Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 210, 413 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 190(1)(a), 372 – Complaint/ Protest petition – Offence u/ss 306, 506, 34 IPC -- Dismissal of complaint without summoning – Remedy of Appeal/ Revision – High Court sent the matter to Ld. Sessions Judge to treat the revision petition as an appeal filed u/s 372 of Cr.P.C -- He/she shall either decide the appeal himself/herself or entrust the same to appropriate Court for its disposal.

(Para 2, 7-9)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 187(3), 193 – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20 -- Default bail -- Challan report without FSL report – Held, mere non-filing of the FSL report along with the police report does not render the challan incomplete so as to confer an indefeasible right of default bail upon the accused -- The FSL report, being a piece of corroborative evidence, can be filed subsequently by way of supplementary challan and its absence at the initial stage does not vitiate the prosecution or revive the right to default bail.

(Para 6)

***

Permanent Lok Adalat award deemed to be a decree -- Execution objections cannot be treated as an efficacious alternative remedy to challenge the award -- Writ petition challenging the award maintainable.

***

A. Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (39 of 1987), Section 21, 22E – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9, 47, Order 21 --  Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Permanent Lok Adalat – Award/ Deemed decree – Challenge – Maintainability of writ petition -- Every award of a Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court -- It shall be final and binding on the parties to the dispute, and that no appeal shall lie against it – Award cannot be called in question in any original suit, application or execution proceeding -- Writ petition challenging the award was maintainable.

(Para 8-10)

B. Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (39 of 1987), Section 21, 22E – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9, 47, Order 21 --  Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Permanent Lok Adalat – Award/ Deemed decree – Objection in Execution – Writ -- Maintainability -- Treating the filing of objections in such execution as an “efficacious alternative remedy” for challenging the award is inconsistent with the statutory scheme -- Decree in such a case owes its force not merely to the CPC but to the special statute which deems the award to be a decree only for the limited purpose of execution -- Statutory structure is the same whether the aggrieved person is a party to the award or is a third party who claims to be affected by it -- In either case, if the validity of the award is to be examined at all, it is to be tested in writ proceedings before the High Court and not by expanding the scope of execution or by encouraging independent civil suits.

(Para 11-13)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13-B -- Divorce by mutual consent – Marriage between Hindu boy and Muslim girl -- No necessity for a person professing a particular religion to claim conversion to another religion by any formal ceremony or even declaration, mere conduct would suffice to establish conversion -- Marriage solemnization in accordance with Hindu rights and customs, parties approaching the Family Court invoking the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has sufficiently shown that the second petitioner has converted herself to Hindu faith – They will also not be in a position to seek divorce under the Special Marriage Act -- The only remedy for the petitioners is to seek dissolution of the marriage invoking the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – No necessity for the Court to conduct any roving enquiry, merely because the second petitioner’s name continues to be her original Muslim name -- Matter remitted back to Ld. Subordinate Judge to decide on merits and in accordance with law.

(Para 7-10)

Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purpose Act, 1997 (10 of 1999), Section 7(2), 7(4), 12 – Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), Section 3 -- Compensation for acquired land – Rent – Interest – Act 1997 facilitate land owners or interested persons to negotiate and arrive at an agreement on the amount of compensation to be paid -- Once such an agreement is arrived at, it becomes a concluded contract under Section 3 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

-- Rights and liabilities of the parties would only be governed by the terms of the contract. Hence,  a contract voluntarily entered into between the parties, shall not be disturbed by taking recourse to the statutory provisions, which are sought to be excluded by such contract. A party to a contract cannot be permitted to have recourse to two different modes, especially after having accepted the compensation under the contract without any demur or protest. It is not open to either of the parties to resile from the terms of the agreement arrived at

-- Once there is a final agreement, all disputes with respect to determination of rent and interest would get subsumed within the contract itself. Any interpretation to the contrary, would be violative of Section 7(2) and Section 7(4) of the 1997 Act.

(Para 21, 22)

***

Trust – Legal Status – A trust has no separate legal existence and cannot sue or be sued in its own name.

***

Complaint Against Trustee – Non-impleadment of Trust – A complaint under Section 138 is maintainable against the Chairman/Trustee who signed the cheque on behalf of the trust, even if the trust itself is not arraigned as an accused.

***

A. Indian Trusts Act, 1882 (2 of 1882), Section 3 – Trust/ Trustee – Nature -- Only a Trustee has the obligation to file, maintain and defend any suit on behalf of the Trust -- Meaning thereby, that a Trust does not have a separate legal existence of its own, making it incapable of suing or being sued.

(Para 23)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Cheque bounce case -- Complaint against trustee -- Trust not party in complaint – Effect of : Whether in the absence of a Trust being made an accused in a complaint under the NI Act, when a cheque has been issued on behalf of the Trust, the said complaint would be maintainable against the Chairman/a Trustee of the said Trust?

-- Question posed is answered in the affirmative. When a cause of action arises due to an alleged dishonour of cheque and a complaint is initiated under the NI Act, the same is maintainable against the Trustee who has signed the cheque, without the requirement to array the Trust also as an accused.

(Para 29)

***

Rejection of plaint -- Mutation/Jamabandi Entry – Suit challenging the legality of a mutation entry concerning Jumla Malkan Wa Digar Haqdaran Arazi Hasab Rasad Raqba land is not barred by law.

***

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 45 -- Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 13 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 -- Jumla Malkan Wa Digar Haqdaran Arazi Hasab Rasad Raqba land – Suit for declaratory decree against change in mutation/ jamabandi entry – Jurisdiction of civil court – Rejection of plaint -- Held, only prayer in the plaint is that mutation entry is illegal, null and void -- Defendant No.4/ Gram Panchayat not able to show as to how the said relief which has been claimed in the plaint is covered u/s 13 Act, 1961 -- Dispute is squarely covered by the provisions of Section 45 Act, 1887 hence the suit cannot be held to be barred by law – Application or rejection of plaint dismissed by Trial Court, upheld.

(Para 1, 6-9)

***

NRI landlord -- Leave to defend -- Tenant entitled to leave to defend only upon disclosing, through a duly sworn affidavit, facts that would disentitle the landlord to eviction, confined to whether the landlord is an NRI, owns the premises, and has a genuine and bona fide requirement.

***

NRI landlord -- Collection of rent by power of attorney holder on behalf of the landlord residing abroad does not dilute his status as landlord.

***

NRI landlord -- Bona fide necessity -- Landlord’s intention to return to India to personally care for his ailing mother cannot be characterised as mala fide or a mere pretext.

***

A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13B, 18A -- NRI landlord -- Leave to defend -- Object -- A special and expeditious remedy has been conferred upon Non-Resident Indians intending to return to India, enabling them to recover possession of one residential building for their genuine and bona fide need u/s 13-B of the Act -- Legislative intent underlying the said provision is to provide a swift mechanism, subject to limited grounds of contest.

-- Under Section 18-A of the Act, the tenant’s right to contest is circumscribed. Leave to defend may be granted only where the tenant, by way of a duly sworn affidavit, discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order of eviction. The scope of defence is confined to the parameters of Section 13-B, namely: (i) that the landlord is not an NRI; (ii) that he is not the owner of the premises; or (iii) that his requirement is not genuine or bona fide.

(Para 7, 7.1)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13B -- NRI Landlord -- Contention that rent was collected by power of attorney holder of the respondent, does not dilute the respondent’s status as landlord, particularly when he resides abroad and the rent is received on his behalf.

(Para 7.3)

C. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13B, 18A -- NRI landlord – Leave to defend -- Bona fide necessity – Ailing mother in India -- If the respondent-landlord, being her son, intends to return to India to personally attend to and care for his ailing mother, such requirement cannot be characterized as mala fide or a mere pretext – Leave to defend rightly declined.

(Para 7.4, 7.5)

A. Punjab Courts Act, 1918 (6 of 1918), Section 41 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100 -- Scope of second appeal – Question of law -- In Punjab and Haryana, second appeals are to be treated as appeals u/s 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 and not under Section 100 CPC -- No question of law is required to be framed.

(Para 9)

B. Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (9 of 1910) -- Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (54 of 1948) -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Jurisdiction civil court – Re-classification of the electricity connection from industrial to commercial – Demand of higher bill for commercial --  Electricity demand is found to be illegal, arbitrary, issued without notice and in violation of natural justice and the existing agreement – Held, civil court has jurisdiction when the Board's action is without jurisdiction and violative of natural justice.

(Para 10-13)

Indian Easements Act, 1882 (V of 1882), Section 60 – Tenant/ Licensee – Plea beyond pleadings – Not permissible -- As per the legal notice, plaintiff claimed that the defendant was in possession of the suit property as tenant -- No plea raised in the written statement regarding defendant being licensee under the plaintiff -- Parties are bound by their pleadings -- In view thereof, reliance placed upon Section 60 the Indian Easements Act, 1882 is without any foundational pleading and cannot be accepted.

(Para 13, 14)

A. Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 2(17), 3, Schedule 1-B, Article 40, 57 -- Stamp duty – Nomenclature/ substance of document – Mortgage deed -- In matters of stamp duty, the decisive factor is not the nomenclature assigned to the instrument, but the substance of rights and obligations it embodies -- Court is duty-bound to ascertain the true legal character of the instrument.

-- Appellant executed a “Security Bond cum Mortgage Deed” in favour of the MDA -- Instrument fulfils the essential characteristics of a mortgage deed -- In substance and effect, the deed confers a right over specified properties in favour of the Meerut Development Authority to secure performance of an obligation, while preserving the appellant’s interest until full discharge of obligation -- Nomenclature “Security Bond cum Mortgage Deed” is, therefore, inconsequential.

(Para 14-17)

B. Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 2(17), 3, Schedule 1-B, Article 40, 57 – Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), Section 126 -- Stamp duty – Nomenclature -- Surety bond/ Mortgage deed -- Article 57 of Schedule 1-B of the Indian Stamp Act operates in two distinct limbs -- The first limb covers security bond or mortgage deed executed by way of security for the due execution of office, or to account for money or other properties received by virtue thereof -- The second limb, demarcated by the words “or executed by a surety to secure the due performance of a contract”, is restricted in its application to the execution of security bond or mortgage deed by a surety to secure the obligations of another, and does not extend to cases where the principal itself executes the deed to secure its own obligations -- The term “surety” must be strictly understood in accordance with Section 126 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

(Para 20-22)

C. Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Schedule 1-B, Article 40, 57 -- Security Bond cum Mortgage Deed -- Deed was not executed by a surety but by the principal debtor/appellant, the company, through its director -- Company itself mortgaged the properties and not the director in his individual capacity -- This firmly establishes that the properties were not mortgaged by a third party, but by the principal debtor itself, which, does not attract Article 57 -- Deed executed by the appellant cannot be termed as a security bond -- It, however, fulfils all the requirements of a mortgage deed, falling under the ambit of Article 40 of Schedule 1-B of the Indian Stamp Act.

(Para 25, 26)

***

Rejection of Plaint – Decree – An order rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC finally decides the lis and constitutes a decree

***

Rejection of Plaint – Commercial Suit – Maintainability of Appeal – An appeal against an order rejecting a plaint for non-compliance with mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, is maintainable under Section 13(1A).

***

Return of Plaint – Commercial Suit – Maintainability of Revision – An order rejecting applications under Order VII Rules 10 and 11(d) CPC may be challenged through a revision or petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.

***

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 2(2), Order 7 Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint -- Decree -- An order rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC decides the lis finally and would tantamount to a decree within the meaning of Section 2(2) CPC.

(Para 14)

B. Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (4 of 2016), Section 12A, 13(1A) -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 -- Commercial suit -- Rejection of plaint – Application seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the appellant-company had not undertaken the mandatory Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement (PIMS) as contemplated u/s 12A of the CCA, 2015 – Trial court accepted the application and rejected the plaint -- High Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable u/s 13(1A) of CCA, 2015 – Held, appeal preferred by the appellant-company in the High Court is maintainable and hence, restored to its file and original number.

-- Section 13(1A) of the CCA, 2015, is in two distinct parts -- Main provision contemplates appeals against ‘judgments’ and ‘orders’ of the Commercial Court to the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court -- The proviso, operating as an exception, must be construed harmoniously with the main provision and not in derogation thereof -- The proviso merely restricts appeals against interlocutory orders to those specifically enumerated under Order XLIII CPC and Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

(Para 6, 14-21)

C. Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (4 of 2016), Section 13(1A) -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 10, 11(d), Order 43 --  Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Commercial suit – Return of plaint – Maintainability of revision -- An order rejecting application(s) under Order VII Rule 10 and Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC, are not enumerated under Order XLIII of the CPC -- Such an order would not be amenable to an appeal under Section 13(1A) of the CCA, 2015, and rather, can be challenged by filing a revision or a petition/application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(Para 19)

A. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 183 -- Statement -- Confession statement -- Object of --  Primary purpose of Section 183 of B.N.S.S. is to provide a safe voluntary and judicially supervised mechanism for recording confessions (by the accused) and statements (witnesses or the victims) during a criminal investigation or even afterwards before inquiry or trial begins and this ensures that these statements or confession are made freely and without coercion and it carries higher reliability and evidentiary values as compared to ordinary police statements recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S.

(Para 10)

B. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 183 -- Statement/ Confession before Magistrate – Police officer cannot record confessions even though may be adorned with magisterial powers -- Only a Judicial Magistrate can record a statement u/s 183 B.N.S.S. -- Magistrate must ensure voluntariness on part of the person making the statement -- Magistrate must explain to the person making a confession or a statement that the person is not bound to confess or give the statement and he must warn him prior to the recording of the statement that it may be used as evidence against them -- Section 183 BNSS acts as a judicial filter between police investigation and trial evidence, thereby capturing important statements/confessions in a protected, verifiable manner to aid truth-finding while safeguarding against abuse of power -- It balances effective prosecution with protection of individual rights, with BNSS adding digital and victim-focused enhancements over the old CrPC framework.

(Para 11)

C. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 180, 183 -- Statement/ Confession before Magistrate – Multiple Statements – Permissibility of -- Provision does not contemplate or authorize "second" or repeated statements under this section as a standard procedure -- Purpose is to record a reliable, voluntary statement/confession once, with evidentiary value -- Police statements under Section 180 BNSS (old Section 161 CrPC) can be recorded multiple times if needed during investigation, but magisterial statements under Section 183 BNSS are exceptional and meant to preserve evidence with higher reliability.

(Para 12)

D. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 183 – Statement/ Confession before Magistrate – Discretion of Investigation officer – Power of High court -- Power to record a statement u/s 183 B.N.S.S. is discretionary and is typically initiated by- (i) the investigating officer to producing the person (witness/victim or accused) and (ii) the person voluntarily approaching the Magistrate -- High Court can in appropriate cases exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to direct a fresh recording of statement before the Magistrate and the power is not a routine or an automatic power but is exercised by High Court or Supreme Court to prevent abuse of process, to secure ends of justice or rectify grave procedural irregularities that could lead to miscarriage of justice.

(Para 14-16)

A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13(1)(ib) -- Desertion – Divorce – Desertion is not withdrawal from a particular place, but it is withdrawal from a particular state of things i.e., cohabitation – Desertion is a continuing course of conducts and not a single act – Desertion is deemed complete when the period prescribed in law expires, and a petition for remedy is filed on its ground – However, if the deserter returns before the expiry of the prescribed period, the desertion stands terminated.

(Para 12)

B. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13(1)(ib) -- Desertion – Permanent breakdown of marriage -- Divorce – Marriage was solemnized in the year 1997 and conjugal relationship between the parties has been snapped since 2002 – Respondent-husband filed divorce case in the year 2007 – Parties never resumed the cohabitation after the year 2002 and during last more than two decades efforts to restore their conjugal relationship failed -- A case of complete breakdown of marriage -- Judgment and decree of divorce passed by the learned Family Court requires no interference.

(Para 13)

C. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 25 -- Permanent alimony – Object -- Primary objective of granting permanent alimony is to ensure that the dependent spouse is not left without any support and means after the dissolution of the marriage. It aims at protecting the interests of the dependent spouse and does not provide for penalizing the other spouse in the process.

(Para 15)

D. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 25 – Permanent alimony – Parties living separately from 23 years -- Appellant-wife is unemployed having no independent income and is solely dependent upon the alimony -- She is residing in her parental house and her female child has completed B.Tech on student loan of Rs.4,00,000/- -- Male child has also completed B.Tech and M.Tech -- Educational expenses were borne by the appellant-wife with help of loan and other acquaintances -- Respondent-husband is earning Rs.3,20,000/- per annum having a small plot of land residing in a house constructed by his father -- Respondent-husband solemnized his second marriage and have been blessed with two children – Permanent alimony to the tune of Rs.18 Lakhs awarded to be paid by the respondent-husband as one time settlement to the appellant-wife.

(Para 21)

***

Ex Parte Injunction – Appeal/Revision – An order granting an ex parte injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is appealable -- Revision petition is not maintainable.

***

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rule 1 & 2, 4, Order 43 Rule 1 – Ex-parte injunction – Appeal/ Revision -- Order passed under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC is appealable under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC -- Besides this, an application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC too can be moved, as the ex parte injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff without issuing notice to defendants/petitioner – Revision cannot be entertained.

(Para 9)

***

Maintenance – Proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are summary in nature, and detailed examination of matrimonial disputes or determination of fault is unnecessary, the provision being intended to prevent destitution and ensure a life of dignity for the wife.

***

Maintenance – Earning Wife – Maintenance is not determined by clubbing the parties’ incomes or awarding a fixed proportion of the husband’s salary, but by considering their respective incomes, expenses and circumstances.

***

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 – Maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. -- Nature -- Proceedings u/s 125 Cr.P.C. are summary in nature, as such, the minute details of the matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife need not be examined -- It is not necessary to ascertain as to who was in the wrong -- Salutary purpose behind Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to prevent the wife from being subjected to adversities of vagrancies and to ensure that she is not left to lead a life of indignity.

(Para 15)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 – Maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. – Earning wife -- It is not the law that income of both the sides should be clubbed together to be divided by two or that a fixed proportion of income of the husband be awarded to the wife -- It is also not the law that the wife should get half or even a substantial portion of the husband’s salary, who is earning more -- As per affidavit of income and assets filed by the wife, her monthly expenses are Rs.60,000/- -- Expenses of husband are Rs.95,000/- per month -- Wife earning Rs.79,000/- per month – Husband earning Rs.1,80,000/- -- Maintenance allowance reduced from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per month.

(Para 16-22)

***

Permanent Injunction – Possession as on the date of institution of the suit is the determinative factor.

***

Khasra Girdawari – Possession – Khasra girdawari entries carry significant evidentiary value regarding possession, and a sudden change in entries unsupported by cogent evidence or lawful process cannot, by itself, establish a change in actual possession.

***

A. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 36, 37 -- Suit for permanent injunction – Possession -- Determinative factor is possession of the parties on the date of institution of the suit, which was instituted on 12.10.1989 -- Revenue entries up to Rabi 1990 continued to record possession of the plaintiff -- Subsequent entries reflecting possession of the defendants from Kharif 1990 cannot displace the position of possession as it existed on the date of institution of the suit.

(Para 8)

B. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34 -- Khasra girdawari -- Khasra girdawari entries, though not conclusive proof of title, carry significant evidentiary value regarding possession, particularly when they exhibit continuity over a long period -- A sudden change in such entries, unsupported by cogent material or lawful process, cannot by itself be treated as proof of actual change of possession.

(Para 9)

***

Octroi – Penalty for Evasion – Municipal authorities lack jurisdiction to impose the penal consequences under Section 116 of Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976.

***

Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (42 of 1976), Section 116 – Penalty for attempting evading of Octroi -- Jurisdiction of civil court – Alternative remedy available – Assessment and recovery of Octroi fall within the domain of municipal authorities – Imposition of penalty contemplated under Section 116, being penal in nature and capable of extending to multiple times the duty allegedly evaded, can be ordered only by a Criminal Court in accordance with law – Municipal authorities are not vested with the power to impose such penalty – Both Courts below have concurrently held that the Commissioner or officers of the Municipal Corporation lacked competence to impose the penalty in question – Once such a finding regarding inherent lack of jurisdiction stands recorded, the demand raised becomes void and unenforceable in the eyes of law – Rule of alternative remedy is a rule of prudence and not a bar where the impugned action is wholly without jurisdiction – A party cannot be compelled to pursue a statutory remedy against an order which is a nullity.

(Para 9-12)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Disability pension – Military service -- Primary Hypertension -- Rounding off the disability from 30% to 50% --  Once at the time of enrolment, respondent No.1/ employee was medically examined and was found to be fit in all respects and it was only during his service period, he was found to be suffering from ‘Primary Hypertension’ -- That being so, the said disability has to be attributed to the military service and the unsubstantiated report of Medical Board cannot take away the right to claim the benefit of disability pension.

(Para 10)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), 64, 137(2), 75, 96, 126(2), 351(2) -- POCSO – Rape -- Regular bail – Minor victim – Love affair – Consensual relationship – Victim aged about 15 years:  

-- Victim girl in her statement before the I.O. stated that she was in love affair with the petitioner and on coming to know the same the family members of the victim girl have scolded her and she intimated the same to the petitioner and at that time petitioner told her that he will marry her – On 18.12.2024, he took her on bike and roamed with her till evening and took her to a room in a hotel and had sexual intercourse against her will.

-- Victim girl has been examined by the doctor and at the time of examination the victim girl has stated before the doctor that she had affair with the petitioner and both had consensual sex.

Held, victim is having love affair with the petitioner and she is of the age of understanding the consequences of her acts – As the charge sheet is filed, the petitioner is not required for further custodial interrogation and the petitioner is in judicial custody since 21.12.2024 and no criminal antecedents, bail allowed.

(Para 6-8)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Writ of Habeas Corpus -- Custody of minor child -- Dispute between husband and wife – Maintainability – Where the dispute regarding custody of a minor child is between husband and wife and the whereabouts of the child are specifically known, the remedy of writ of habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable -- In such circumstances, the issue of custody is required to be adjudicated by the competent Guardian Court on the basis of evidence, and not by the Writ Court in habeas corpus jurisdiction -- Writ petition dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned Court for appropriate relief.

(Para 10-14)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 302, 120-B, 427, 149 – Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (3 of 1984), Section 3(2) – Murder – Unlawful assembly -- Run-away/Absconding Accused – Quashing of Proceedings after Acquittal of Co-accused – All other accused acquitted on the score that none of the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and prosecution has miserably failed in driving home the guilt beyond all reasonable doubt – Though the accused who escaped trial should not be shown indulgence and a direction should be issued to participate in trial and to come out clean – To save the precious judicial time, Court deemed it appropriate to allow the petition -- Proceedings quashed qua the petitioner.

(Para 8-10)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9, Order 7 Rule 7 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Relief -- Grant of lesser relief -- When a suitor claims a larger or wider relief than what he is entitled to, his claim (be it a writ petition or a suit) cannot be dismissed by the court on that ground -- Should the court find the suitor entitled to a lesser relief than the larger or wider relief claimed, there is no bar in granting such lesser relief – However, a court cannot grant a larger or wider relief to the suitor than that claimed by him.

(Para 10)

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Writ jurisdiction – Multiple reliefs – Maintainability of writ -- Even if multiple relief in a single prayer has been claimed and if at all the High Court was of the view that relief should have been claimed separately, liberty to that extent by way of a correction of the prayer clause could have been granted.

(Para 10)

C. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 -- Writ jurisdiction – Defective prayer – Amendment – If the prayer clause be found defective in any manner or not in the form required by the writ rules of the High Court, amendment of the prayers could have been permitted by the High Court to ensure that they conform to the writ rules -- This would have been in consonance with the norms for amendment of pleadings, envisaged in Order VI Rule 17, CPC -- Even, moulding of relief without insisting on amendment of the prayer clause, should a case be set up therefor, is not unknown to writ jurisprudence.

(Para 10)

D. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 10 -- Impleadment of parties – Role of Registry of Court – Appellant/ writ-petitioner is dominus litis -- It is for him to decide who is to be joined as a party and who is not to be joined -- Registry cannot make inroads into areas within the exclusive domain of the judiciary and seek clarification as to why a particular party has been joined as a respondent.

(Para 1, 11)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 – Mutation based on Will – Validity/ genuineness of Will in question – Jurisdiction of Tehsildar/ Civil Court -- There is no bar for seeking mutation based on a will -- However, in a case of serious dispute regarding the validity/ genuineness of the will including competence of testator’s capacity to execute it, or where there are two rival wills set up, it would be a dispute beyond the competence of the Tahsildar to decide, and in such a case the appropriate course for the parties would be to approach the Civil Court to get the dispute adjudicated.

(Para 18)

B. Mutation based on Will – Right of -- Mutation does not confer any right, title or interest on a person -- Mutation in the revenue records is only for fiscal purposes – Where there is no serious dispute raised by any natural legal heir, if any, of the tenure holder, in absence of any legal bar, mutation based on a will should not be denied as it would defeat the interest of Revenue.

(Para 19)

Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41 Rule 17, 19 -- Restoration of appeal dismissed in default -- Condonation of delay of 5250 days -- Requirement of reasons -- Consideration of third-party rights -- When application for restoration is filed after huge delay, the Court must be cognizant of the fact that time does not stand still -- Court should not rule out involvement of third parties in the litigation -- In fact, the Court must presume that third party rights may have been created and/or additional parties may have developed rights and interest in the litigation -- Order of High Court allowing restoration without assigning reasons set aside – Matter remitted back -- Application for condonation of delay shall be decided afresh after hearing the appellant/developer, who claims to have started developing the suit property during the time period the appeal remained dismissed.

(Para 11-14)

***

Minor’s Property – Transfer of -- Prior permission of the court is mandatory for a natural guardian to transfer a minor’s immovable property under Section 8(2), and any transfer made in contravention of the statutory requirements is voidable at the instance of the minor.

***

Power-of-Attorney Holder – Evidentiary Value – A power-of-attorney holder cannot depose on matters beyond his personal knowledge or concerning facts personally known to the plaintiff.

***

A. Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (32 of 1956), Section 8(1)(2)(3) -- Transfer of minor’s property – Authority of natural guardian -- Necessity of permission of court -- Prior permission of the court is a sine qua non for a guardian of a minor to transfer the property of the minor in any of the manners provided under sub-Section (2) of Section 8 of the Act -- If the natural guardian or a minor disposes of the immovable property of a minor in contravention of section 8(1) and 8(2), particularly without the permission of the court, such a transaction would be voidable at the instance of the minor.

(Para 12, 13)

B. Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (32 of 1956), Section 8 – Sale of minor’s property without permission of court – Voidable at the instance of the minor – Not necessary to file suit for cancellation -- Held, a voidable transaction executed by the guardian of the minor can be repudiated and ignored by the minor within time on attaining majority either by instituting a suit for setting aside the voidable transaction or by repudiating the same by his unequivocal conduct -- It is not always necessary for a minor to institute a suit for cancellation of a voidable sale transaction executed by his guardian on attaining majority within the limitation provided and that such a transaction can be avoided or repudiated by his conduct.

(Para 13, 32, 33)

C. Evidence law -- Evidence either ocular or documentary cannot travel beyond the pleadings.

(Para 38)

D. Evidence law – Witness of power of attorney – Evidential value -- Power-of-attorney holder of the plaintiff was not competent to depose or to prove anything which was not within his personal knowledge or was otherwise personally known to the plaintiff – Testimony of such a witness is inadmissible with regard to the facts within the personal knowledge of the plaintiff who has failed to enter the witness box.

(Para 39 )

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 10, Order 43 Rule 1(a) – Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (4 of 2016), Section 12A, 13(1A) – Commercial suit -- Return of plaint on account of non-compliance of Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act by exercising powers under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, which order is appealable under  Order XLIII Rule 1(a) CPC – Held, in terms of proviso to Section 13 (1A) of the Act, the appeal would be maintainable.

(Para 1, 7)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 10 -- Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (4 of 2016), Section 12A -- Commercial suit -- Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement -- Declaration made by the Court u/s 12-A of the Act of 2015 was mandatory and that any suit instituted violating the mandate of Section 12-A must be visited with rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Patil Automation Private Limited’s case (2022) 10 SCC 1 relied.

 (Para 8, 9)

A. Family Courts Act, 1984 (66 of 1984), Section 7 (1) (c) – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint -- Subject matter of the suit is property, which appellant (husband) says he purchased in name of respondent (wife) – Seeking declaration that the property is his -- Respondent says the property was purchased for her benefit – Held, suit comes within section 7 (1) (c) in the Act of 1988 – Impugned order rejecting the plaint set aside.

(Para 2, 4, 6)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 10 – Stay of subsequent suit – Suit for permanent injunction – Thereafter suit for title -- Former suit for protection against eviction while the latter is for declaration of title -- Section 10 of the Code will not be applicable.

(Para 7)

Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (VI of 1978), Section 8, 13 – Preventive detention – Reasoned order – Requirement of -- Petitioner subjected to preventive detention custody just by a blank reference on the part of the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), followed by equally bland application of mind on the part of the District Magistrate – Held, the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, viz-a-viz the petitioner has been invoked by non-seriousness of standard with which even a motorist is not subjected to a routine traffic challan -- Preventive detention custody of the petitioner is held to be illegal right from its inception -- Preventive detention order quashed.

(Para 13-16)

***

Compounding -- Cheque dishonour – Voluntary settlement between parties – Conviction and sentence set aside and petitioner acquitted, subject to payment of Rs.15,000/- as costs.

***

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 147 – Conviction in cheque bounce complaint -- Compounding of offence -- Settlement between parties -- Acquittal – Parties have voluntarily settled the disputes between themselves -- Impugned judgments of conviction and sentence set aside – Petitioner acquitted of the charge u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act -- Cost of Rs.15,000/- imposed.

(Para 8-12)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 480(5), 528 – Non-appearance of accused -- Cancellation of bail -- Issuance of non-bailable warrants -- Procedural safeguards -- While cancelling the concession of bail, Trial Court straight away proceeded to issue non-bailable warrants:

-- Cancellation of bail, in the absence of any misconduct, lack of bona fides, or deliberate evasion of proceedings, amounts to an unjustified restriction on the procedural rights of the accused.

-- Issuance of non-bailable warrants must not be mechanical and should be resorted to sparingly, only upon recording cogent reasons demonstrating the necessity of such action -- Primary object of cancellation of bail and forfeiture of bail bonds is to secure the presence of the accused during trial.

Petitioner-accused come forward himself to face trial – Impugned order set aside, conditions imposed.

(Para 5-8)

***

Supervisory Jurisdiction of High Court – High Court may intervene under Article 227 where a subordinate Civil Court fails to exercise jurisdiction vested in it, ensuring that the court acts within its lawful authority and prevents injustice caused by inaction or neglect.

***

Third-Party Objection – Maintainability of Appeal/ Revision – An order deciding a third-party objection on merits under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC has the force of a decree and is appealable under Rule 103 -- Revision petition is not maintainable.

***

A. Constitution of India, Article 227 – Revisional powers – Object -- Where a Civil Court subordinate to the High Court fails to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it, the High Court possesses the power to intervene under Article 227 of the Constitution of India -- This principle ensures that subordinate courts act within their lawful mandate and that parties are not deprived of justice due to inaction or neglect by such courts.

(Para 8)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 Rule 97, 103 -- Constitution of India, Article 227 – Third-party objection -- Summary adjudication -- Appealable order -- Maintainability of revision -- Mere fact that the order was passed summarily does not amount to a refusal to exercise jurisdiction, as the Executing Court has examined the objection and rendered a decision on its merits – Resulting order is deemed to have the force and effect of a decree and is, therefore, appealable -- Revision petition not maintainable.

(Para 8-10)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) , Section 483 -- Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379-B, 341, 148, 149, 120-B, 307, 325, 326, 201 – Attempt to murder -- Regular bail -- Prolonged custody -- Delay in trial -- Successive bail application – Earlier bail application was dismissed on 04.03.2025 --  Chances of conclusion of the trial in the near future are bleak, as not even a single prosecution witness has been examined so far -- Petitioner is in custody for a period of 01 year, 05 months and 18 days – Held, prolonged detention itself is a ground for reconsideration of bail, it generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution – Bail allowed.

(Para 5)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Section 109, 190, 191(3), 238 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25, 27, 54, 59 -- Regular bail -- Unlawful assembly -- Parity -- Custody period --  Role attributed to the petitioner is that he was allegedly armed with a baseball bat and was part of the unlawful assembly -- No specific injury attributed to him and no firearm injury is stated to have been caused by him rather firearm injuries are attributed to other coaccused -- Petitioner has been in custody since 15.08.2025 and has undergone custody of six months and eight days -- Investigation stands completed and challan has been presented – Co-accused have already been granted bail and the case of the petitioner stands on similar footing inasmuch as no specific injury has been attributed to him – Bail allowed.

(Para 5, 6)

***

Rent law – Civil suit – Original exchange deed ordered to be produced before the Rent Controller, with liberty to seek its temporary release upon undertaking to reproduce it whenever required, while a certified copy may be provided for production before the Civil Court in a proposed suit.

***

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Production of original document before Rent Controller -- Pendency of other civil proceedings -- Effect -- Petitioner is directed to produce the exchange deed in original before the learned Rent Controller – Whenever the petitioner requires the said document, he may move an appropriate application before the Rent Controller, which shall be allowed subject to a specific undertaking that the document will be re-produced before the Court as and when required -- In case the petitioner requires the document for production before the Civil Court in a suit intended to be filed, a certified copy of the agreement shall be provided to the petitioner.

(Para 6)

***

Collector’s Reference – Non-Filing of Written Statement – Striking Off Defence – Adopting a pragmatic approach to avoid prejudice to the petitioner, the revision petition was allowed, the impugned order set aside, and one effective opportunity to file the written statement granted subject to costs.

***

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), Section 76, 77 -- Dispute regarding disbursement of compensation --  Reference by Collector -- Non-filing of written statement -- Striking off defence -- Permissibility -- Though there was a lack of due diligence on the part of the petitioner, but the proceedings have not progressed further since the passing of the impugned order -- Upholding the said order would result in serious prejudice to the rights of the petitioner -- Adopting a pragmatic approach rather than a hyper-technical one, the revision petition allowed -- Impugned order set aside, and one effective opportunity granted to the petitioner to file the written statement subject to payment of costs of Rs.30,000/-.

(Para 6-8)

***

Limitation as Preliminary Issue – Where the nature of the suit property as ancestral and the plaintiffs’ status as coparceners directly affect the applicable limitation period, the issues of limitation cannot be decided as preliminary issues, and the Trial Court rightly declined the application.

***

Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 3, Article 58, 59, 109, 110 -- Suit for declaration and mandatory injunction – Limitation as preliminary issue – Permissibility -- Findings with respect to the nature of the suit property being ancestral or not, would have a direct bearing upon the adjudication of the issue of limitation -- It would be debatable whether the limitation for filing the suit would be three years as submitted by the petitioner/ defendant as per Articles 58/59 of the Schedule or it would be governed by Articles 109/110 thereof in case the plaintiffs are able to prove themselves to be coparceners besides the suit property in the hands of their father to be of ancestral nature – Trial Court rightly declined the application seeking to treat the issues of limitation and court fee as preliminary issues.

(Para 1, 4, 7-9)

A. Constitution of India, Articles 14, 16, 21 -- Service Law -- Regularization -- Long-term Ad hoc/ Contractual Employees – Perennial Nature of Work – State continuing to extract regular work while denying regularization on grounds of lack of sanctioned posts or inability of employee to meet educational qualifications for regular post -- Such an approach would be violative of fundamental rights of the temporary employees enshrined in Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India – Temporary employees cannot be forced to bear the brunt of lack of financial resources with the State – Respondents directed to regularize services of petitioners within six weeks, failing which petitioners shall be deemed to be regularized – Petitioners entitled to consequential benefits including counting of past service.

(Para 5-8)

B. Constitution of India, Articles 14, 16, 21 -- Service Law -- Regularization -- Long-term Ad hoc/ Contractual Employees – Perennial Nature of Work – Punjab and Haryana tend to formulate policies in order to circumvent implementation of judgments rendered by the Constitutional Courts -- More often than not, the claim for regularization is neither accepted nor denied and the applicant is kept in limbo unnecessarily -- Extended ad-hocism of keeping daily wage workers or contractual employees on temporary rolls for decades while extracting regular work is not only unconstitutional but undermines equality and dignity -- State and its instrumentalities being model employer can’t perpetuate such exploitation and use excuses like financial constraints, non-availability of sanctioned post, and lack of qualification or decision in Umadevi’s case (2006) 4 SCC 1 as talisman to deny well deserved regularisation on account of their perennial nature of long periods of work at par with their counterparts working on regular posts.

(Para 7, 8)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20B(ii)(C), 37 --  Regular bail -- NDPS -- Commercial quantity -- Delay in Trial -- Prolonged Custody :

-- Recovery of 45.414 kilograms of ganja from a vehicle owned by the petitioner, concealed inside a gas cylinder lying in the trunk of vehicle – Petitioner apprehended at the spot – Recovery falls within the category of commercial quantity.

-- Petitioner in custody for a period of one year and six months – Charges framed on 18.11.2024 – Out of 18 prosecution witnesses, only 3 have been examined till date, resulting in undue delay in the trial.

Held, in the absence of substantive evidence directly linking the petitioner to the offence, and considering the inordinate delay in trial, continued custodial detention of the petitioner is not warranted -- Bail allowed.

(Para 3-5)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21(c), 29, 37 -- Regular bail -- NDPS – Commercial quantity :

-- Recovery of 285 grams of heroin – Petitioner arrested on 14.12.2025 – Challan presented on 23.02.2026 – Total 18 prosecution witnesses cited; none examined till date – Petitioner implicated solely on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused – No independent or corroborative material available on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged contraband -- Petitioner not present at the spot.

-- Held, disclosure statement of a co-accused, in the absence of corroborative evidence, carries limited evidentiary value and cannot form the sole basis for implicating an accused – Evidentiary value of such disclosure statement is a matter for trial.

-- Rigour of Section 37 NDPS Act stands diluted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner is likely to abscond or tamper with prosecution evidence – Petitioner in custody for 3 months and 7 days – Not involved in any other case – Bail allowed.

(Para 2, 6-8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200, 397 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 499, 500, 120-B – Defamation Complaint – Summoning Order – Revisional Jurisdiction -- High Court and Court of Sessions have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain revision petitions – Petitioner directly approached High Court bypassing Sessions Court – No reasons assigned for not availing alternative statutory remedy – No peculiar circumstances pleaded – Petition not maintainable in view of efficacious alternative remedy – Petitioner relegated to approach the Sessions Court.

(Para 5, 6)

***

MACT – Death of Minor Child – Multiplier Method – In the case of a 9-year-old girl, compensation was assessed using skilled-worker minimum wages of Rs. 8,530 per month, multiplier 18, 40% future prospects and 50% deduction towards personal expenses.

***

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Death of Minor Child – Assessment of Income – Multiplier Method :

-- Deceased, a 9-year-old female child – Income assessed on the basis of minimum wages for a skilled worker in the State of Punjab (Rs.8,530/- per month) as on date of accident (31.07.2015) – Multiplier of 18 applied – Addition of 40% towards future prospects – Deduction of 50% towards personal expenses.

-- Claimants entitled to conventional heads, i.e., Rs.18,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.18,000/- towards funeral expenses, and Rs.48,000/- towards loss of consortium (including 20% enhancement).

Total compensation enhanced to Rs.13,73,736/- from Rs.3,50,000/- – Interest @ 7.5% per annum on enhanced amount from the date of filing of claim petition till realization.

(Para 7-10)

***

Compounding at revisional stage – Conviction u/s 138 NI Act set aside and accused acquitted on compromise, subject to deposit of 7.5% of the cheque amount with DLSA.

***

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 442 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Conviction in cheque bounce complaint – Compromise thereafter at revisional stage -- Object and purpose of proceeding initiated under the Act is to provide a compensatory mechanism for expeditious recovery of money and not just punishing the offender, which is a secondary concern – Appellant acquitted, compounding of offence will be subjected to cost of 7.5 % of the cheque amount in question to be deposited with DLSA – Petition allowed, order of conviction and sentence passed by Ld. Trial Court and affirmed by Ld. Appellate Court set aside.

(Para 9-13)

***

Absence from trial – Cancellation of bail and issuance of non-bailable warrants – Bail cancellation aimed at securing accused’s presence, not punishment, particularly where accused voluntarily appears and no material indicates interference with prosecution evidence; impugned order and consequential proceedings set aside.

***

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Absence in trial -- Cancellation of bail – Non-bailable warrants issued -- Prime object of cancellation of bail and forfeiture of bail bonds is securing the presence of the accused, the petitioner-accused come forward himself to face trial -- No tangible material brought forward to indicate likelihood of the petitioner to interfere with the prosecution evidence -- Petition allowed -- Impugned order as well as all consequential proceedings set-aside – Cost of Rs.5,000/- and conditions imposed.

(Para 6-8)

***

Arbitration -- Pendente Lite Interest – Contractual Bar – Where Clause 64(5) of the General Conditions of Contract prohibits interest until the award, the arbitral tribunal cannot grant pre-award or pendente lite interest, even as compensation, contrary to the parties’ agreement.

***

Arbitration – Post-Award Interest – In the absence of an express contractual bar on post-award interest, the statutory mandate under Section 31(7)(b) prevails, entitling the awarded sum to interest from the date of the award until payment.

***

A. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 28(3), 31(7)(a) -- Interest pendente lite -- Clause 64(5) of the General Conditions of Contract bars interest “till the date on which the award is made” -- The provisions of the Act of 1996, including provisions contained in Section 31(7)(a) give paramount importance to the contract entered into between the parties and categorically restrict the power of an arbitrator to award pre-award/ pendente lite interest when the parties have themselves agreed to the contrary -- Thus, the AT cannot award pre-award/pendente lite interest, even in the form of compensation.

(Para 45)

B. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 31(7)(b) – Post award interest – Permissibility of -- Clause 64(5) does not prohibit interest for the period subsequent to award -- With regard to the post-award interest, Section 31(7)(b) of the Act provides that unless the award otherwise directs, the sum awarded shall carry interest from the date of the award till payment -- There is no provision in the General Conditions of Contract which expressly bars the grant of post-award interest -- In the absence of such an express exclusion, the statutory mandate under Section 31(7)(b) of the Act must prevail.

(Para 47-50)

***

Land Acquisition – Execution – Compensation to Co-sharers -- Dismissal of the execution application for failure to seek a reference under Sections 18 or 28A set aside, and the matter remitted to Executing Court for fresh adjudication of the co-sharers’ entitlement to enhanced compensation with statutory benefits and interest.

***

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 18, 28A -- Acquisition of land – Compensation to land-owners -- Execution by land-owner as per compensation given to co-sharer – Execution dismissed merely on the ground that they did not choose to prefer any objection u/s 18 or 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, yet filed an execution application based on an award/determination made in favour of their co-sharers in the acquired land -- Impugned order set aside, matter remitted back to the learned Executing Court for fresh adjudication and in case the petitioner(s) is/are found to be cosharers in the acquired land parcels alongwith those who preferred reference u/s 18 or 28-A of the Act, the necessary amount as determined finally alongwith statutory benefits and interest thereupon be released in their favour. Ramphal’s case (2026) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 20854 relied.

(Para 5-7)

Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), Section 133, 139 -- Variance in terms of contract -- Overdrawal of cash credit facility -- Liability of surety – For the applicability of Section 139, the creditor must (1) either act in a manner that is inconsistent with the surety’s rights or omit to act in a manner that the creditor is duty bound to and (2) such act or omission must impair the eventual remedy of the surety as against the principal debtor – Applicable provision is Section 133 of the Act -- Respondent Nos.1 and 2/sureties are liable to the extent of Rs.4,00,000/- with applicable interest that was initially sanctioned to respondent No.6/principal debtor and for which respondent Nos.1 and 2 consented to stand as sureties -- However, they are not liable for the excess amounts permitted to be withdrawn from the cash-credit facility of the appellant-Bank by respondent No.6/principal debtor.

(Para 7.1-7.3)

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 63, 64, 65, 85 -- Notarised photocopy of POA – Presumption – Secondary evidence -- The 1st Defendant is obligated to follow the procedure for adducing secondary evidence, and thereafter, claim presumption, if any, available to a document so adduced in evidence -- In the absence of an original or at least a secondary evidence, it is impermissible to apply Section 85 of the Indian Evidence Act to conclude the execution and extent of authority given by the plaintiff to the 1^st defendant -- Exh. B-2/photocopy is no evidence.

(Para 22, 23)

A. Construction of contract / deed -- If the words in a contract/deed are clear, there is very little the courts must do in the construction of the contract in determining the intention of the parties -- In furtherance of determining the intention, the deed must be read as a whole to ascertain the true meaning of its clauses, and the words of each clause should be interpreted harmoniously -- This intention must be derived directly from the plain and ordinary meaning of the text itself -- Furthermore, these words should be understood exactly as the intended parties would commonly use them -- The covenants must be applied precisely as written, neither diluted into irrelevance nor stretched beyond their original scope -- If the construction of the contract/deed, through its words and context, does not provide the court with the parties’ intention, the court may have regard to the circumstances surrounding its creation and the subject-matter to which it was designed and intended to apply.

(Para 19)

B. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 52, 106, 111 – Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), Section 62 -- Unilateral Termination of lease – Permissibility of – Subsequent purchaser’ right -- Construction of contract / deed -- Nomenclature alone of the document is not the decisive factor of the nature of a document; it is the text and the context that point to the obligations undertaken by the parties to a written document – Document’s nomenclature, text and context lead to only one conclusion: that Defendant No. 1 entered into a 99-year lease deed -- Thus, the unilateral cancellation is illegal, and it should be understood as having interfered with the right of the Plaintiff to remain in possession of the Plaint Schedule Property for 99 years – Rights which are preserved and protected in favour of the lessor are allowed to be enjoyed by subsequent purchasers. 

(Para 21, 22)

Constitution of India, Article 141, 309 -- Service Jurisprudence -- Conflict between State Rules and AICTE Regulations -- Finality of Supreme Court Judgment – Effect of High Court Judgment on Non-Parties -- Rule 6A of Kerala Technical Education Service Rules granting exemption from Ph.D. qualification challenged – Earlier provision upheld by Supreme Court – Promotions granted accordingly -- High Court later held that AICTE Regulations override State Rules and made Ph.D. mandatory – Appellants, not parties before High Court, adversely affected despite earlier Supreme Court relief – Held, nothing said in the impugned order of the High Court will affect their career prospects -- Non-parties affected by judgments are not remediless and may seek review or initiate independent proceedings before appropriate forum.

(Para 5, 6, 13-20)