the acquisition, as well as to the one it is likely to be put thereafter.

(Para 19)

D. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4, 6, 23(1) – Land Acquisition case – Market value of acquired land – Land has been acquired as the single unit for the public purpose, i.e., for construction of Kaithlighat Basha road, as such the learned Reference Court had rightly awarded the market value of the acquired land at the flat and uniform rate, irrespective of the classification and category of the acquired land.

(Para 21)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation  in motor vehicle accident case -- Accident by L&T machine -- L&T machine was registered with Registering and Licensing Authority, Nahan -- Plea of appellant that L&T machine involved in accident was not a motor vehicle is not sustainable and, accordingly, rejected.

(Para 23, 24)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166, 167 – Claimant’ right to file petition under EC Act – Effect of -- Objection with respect to maintainability of petition -- Claimants have option to prefer the claim petition either under EC Act or under MV Act and claimants, in present case, have not preferred any petition under EC Act but had preferred the petition under MV Act and thus the objection on this count raised by State is also not sustainable.

(Para 25, 26)

C. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Negligence – Principle of res ipsa loquitur -- It is an admitted fact that at the time of accident, RW-1 was driving the L&T machine and during that course, accident occurred and Om Parkash died -- In his examination-in-chief, he denied the rash or negligent act on his part -- From the evidence on record, it is apparent that employment of deceased with Department, receipt of salary of Rs.18797, assignment of duty to deceased to help RW-1 and to lookafter L&T machine, occurrence of accident, death of deceased in accident, registration of FIR against RW-1, registration of L&T machine have not been disputed -- Dependency of claimants upon deceased as well as his relation with claimants has also not been disputed -- Case has to be decided on the basis of preponderance of probability -- The present case has to be decided by applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur -- No cogent, reliable and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption of rashness and negligence on the part of RW-1 -- For the material on record, held  that there is sufficient material on record to hold that accident took place on account of rash or negligent act of Ganga RW-1.

(Para 31, 35)

D. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Negligence – Principle of res ipsa loquitur -- Where possibility of any other reason causing the accident is ruled out by evidence on record, the defendant/driver of vehicle owed a duty to drive the vehicle carefully and diligently and explanation offered by defendant is not reliable then applying the principle of res ipsa loquitur it can be construed that accident took place on account of rash or negligent act of driver.

(Para 34)

E. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Future prospects -- Deceased was of 40 years and he had permanent job -- Adding 30% enhancement in the salary of deceased as future prospects, upheld.

(Para 36)

F. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Consortium to each claimant -- Claimants are entitled for loss of consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each.

(Para 37)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 27 – Disclosure statement – Recovery therefrom – Evidential value -- While recovery u/s 27 of the Act can be a crucial piece of evidence, it cannot be the sole basis for conviction -- It is not substantive evidence -- It needs to be corroborated by other evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

(Para 9)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 27, 114(a) – Section 379 – Theft - Conviction of the petitioner based on the evidence regarding recovery u/s 27 of the Evidence Act and drawing presumption under Section 114(a) of the Evidence Act alone cannot be sustained -- Impugned conviction and sentence set aside – Petitioner acquitted.

(Para 11-12)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 397, 34 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Parole – To accompany his ailing wife who is suffering from various diseases and maintain social ties with his daughter who is settled in Australia – Held, parole serves a reformative and humanitarian purpose by preserving family ties and supporting rehabilitation -- Despite directions dated 16.09.2025 requiring a decision on his parole within two weeks, the authorities failed to comply -- Such administrative delay cannot be allowed to prejudice the petitioner’s rights -- While parole, no doubt, is a concession, but it is, in essence, a reformative measure grounded in Article 21 of the Constitution, ensuring the right to life with dignity even during incarceration -- Petitioner ordered to be released on parole for four weeks.

(Para 3.1, 9)

Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Dependency of not legally wedded wife and her daughter – Legal representatives -- Tribunal can award compensation to a cohabitant of deceased who lived like a spouse -- Principle of substantive justice, recognizes the partner's dependency on the deceased -- However, the cohabitant must prove that he/she was in a stable, long-term relationship with the deceased, financially dependent upon him and the relationship had the character of marriage, even if not formalized -- Appellants No.1 and 2 are sister-in-law and niece of deceased -- Appellant No.1 and deceased were living the status of spouse and deceased was also having the responsibility of appellant No.2 -- In such circumstances, appellants/ claimants come under the purview of 'legal representatives' of deceased for filing the claim petition on account of death of deceased under Motor Vehicles Act.

(Para 6-12)

A. Interpretation of law -- Clarifications/ circulars/ instructions issued by Government are not binding upon Courts which are supposed to interpret and rely upon statutory provisions.

(Para 13)

B. Punjab Police Rules, 1934, Rule 13.9 – Haryana Police Act, 2007 (25 of 2008), Section 50(n)(p), 92, 93 -- Promotion -- Head Constable to Assistant Sub-Inspector – WAN message by DIG on behalf of DGP clarifying that official under currency of punishment may not be deputed to Intermediate School Course – Legality of -- Held, Appointment and promotion of police officers is governed by PPR – Clarification issued by DGP is beyond his jurisdiction could not issue clarification relating to matters covered by PPR -- Action of DGP amounted to amendment of Rule 13.9 of PPR which was impermissible in law and beyond his jurisdiction -- Amendment in Rules and clarification to remove difficulties can be made/issued by State Government -- Respondent cannot keep petitioners away from Intermediate School Course on the basis of aforesaid WAN messages issued by DGP -- Respondents directed to depute the petitioners for ongoing Intermediate School Course -- In the event, they are not be deputed for ongoing course, they shall be enlisted in the subsequent Intermediate School Course, however, would be deemed to have passed said course along with candidates who at present are undergoing Intermediate School Course.

(Para 7, 13-18)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 50, 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Sale of vehicle – Further sale -- Registered owner – Insurance company -- Liability of -- Transfer of vehicle -- Transfer of the registration as per Section 50 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 requires the transferee to report the fact of transfer in the prescribed form to the Registering Authority within whose jurisdiction the transfer is affected within 14 days of the transfer -- No contention raised by the registered owner that he made such a report u/s 50(1)(a)(i) of the Act -- Hence the ownership was with the registered owner even at the time of the accident and it is his liability to compensate the victims in the accident, which also has to be indemnified by the insurer -- Liability to pay falls squarely on the registered owner, even if there has been successive transfers which has to be indemnified by the insurer.

(Para 10)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166(3) -- Claim petition under Motor vehicle Act – Limitation – Interim order / No Claim Petition should be dismissed as time barred -- During the pendency of SLP, the tribunal and the High Courts directed not to dismiss the claim petitions on the ground of such petitions as barred by limitation as prescribed under sub-Section (3) or Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Matters ordered to re-list on 25.11.2025.

(Para 5, 6)

Constitution of India, Article 32 -- Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 -- Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (59 of 1960) -- Stray dogs bites : Directions issued having regard to the alarming rise in incidents of dog bites within institutional areas such as educational institutions, hospitals, sports complexes, bus stands/depots (including Inter-State Bus Terminals) and railway stations, in the interest of public safety, health, and management of stray dogs: -

-- The State Governments and Union Territories shall through their respective local/ municipal authorities, within a period of two weeks, identify all Government and private educational institutions, hospitals (including district hospitals, primary health centres, and medical colleges), public sports complexes or stadia, bus stands/depots (including Inter-State Bus Terminals) and railway stations situated within their territorial limits.

-- The administrative heads of the aforesaid institutions shall through their respective local/ municipal authorities, under the overall supervision of the District Magistrate concerned, ensure that the premises are secured by adequate fencing, boundary walls, gates and such other structural or administrative measures as may be necessary to prevent the ingress of stray dogs. The said exercise shall be completed as soon as possible and preferably within a period of 8 weeks from today.

-- The management of every educational institution, hospital, sports complex, bus stand/depot (including Inter-State Bus Terminal) and railway station identified under Direction (A) shall designate a Nodal Officer responsible for the upkeep and cleanliness of the premises and for ensuring that stray dogs do not enter or inhabit the campus. The details of the said officer shall be displayed prominently at the entrance and notified to the jurisdictional municipal body/authority.

-- The local municipal authorities and panchayats shall carry out regular inspections, at least once in every three months, of all such premises to ensure that no stray dog habitats exist within or in the immediate vicinity of these institutions. Any lapse in this regard shall be viewed seriously, and responsibility shall be fixed upon the concerned municipal officials/administrative authorities.

-- It shall be the responsibility of the jurisdictional municipal body/authority to forthwith remove every stray dog found within the premises of an educational institution, hospital (public or private), sports complex, bus stand/depot (including Inter-State Bus Terminal) or railway station and to shift such animal/s to a designated shelter, after due sterilisation and vaccination, in accordance with the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023. The stray dogs so picked up shall not be released back to the same location from which they were picked up. We have consciously directed the non-release of such stray dogs to the same location from which they were picked up, as permitting the same would frustrate the very effect of the directions issued to liberate such institutional areas from the presence of stray dogs.

-- All Government and private hospitals shall maintain a mandatory stock of anti-rabies vaccines and immunoglobulin at all times.

-- Every school and educational institution shall be directed by the Ministry of Education, Government of India, to conduct awareness sessions for students and staff on preventive behaviour around animals, first-aid in case of bites, and immediate reporting protocols.

-- The management of stadiums and sports complexes shall ensure the deployment of security or ground-keeping personnel specifically tasked with around the clock vigil against the entry or habitation of stray dogs.

-- The railway authorities having jurisdiction over the railway stations as well as the State transport corporations and municipal authorities having jurisdiction over bus stands, depots and Inter-State Bus Terminals, shall ensure that such public-transport premises/facilities are effectively secured and maintained so as to prevent the habitation or movement of stray dogs within their premises. Proper waste-management systems shall be implemented to eliminate food sources that attract animals, and regular inspections shall be conducted to detect and address the presence of stray dogs.

-- Animal Welfare Board of India shall, within four weeks, issue detailed Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for prevention of dog bites and management of stray dogs in institutional premises (public or private) including but not limited to Government and private educational institutions, hospitals (including district hospitals, primary health centres, and medical colleges), and sports complexes or stadia, to be uniformly adopted across all States and Union Territories.

The aforesaid directions in continuation of and in furtherance of Court’s order dated 22nd August, 2025, to ensure that the menace of stray dog attacks within institutional areas is curbed through effective preventive and administrative mechanisms. The primary objective is to safeguard the fundamental right to life and safety of citizens, particularly children, students, patients, and sportspersons, while ensuring compliance with the principles embodied in the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 framed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 -- Any reported non-compliance shall be viewed very seriously and may invite penalties/consequences including but not limited to the initiation of suo moto contempt proceedings against the erring officials.

(Para 25, 26, 32)

Constitution of India, Article 32 -- Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 -- Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (59 of 1960) -- Stray dogs bites – Suo moto directions issued / Modified/ Clarified/ Supplemented:

“2. Pursuant to the taking of suo moto cognizance, the matter came to be listed before the Bench on 11th August 2025, on which, the following directions were issued: -

“12. For the present, the aforesaid directions shall be complied with and implemented scrupulously. We, at the cost of repetition, again make it abundantly clear to the above concerned authorities in clear words that it shall at the earliest: -

(i) Start picking up and rounding the stray dogs from all localities of Delhi, Ghaziabad, NOIDA, Faridabad, Gurugram as well as areas on the outskirts, and relocate these dogs into designated shelters/pounds.

(ii) The appropriate authorities of NCT of Delhi, NOIDA, Ghaziabad, Gurugram & Faridabad are directed to immediately create dog shelters/pounds and report to this Court the creation of such infrastructure all over the National Capital Region (NCR). A report in this regard shall be filed before this Court within a period of eight-weeks.

(iii) In no circumstances, should these stray dogs after their relocation be once again released back onto the streets. In this regard proper records should be maintained by the concerned authorities regularly.

(iv) The stray dogs shall be captured, sterilized, dewormed and immunized as required by Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 and as noted above, shall not be released back. The dog shelters/pounds should have sufficient personnel to sterilize, deworm and immunize stray dogs and also for looking after the stray dogs who would be detained.

(v) We further make it clear that both the exercise of rounding up of stray dogs as well as the creation of necessary infrastructure in the form of shelters/pounds for the relocation, sterilization, deworming and immunization, shall be undertaken simultaneously. We do not want to hear about even a semblance of lethargy from the concerned authorities on the pre-text of awaiting the creation of shelters/pounds, otherwise, we will proceed to take strict action against these authorities. All authorities are directed to immediately begin the picking up stray dogs and in the same breadth creation of appropriate and adequate shelter homes and pounds across the National Capital Region.

13. Any hindrance or obstruction that may be caused by any individual or organization in the smooth and effective implementation of our aforesaid directions will be viewed as contempt of this Court and we shall proceed to take appropriate action in accordance with law.”

(Emphasis supplied)

Directions supplemented, Modified and clarified on 22.08.2025 as under:

“33. We, therefore, feel that a holistic approach requires mollification of the directions issued vide order dated 11th August, 2025. Accordingly, the directions issued by the two-Judge bench of this Court are supplemented, modified, and clarified in the terms indicated below: -

a. Municipal authorities shall continue to comply with the directions contained in paras 12(i) and 12(ii) of the subject order.

b. The directions contained in paras 12(iii) and 12(iv), to the extent that they prohibit the release of the picked up strays, shall be kept in abeyance for the time being. The dogs that are picked up shall be sterilised, dewormed, vaccinated, and released back to the same area from which they were picked up.

It is, however, clarified that this relocation shall not apply to the dogs infected with rabies or suspected to be infected with rabies, and those that display aggressive behaviour. Such dogs shall be sterilised and immunised, but under no circumstances should they be released back onto the streets. Furthermore, as far as possible, such stray dogs shall be kept in a separate pound/shelter after sterilisation and immunisation.

c. The directions contained in para 12(v) shall remain subject to the directions given by us in paras (a) and (b).

d. Municipal authorities shall forthwith commence an exercise for creating dedicated feeding spaces for the stray dogs in each municipal ward. The feeding areas shall be created/identified keeping in view the population and concentration of stray dogs in the particular municipal ward. Gantries/notice boards shall be placed near such designated feeding areas, mentioning that stray dogs shall only be fed in such areas. Under no condition shall the feeding of stray dogs on the streets be permitted. The persons found feeding the dogs on the streets in contravention of the above directions shall be liable to be proceeded against under the relevant legal framework.

The aforesaid directions are being issued in view of the reports regarding untoward incidents caused by unregulated feeding of stray dogs and to ensure that the practice of feeding dogs on roads and in public places is eliminated, as the said practice creates great difficulties for the common man walking on the streets.

e. Each municipal authority shall create a dedicated helpline number for reporting incidents of violation of the above directions. On such a report being received, appropriate measures shall be taken against the individuals/NGOs concerned.

f. The direction given in para 13 of the order dated 11th August 2025, is reiterated with a slight modification that no individual or organisation shall cause any hindrance or obstruction in the effective implementation of the directions given above. In case any public servant acting in compliance with the aforesaid directions is obstructed, then the violator/s shall be liable to face prosecution for obstructing the public servant acting in discharge of official duty.

g. Each individual dog lover and each NGO that has approached this Court shall deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/-, respectively, with the Registry of this Court within a period of 7 days, failing which they shall not be allowed to appear in the matter any further. The amounts so deposited shall be utilised in the creation of the infrastructure and facilities for the stray dogs under the aegis of the respective municipal bodies.

h. The desirous animal lover/s shall be free to move the application to the concerned municipal body for adoption of the street dogs, upon which the  identified/selected street dog/s shall be tagged and given in adoption to the applicant. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant(s) to ensure that the adopted stray dogs do not return to the streets.

i. The municipal authorities shall file an affidavit of compliance with complete statistics of resources, viz., dog pounds, veterinarians, dog catching personnel, specially modified vehicles/cages available as on date for the purpose of compliance of the ABC Rules.

34. Since the application of the ABC Rules is uniform all over the country and the same issues which have been taken up in the Suo Moto Writ Petition have either cropped up or are likely to exist in every State, we propose to expand the scope of this matter beyond the confines of New Delhi and the NCR region.

35. For this purpose, we hereby direct the impleadment of all States and Union Territories in this matter through the Secretaries concerned of the Animal Husbandry Department, Secretaries of the local bodies (Municipal Corporation, Municipal Councils, Municipalities, etc.) and the Administrators of the Union Territories so as to seek information from each authority regarding the steps being taken for compliance of the ABC Rules in their respective jurisdictions.

36. We are also informed that numerous writ petitions/suo moto petitions are pending in various High Courts, more or less dealing with common issues. Hence, the Registry shall seek information about such pending writ petitions from the Registrar Generals of all the High Courts, and thereafter, these writ petitions shall stand transferred to this Court for analogous consideration along with the main matter.”

(Para 2, 33-36)

A. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Section 126, 130, 170 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 170, 528 -- FIR under u/s 126, 130, 170 of BNS --  Preventive action u/s 170 of BNSS – Permissibly of -- Once a substantive criminal case had already been registered in relation to the alleged offence, any warranted arrest or custodial measure ought to have been taken therein -- To subject the petitioners to parallel preventive proceedings u/s 170 B.N.S.S. amounts to a form of double jeopardy in spirit, if not in letter -- Impugned order passed by the Executive Magistrate (ACP Headquarters) quashed and set aside.

(Para 7, 18)

B. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 130, 170 – Preventive action – Sureties with character certificate – Permissibility   of -- Character certificate condition of sureties is not found in any provision of law — Neither u/s 130 B.N.S.S. nor under any other provision -- In fact, the concept of “character certificate” is alien to preventive law jurisprudence -- Such extra-legal impositions amount to legislative overreach by the Executive Magistrate and are wholly unsustainable.

(Para 11)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 494 – Second marriage – Offence u/s 494 IPC -- To establish the offence u/s 494 IPC, the prosecution must incontrovertibly prove two indispensable ingredients: first, the existence of a valid and subsisting marriage between the complainant and the accused at the relevant time; and second, the performance of another marriage by the accused with all essential ceremonies and customary rites recognized under personal law, thereby rendering the said marriage legally valid -- Vague allegations of cohabitation, or assertions of the parties living together as husband and wife, fall far short of the statutory requirement under Section 494 IPC.

(Para 3)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 304 Part-1 – Murder -- Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Pre-mediation or deliberate plan – Role of -- Sentence reduced -- Neck injury identified as the fatal and the primary cause of death -- No evidence to suggest that the assault was premeditated or carried out with a deliberate plan to kill the deceased – No undue advantage or cruelty on the part of the appellant -- Assault was the result of a sudden altercation between the parties, the act can be characterized as culpable homicide not amounting to murder -- Conviction altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I, IPC -- Appellant has already undergone the incarnation for more than nine years including the remission and the appellant is still in judicial custody since his arrest -- Sentence reduced to the period already undergone by him.

(Para 21-25)

Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7(iv)(c) – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 -- Sale deed – Challenge to -- Agriculture land – Plea of -- Ad-valorem court fee -- Petitioner has not, at any stage, pleaded that the court fee is liable to be computed on the basis of the land revenue assessed or payable in respect of the suit property -- Instead, the petitioner has affixed court fee treating the suit as one seeking a mere declaration – Held, petitioner, being the executant of the impugned sale deed, is liable to pay advalorem court fee on the sale consideration mentioned therein.

(para 2-5)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 265 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 82, 420 – Witness through video-conference – Ld. Trial Magistrate allowed the examination of two witnesses, who are residing in New Zealand and Canada respectively through Video conferencing – Specific direction issued to verify the identity of the witnesses and counsel for complainant directed to furnish the passport and one ID proof of the witnesses as per Government of India/ State Government rules and to furnish details regarding nearest office of the Consulate General of India to the witnesses for necessary further action -- All necessary precautions have been taken while passing the impugned order, thus, does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and no interference in the impugned order is called for – Petition dismissed.

(Para 4, 5)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 107, 306 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 -- Abetment to suicide -- Refusal to marry – Quashing of FIR -- Appellant could not be said to have intended the consequences of his act namely suicide -- It is possible that she might have felt hurt -- Mere refusal to marry even if true by itself would not amount to instigation as explained under Section 107 of the IPC -- First Information Report quashed.

(Para 17-21)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 -- Abetment to suicide -- Ingredients to constitute an offence u/s 306 of the IPC would stand fulfilled if the suicide is committed by the deceased due to direct and alarming encouragement/ incitement by the accused leaving no option but to commit suicide -- Act of instigation as alleged must be with the intention to push the deceased into such a situation that she is left with no other option but to commit suicide.

(Para 17)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 427 -- Conviction in two cheque bounce complaints -- Both the cheques were issued for the discharge of single liability – Substantive sentence imposed ordered to run concurrently -- However, the sentence of payment of compensation shall remain intact in each case.

(Para 17)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 11, Order 21 – Resjudicata in execution proceedings -- Principles of res judicata available in Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code are not applicable to the execution proceedings.

(Para 3)

Land Acquisition case -- Reference to District judge -- Full particulars of total land acquired not given – Effect of – Petition for amendment in the description of land preferred was allowed – Challenge to -- Landowner not required to give any details; and it was the job of the Collector to provide the complete details of the land of the aggrieved landowner – LAC cannot raise any grievance against direction to pay the amount of enhanced market value of the land, particularly so; because there is not even an argument that the land which was left out of mention in the Reference filed by the landowner, was having a different market value; than the land qua which the market value was determined by the Reference Court – Revision dismissed.

(Para 3-5)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Violation of terms of Permit – Principe of pay and recover -- Offending vehicle did not have the permit to enter the City, where the accident took place -- Purpose of an insurance policy in the present context is to shield the owner/ operator from direct liability when such an unforeseen/unfortunate incident takes place -- To deny the victim/ dependents of the victim compensation simply because the accident took place outside the bounds of the permit and, therefore, is outside the purview of the insurance policy, would be offensive to the sense of justice, for the accident itself is for no fault of his -- High Court applying the pay and recover principle, is entirely justified and requires no interference.

(Para 8-10)

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 14A, 18 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438, 482 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023),  Section 482, 528 – Offence under SC/ST Act – Anticipatory bail – Maintainability -- Remedy of – Maintainability of appeal against rejection order -- Section 14-A merely provides a statutory right of appeal against orders passed by the Special or Exclusive Special Courts, primarily in the context of regular bail, conviction, or trial-related orders, and cannot be interpreted to override or nullify the specific bar contained in Section 18 – Appeal not maintainable u/s 14-A of the Act -- A petition under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 (Section 438 Cr.P.C.) would not lie, in view of the absolute bar created vide Section 18 of the Act and since that provision is binding, mandatory and not directive -- In case the arrest of the accused is found to be illegal or is challenging the quashing of FIR being illegal may seek stay of arrest or get the arrest declared illegal and violative of constitutional law -- Appropriate relief can be sought u/s 528 of BNSS (earlier Section 482 Cr.P.C.,).

(Para 32,33)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 – Maintenance to child – Matrimonial settlement – Effect of -- While there may have been a Settlement for the maintenance past, present and future between the Husband/ Petitioner and wife/ Respondent No.1, but while entering into such matrimonial Settlement, the right of the child cannot be compromised and these Settlements do not impact the independent rights of the child -- If the wife/ Respondent No.1 is able to prove changed circumstances, she may get entitled to maintenance -- Rights of the child to claim maintenance from the father, cannot be rejected at the outset.

(Para 33-38)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 – Talaq-e-Khula -- Maintenance to wife – Entitlement of -- Petitioner’s assertion that the wife/ Respondent No.1 having voluntarily taken a divorce by Talaq-e-Khula, is not entitled to any maintenance u/s 125(4) Cr.P.C – Held, once a wife is divorced, she is per se entitled to maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C irrespective of the ground or the manner in which the divorce is taken -- This contention of the Petitioner is, therefore not tenable.

(Para 37)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 – Maintainability of maintenance petition – Interim maintenance -- Maintainability of the Petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C and question of award of Interim Maintenance are inseparable -- Question of grant of maintenance can be determined only after the determination of maintainability of the Petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C.

(Para 41)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 – Interim maintenance – Consideration of -- Ld. Family Judge before granting any Interim Maintenance, would have to answer the pertinent question of whether the husband has neglected or refused to give maintenance to the wife and whether she is unable to maintain herself -- Matter is listed for Interim Maintenance and these questions would naturally be answered by the Ld. Judge before granting or declining the Interim Maintenance.

(Para 42)

A. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 12 -- Severability of contract – Performance of part of contract -- While adjudicating suits, or when examining the validity of agreements or contracts, the Courts generally have the power to sever the invalid portion of an agreement from its valid portion and give effect to the latter -- No bar on the application of the doctrine of severability in suits for specific performance, however, this power must be exercised with great caution and only in exceptional cases -- Court cannot remove the essential part of an agreement or the very object for which it was executed -- While exercising such power, the Courts must refrain from re-writing or re-constructing the agreement between the parties to make it work.

(Para 20-22)

B. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 12 -- Severability of contract – Performance of part of contract -- Agreement for construction of eight flats – Agreement was contrary to law and therefore unenforceable – Trial Court applied Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, directing transfer of the ‘rights over the land’ to the Plaintiff, subject to compliance with the Building Regulations limiting construction to three flats -- Held, Trial Court was not justified in reworking the agreement to make it enforceable by removing its essential object-namely, the construction of eight flats on the subject land -- Trial Court re-wrote the agreement, which it could not have done since the very essence of the agreement was the construction of eight flats -- Respondent is a public sector bank and it is not expected from the State or its instrumentalities to enter into camouflage agreements and especially where the object of the agreement would result in law being violated – Suit dismissed.

(Para 19, 24-27)

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (39 of 1972), Section 4 -- Assam Financial Corporation (Amendment) Staff Regulations, 2007, Regulation 107 – Assam Financial Corporation (Payment of Gratuity to Employees) Regulation, 1964 -- Gratuity to AFC employee -- Ceiling for gratuity as per AFC’s internal regulations not in sync with the Act -- State Government employees ceiling enhanced to Rs.15,00,000/- -- Interpretation of the regulation must be made which is in favor of the employees -- Regulation 107 of the 2007 Regulations states ‘…maximum of Rs.3.50 lacs or as notified by the Govt. of Assam from time to time…’ -- Appellant’s submission that the payment of enhanced pay scale / allowances must first be approved by the Board of Directors rejected – Held, in case where the limit prescribed by the State Government is higher than the limit set by the AFC, the import of Regulation 107 has to be interpreted in such a manner that the benefit of the higher limit set by the State Government has to be given to the employees of the AFC – High Court granted benefit of the enhanced gratuity in terms of the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – Appeal of AFC dismissed.

(Para 5, 6, 10, 16, 17)

Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), Section 2(1)(d)(iii)(d) – Dependent – Employee’s Compensation Act was enacted in the year 1923 – Definition of word ‘dependent’ in Section 2(1)(d)(iii)(d) means “a minor brother or an unmarried sister or a widowed sister if a minor” – In the present time, no one will normally find a widowed sister who is a minor, especially after enactment of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Held, matter needs to be considered by the Law Commission of India for suitable amendment of the aforesaid provision or any other in the 1923 Act.

(Para 4)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 25 -- Transfer of suit -- Suit for groundless threat of infringement instituted by the petitioner before the Bombay High Court on 01.07.2025 is prior in time to the institution of the suit for infringement by the respondent no.1 on 07.07.2025 at Delhi High Court -- Jurisdiction at Delhi was invoked by the respondent no.1 by purchasing the product from an online portal and getting it delivered in Delhi -- Question of fact, law, and the issues to be determined in the suit for groundless threat of infringement instituted by the petitioner and the suit for infringement instituted by the respondent no. 1 are substantially overlapping -- In the interest of saving precious judicial time and to avoid duplication and multiplicity of proceedings, it would be expedient to transfer the suit for infringement instituted by the respondent no.1 pending before the Delhi High Court to the Bombay High Court where the suit instituted by the petitioner for Groundless Threat of Infringement is pending – Transfer petition allowed.

(Para 10-12)

Constitution of India, Article 14, 226 --  Multi-Purpose Worker (MPW) on contract basis – Non-release of salary after expiry of contract – Shifting to the web-portal of the HKRNL – Further engagement – Inquiry Committee of DEEO, Section Officer under the Chairmanship of Class-1 Officer of the Directorate constituted -- Petitioners permitted to represent before the said inquiry committee for establishing the dates upto which they actually worked in the respective schools  -- Respondents directed to conclude the enquiry after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and to release remuneration for the period they have worked after 31.03.2024 within three months – Department is at liberty to take disciplinary action against the officer(s)/official(s), in case anyone is found negligent or deficient in performance of duty -- Further direction given for porting the MPWs to the HKRNL in terms of the applicable policy in accordance with law, within one month thereafter.

(Para 2-6)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 8, Proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 -- Second Proviso to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order V CPC as amended by the Special Amendment under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 137 -- Non-filing of written statement – Cross-examination by defendant – Right of -- After the examination-in-chief of PW1 was closed, the cross-examination of Defendant no. 1 was taken as “Nil” on the ground that defendant had failed to file their written statement within stipulated time – Held, said reason is absolutely perverse and is contrary to the right of defence available to the defendant -- The purpose of cross-examination is to elicit the truth from the witness and impeach its credibility.

(Para 31)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 8, Proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 -- Non-filing of written statement – Cross-examination by defendant – Right of -- When the WS was not allowed to be taken on record, the denial of the right to cross-examine cannot be taken away by leaving the defendant in lurch and this has acted as final nail in the coffin to defendant’s right of defence – Written Statement allowed to be field subject to payment of cost to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- and appellant/ defendant allowed to exercise his right of cross-examination of plaintiff’s witnesses.

(Para 31, 32)

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2), 20 -- Corruption case – Presumption – Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification -- Just because money changed hands, it cannot be ipso facto presumed that the same was pursuant to a demand -- For conviction under the Act, an entire chain, beginning from demand, acceptance, and recovery has to be completed -- When the initial demand itself is suspicious, even if the two other components of payment and recovery can be held to have been proved, the chain would not be complete -- Since the factum of demand itself has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, the acquittal of the Respondent by the Impugned Judgment cannot be termed perverse or unwarranted – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 25-27)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 3, 65B – Electronic records – Document – Exhibition of Compact Disc (CD) – Playing of CD during deposition – Requirement of -- Author of the video not only deposed that he recorded the video, but he also gave a certificate, as contemplated under subsection (4) of Section 65B of the Evidence Act, to make the CD admissible in evidence – High Court did not dispute that the electronic record was duly exhibited -- High Court opined that the video would become relevant only if it is played during deposition of each witness so that the witness could explain its contents in his own words resulting in a transcript of the video – Held, this is a strange and unacceptable reasoning for the simple reason that the CD is an electronic record and once the requirement of Section 65B is fulfilled it becomes an admissible piece of evidence, like a document, and the video recorded therein is akin to contents of a document which can be seen and heard to enable the Court to draw appropriate inference(s) -- It is not the requirement of law that the contents of the video would become admissible only if it is reduced to a transcript in the words of a witness who created the video or is noticed in the video.

(Para 19)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 293 – NDPS – Chemical examiner – Deposition of – Requirement of – As far as non-production of Chemical Examiner as a witness is concerned, u/s 293 of CrPC, report of a Chemical Examiner is admissible even if he is not produced as a witness though, the Court may summon and examine him as to the subject matter of the report -- There is no requirement of law that Chemical Examiner would have to be called in each NDPS case to prove the report when it is otherwise admissible under sub-section (1) of Section 293 of CrPC.

(Para 21)

C. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 52A – NDPS – Production of contraband in Trial – Requirements of – Mere non-production of the seized contraband during trial may not be fatal if there is reliable evidence in respect of its seizure, drawing of samples therefrom, and FSL report relating to the sample drawn from the seized material – However, to ensure that no adverse inference is drawn against the prosecution for non-production of the seized contraband, documents prepared in terms of the provisions of Section 52-A, inter alia, evidencing preparation of inventory of seized contraband and drawing of samples therefrom, would have to be brought on record – Likewise, evidence should be there that the sample drawn from the inventory was sent to FSL in a sealed container/ envelop, as per guidelines, and that the seal was found intact at the end of FSL – This is to obviate any doubt regarding sample being tampered in transit – Similarly, FSL’s report along with the sample tested by it is to be placed on record so that there remains no doubt regarding the sample tested.

(Para 30, 31)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 386(b)(i), 391 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 52A – NDPS -- Re-trial – Additional evidence -- High Court, observed that the representative sample was not opened before the Court at the time of recording of statement of the concerned witness -- Be that as it may, this was not a ground to direct for a retrial when the appellate court has power to take additional evidence u/s 391 of CrPC, which, inter alia, can be exercised to exhibit a document or material already on the record of the Court -- And if those defects are fatal to the prosecution, the appellate court is free to take its decision as may be warranted in the facts of the case. But, in any event, it cannot be a ground to direct a re-trial.

(Para 33)

A. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 10 -- Suit for Specific performance -- Terminaiton of contract – Effect of -- A contract may give right to the parties, or any one of the parties, to terminate the contract on existence of certain conditions -- In terms thereof, the contract is terminated, a doubt over subsistence of the contract is created and, therefore, without seeking a declaration that termination is bad in law, a decree for specific performance may not be available -- However, where there is no such right conferred on any party to terminate the contract, or the right so conferred is waived, yet the contract is terminated unilaterally, such termination may be taken as a breach of contract by repudiation and the party aggrieved may, by treating the contract as subsisting, sue for specific performance without seeking a declaratory relief qua validity of such termination.

(Para 32)

B. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 10 -- Suit for specific performance – Terminaiton of contract – Effect of – Declaration that termination of contract was invalid – Requirement of -- By accepting Rs.1,95,000 after expiry of six months, D-1 and D-2, firstly, waived their right, as available to them under the contract, to forfeit the advance consideration/ earnest money,

Secondly, by such acceptance and endorsement on the back of the agreement they treated the contract as subsisting and,

thirdly, by transferring part of the subject matter of the agreement in favour of D-3, even before serving a forfeiture notice, they committed a breach of the contract.

In such circumstances, the plaintiff had an option to treat the contract as subsisting and sue for specific performance more so when termination was a void act, no longer permissible under the varied contract -- Suit for specific performance was maintainable even without seeking a declaration that termination of the contract was invalid in law.

(Para 33)

C. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 10 – Suit for specific performance -- Evidence on record that the Tehsildar had reported regarding possession of the plaintiff over the suit property though that report was subject to final adjudication in the suit – In such circumstances, merely because plaintiff’s claim that property was in his possession was not accepted, the relief of specific performance cannot be declined, particularly, when the plaintiff had already paid over 90% of the agreed consideration and paid additional amount also as demanded by D-1 and D-2 -- Further, D-3 was a related party of D-1 and D-2 and, therefore, not a bona fide purchaser -- Not a fit case where discretionary relief of specific performance should have been denied – High Court erred in law by interfering with the decree of specific performance passed by the first appellate court -- Judgment and decree(s) of the High Court is/are set aside and that of the first appellate court is/are restored.

(Para 39, 40)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 37, 38 -- Permanent injunction – Plaintiff paying Betai -- Rent agreement of tenancy – Requirements of – Suit decreed by both the Courts Trial Court as well First Appellate Court -- Plaintiff duly proved his possession over the suit land by producing extensive revenue record in the form of Jamabandis, Khasra Girdawaris from which it is evident that the plaintiff is in cultivating possession of the suit property -- In the Jamabandi it is also recorded that plaintiff is paying ‘Batai’ – Held, if plaintiff is paying Batai, there is no requirement for the plaintiff to produce rent slip or any Agreement in respect of his tenancy -- From the revenue record, it is also established that the plaintiff is in possession of suit property as Gair Marusi -- Plaintiff has shown his possession over the suit property since 1970 -- Defendants have not only been unable to dispute or controvert the above said comprehensive evidence by way of revenue record produced by the plaintiff – No ground made out to interfere in the impugned judgments and decrees – RSA dismissed.

(Para 10-12)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 195A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, Section 195(1)(b)(i), 340 -- Threatening Witness – Offence u/s 195A IPC – FIR  by police -- Permissibility of -- Section 195A IPC was conceptualized as an offence distinct and different from those u/ss 193 IPC, 194 IPC, 195 IPC and 196 IPC -- Those offences require a complaint to be made only by those named in Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC and they were all non-cognizable offences -- However, an offence u/s 195A IPC was a cognizable offence -- Threatened witness or other person may take immediate steps by either giving oral information of the commission of this cognizable offence to the concerned police officer, u/s 154 CrPC, or by making a complaint to a jurisdictional Magistrate, u/s 195A CrPC, so as to set the process of criminal law in motion.

(Para 28, 29)