A. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4, 6, 28A -- Acquisition of land – Market value of land – Limitation for section 28A of LAC Act -- Award is dated 01.03.2006 -- Appellants seeking redetermination of the compensation on the basis of the judgment and order of the High Court in First Appeal dated 2nd May 2016 -- Application of the appellants u/s 28-A of the 1894 Act is within a period of three months from 2nd May 2016 -- Case of the appellants is fully covered by the judgment in the case of Pradeep Kumari and Others, (1995) 2 SCC 736 : 1995 INSC 180

-- Said provision is for giving benefit to inarticulate and poor people not being able to take advantage of the right of reference to the civil court u/s 18 of the Act -- Same benefit would be available to the other landholders u/s Section 28-A -- Section 28-A being a beneficent legislation enacted in order to give relief to the inarticulate and poor people, the principle of interpretation which would be required to be adopted is the one which advances the policy of the legislation to extend the benefit rather than a construction which has the effect of curtailing the benefit conferred by it.

(Para 3.1, 16, 17, 24)

B. Constitution of India, Article 141 – Binding precedent -- Earlier decision of a Bench of particular strength would be binding on the subsequent Benches of this Court having the same or lesser number of judges.

(Para 21)

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (54 of 2002), Section 13, 17, 34 – Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 34, 37 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 rule 11 – SARFAESI proceedings – Suit for declaration and permanent injunction -- Rejection of plaint -- Plaintiff has neither raised any loan from the bank nor the plaintiff is a guarantor in the issue which has led to the action having been initiated by the bank under the 2002 Act -- Plaintiff approached the Civil Court seeking a declaration that gift deed alleged to be executed and registered by the GPA holder and thereafter mortgage deed, in the year 2015 are void abinitio, false and fictitious documents and a result of fraud committed by defendants No.1 to 3 in connivance with each other -- In light of this prayer of declaration, a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant-bank to misuse the process of law to take the possession of the suit premises has also been prayed for -- Invoking jurisdiction under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC and throwing out the plaint at the very initial stage, would be a very-very dangerous step as it would take away the right of the plaintiff to agitate the cause before the appropriate For a -- The issues raised in the suit, cannot be decided under Section 17 of the 2002 Act – Trial Court dismissed application under order VII Rule 11 -- Revision dismissed.

(Para 10, 11)

Haryana Compassionate Assistance to Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006, Rule 5, 6 – Constitution of India, Article 14 -- Death of dismissed employee -- Compassionate assistance to family – Dismissal on 04.12.1989, during the pendency of writ, he passed away on 22.02.1995 and writ was allowed on 22.02.2010 quashing the dismissal and directing release of all retiral benefits  -- Legal fiction is that the employee was never dismissed, unless the Court restricts relief --  Rule 6 of the 2006 Rules clarify that all the pending cases, such as that of the petitioner shall be covered under the 2006 Rules – Claim denied on the ground that petitioner applied belatedly – Order does not consider the effect of the 2010 judgment, the retrospective restoration of service, the settled law on compassionate claims, or the humanitarian object underlying the scheme -- An administrative authority exercising statutory discretion is required to record reasons that demonstrate meaningful application of mind -- Failure to do so renders the action of the respondents arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India – Impugned order set aside, respondents directed to extend financial assistance within a period of 4 weeks.

(Para 2-5)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 482 -- Blanket anticipatory  bail – Permissibility of -- When no criminal case or FIR is registered against a person, the grant of anticipatory bail is impermissible as doing so would amount to issuing a blanket protection against all possible future accusations -- Law does not contemplate granting such omnibus relief u/s 482 of the BNSS nor can a blanket order be passed to restrain the authorities from arresting an individual in the absence of a specific and existing criminal case.

(Para 6)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 11 – Appointment of Arbitrator – Prima-facie existence of arbitration clause -- High Court at the time of reference u/s 11 of the Act is only to see prima facie the existence of an arbitration clause and is not to conduct any mini-trial -- Since neither the arbitration clause nor the terms and conditions of the auction are in dispute, Court deems it fit and proper to allow the present petition and appoint a Sole Arbitrator.

(Para 6)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 348 – Additional evidence -- Video footage and photographs -- Placing on record – On application moved by complainant, the learned trial Court permitted the complainant to place certain documents on record, i.e. the video footage and photographs of the incident – Claimed by the complainant that in the video footage and photographs, the incident has been recorded and given to the Investigating Officer also, but the Investigating Officer having been under the influence of accused-petitioners, has not collected the above mentioned evidence – Held, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the learned trial Court in permitting the complainant to bring the above mentioned documents on record -- At this stage, when permission to produce the above mentioned documents has been accorded, the admissibility of the above mentioned documents cannot be looked into -- Appreciation of above mentioned point can take place at the time of final adjudication of the trial.

(Para 12, 13)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A, 304B, 328 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 113B – Constitution of India, Article 14, 21 -- Dowry death – Presumption – Regular bail by High Court – Cancellation of -- Marriage took place on 22.02.2023, and the death occurred on 05.06.2023 i.e. within four months of marriage – Dying declarations to the father and elder sister, coupled with consistent testimony of relatives and post-mortem noting of an abrasion suggestive of restraint, satisfy the foundational requirements of Section 304B IPC -- Consequently, the presumption u/s 113B of the Evidence Act arises inexorably against Respondent No. 1/ husband -- High Court, however, failed to take this statutory presumption into account, and instead relied solely on general bail principles -- Courts has to evaluate the gravity of the offence, the nature of accusations and the prima facie evidence while considering bail – Held, such heinous offences strike at the very root of human dignity and violate the constitutional guarantees of equality and life with dignity under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India -- They corrode the moral fibre of the community, normalize violence against women, and erode the foundations of a civilized society -- Judicial passivity or misplaced leniency in the face of such atrocities would only embolden perpetrators and undermine public confidence in the administration of justice -- A firm and deterrent judicial response is, therefore, imperative, not only to uphold the majesty of law and do justice in the present case, but also to send an unequivocal message that neither law nor society will countenance barbarities born out of the evil of dowry -- Bail cancelled.

 (Para 17.1, 17.2, 25-26)

A. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 11 – Appointment of Arbitrator – Review/ Appeal -- Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to review its earlier order passed under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act, and whether such exercise of power was valid in law – Held, High Court did not have the jurisdiction to reopen or review its earlier order passed under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act -- Once the appointment was made, the court became functus officio and could not sit in judgment over the very issue it had already settled --  The review order cuts against the grain of the Act, undermines the principle of minimal judicial interference, and effectively converts the review into an appeal in disguise -- Such an exercise cannot stand -- Issue is answered in the negative.

(Para11, 11.15)

B. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 11, 16, 29A -- Appointment of Arbitrator – Remedy against -- Once the Section 11 order had attained finality, the only remedies available were to approach Supreme Court under Article 136 or to raise objections u/s 16 before the arbitral tribunal -- Having chosen neither route, and having participated in the arbitral proceedings, including joint applications under Section 29A, they were estopped from reopening the matter through review.

(Para 11.13)

C. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 11 Constitution of India, Article 14 -- Appointment of Arbitrator – Unilateral power with one party -- Remedy -- Where a clause contains an otherwise defective unilateral appointment mechanism, the Court may sever the offending portion and exercise its power u/s 11(6) to appoint an independent arbitrator, thereby giving effect to the parties’ genuine intention to arbitrate -- Refusing to sever such clauses would effectively confer on the dominant party a “nuclear veto”, wholly inconsistent with the pro-arbitration policy of the Act and violative of Article 14 -- Court is empowered under Section 11(6) to cure the defect and appoint an independent arbitrator.

(Para 12.13, 12.16)

D. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 4, 12(5), 29A – Proceed with arbitration without objection – Waiver -- Whether the joint application filed by both parties, seeking extension of the arbitral mandate u/s 29A amounts to an express or implied waiver u/s 4 read with the proviso to Section 12(5) of the Act – Held, a joint application u/s 29A amounts to a valid waiver u/s 4, save in cases of statutory ineligibility u/s 12(5) -- Any contrary view would render Section 4 redundant and distort the legislative design -- Where the disqualification u/s 12(5) is attracted, the language being plain and mandatory, a joint application merely seeking extension, without an informed written waiver, cannot cure ineligibility -- Conversely, where no such disqualification exists, the conduct of the parties, especially in jointly invoking Section 29A, constitutes waiver under Section 4.

(Para 13.11, 13.12)

E. Constitution of India, Article 136, 141 -- Binding precedent -- Doctrine of merger -- Dismissal of SLP – Effect of -- A non-speaking dismissal of an SLP signifies only that the Court, in its discretion under Article 136, has declined to interfere -- It does not amount to approval of the reasoning of the subordinate forum -- Doctrine of merger does not apply to such dismissals – A non-speaking dismissal of an SLP neither endorses the reasoning of the judgment challenged nor transforms it into binding precedent -- At best, such a decision has persuasive value; its only legal effect is to bring finality to the dispute between the parties in that particular case.

(Para 14.1-14.3)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 55, 58, Order 21 Rule 37 -- Execution of money decree – Arrest and detention -- If a person has no means to pay, in absence of any mala fide or dishonest intention, the arrest and detention cannot be resorted to.

(Para 10)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 55, 58, Order 21 Rule 37 -- Execution of money decree – Arrest and detention – Physical disability -- If a person is incapable on account of physical disability and is able to show his inability to pay in a bona fide manner, then also detention cannot be justified.

(Para 11)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 55, 58, Order 21 Rule 37, 41 -- Execution of money decree -- Means to pay – Onus to prove -- Decree holder attached the schedule of properties which were known to be owned by petitioner/judgment debtor along with his execution petition -- Application under Order XXI Rule 41 CPC for seeking directions against petitioner/judgment debtor to file details of his properties duly moved -- From material placed by decree holder it is clearly made out that petitioner/judgment debtor was high worth individual who had got movable and immovable properties -- Further it is proved by decree holder that presently also petitioner/judgment debtor is residing in a leased accommodation in Gurugram and spending considerable amount on himself, therefore, the initial onus cast upon decree holder stands discharged -- It is the duty of petitioner/judgment debtor to rebut the evidence of decree holder and show that he has got no means to discharge the liability.

(Para 12)

D. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 55, 58, Order 21 Rule 37 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 -- Execution of money decree -- Means to pay – Onus to prove -- While appreciating evidence of judgment debtor in this regard, provisions of Section 106 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1972 needs to be kept in mind which mandates that facts which are in special knowledge of a person need to be established by said person -- It is duty of judgment debtor to come clean and disclose specifically all the particulars about his properties to show his bona fide -- Failure to come clean by taking plea of roving enquiry would be against his own case.

(Para 13)

Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 (2 of 1864), Section 37A, 38 -- Auction sale – Challenge to -- Once a sale is confirmed by the competent authority, rights accrue in favour of the auction-purchaser which cannot be extinguished except in cases of proven fraud or substantial irregularity – Auction and its subsequent confirmation have not been shown to suffer from any material irregularity, mistake or fraud as contemplated u/s 38 of the Revenue Recovery Act -- Auction-purchaser paid the full purchase amount on the day of sale and the sale was confirmed only after due procedure and in the absence of any valid challenge -- Issuance of the sale certificate and registration of the property in the purchaser’s name, followed by subsequent transfers to bona fide purchasers, confer finality on the transaction.

(Para 20, 21)

A. Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, Section 12, 18 -- Eviction of tenant – Re-determination of outstanding rent – Power of Appellate Rent Authority -- Rent Control Appellate Authority is not the Court of first instance, it only tests the exercise of jurisdiction and power by the Rent Control Court -- Appellate Authority is not required to re-determine the issue of default or the outstanding amount of rent -- It has only to examine as to whether the Rent Control Court has erred in law or in facts and/or has exercised its jurisdiction in accordance with law.

(Para 30)

B. Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, Section 12, 18 -- Eviction of tenant – Arrears of rent -- Power of Appellate Rent Authority -- While hearing the appeal, the Appellate Authority has full discretion to pass any order in accordance with law, including an order dismissing the Appeal and/or extending the time to deposit/pay the arrears of rent, or if it finds substantial merit in the Appeal, it may issue notice and unconditionally stay the impugned order of eviction, or if it finds that the Appeal raises an argument which is plausible but improbable, it may direct the Appellant to pay/deposit the amount determined by the Rent Controller pending the hearing of the Appeal -- Though the power of the Appellate Authority cannot be put in a straitjacket, yet normally speaking, a tenant must be directed to pay/deposit the amount determined by the Rent Controller before an Appeal is heard by the Appellate Authority and that too when a money decree has been passed by a Civil Court which has not been stayed by the Appellate Court.

(Para 31)

C. Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, Section 12, 18 -- Eviction of tenant – Pendency of appeal -- Application u/s 12 of Act, 1965 – Not mandatory -- Respondent-tenant’s submission that in an Appeal challenging an eviction order under Section 12(3) of the Act, 1965 a fresh application under Section 12(1) of the Act, 1965 is mandatory, is contrary to the explicit language of Sections 12 and 18 of the Act, 1965.

(Para 32)

D. Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, Section 12 -- Eviction of tenant – Pendency of appeal -- Application u/s 12 of Act, 1965 – Held, Sections 12(1) and 12(3) procedure is to be primarily followed by the Rent Controller -- It is essentially in cases where supervening events have taken place during the pendency of Appeal, that the parties have the liberty to file an application u/s 12 of the Act, 1965 once again before the Appellate Authority like where rent has been paid till the date of filing of the Appeal, but by the time the Appeal has matured for hearing, further rent has accrued, which has not been paid -- In such a case, it would be open to the Appellate Authority to entertain a fresh application u/s 12(1) by the landlord and decide the same in accordance with the procedure stipulated u/s 12 of the Act, 1965.

(Para 32)

A. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 19(4) – Failure of justice – Special Judge held that the sanction was invalid as it had been issued by an authority lacking jurisdiction – Held, Explanation to Section 19(4) would become relevant and come into play only when the question of validity or otherwise of the sanction is under scrutiny before the appellate or the revisional forum as provided in sub-Section (3) of Section 19.

(Para 37, 38)

B. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 7, 8, 13(1)(d), read with 13(2) -- Corruption case -- Exoneration in departmental proceedings – Effect of -- Contention advanced on behalf of the accused-appellant that he is entitled to be discharged on account of his exoneration in the departmental proceedings does not merit acceptance, rejected.

(Para 41)

C. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 19 -- Corruption case -- Sanction by Competent authority -- In case the trial Court finds that the sanction has been issued by a competent authority, the trial shall proceed -- However, in case the conclusion is otherwise, the trial Court shall return the chargesheet to the investigating agency for procuring fresh sanction from the appropriate authority.

(Para 37, 43)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 482 -- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Section 143(2), 316(2), 318(4), 351(2) -- Emigration Act, 1983 (31 of1983), Section 24 -- Anticipatory bail – Visa by illegal means -- Rs. 50 lacs paid for sending son to USA  directly -- Donkey method adopted -- Although the complainant also knew that they were paying money to obtain a Visa through illegal means, and undoubtedly later cried foul, it is akin to the kettle calling the pot black -- However, a con cannot seek bail because of the victim’s stupidity or cunningness and shrewdness -- A perusal of the bail petition and the documents attached primafacie points towards the petitioner’s involvement and does not make out a case for anticipatory bail -- Impact of crime would also not justify anticipatory bail – Bail declined.

(Para 3, 8-10)

A. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 47 -- Eviction of tenant -- Landlord – Execution of decree – Issue of ownership – Effect of -- A landlord need not be the owner of the property -- Subsequent events would not come in the way of the petitioner from getting the judgment and decree executed against the respondents, who are admittedly tenants of the petitioner.

(Para 11)

B. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 11, 47 -- Eviction of tenant -- Execution of decree -- Judgment debtor not filed any objections -- Warrant of possession issued – Recalling application and further objections -- Maintainability of -- Application filed for recalling the warrant of possession and the objections raised by the respondents/ judgment debtors required to be summarily rejected -- Principle of res judicata/ constructive res judicata applies to orders passed at different stages in a proceeding -- Once the Executing Court had not given any further opportunity to the respondents/ judgment debtors to file objections and had issued warrants of possession, then, the subsequent entertaining of the objections filed by the respondents was in violation of the said principle.

(Para 12)

C. Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 47 -- Eviction of tenant -- Execution of decree – Purchase of part of property by tenant – Effect of – Purchase from other co-sharers, the respondents-judgment debtors cannot hold on to the possession of the property and cannot stall the execution proceedings -- Further it is a matter of settled law that mere agreement to sell in favour of a party does not give any right to the said party in the property and the only right that the respondents have is to seek specific performance of the said agreement -- Even in case the sale deed, then also, the respondents would have no right to object to the execution proceedings and thus, the question of framing issues and seeking evidence on the same is a completely futile exercise and would result in delaying the execution proceedings endlessly – Impugned order set aside, the Executing Court directed to proceed further in the case to execute the judgment and decree, in accordance with law.

(Para 17-19)

Constitution of India, Article 227 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 17 Rule 3 -- Closing of evidence by Court order – Setting aside of -- Evidence of the petitioner was closed by the Court order was not in any way illegal or suffers from any material illegality or irregularity -- Considering the pace at which the learned Civil Judge is proceeding and the fact that even after closing the evidence of the petitioner, respondent/plaintiff has been granted 07 opportunities for rebuttal evidence -- Interest of justice requires, one opportunity to be granted to the petitioner to conclude his evidence at his own responsibility -- Petitioner allowed one effective opportunity subject to the payment of cost of Rs.50,000/-.

(Para 3-5)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 96 -- Summons not received back – Decision of appeal on merit – Permissibility of -- Court, duly noticed in the first paragraph of the impugned order that the notice issued to the respondent/ judgment debtor had not been received back -- It further went to notice that as per learned counsel representing the appellant/ decree-holder, the respondent-judgment debtor was sitting outside the Court room, but despite calls having been made, no one appeared on behalf of the respondent/ judgment debtor -- Court then proceeded to hear and allow the appeal -- Held, Court of Additional District Judge adopted a procedure unknown to law -- Once the respondent therein had not been served, there was no occasion for the Court to make calls and then proceed to decide the appeal without service having been effected -- Impugned order not sustainable, set aside.

(Para 10)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 – Suit for permanent injunction -- Amendment in name of defendant -- Typographical mistake -- Amendment is only for correction of a typographical mistake -- Application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for amendment allowed subject to payment of ?30,000 as costs to be paid to the defendant-respondent -- Payment of costs shall be a condition precedent.

(Para 2, 8)

Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 35 -- Photocopy of document – Validation of – Permissibility of -- Ld. Civil Judge proceeded to validate the photocopy of the agreement to sell on the condition that the petitioner deposits the deficient stamp duty along with a penalty quantified at ten times the sale consideration -- One page of the original document is available while the remaining page is only a photocopy – Held, even if a portion of the document exists in its original form, the instrument as a whole cannot thereby be deemed an original document -- In such circumstances, the composite document must necessarily be treated as a copy -- A copy whether partial or complete cannot be validated for the purposes of stamping -- Impugned order suffers from a manifest and material illegality, as the learned Civil Judge has exercised jurisdiction not vested in him under the law – Order set aside.

(Para 9, 9.1)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 37 – Scope u/s 37 of Arbitration Act -- Objection u/s 34 of Arbitration Act, dismissed – Award of the Arbitrator contains an elaborate examination of the terms of contract and a plausible view is taken by way of a reasoned award after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties -- Limited scope available to High Court u/s 37 of the Act -- View taken by the Arbitrator is clearly a permissible view and is in consonance with the Clauses of the NITs/contract – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 1, 23, 24)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376, 376(2)(n), 507 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 -- Rape -- False promise to marry – Quashing of FIR -- Respondent No.2 continued to meet the appellant and indulged in physical relations with him even though she was already married -- FIR also states that in September 2022, when respondent No.2 found out that she was pregnant with the appellant’s child, she told the appellant, “You live your life and I will live my life” -- At that time, the appellant assured her that they would get married and asked for some time from respondent No.2, to which she refused -- However, despite her refusal to be with the appellant, respondent No.2 continued to meet him at Hotel and engaged in physical relations with him – Held, not a case where the appellant lured respondent No.2 solely for physical pleasures and then vanished -- Relationship continued for a period of three long years, which is a considerable period of time -- They remained close and emotionally involved -- In such cases, physical intimacy that occurred during the course of a functioning relationship cannot be retrospectively branded as instances of offence of rape merely because the relationship failed to culminate in marriage – FIR quashed.

(Para 24-28, 41)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 25, 26, 27 – Recovery on disclosure – Relevancy -- Section 27 is an exception to the preceding Sections 25 and 26 -- Language further indicates that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person who is in custody of the Police in connection of an offence, it must relate distinctly to the fact so discovered -- For relevancy, the “facts thereby discovered” is preceded with the words “so much of such information, whether it amounts to confession or not as relates distinctly” -- “distinctly” indicates directly, indubitably, strictly and unmistakably, apparently, used in Section 27 to limit and define the scope of probable information -- Only that much information as is clearly connected with the fact discovered can be treated as relevant under the phrase ‘facts discovered’.

(Para 15)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 8, 27, 106 – Murder -- Last seen – Motive not proved – Conviction based upon recovery and FSL – Sustainability of -- When the eye-witness has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case and no evidence of ‘last seen’ has been adduced, and the alleged motive against the appellant remains unproved, however, mere recovery and the FSL report can, by itself, sustain the conviction of the appellant, more particularly when other co-accused having motive has been acquitted -- Appeal allowed, conviction and sentence set aside.

(Para 16, 25)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 1959), Section 25 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 8, 27, 106 – Murder – Recovery of pistol – Reliance upon FSL -- Prosecution has not established that the recovery distinctly relates to the commission of the offence or that the weapon so recovered was the same which was used to commit murder so as to constitute a relevant fact distinctively related to the disclosure -- Recovery was effected from an iron box lying in a room accessible to other family members, wherein various household articles were kept, which were neither seized nor proved examining any independent witness from neighborhood -- After the recovery, the pistol and cartridges were kept in the Malkhana, but the record does not indicate on which date these were handed over to PW-6 for deposit to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) and the same article was sent for forensic examination -- Chain of recovery linking the seizure, storage, and deposit of the material exhibits thus remains incomplete and was not duly proved -- Though the FSL report indicates that the pistol and cartridges recovered correlate with the bullets found in the body of the deceased, such evidence by itself is not sufficient to establish the appellant’s guilt in the absence of any proof that the recovered pistol was indeed used in the commission of the offence -- Appeal allowed, conviction and sentence set aside.

(Para 22-25)

Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7 – Advalorem Court fees – Executant of Sale deed – Role of -- Legal position is well settled that where a person, who is not a party to a sale deed, seeks to avoid the same, he may pay a fixed court fee under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 -- However, when the executant of the document himself seeks its cancellation, he must pay ad valorem court fee on the value of the property or consideration mentioned in the document -- This principle is based on the reasoning that an executant, having executed the document, cannot claim it to be void without first paying the fee on the transaction he himself created -- Plea that the sale deeds were obtained by fraud or that full consideration was not paid does not alter their status as executants -- Court Fee Act does not make any distinction between voluntary execution and execution allegedly induced by fraud.

(Para 7, 8)

A. Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989), Section 124A -- Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (54 of 1987), Section 16G -- Compensation on account of untoward incidents -- Bonafide passenger – Travell in wrong train -- Deceased had purchased a railway ticket and had expired due to the injuries sustained in the railway accident -- Merely because the deceased had boarded a wrong train, it cannot be construed that he was not a bona fide passenger so as to absolve the railway authorities from contending that deceased not being a bona fide passenger.

(Para 9)

B. Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989), Section 124A -- Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (54 of 1987), Section 16G -- Compensation on account of untoward incidents -- Plea that deceased had sustained injuries on account of his own act, jumped off the train – Held, no sane person could have attempted to deboard or alight from a running train that too an express train -- Plea taken is without proof -- Having raised such a plea, it was incumbent upon the railway authorities to prove the same -- DRM Report is also silent on this aspect -- Railway authorities are required to pay the compensation -- Amount of compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- ordered to be paid to the claimants with interest @ 9% from the date of original award till the date of payment or deposit.

(Para 10-13)

Constitution of India, Article 136, 226, 227 -- Appointment of Constable -- Forged degree – Dismissal from service -- Once on the basis of a forged degree/ certificate, a person gets appointment in the uniformed service of the country, that being the police, which is supposed to uphold the rule of law, the act of the respondent is uncondonable -- The further fact which is admitted is that there is absolutely, no rebuttal by the respondent that the certificate/ degree presented by him before the appellants at the time of his appointment and on the basis of which, he was appointed as a Constable, is genuine -- Punishment of dismissal from service restored.

(Para 8)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 -- Murder -- Circumstantial evidence --  Last seen evidence -- “Last seen” is likewise weak by itself, unless the time gap is narrow and intervening possibilities are reasonably excluded -- PW-11 admitted knowledge of the death of the deceased by noon on 21.12.2001 yet divulged nothing until 07.01.2002, 16 days later -- He offered no convincing explanation for this unnatural silence -- Name of the appellant was absent from the FIR, which was lodged on 21.12.2001 -- His name emerged only through the post facto statement of PW-11 on 07.01.2002, making that statement the pivot of implication -- A circumstance so central and yet so belatedly disclosed cannot, without strong corroboration, be the bedrock of guilt -- Although PW-8 supported that both the deceased and the accused were consuming liquor on the fateful day around 6:30 to 7:00 pm and a quarrel followed, however, “last seen” alone-especially when the version of PW-11 is tainted by delay, does not exclude other reasonable hypothesis, including the role of ‘RK’, who, as per the earliest version, had taken the deceased from his house – Conviction set aside.

(Para 19-22, 37)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 25, 106 -- Murder -- Circumstantial evidence -- Extra-judicial confession -- Extra-judicial confession is a weak form of evidence and ordinarily requires cautious scrutiny and corroboration of trustworthy quality -- PW-7, Sarpanch, before whom the accused made his extra-judicial confession, the record shows that there was no relationship of trust or familiarity between the appellant and this witness that would naturally prompt a confession to him-particularly, 20 days after the occurrence -- When the sole corroboration proffered is the recovery and a belated last seen account of doubtful credibility, the confession cannot safely be acted upon -- Extra-judicial confession is inherently unsafe to rely upon in this factual matrix.

(Para 19, 23-26, 37)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 27, 45, 106 -- Murder -- Circumstantial evidence – DNA linkage – Requirement of – Recovery of spade – Human blood on spade and shirt of accused -- Alleged recoveries of spade and bloodstained shirt pursuant to the disclosure statement and the report of the FSL: a spade is a common agricultural tool -- Mere recovery from the house of the appellant does not, by itself, establish its use in the crime in question -- Furthermore, FSL report (Exhibit PU) confirms human blood on the spade and shirt -- However, in the absence of any DNA linkage to the deceased and given the otherwise weak corroborative circumstances, the recovery does not conclusively connect the appellant to the murder in question -- Recovery, weeks after the incident, diminishes the probative force in the absence of unmistakable scientific linkage -- Evidence of recovery is inconclusive and cannot complete the chain.

(Para 27-29)

D. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 45, 106 -- Murder -- Circumstantial evidence – DNA linkage – Requirement of – A belated and unreliable “last seen account” of PW 11 -- An improbable extra-judicial confession to a person not shown to be a natural confidant, and inconclusive evidence of recovery of the weapon of offence and bloodstained clothes, with no linkage to the deceased, against the backdrop of unproved motive and inconsistency in the medical evidence regarding alleged alcohol consumption -- These circumstances do not form a complete chain that points only to the guilt of the appellant while excluding all reasonable hypothesis of innocence -- Prosecution has not discharged its foundational burden -- Approach of the learned trial Court-treating weak links as mutually reinforcing-was clearly erroneous -- Conviction of the appellant founded on infirm and uncorroborated circumstances -- As the chain is incomplete, the benefit of doubt must follow -- Appeal allowed, conviction and order of sentence set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him.

(Para 34-37)

A. Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (54 of 2002), Section 13, 34 -- SARFAESI -- Injunction – Fraud alleged – Jurisdiction of civil Court -- Normally the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred and the correct remedy for a party is to knock the doors of the DRT u/s 17 of the SARFAESI Act -- In certain cases, where fraud is pleaded and the same cannot be proved in the proceedings before the DRT, the Civil Court does have the jurisdiction to deal with the issue.

(Para 23)

B. Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (54 of 2002), Section 13, 34 -- SARFAESI -- Injunction – Jurisdiction of civil Court -- Before exercising jurisdiction, the trial Court should have considered the judgments and the law on the subject as regards the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and in case, after referring to the said judgments, it had come to the conclusion that the Civil Court, prima-facie had the jurisdiction to deal with the issue, it could have proceeded ahead -- However, no such exercise was undertaken and in fact, there is not even a reference to the provisions of Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act or the law on the subject -- Trial Court erred -- Parties relegated to the trial Court where they should project their respective cases and then the trial Court should arrive at a specific conclusion.

(Para 24, 25)

C. Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (54 of 2002), Section 13, 34 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 – Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Defendant proceeded ex-parte -- Ex-parte stay – Revision in High Court -- Petitioner should have first approached the trial Court by way of an appropriate application since it had been proceeded against exparte and then it should have agitated about the grant of exparte stay -- However, the petitioner chose to straightaway come to High Court rather than filing an application before the trial Court -- Impugned order set aside, parties relegated to the trial Court -- Petitioner-defendant, may move the requisite application before the trial Court, which if so moved, shall be dealt with by the trial Court, in accordance with law -- Parties may then agitate their claims as regards the grant or non-grant of injunction in view of the averments made in the civil suit; the provisions of Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act and the law.

(Para 26-28)

D. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 9 Rule 6 – Notice received by clerk of Company – No one appeared -- Proceeded ex-parte -- Once the petitioner-defendant had been served and it chose not to appear, the trial Court rightly proceeded ex-parte against it.

(Para 21)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 10 – Impleadment as party -- For impleading a person as a party, two conditions must be satisfied: firstly, that there must be a right to some relief against such person in respect of the controversies involved in the proceedings; and secondly, that no effective decree can be passed in the absence of such person -- Power under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is discretionary and should be exercised sparingly but to advance the cause of complete justice and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

(Para 16)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 10 – Impleadment as party – Suit for declaration and permanent injunction -- Applicant placed on record Mutations and Jamabandi for the year 1996-97 showing transfer of the suit land from the State Government to ‘J’ and thereafter to himself -- Several rounds of litigation, including writ petitions before the High Court, in which his alleged rights over the same land have been contested -- These materials were sufficient to give the trial court a prima facie basis to conclude that the applicant has at least an arguable interest in the subject matter of the suit and that his presence would facilitate complete adjudication of the dispute.

(Para 2, 16)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 10 – Impleadment as party – Suit for declaration and permanent injunction -- Objection as to claim based upon fraudulent documents – It is a matter of evidence which cannot be conclusively determined at the stage of impleadment -- Impleadment order does not confer any legitimacy upon applicant’s title; it merely allows him to be heard so that the court's final decree, if passed, may bind all persons claiming interest in the property and avoid future litigation -- Apprehension that the impleadment will prejudice the plaintiff/ petitioner's rights is thus unfounded.

(Para 2, 17)

D. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 10 – Impleadment as party – Suit for declaration and permanent injunction --Dominus litis – Argument as to Plaintiff/ Petitioner, being dominus litis, is free to choose his defendants, cannot prevail when the relief claimed directly affects third-party rights reflected in the public records -- Petitioner's suit seeks declaration of nullity of a rapat entry and correction of revenue records may have an impact upon any person claiming interest through existing entries or documents.

(Para 2, 18)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483(2)  -- Cancellation of bail – Once bail has been granted by a competent Court, the same can be cancelled only when there is cogent material showing that the accused has misused the concession of bail, has tampered with evidence or there has been a subsequent supervening circumstance warranting such cancellation -- Mere reiteration of allegations forming the basis of FIR or apprehension of misuse is not sufficient ground for cancellation of bail -- Cancellation of bail already granted requires demonstration of supervening circumstances such as misuse of liberty, tampering with evidence, intimidation of witnesses or deliberate evasion of the judicial process – Mere dissatisfaction with the reasoning of the Court which has granted the bail or the seriousness of the offence by itself, is not sufficient to recall such an order.

(Para 7)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 47 – Execution of decree -- Objections -- An objection petition under Section 47 should not invariably be treated as a commencement of a new trial -- Jurisdiction lies in a narrow compass -- Object of Section 47 is to prevent unwarranted litigation and dispose of all objections as expeditiously as possible -- There is a steady rise of proceedings akin to a retrial which causes failure of realization of the fruits of a decree, unless prima facie grounds are made out entertaining objections under Section 47 would be an abuse of process.

(Para 97, 98)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 2 Rule 2, Order 7 Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint – Res-judicata -- Suit being barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC or by res judicata, the trial Court rightly held that the same was a matter of evidence and the plaint could not have been rejected on the said ground.

(Para 10)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7 -- Rejection of plaint – Ad-valorem court fee -- Petitioner was not an executant of the sale deed -- Once the plaintiff was not an executant of the sale deed and further the relief of possession had not been sought, there was no question of ordering the petitioner-plaintiff to affix the ad valorem court fee.

(Para 10)

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (39 of 1987), Section 22C -- Permanent Lok Adalat – Mutual settlement proposal – Requirements of -- PLA(PUS) adjudicated the dispute on merits before proposing a settlement between the parties -- This is in clear breach of the procedure laid down under the Act – Determination of disputes under section 22C(8) has to be done by PLA (PUS), in case, the parties fails to arrive at mutual settlement and not other way around – Award set aside, matter remitted back to PLA (PUS).

(Para 5-7)

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 – Regular  bail -- 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)