UCO Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995, Regulation 14, 18 – Pension -- Minimum 10 years of service for pension – Broken period of service of less than one year -- Interpretation of – Petitioner rendered 9 years 10 months and 5 days of service --   In terms of substantive provision of Regulation No.18, service rendered by the respondent has to be reckoned as 10 years on the date of his retirement -- Appellant Bank cannot be permitted to take shelter behind proviso to this regulation to contend that such computation of service shall not be applied for determining eligibility for pension -- A right/ benefit vested/ bestowed in the employee under substantive provision of Regulation cannot be taken away by its proviso – Respondent/ writ petitioner held qualified for pension.

(Para 1-3)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 376, 3(2)(V) – Murder – Rape – Acquittal -- Not a case of direct evidence -- Not a case of circumstantial evidence -- PW-1 and PW-2, star prosecution witnesses are parents of the deceased -- PW-2 was not present in the village when the incident occurred and PW-1/ mother has not seen the accused/ appellant committing the offence, she claims to have learnt of the complicity of accused/ appellant but no person has been identified from whom information has been received – No recovery from the accused/ appellant -- Not the case that dead body has been recovered on the pointing out of the accused/ appellant – Judgment of conviction and sentence set aside.

(Para 21-28)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 – Conviction in cheque bounce complaint -- Suspension of sentence – Condition to deposit  20% of compensation -- Petitioner directed to deposit 20% of the compensation amount awarded by trial Court, while passing the said direction, the Appellate Court has not referred to the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari’s case (2023) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 18509 and no reason given by the said Court – Condition of deposit set aside, Appellate Court directed to decide afresh.

(Para 4)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 8 -- Murder -- Motive -- Mere absence of motive would not impinge on the testimony of a reliable eye-witness -- Motive is an important factor for consideration in a case of circumstantial evidence.

(Para 5)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 100 – Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (54 of 2002), Section 13 -- Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Distribution Performance Standards) Regulations, 2010 -- Electricity dues of previous owner -- Auction purchaser under SARFAESI -- Recovery from auction purchaser/ transferee – Permissibility of – Electricity Bill due are attributable to the consumer – No Charge u/s 100 of TP Act created -- Order demanding dues of previous owner from auction purchaser quashed.

(Para 3, 8, 9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 120B – Constitution of India, Article 14, 21 -- FIR against petitioner -- Right to go abroad -- Mere involvement of the petitioner in a criminal case cannot be made the basis to reject his prayer to travel abroad, more so, when the petitioner has undertaken to abide by all the conditions to be imposed by the Court -- Right to travel is a fundamental right and there is no law depriving a person of such right -- Investigation at initial stage -- Petition allowed, petitioner permitted to travel abroad subject to the conditions.

(Para 12)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1938 (3 of 1938), Section 3 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 (4) -- Cheque bounce complaint – Acquittal – Money Lender’s license – Respondent/ accused is under no legally enforceable debt as the complainant-company has been advancing loans illegally -- It is imperative to possess a money lending licence as per the Money Lender’s Act -- Section 3 of the said Act provides that the suit or application for recovery of the loan shall be dismissed if the person claiming recovery does not hold a valid licence under the Act -- Thus, the debt becomes an unenforceable debt – Acquittal order upheld.

(Para 3-7)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11(d), Order 14 Rule 1 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Territorial jurisdiction – Rejection of plaint – Framing of additional issue of territorial jurisdiction – Application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC read with Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for rejection of the claim petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction dismissed -- Once on an application filed by the petitioner a categoric finding was returned that the Tribunal at Chandigarh had jurisdiction, the petitioner by insisting on framing of an additional issue qua jurisdiction cannot be permitted to get the question of jurisdiction reopened since the same already stood concluded.

(Para 2, 6)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 -- Suit for compensation – Limitation – Rejection of plaint -- Exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC are drastic ones and a duty is caste on the Court to determine as to whether the plaint, on a plain reading along with document annexed thereto, discloses a cause of action -- No other document is to be seen at this stage -- Question of limitation would be a mix question of law and fact, the same cannot be decided in an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

(Para 8)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case --  Driving license – Onus/ Liability of Insurance company -- Respondent no.1/ driver was proceeded against ex-parte before tribunal – In the criminal case, the driving licence was not produced -- Further steps were required to call upon driver as a witness and asking him to produce the driving licence -- No such steps have been taken -- Insurance company, cannot be absolved from the liability.

(Para 23, 24)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Additional accused – Summoning -- Discretionary power is extraordinary and must be exercised judiciously only when compelling reasons exist to take cognizance against these individuals -- While summoning an individual, a prima facie case against him/her should be discernible which would reasonably lead to his/her conviction -- Evidence must be stronger than mere probability of complicity -- Trial Court is obligated to adopt a rigorous standard of appraisal of evidence, ensuring that the material on record could reasonably lead to the conviction of a person sought to be summoned.

(Para 5)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Additional accused – Summoning – Alibi -- Contention that it had come during investigation that the petitioner was not present at the time of the alleged occurrence cannot be a ground for the learned Trial Court to not summon a person as an additional accused u/s 319 of the Cr.P.C. -- Right of an accused to present his evidence of alibi would always be available to him during trial.

(Para 10)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 5 Rule 17 – Order 6 Rule 2(i) – Evidence -- Pleading -- Evidence is not required to be incorporated or made part of the pleadings – Plaintiffs have filed suit for possession by way of redemption of mortgage -- They claimed to have stepped into the shoe of mortgager by virtue of a sale deed -- They want to prove that their vendor had possessed title -- Hence, the evidence sought to be led is not beyond pleadings.

(Para 12)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 5 Rule 17 – Service of summon -- When defendant refuses to accept the service or cannot be found, serving officer shall affix copy of summon on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the house in which the defendant ordinarily resides and carries on business or personally works for gain and shall then return the original to the court from which it was issued, with the report endorsed thereon or annexed thereto stating that he has so affixed the copy, the circumstances under which he did so and the name and address of the person by whom the house was identified and in whose presence the copy was affixed -- Aforesaid compliance has not been made, so the trial Court was right in observing that it was not a proper service in the eyes of law.

(Para 7)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 5 Rule 9, 21 – Service of summons – Registered post -- Respondents were residing outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court where the suit was instituted -- Service sought to be effected upon them by way of registered post acknowledgment due, directly by the Court where the suit was instituted, cannot be deemed to be proper service.

(Para 8)

A. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 9, 17, 36 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rule 2A -- Implementation of injunction order – Constitution of Arbitration Tribunal -- Petitioners seek an implementation of an order already passed by the Court when the Arbitral Tribunal had not yet been constituted – Commercial Court never lost jurisdiction to implement its own order by virtue of the powers conferred on it under Section 9(1)(ii)(e) -- Measures under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC for contempt of its orders, penal measures can be taken even after constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal.

(Para 25-29)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rule 2A – Violation of order of Court – Order XXXIX Rule 2A is not the only remedy for violation of an injunction order -- Implementation of an injunction order, if necessary even by reversal of the acts taken in violation of the same, can be sought from the same court which granted the injunction in the first place.

(Para 30)

Constitution of India, Article 14 -- Black listing/ Debarment of Contractor – Deemed debarring on termination of contract – Show cause notice -- As per the circular, issuing of a notice is mandatory in nature in cases of non-performance or debarring/ penalizing a contractor/ concessionaire -- A notice pertaining to non-performance and termination does not inherently imply association with the prospect of debarment -- There should have been a separate Show Cause Notice issued to the concerned entity/ person with respect to debarment.

(Para 28)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 8 -- Agreement with arbitration clause – Subsequent final Settlement and MOU – Status of -- Where there is a subsequent Settlement Agreement, a valid contract can be extinguished -- Text of the Settlement Agreement is clear to the effect that this is a final settlement and MoU, with respect to the disputes and claims -- Arbitration clause in the original agreement would not be enforceable as this is a full and final settlement with respect to the contract and will be treated as a foreclosed document.

(Para 33)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Death of 1.5 years child – Notional income – Multiplier method applied -- Income of minor child is incapable of precise fixation – Tribunal assessed notional income of Rs.50,000/- per annum for the deceased and applying a multiplier of 15, granted compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- to the claimants-parents, along with interest at 9 % per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization -- No ground to reduce the assessed amount of compensation – Appeal of Insurance Company dismissed.

(Para 6-13)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 29, 31 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 30 -- NDPS case – Acquittal – Leave to appeal – Confession/ Disclosure of co-accused -- Prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the money allegedly recovered from the possession of respondent-accused i.e. Rs.7,500/- had been derived from the sale of narcotics -- Confession made by one accused cannot serve as a substantive piece of evidence against a co-accused -- Its admissibility is limited only for corroborative purposes -- Acquittal order, upheld.

(Para 5)

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (39 of 1987), Section 22C – Insurance claim -- Theft of vehicle – Delay in informing insurance company – Repudiation of claim -- Tipper stolen on 24.12.2015, FIR on 26.12.2015 u/s 379 of the IPC -- Intimation to the Insurance Company on 11.03.2016 -- It is not the case of the petitioner-Insurance Company that the investigating agency did not take appropriate steps for tracing the vehicle or that its conclusions attributed lapse/criminal negligence on the part of the respondent No.2-applicant – Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) allowed the application and directed the petitioner-Insurance Company to pay sum of Rs.15 Lakhs, Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses – No illegality, impropriety, perversity or mis-appreciation of law or facts by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), award upheld.

(Para 10-13)

Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (Punjab Act 1 of 1914), Section 61 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 451, 482 -- Excise matter -- Superdari of vehicle – Onerous condition – Permissibility of – Superdari order with the condition that petitioner shall furnish sapurdari bonds in sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, along with cash security or bank guarantee of equal amount -- Condition imposed upon the petitioner, is an onerous condition, and therefore, the same is required to be modified -- Petitioner ordered to  furnish personal bond in sum of Rs.1.5 lac, and also additional security bond of the same amount.

(Para 2, 6, 7)

A. Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Age of candidate -- For the appointment of Lambardar, age of the candidate is a relevant factor.

(Para 7)

B. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Choice of Collector -- Collector is the main authority for appointment of the Lambardar -- It is the Collector, who not only appreciates the antecedents of all the candidates in the fray, but also personally interacts with them -- Subjective satisfaction of the Collector cannot be ignored in a cavalier manner.

(Para 7)

A. Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (Act 21 of 1969), Section 69 -- Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (53 of  1961), Section 2(1), 3(e), 20 – Co-operative Society/ Hospital – Establishment -- Petitioner being a Society and a hospital would answer the definition of 'establishment' under the Maternity Benefits Act -- Petitioner is liable to maintain registers and records provided under Section 20 of the Maternity Benefits Act and the Rules framed thereunder.

(Para 19)

B. Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (Act 21 of 1969), Section 69 -- Kerala Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Act,  1958 (47 of 1958), Section 10 -- Co-operative Society/ Hospital – Establishment -- Petitioner being a Co-operative Society and a hospital comes within the ambit of 'establishment' under the Festival Holidays Act -- Petitioner is bound to maintain the registers and records under the Festival Holidays Act.

(Para 20)

C. Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (Act 21 of 1969), Section 69 -- Kerala Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Act,  1958 (47 of 1958), Section 10 -- Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960 (34 of 1960) -- Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (53 of  1961) -- Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (11 of 1948) -- Co-operative Society/ Hospital – Benefits to employees – Labour laws -- Provisions of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960, the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 and the Festival Holidays Act, deal with enforcement and inspection of various welfare and social security measures for employees which are not essentially covered by the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rules -- Fact that the conditions of service of employees of Co-operative Societies are governed by the Co-operative Societies Act, will not make the provisions of the aforesaid labour legislations inapplicable to Co-operative Societies -- Employees of the Co-operative Societies are entitled to the benefits of the said labour legislations.

(Para 21)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 256 -- Acquittal/ Dismissal of complaint for want of prosecution -- Power of the Magistrate u/s 256 Cr.P.C to acquit an accused should be exercised judicially, based on a definite conclusion that the complainant no longer desires to prosecute the complaint -- Judicious course would be to direct the complainant to appear for the hearing, if it is imperative, and decide whether the drastic step of acquittal is to be passed in case he fails to appear.

(Para 15)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 256, 378(4) -- Cheque bounce complaint – Absence of complainant -- Dismissed for want of  prosecution -- Neither the complainant was present for trial nor any order directing complainant to remain present was passed on the earlier occasion – Ld. Magistrate ought to have adjourned the complaint to a later date directing the complainant to positively remain present on the next date -- Held, learned Magistrate was not justified in straight away dismissing the complaint and ordering acquittal of the accused respondents on mere non-appearance of the complainant -- Impugned order quashed and set aside -- Proceedings restored to its original number.

(Para 18-20)

Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 3, 18, 32, 33, 35 -- Impounding a power of attorney (UK)  – Deficient stamp duty – Right to pay deficient stamp duty and penalty -- Section 35 of the Act empowers the trial Court to direct the party who wants the documents to be acted upon, to pay stamp duty or the deficient portion together with penalty as detailed therein -- Time limit of three months provided under Section 18 and clause (b) of Section 32 is not attracted -- Petitioner permitted to pay the stamp duty and penalty.

(Para 13-14)

Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017), Section 132 -- Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (13 of 2017), Section 20(XV) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – FIR under GST laws -- Regular bail -- Criminal liability of the petitioner is yet to be decided by the trial Court during the course of trial -- Petitioner was arrested on 19.04.2023 and the maximum sentence provided under the statute is five years -- Prosecution is based on the testimonies of official witnesses and the petitioner may not be in a position to influence the witnesses -- Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot be confined in jail as an under-trial for an indefinite period – Bail allowed.

(Para 6)

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (67 of 1957), Section 21, 22 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Mining offence – Quashing of FIR -- Registration of the FIR is bad in the eyes of law, as cognizance of an offence under the MMDR Act can only be taken upon a criminal complaint -- MMDR Act is a special statute provisions regarding procedure must be adopted, general provisions of the IPC or the Cr.P.C. will not be attracted -- FIR and subsequent proceedings quashed.

(Para 6-12)

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 15, 18 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 342, 302, 201 – Acquittal -- POCSO – Murder -- Child in conflict with law/ CCIL – Preliminary assessment – Mandate of – Investigating Officer and Trial Court was aware of the fact that Accused/ appellant was juvenile -- In absence of a preliminary assessment being conducted by the Board under Section 15, and without an order being passed by the Board under Section 15(1) read with Section 18(3), it was impermissible for the trial Court to have accepted the charge sheet and to have proceeded with the trial of the accused – Held, procedure adopted by the Sessions Court in conducting the trial of the accused appellant is de hors the mandatory requirements of JJ Act -- Entire proceedings stand vitiated – Such an exercise at this stage would be sheer futility because now the appellant is nearly 23 years of age – Impugned judgment quashed and set aside -- Appellant ordered to be released forthwith.

(Para 25, 26, 38-51)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 186, 353 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 195 -- Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty -- Cognizance of – Court cannot take cognizance of an offence committed u/s 186 IPC without there being a complaint made by the concerned public servant, but there is no such requirement for offence u/s 353 CrPC -- Section 195 Cr. PC does not bar the trial of the accused person for a distinct offence, disclosed by the same set of facts but which is not within the ambit of that section.

(Para 11-15)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 157, 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Insurance policy after death -- Liability of insurance company -- Insurance policy obtained after death was void and no liability arose against the insurance company to pay compensation as no judgment can be passed against a dead person -- Insurance company absolved from the payment of compensation amount.

(Para 10, 11)

Service matter -- Delay in pensionary benefits – Interest – Exoneration in departmental proceedings -- Punishments imposed after culmination of the disciplinary proceedings were held to be bad and the said punishment was set-aside -- Held, once, the appellant-plaintiff has been exonerated of the allegations alleged against him, he cannot be denied the benefit of interest so as to compensate the withholding of the pensionary benefits – Interest @ 6% per annum on leave encashment, commuted pension as well as gratuity from the date liable to be released i.e. 01.05.2008 till the actual payment awarded.

(Para 10-13)

Service matter – Limitation -- Order of stoppage of three annual increments of the appellant with cumulative effect was passed on 14.06.1980, whereas suit for declaring the said order illegal, null and void was filed on 29.08.1988 after a period of eight years – Suit is hopelessly time barred – Suit dismissed.

(Para 1, 15)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21 -- NDPS Case – Acquittal – Independent witness – Exclusive possession -- No evidence to establish that the alleged place of recovery i.e. room where a motor was situated, was under exclusive possession, usage, or ownership of the appellant – No explanation from police officials regarding the absence of independent witnesses during the operation -- No efforts were made to establish a direct connection between the appellant and the recovered contraband material – Reasonable doubt created about the genuineness of the recovery – Appellant acquitted.

(Para 9-10)

A. Haryana Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 21, 42 – Jurisdiction of Director Consolidation -- After the updating of records taking place, there is no exercisable jurisdiction vested in the Director of Consolidation rather within the domain of Section 42 of the ‘Consolidation Act, 1948’

(Para 11)

B. Haryana Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 21, 36, 42 -- Finalisation of consolidation proceedings – Revocation of -- Updation of records taking place in terms of Section 22 of the 'Consolidation Act, 1948' and none of the aggrieved made challenge, it acquired binding and conclusive effect -- Transfer of possessions were made to all the estate holders, inclusive of the Gram Panchayat -- Consolidation scheme not amenable to be revoked -- Orders prima facie vary and revoke the finalized consolidation scheme are in conflict with Section 36 of the 'Consolidation Act, 1948' -- Writ petition succeeds and the impugned orders quashed and set aside.

(Para 14-17)

C. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 7, 11 -- Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 7, 13A, 13AA -- East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 42 -- Haryana Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 42 -- Collectors and Appellate Authorities contemplated under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 -- Authorities contemplated under Section 42 of the 'Consolidation Act, 1948 – Directions issued :

1) Firstly, the authorities envisaged under Section 42 of the 'Consolidation Act, 1948' are required to be adhering to the mandate of law encapsulated in Parkash Singh's case (2014(2) L.A.R. 1 = (2013) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 11728) besides are enjoined to also revere the judgment of even date rendered by this Court.

2) It appears that the non compliance(s) to the mandates as enclosed in this judgement do arise either because of sheer lack of knowledge or ill training(s) of the authorities contemplated under Section 42 of the 'Consolidation Act, 1948'. Therefore, the Additional Chief Secretary(ies) to the Governments of Punjab and Haryana, are directed to forthwith prepare data, thus revealing the numbers of unchallenged verdicts, which became recorded by the authorities contemplated under Section 42 of the 'Consolidation Act, 1948', especially when such verdicts are outside the contours and domains of judgment made today by this Court. The said data be collected and submitted before this Court on or before 15.07.2024.

3) Moreover, this Court has also consistently noticed that the Collectors concerned in making trials both over petitions cast under Section 7 and/or under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, though are required to be framing issues as arise from the contentious pleadings of the litigants concerned, and, whereafter they are required to be permitting the litigant concerned, to adduce the apposite evidence on those issues, whereons, the discharging onus becomes cast on the litigants concerned, but yet the said recourses remain un-adopted, thus leading to gross injustice.

4) The Collectors concerned are also not bearing in mind the principles relating to proof of demarcation reports through the author(s) thereof stepping into the witness box.

5) The appellate authorities concerned, while dealing with the applications for condoning the delay are also not formulating issues, on the contentious pleadings nor are they permitting the litigant concerned to adduce the evidence discharging onus thereons.

Directions given to Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue(s), to the State of Punjab and to the State of Haryana, to ensure, that trainings are imparted to the authorities contemplated under Section 42 of the 'Consolidation Act, 1948', besides to ensure that trainings are imparted to the Collectors and Appellate Authorities contemplated under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.

(Para 18, 19)

A. Constitution of India, Article 226 – Writ jurisdiction -- Delay and laches -- Delay defeats equity -- Delay or latches is one of the factors which should be born in mind by the High Court while exercising discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India -- Ultimate discretion to be exercised by the writ court depends upon the facts that it has to travel or the terrain in which the facts have travelled.

(Para 9, 10)

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Allotment of distributorship – Writ jurisdiction – Delay and laches -- Writ petitioner was a rival applicant for grant of LPG distributorship – Appellant was held to be successful by and allotted distributorship by virtue of draw of lots in 2014 – Same was challenged in the year 2017 and thereby the writ petitioner had allowed his right if at all if any to be drifted away -- Being no stiff opposition or strong resistance to the alternate land offered by the appellant not being as per the specifications indicated in the advertisement, no reason to substitute the court’s view to that of the experts/ Corporation which has in its wisdom has exercised its discretion – Ld. Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, LPA Bench allowed the writ – Order of the Learned Division Bench set aside and order of Ld. Single Judge restored.

(Para 6, 11-14)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A, 406, 384, 420, 120(B) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Matrimonial dispute  -- Quashing of FIR – Misue of State machinery – One FIR at Hisar – Other at Udaipur – Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 misusing their official position by lodging complaints one after the other – Further, their conduct of neither appearing before the Trial Court at Hisar nor withdrawing their complaint at Hisar, would show that their only intention was to harass the appellant by first making him face a trial at Hisar and then again at Udaipur – Argument that no offence was committed in Hisar but only at Udaipur was also not correct – Court deprecated this practice of state machinery being misused for ulterior motives, imposed cost of Rs. 5,00,000/- on the respondent No.2 – FIR at Udaipur quashed.

(Para 8-12)

A. Right to Manage property – Electricity connection in name – Relevancy of -- Electricity bill at the most shows that there is an electric connection issued by the Electricity Board or Supply Company in favour of an individual -- However, it does not establish the rights to manage the property of the religious institution.

(Para 5.2)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 114 – Withholding of evidence -- Adverse inference – Presumption -- Failure of the plaintiff to step into the witness box to testify may enable the court to draw adverse inference if sufficient evidence has not been led -- Court may presume that the evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it -- However, it is not necessary to draw adverse inference in each and every case, even when sufficient evidence has been led.

(Para 5.3)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 152, 153 -- Correction in prayer after decree -- Both the parties were aware of the fact that the suit has been filed with respect to two different Khasra numbers, namely, Rectangle No.3, Khasra No.11(7-12) and Rectangle No.3, Khasra No.12(8-0) as specified in para 1 of the plaint -- Defendant No. 1 while filing the counter-claim also referred to the land comprising Rectangle No. 3, Khasra No. 12(8-0) – Trial Court in issue No. 7 has also referred to land comprised in Khasra No.3//11/7-12, and Khasra No.3//12/8-0, total measuring 15 kanals and 12 marlas -- Parties were conscious of the fact that the dispute is with respect to 15 kanals and 12 marlas land, which also includes land comprising Rectangle No.3, Khasra No.12(8-0) – Held, in the prayer clause inadvertently the land comprised in Rectangle No.3, Khasra No.12 (8-0) was omitted – Amendment allowed.

(Para 4-12)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 153 -- Correction in prayer after decree -- Section 153 of the CPC enables the Court to exercise its general power to amend at any point in time but for such application, there is only one pre-condition that such amendment should be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question or issues raised by the parties to the dispute.

(Para 11)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 114 – Withholding of evidence -- Adverse inference – Presumption -- Section 114 enables the Court to presume existence of certain facts, which includes drawing of adverse inference particularly when the evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it -- Such presumption can be drawn only if the party intentionally withholds the best evidence.

(Para 6)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 114 – Non-examination of Landlady -- Adverse inference -- In each and every case, mere non-appearance of landlady/ landlord in the witness box would not necessarily require the Court to draw adverse inference -- It depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case.

(Para 7)

C. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 114 – Non-examination of Landlady -- Adverse inference -- Landlady’s husband, who is also residing with her, appeared in evidence -- He has answered all the questions, which were put to him in his cross-examination -- Courts have not erred in refusing to draw adverse inference – Revision dismissed.

(Para 7, 11)

D. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Eviction petition -- Titel of landlord -- Rent proceedings are summary and the landlord is not required to prove his title as in the civil case.

(Para 10)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 406 – Cheque bounce complaint – Transfer of case -- Agreement executed at Pune, petitioner/accused is resident of Pune -- Cheques which were dishonoured are also issued on Bank at Pune -- In the agreement, the jurisdictional clause provide that the Court where the bank has provided loan facility will have a jurisdiction to entertain dispute between the parties -- Cheque was presented in the respondent’s Branch at Calcutta – Entire cause of action has arisen at Pune and only in order to harass the petitioner the complaints have been filed at Calcutta by manipulating the jurisdiction – Complaint transferred from Calcutta to Pune.

(Para 6-11)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Cheque bonce case – Quashing of complaint -- Though the prayer for quashing was made only as regards first and second respondents, by the impugned judgment, the complaint has been quashed in its entirety – Held, there was no reason for the High Court to quash the complaint in its entirety -- Impugned order modified.

 (Para 3-5)

A. Waqf Act, 1995 (43 of 1995), Section 3(i), 32(2)(g) -- Mutawalli – Rights to Mutawalliship and Sheikhship -- Jurisdiction of Waqf Board/ Tribunal -- Waqf Board exercised the jurisdiction in exercise of power conferred u/s 32(2)(g) read with the definition under Section 3(i) which defines a ‘Mutawalli’ – It is the Waqf Board which has got the jurisdiction and not the Waqf Tribunal – Waqf Tribunal is only an adjudicating authority over a dispute while the Waqf Board is expected to deal with any issue pertaining to administration.

(Para 2-11)

B. Waqf Act, 1995 (43 of 1995), Section 83(5)(7) – Power of Waqf Tribunal -- Waqf Tribunal is deemed to be a civil court having the same powers that can be exercised by the civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 -- A dispute can be tried like a suit by the Waqf Tribunal -- Under Section 83(7) of the Waqf Act, the decision of the Tribunal shall be final and binding upon the parties and it shall have force of a decree made by a civil court.

(Para 9)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 25 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 12 – Annulment of marriage – Transfer of case – Kolkata to Jharkhand – Petitioner-wife has filed a petition for maintenance etc., the respondent-husband has filed the subject suit u/s 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for annulment of the marriage -- Grounds taken that wife is staying with her parents at Dhanbad, Jharkhand; she has no source of livelihood; she has apprehension of physical violence and mental torture in the event of visiting Alipore etc. – Case ordered to be transferred to the Family Court at Dhanbad, Jharkhand.

(Para 1-5)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 35B – Cost -- Argument that once the costs are imposed u/s 35B CPC it would be a condition precedent for further prosecution of the case – Held, costs if not paid can be included in the decree.

(Para 6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 451, 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 201, 202, 302, 341, 34 – Murder case -- Superdari of vehicle -- If the vehicle remains parked in the police station for a considerable period of time, it would become unfit for being plying on the road as keeping it parked in the sun and rain could damage its tyres, colour, machinery, battery as also interiors of the vehicle -- Value of the vehicle would also diminish in such a situation – Petition allowed, vehicle ordered to be released to the petitioner/registered owner on superdari.

(Para 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307, 506, 148, 149 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25, 27 --  Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Attempt to murder – Anticipatory bail -- On the contention that petitioner has not been named in the FIR, his tower location was not found at the place of occurrence, specific injuries attracting Section 307 IPC attributed to the co-accused and there is nothing on record against the petitioner in the final report filed u/s 173 Cr.P.C. against the co-accused, interim protection was granted -- Petitioner joined the investigation, interim bail order confirmed.

(Para 5-7)

Constitution of India, Article 21, 226 -- Live-in relationship -- Life and liberty – Police protection -- Every person, more so, a major, has the right to live his / her life with a person of his / her choice -- Petitioner no.1 is not legally divorced from her spouse -- Without commenting upon the legality of the relationship, respondent no.2 directed to consider the representation and to assess the threat perception to the petitioners and after considering the same, respondent no.2 shall take appropriate action in accordance with law.

(Para 2, 9-13)

Public Gambling Act, 1867 (3 of 1867), Section 13(A) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 -- Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 (43 of 1978), Section 4, 5 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Quashing of FIR -- Dara Satta/ Gambling -- S.I. was not authorised to conduct the raid -- Petitioners being the authorised dealer/ a member of National Commodity and Derivatives Exchange Limited, so no offence u/s 4 & 5 of 1978, Act made out -- Ingredients u/s 420 IPC are completely missing – FIR, summoning order and subsequent proceedings quashed.

(Para 7)

Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Ad-valorem court fee – Rejection of plaint -- Suit for declaration challenging sale deed -- Plaintiff-petitioner is the executant of the registered sale deed -- Merely because the plaintiff-petitioner is not seeking possession would not entitle him from escaping from the rigors of affixing ad valorem court fee – Order directing plaintiff-petitioner to affix ad valorem court fee, upheld.

(Para 2, 7, 8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) – Default bail – Non-furnishing of bail bonds – Cancellation of bail – Permissibility of -- Non-presentation of final report within the stipulated period creates an indefeasible right in favour of the petitioner and which cannot be extinguished by subsequent filing of the final report -- Indefeasible right could not be extinguished merely because the petitioner could not furnish his bail bonds.

(Para 6)

A. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 34 – Arbitration award – Objections -- While dealing with a petition u/s 34 of the 1996 Act, the Court concerned does not sit in appeal over the arbitral award and may interfere on merits on the limited grounds provided in Section 34 (2)(b)(ii) of the 1996 Act, i.e. if the award is against the public policy of the India -- Interference in an arbitral award would not entail a review of the merits of the dispute and would be limited to situations, where the findings of the Arbitrator are arbitrary or perverse or when the conscience of the Court is shocked, or when the illegality is not trivial but goes to the root of the matter -- An arbitral award, however, may not be interfered with, if the view taken by the arbitrator is a possible view based on facts.

(Para 7)

B. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 34 – Arbitration award – No written response to claim -- Appellants did not submit any written response to the claim submitted by the respondent-HAFED and only made oral submissions – Arbitrator awarded the claim of recovery of Rs.26.01 lakh and accepted the claim in toto -- Arbitrator did not commit any illegality in doing so, especially, once the claim was not opposed in any manner and further, the respondent was able to prove its case through evidence of its District Manager.

(Para 9)