1. Suit for specific performance – Terminaiton of contract – Effect of – Declaration that termination of contract was invalid – Requirement of -- By accepting Rs.1,95,000 after expiry of six months, D-1 and D-2, firstly, waived their right, as available to them under the contract, to forfeit the advance consideration/ earnest money, Secondly, by such acceptance and endorsement on the back of the agreement they treated the contract as subsisting and, thirdly, by transferring part of the subject matter of the agreement in favour of D-3, even before serving a forfeiture notice, they committed a breach of the contract. In such circumstances, the plaintiff had an option to treat the contract as subsisting and sue for specific performance more so when termination was a void act, no longer permissible under the varied contract -- Suit for specific performance was maintainable even without seeking a declaration that termination of the contract was invalid in law. (SC) Decided on: 29.10.2025

2. Omission by Investigation officer – Effect of -- Any omission on the part of the investigating officer cannot go against the prosecution’s case. Story of the prosecution is to be examined dehors such omission by the investigating agency. Otherwise, it would shake the confidence of the people not merely in the law enforcing agency but also in the administration of justice. (SC) Decided on: 28.10.2025

3. Corruption case -- Acquittal by trial Court – Conviction in appeal by High Court -- Demand of illegal gratification and Acceptance – Proof of – Sole basis of the prosecution to prove demand and acceptance is the narration of the complainant, a close scrutiny of which reveals serious infirmities -- Both, the DSP and the Inspector of ACB, admit they did not question the complainant on this point, and till date no explanation has ever been offered for keeping Mediator/ R out of the room -- They also admit that they did not question any of the other office staff or visitors -- Other mediator B was not examined by the prosecution at all -- These circumstances are nowhere addressed by the High Court -- Such omissions cannot be brushed aside lightly, as they strike at the root of the prosecution version and cast serious doubt on whether demand and acceptance were proved beyond reasonable doubt – Order of acquittal restored. (SC) Decided on: 28.10.2025

4. Threatening Witness – Offence u/s 195A IPC – FIR by police -- Permissibility of -- Section 195A IPC was conceptualized as an offence distinct and different from those u/ss 193 IPC, 194 IPC, 195 IPC and 196 IPC -- Those offences require a complaint to be made only by those named in Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC and they were all non-cognizable offences -- However, an offence u/s 195A IPC was a cognizable offence -- Threatened witness or other person may take immediate steps by either giving oral information of the commission of this cognizable offence to the concerned police officer, u/s 154 CrPC, or by making a complaint to a jurisdictional Magistrate, u/s 195A CrPC, so as to set the process of criminal law in motion. (SC) Decided on: 28.10.2025

5. Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Sentence – Appellant rushed to a nearby house, picked up an axe and struck a blow on the neck of deceased -- Sessions court in ordered imprisonment of the appellant for 10 (ten) years -- High Court has been indulgent towards the appellant and granted relief to him by reducing the term sentence by 8 (eight) years – Appellant was about 20 years of age at the time of the incident and that there may have been some exasperation in his mind -- Nevertheless, the courts are obligated to adopt a balanced and principled approach in matters of sentencing -- Undue leniency can cause public confidence in the justice system to plummet, while excessive severity may lead to injustice – Held, sentence imposed by the High Court does not call for any interference and that the appellant is not entitled to any relief. (SC) Decided on: 17.10.2025

6. Transfer of suit -- Suit for groundless threat of infringement instituted by the petitioner before the Bombay High Court on 01.07.2025 is prior in time to the institution of the suit for infringement by the respondent no.1 on 07.07.2025 at Delhi High Court -- Jurisdiction at Delhi was invoked by the respondent no.1 by purchasing the product from an online portal and getting it delivered in Delhi -- Question of fact, law, and the issues to be determined in the suit for groundless threat of infringement instituted by the petitioner and the suit for infringement instituted by the respondent no. 1 are substantially overlapping -- In the interest of saving precious judicial time and to avoid duplication and multiplicity of proceedings, it would be expedient to transfer the suit for infringement instituted by the respondent no.1 pending before the Delhi High Court to the Bombay High Court where the suit instituted by the petitioner for Groundless Threat of Infringement is pending – Transfer petition allowed. (SC) Decided on: 17.10.2025

7. Award of Lok Adalat – Refund of Court fee – Right of -- Once a settlement has been arrived at between the parties to the lis before the Permanent Lok Adalat, the entire Court Fee needs to be refunded. (P&H HC) Decided on: 15.10.2025

8. Rejection of plaint – Suit barred by law -- While considering rejection of the plaint thereunder only the averments made in the plaint and nothing else is to be considered to find out whether the suit is barred by law -- At this stage, the defense is not to be considered -- Thus, whether the suit is barred by any law or not is to be determined on the basis of averments made in the plaint. (SC) Decided on: 15.10.2025

9. Terminaiton of arbitration proceedings – Whether can be considered as an award -- An order u/s 25(a) does not and cannot amount to an Award as it does not deal with the rights of the parties before the Arbitrator -- Such an order merely terminates the arbitral proceedings on account of the claimant’s default in filing the statement of claim and does not involve any adjudication or determination of the rights or obligations of the parties -- For an order to qualify as an Award, it must decide, either finally or on an interim, an issue forming part of the dispute referred to arbitration -- An order under Section 25(a), being procedural in nature and not addressing the substantive lis between the parties, lacks the essential attributes of an Arbitral Award -- Order terminating the proceedings for non-filing of a statement of claim cannot be considered an award under Sub-section 2 of Section 32. (Delhi HC) Date of Decision: 14.10.2025

10. Permanent injunction – Plaintiff paying Betai -- Rent agreement of tenancy – Requirements of – Suit decreed by both the Courts Trial Court as well First Appellate Court -- Plaintiff duly proved his possession over the suit land by producing extensive revenue record in the form of Jamabandis, Khasra Girdawaris from which it is evident that the plaintiff is in cultivating possession of the suit property -- In the Jamabandi it is also recorded that plaintiff is paying ‘Batai’ – Held, if plaintiff is paying Batai, there is no requirement for the plaintiff to produce rent slip or any Agreement in respect of his tenancy -- From the revenue record, it is also established that the plaintiff is in possession of suit property as Gair Marusi -- Plaintiff has shown his possession over the suit property since 1970 -- Defendants have not only been unable to dispute or controvert the above said comprehensive evidence by way of revenue record produced by the plaintiff – No ground made out to interfere in the impugned judgments and decrees – RSA dismissed. (P&H HC) Decided on: 14.10.2025

11. Additional evidence – Expert-examination by Plaintiff in rebuttal – Permissibility of -- Once defendant-respondent No.1 had not denied her signatures/ thumb impression in the written statement and for the first time denied the same in her cross-examination, the plaintiff-petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity to lead additional evidence to counter the same – In the absence of any such stand having been taken, there was no question of the plaintiff-petitioner leading any evidence to prove that the signatures were hers – Plaintiff-petitioner granted one effective opportunity to lead his evidence. (P&H HC) Decided on: 13.10.2025

12. BNSS Sec. 349 -- Voice sample – Ritesh Sinha’s case (2019) 8 SCC 1 and Kathi Kalu Oghad’s case AIR 1961 SC 1808 permit furnishing of handwriting, signature and finger impressions – Mere furnishing of a sample of the fingerprint, signature or handwriting would not incriminate the person as such – It would have to be compared with the material discovered on investigation, which alone could incriminate the person giving the sample, which would not fall under a testimonial compulsion, thus not falling foul of the rule against self-incrimination – Said sampling is similar to voice sampling, as now possible by reason of the advancing technology – Magistrate allowed voice sample, High Court reversed the order – Appeal allowed reversing the order of the High Court and restoring that of the Magistrate. (SC) Decided on: 13.10.2025

13. Appeal beyond the statutory period of limitation of 30 days – Condonation of delay – Applicability of Section 5 of Limitation Act -- General provisions of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked -- Payment of Wages Act, being a beneficial and self-contained legislation, prescribes not only the manner and mode of appeal but also the conditions precedent for its maintainability, including the mandatory requirement u/s 17(1A) of furnishing a certificate of deposit of the amount payable under the direction appealed against -- This requirement is not directory but mandatory in nature, as it seeks to protect the rights of the workman and ensure that the employer does not frustrate the benefit of the award by filing dilatory appeals. (J&K&L HC) Reserved on: 07.10.2025 Decided on: 10.10.2025

14. Constitution of India, Article 233 (2) – Appointment of Additional District Judge – Direct recruitment process/ Advocate Quota – Eligibility of Judicial officer – Reference answered: (i) Judicial Officers who have already completed seven years in Bar before they were recruited in the subordinate judicial service would be entitled for being appointed as a District Judge/Additional District Judge in the selection process for the post of District Judges in the direct recruitment process; (ii) The eligibility for appointment as a District Judge/Additional District Judge is to be seen at the time of application; (iii) Though there is no eligibility prescribed under Article 233(2) for a person already in judicial service of the Union or of the State for being appointed as District Judge, in order to provide a level playing field, direction given that a candidate applying as an in-service candidate should have seven years’ combined experience as a Judicial Officer and an advocate; (iv) A person who has been or who is in judicial service and has a combined experience of seven years or more as an advocate or a Judicial Officer would be eligible for being considered and appointed as a District Judge/Additional District Judge under Article 233 of the Constitution; (v) In order to ensure level playing field, further direction given that the minimum age for being considered and appointed as a District Judge/Additional District Judge for both advocates and Judicial Officers would be 35 years of age as on the date of application. (vi) It is held that the view taken in the judgments of this Court right from Satya Narain Singh (1985) 1 SCC 225 till Dheeraj Mor (2020) 7 SCC 401, which take a view contrary to what has been held hereinabove do not lay down the correct proposition of law. The reference answered accordingly Consequently, all such rules framed by the State Governments in consultation with the High Courts which are not in accordance with the aforesaid answers shall stand quashed and set aside -- It is directed that all the State Governments in consultation with the High Courts shall frame/amend the rules in accordance with what has been held by us hereinabove, within a period of three months. (SC) Decided on: 09.10.2025

15. Release of murder convict / child after completion of three year custody – Writ jurisdiction – Incident of 2nd November, 1981 -- Petitioner was 12 years 5 months old on the date of the incident -- Sessions Court recorded conviction against the petitioner by taking aid of Section 149 of the IPC -- Purpose for which the Sessions Court directed the petitioner to be kept in a children’s home is no longer feasible now – Petitioner absconded and could be arrested only on 19th May, 2022, and is still in custody -- On the plain terms of Section 7-A, the courts are under an obligation to consider the plea of juvenility and to grant appropriate relief if, at all, in an enquiry it is found that the convict was a juvenile on the date of offence -- Petitioner’s date of birth and his age as on date of the offence are not disputed by the respondent and, thus, no enquiry is needed to ascertain his age -- Petitioner having been behind bars for more than 3 years, his liberty has been curtailed not in accordance with procedure established by law -- Breach of the right guaranteed by Article 21 is writ large and, hence, the benefit of release from detention ought to be extended -- Petitioner ordered to be released, if not wanted in any other case – Writ petition allowed. (SC) Decided on: 09.10.2025

16. Termination – Violation of Natural justice -- Marks in vacation subject – Value of -- Three Intermediate Trained Teachers terminated after the authorities excluded marks obtained in vocational subjects while calculating their total percentage – Held, marks secured in the vocational subject is a way for a candidate to improve his/her overall percentage of marks -- A vocational subject, though optional, would place an additional burden on an examinee which he/she shoulders in the fervent hope of improving his/her overall percentage. (SC) Decided on: 09.10.2025

17. Definition of word ‘dependent’ in Section 2(1)(d)(iii)(d) means “a minor brother or an unmarried sister or a widowed sister if a minor” – In the present time, no one will normally find a widowed sister who is a minor, especially after enactment of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Held, matter needs to be considered by the Law Commission of India for suitable amendment of the aforesaid provision or any other in the 1923 Act. (SC) Decided on: 09.10.2025

18. Commercial suit – Written statement not filed – Right to cross-examine survives -- After the examination-in-chief of PW1 was closed, the cross-examination of Defendant no. 1 was taken as “Nil” by the Trial Court on the ground that defendant had failed to file their written statement within stipulated time -- Said reason is absolutely perverse and is contrary to the right of defence available to the defendant -- Purpose of cross-examination is to elicit the truth from the witness and impeach its credibility -- When the WS was not allowed to be taken on record, the denial of the right to cross-examine cannot be taken away. Ranjit Singh’s case 2024 INSC 724 relied. (SC) Decided on: 08.10.2025

19. Acquittal – Cheque bounce complaint dismissed in default -- Appeal against an order of acquittal in a proceeding u/s of the N. I. Act preferred by the complainant squarely falls within the ambit of proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C. -- Petition along with the accompanying application ordered to be remitted to the Court of learned Sessions Judge. (P&H HC) Decided on: 08.10.2025

20. Non-filing of written statement – Cross-examination by defendant – Right of -- After the examination-in-chief of PW1 was closed, the cross-examination of Defendant no. 1 was taken as “Nil” on the ground that defendant had failed to file their written statement within stipulated time – Held, said reason is absolutely perverse and is contrary to the right of defence available to the defendant -- The purpose of cross-examination is to elicit the truth from the witness and impeach its credibility. (SC) Decided on: 08.10.2025

21. Conviction in cheque bounce complaint – Compromise at revision stage – Setting aside of conviction/ sentence -- Acquittal -- In case of dishonour of cheque, accused convicted, there is no stage prescribed for compounding of offence -- Petitioner permitted to compound the offence -- Considering the mitigating circumstances of the petitioner cost reduced to Rs.5,000/- -- Judgment of conviction/ order of sentence recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court set aside -- Petitioner acquitted. (P&H HC) Decided on: 01.10.2025

22. Cheque bounce complaint -- Jump of bail – Proclaimed person – Primary object of every Court is only to examine the commission of crime in question before it viz-a-viz the person/ accused, who is subjected to such proceedings, and if possible justice be imparted at the earliest without unnecessary delay -- Not expected that undue time would be devoted in securing the presence of absconded accused and also to waste energy by enforcing the special mechanism to arrest such accused -- When the petitioner came to know about passing of the impugned order, the petitioner immediately moved the petition, showing his inclination to submit himself before the trial Court – Impugned order set aside to the extent of declaring the petitioner as ‘proclaimed person’ -- Petitioner ordered to be released on bail. (P&H HC) Decided on: 01.10.2025

23. Additional evidence -- Documents which respondent-plaintiff is allowed to be proved by way of additional evidence are mutations and copy of amended site plan along with mutation which is official record and cannot be manipulated and as regards site plan is concerned, the same is also on record and it will definitely help the Court in arriving at the just conclusion and to effectively dispose of the litigation between the parties – Held, the learned Civil Judge has not exercised the jurisdiction in perverse manner and has not committed any material illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court -- Finding no merits, revision petition dismissed. (P&H HC) Decided on: 30.09.2025

24. Appointment of Lambardar – Ld. Single Judge by giving details of both the candidates has found that the respondent No.4 was better suited than the appellant coupled with the fact that respondent No.4 has been working for the last 28 years, it will not be in the interest to dislodge the respondent No.4 from the said post -- No perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge -- Mere passage of time can, on occasion, give rise to judicial discretion to be exercised by the Courts, which has rightly been exercised by the learned Single Judge – Respondent No.4 is more educated than the appellant and both almost are having same land holding in the village and respondent No.4 has worked as Sarbara Lambardar at the time when he was appointed -- LPA dismissed. (P&H HC) Decided on: 29.09.2025

25. Appointment of Lambardar – Age – Land holding -- Appointed candidate/ Respondent No.4 has the land in the village of which he has been appointed as Lambardar and his name was recommended by the Tehsildar as well as by the Sub Division Magistrate, which was accepted by the all the authorities, whereas no land is owned by the appellant in the village -- Appellant is 24 years of age and respondent No.4 is 30 years of age -- Six years difference between the age is not such that it will tilt the pendulum in favour of the appellant -- No ground made out for interference – LPA dismissed. (P&H HC) Decided on: 29.09.2025

26. Culpable homicide not amounting to murder -- Evidence of PW-1 reveal that even though the accused appellants were having sharp weapons (pike, spear, etc.), they had only used the blunt side of the said weapons -- PW-2 son of deceased turned hostile -- Medical evidence would also show that all the three deceased persons had lacerated and contused wounds only and there were no incised wounds -- No material on record to show that they had the intention to kill them -- There was prior enmity over the measurement of agricultural fields -- Conviction u/s 302 IPC would not be tenable and is liable to be converted to one under Section 304 Part I of IPC – Accused/ appellants have already undergone sentence of more than 12 years – Sentence reduced to already undergone. (SC) Decided on: 26.09.2025

27. Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Not permissible in law for the High Court to apply the parameters under Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 regarding fixing of income when the compensation was assessed and fixed by the Tribunal in a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act by applying principles under the said Act. (SC) Decided on: 26.09.2025

28. Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Injury case – Death of injured – Right of Legal Heirs – Right to claim compensation for the injuries caused in a motor vehicle accident survives on the legal representatives of the injured even if the injured dies in the course of the proceedings for reasons not relatable to or having any nexus with the injuries sustained. (SC) Decided on: 26.09.2025

29. Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Proof of accident -- Registration of FIR -- It is on preponderance of probabilities that the proof of accident is looked at in a motor accidents claim -- An FIR registered as against the driver of the offending vehicle can be relied on to find the accident having been caused by the driver of the offending vehicle, that too by his rash and negligent driving as reported at the first instance -- However, the preponderance of probabilities that arise from such an FIR registered would not have the same probity if there is a valid suspicion raised on the registration of the FIR and the falsity of the claim being clearly discernible from the evidence led itself. (SC) Decided on: 26.09.2025

30. Abetment to suicide – Anticipatory bail -- Deceased is husband of the petitioner -- No suicide note had been recovered -- Petitioner was having matrimonial discord and was residing separately from the deceased husband since the last about one year -- Deceased tried to commit suicide about six months ago also -- No such allegation that the deceased immediately consumed poisonous substance after alleged quarrel at his in-laws’ house at Kathua itself -- Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for any purpose and nothing is to be recovered from her -- No useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars – Bail allowed. (P&H HC) Decided on: 26.09.2025

31. Civil suit pending – Maintainability of Writ petition -- Writ petition is not maintainable, dismissed -- Dismissal would have no bearing on the pending civil suit. (P&H HC) Decided on: 26.09.2025

32. Motive -- Disclosure statement – Reliance upon -- For drawing an inference pertaining to motive, the trial Court relied upon the document which was a disclosure made by respondents -- Manifestly, the use of the said document was limited to the extent permitted u/s 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 -- Inculpatory narrative recited therein could not have been used to draw any inference regarding motive, which was required to be established from substantive evidence. (SC) Decided on: 26.09.2025

33. Quashing of FIR -- Parameters -- If the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even when taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out any case against the accused, quashing of the proceedings would be justified. (SC) Decided on: 26.09.2025

34. Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Appellant 20 years aged was a final year B.Com student who had also enrolled with the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India rendered immobile with paraplegia for reason of the fracture of C4-5 -- Tribunal adopted an income of Rs.3,339/- per month being the minimum wages -- Court not convinced that the Minimum wages would be determined on the basis of the educational qualification alone without reference to the nature of work carried on – Held, even if he had not obtained the certificate as a Chartered Accountant, upon graduation, he could have been employed as an Accountant, who would have, on any reasonable estimate, received an amount of Rs.5,000/- as monthly income in the year 2001 -- 40% future prospects given with multiplier of 18 -- Loss of income for the 100% disabled paraplegic would be Rs.15,12,000/- (Rs.5,000/- x 140% x 12 x 18) – With medical expenses of Rs.11,22,356/- compensation totalling to Rs.40,34,356/- -- Total award carrying interest @ 9% per annum from the filing of the petition till realisation -- In addition, Rs.20 lakhs as future medical expenses incurred by the parents awarded. (SC) Decided on: 26.09.2025

35. Multi-Purpose Worker (MPW) on contract basis – Non-release of salary after expiry of contract – Shifting to the web-portal of the HKRNL – Further engagement – Inquiry Committee of DEEO, Section Officer under the Chairmanship of Class-1 Officer of the Directorate constituted -- Petitioners permitted to represent before the said inquiry committee for establishing the dates upto which they actually worked in the respective schools -- Respondents directed to conclude the enquiry after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and to release remuneration for the period they have worked after 31.03.2024 within three months – Department is at liberty to take disciplinary action against the officer(s)/official(s), in case anyone is found negligent or deficient in performance of duty -- Further direction given for porting the MPWs to the HKRNL in terms of the applicable policy in accordance with law, within one month thereafter.Multi-Purpose Worker (MPW) on contract basis – Non-release of salary after expiry of contract – Shifting to the web-portal of the HKRNL – Further engagement – Inquiry Committee of DEEO, Section Officer under the Chairmanship of Class-1 Officer of the Directorate constituted -- Petitioners permitted to represent before the said inquiry committee for establishing the dates upto which they actually worked in the respective schools -- Respondents directed to conclude the enquiry after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and to release remuneration for the period they have worked after 31.03.2024 within three months – Department is at liberty to take disciplinary action against the officer(s)/official(s), in case anyone is found negligent or deficient in performance of duty -- Further direction given for porting the MPWs to the HKRNL in terms of the applicable policy in accordance with law, within one month thereafter. (P&H HC) Decided on: 25.09.2025

36. Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Principle of Pay and recover – Invalid Driving licence -- On the date of accident, the driver had no valid license and the licence was not renewed -- Insurance company was entitled to take a valid defence in that regard u/s 149 (2)(a)(ii) as the driver of the offending vehicle was not duly licensed, to avoid its liability to pay the compensation -- Conditions in law are satisfied to absolve the insurance company from the payment of compensation -- It is only proper that the insurer be directed to satisfy the award, which however can be recovered by the insurer from the insured-owner of the vehicle -- Appeal allowed. (SC) Decided on: 24.09.2025

37. Threaten to get transfer – Whether attract Section 186 of IPC -- Allegations are that S.H.O. advised the servant not to waste water or open the gate -- Accused arrived at the scene -- Complainant requested that the accused refrain from throwing rubbish into the police station compound and from opening the police station gate, as cattle entered the compound through the open gate -- Accused became angry and threatened the informant with transfer – Held, accused had only threatened the S.H.O. to get him transferred and not stated that the SHO should not supervise the cleanliness; hence, the act of the accused would not constitute any obstruction, and the ingredients of Section 186 of the IPC were not satisfied – Acquittal order, upheld. (H.P. HC) Reserved on: 10.09.2025 Decided on: 24.09.2025

38. Criminal trial -- Intermediate order – Interlucatory order – Revisional jurisdiction – Inherent powers -- All orders other than the final orders are not interlocutory ones -- Some of them are intermediate or quasi final orders -- Intermediate order is one which is passed at intermediate stage, but when reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings and thereby resulting in a final order – Held, if the contention/ objection of the petitioner, who moves the superior Court in revision against the an impugned order, is upheld and the criminal proceeding as a whole gets concluded/ terminated, the impugned order is an intermediate and not interlocutory order, despite the fact that it was passed during an interlocutory stage -- It also implies that the order may be intermediate for accused but interlocutory for the complainant/ informant/ State. (Patna HC) Decided on: 23.09.2025

39. Translated version of Exhibited documents to be on record – Procedure of -- Ld. Appellate Court misdirected itself by construing as if the prayer of the petitioner was to be construed on the parameters of Order XVIII, Rule 17 of the CPC -- In a case where a document already stands exhibited and a prayer is to place on record a translated copy thereof, there is no requirement of filing any application to place on record the translated version of the document and all that the Court has to ensure is that the translated version is the true translated version of the document concerned -- Opportunity should be given to both the parties to file translated version of the document and/or to agree on a correct translation filed by a party -- Alternatively, the Court can also get the translation done on the expense of the party through the official Translator. (H.P. HC) Decided on: 23.09.2025

40. Departmental punishment – Writ jurisdiction -- Scope of interference while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India in disciplinary proceedings is very limited -- Court has no power to look into quantum of sentence/punishment unless and until Court finds that sentence awarded is disproportionate to alleged offence -- Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India can look into the procedure followed by authorities, in case, it is found that enquiry officer or disciplinary authority has not considered any evidence on record or misread the evidence or procedure as prescribed by law has not been followed, the Court can interfere. (P&H HC) Decided on: 22.09.2025

41. Landlord-tenant relationship – Agreement to sell/ Lease -- Agreement to Sell does not create any title in favour of the purchaser -- Nothing on record that JD or his successor-in-interest ever took any step, including filing a suit for specific performance, in furtherance to Agreement to Sell -- Not proved that Agreement to Sell was pertaining to the entire premises in reference -- Agreement was not exclusively an Agreement to Sell but it was having alternative either to sell out or lease out the property -- In the agreement, it is nowhere stated that tenancy had come to an end -- It would be wrong to construe that, for execution of agreement, relationship of landlord and tenant had come to an end -- Objections, preferred by respondent (JD) allowed by Ld. Executive Court, with finding that at the time of filing the Rent Petition, status of parties stood changed in view of Agreement to sell – Impugned order set aside. (H.P. HC) Reserved on: 10.7.2025 Decided on: 22.09.2025

42. Cheque bounce complaint – Demand notice u/ 138 of NI Act – Validity of -- It is mandatory that the demand in the statutory notice has to be the very amount of the cheque -- After mentioning the exact cheque amount, the sender of the service may claim in the notice amounts such as legal charges, notice charges, interest and such other additional amounts, provided the cheque amount is specified to be demanded for payment -- When the cheque amount is not mentioned in the Proviso (b) notice or the amount different than the actual cheque amount is mentioned, in the notice, such notice would stand invalid in eye of law -- In the event of the main ingredient not being satisfied on account of discrepancy in the amount of cheque and one mentioned in the notice, all proceedings u/s 138 of the NI Act would fall flat as bad in law. (SC) Decided on: 19.09.2025

43. Conviction in cheque bounce complaint -- Compromise -- Acquittal – Non-appearance of complainant – Compounding of offence -- Dispute resolved before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre and the report submitted by the Mediator -- Matter was adjourned on numerous occasions mostly on account of non-appearance on behalf of respondent No.1 -- Amount of Rs.1,10,000/-, as agreed between them, already stands paid to respondent No.1- complainant -- Non-appearance on behalf of the respondent No.1- complainant is nothing but delaying tactics for finalization of proceedings -- Offence u/s 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881 permitted to be compounded under Section 147 of the Act -- Judgment of conviction and order of sentence set aside -- Petitioner acquitted. (P&H HC) Decided on: 19.09.2025

44. Pronote – Proof of – Plaintiff/ PW-1 reiterated the facts stated in the plaint -- PW-2 deposed that the pronote and receipt were written by him at the request of the defendant and further stated that the documents were duly read over and explained to the defendant, who, after understanding and acknowledging the contents to be correct and upon receiving Rs. 3,00,000/- in cash, affixed his signatures thereon -- Attesting witness to the pronote and receipt was also examined as PW-3, his testimony is in line with the assertions made by PW-1 and PW-2 -- PW-3 further affirmed that the defendant signed the documents in his presence and that he could identify the signatures of both the plaintiff and the scribe -- Defendant has not denied his signatures on the pronote and receipt, he merely pleaded that the documents were blank at the time of signing and that his signatures were obtained under a false pretext -- Plaintiff examined a handwriting and finger print expert as PW-5, who confirmed that the signatures on the pronote and receipt (Ex. P-1 and P-2) were indeed those of the defendant -- Both the Courts below have rightly found the execution of the pronote and receipt to be duly proved (P&H HC) Reserved on: 17.09.2025 Decided on: 19.09.2025

45. Partition of land – Change of land use – Chahi to Gair Mumkin -- Licence to develop residential colony -- Grant of license by itself merely indicated an intention to develop a colony and could not ipso-facto alter the revenue character of the land from Chahi to Gair Mumkin -- Since the occupation certificate dated 15.12.2017 did not concern the suit land, there was in fact no material to justify the conclusion that the land had ceased to be Chahi and had become Gair Mumkin -- An injunction being an equitable relief, the party seeking it must approach the Court with clean hands -- As the appellant-plaintiff is guilty of misrepresenting a material fact, the learned First Appellate Court rightly declined to grant the injunction. (P&H HC) Reserved on: 09.09.2025 Decided on: 19.09.2025

46. Recovery from retired employee – Permissibility of -- Recovery cannot be made from the retired employee -- In case there is no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, the excess amount paid to such an employee cannot be recovered -- Petitioner had already retired and there was no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner qua fixation of his salary, which was re-fixed after his retirement – Held, excess amount paid to him during service period could not have been recovered and therefore, any recovery made from the petitioner out of his pensionary benefits cannot be sustained and the same is, accordingly, set aside -- Sum recovered from the petitioner ordered to be refunded back to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks. (P&H HC) Decided on: 17.09.2025

47. POCSO – Rape – Sexual assault -- Regular bail -- Applicant is in judicial custody since 02.06.2025 -- Alleged victim and the informant, the father of the alleged victim, have not supported the case of the prosecution – Held, bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception -- Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India -- Object of keeping the accused person in detention during the trial is not punishment -- Main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused -- No reason found to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period – Bail allowed. (UK HC) Decided on: 17.09.2025

48. Pronote – Execution of -- Allegation of forgery – Proof of – Suit for recovery decreed by learned Courts below -- Marginal witnesses PW2 and PW3 had duly proved that after taking the amount, the defendant had executed Pronote Ex.P1 in favour of the plaintiff and Receipt Ex.P2 -- Defendant has not even denied his signatures on the Pronote and Receipt -- Defendant had not moved any complaint before any police authorities or any other higher authorities against the plaintiff for the alleged forgery and fabrication of the Pronote -- Very fact that the cousin of the appellant/ defendant is deposing against the appellant, would prove the case against the appellant -- Defendant led no evidence to prove the alleged forgery -- No ground is made out to interfere in the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below -- Regular Second Appeal dismissed. (P&H HC) Decided on: 17.09.2025

49. Suit for recovery – Pronote & Receipt – Proof of -- Plaintiff-respondent himself duly appeared in support of his case -- Both the attesting witnesses examined as PW2 and PW3 -- Scribe of pronote and receipt who is an Advocate as PW4, who duly asserted that on the instance of defendant he had scribed the original pronote and receipt and got it typed in the presence of the parties -- He further asserted that the same was read over to defendant and after admitting the same to be correct, he had signed in his presence as well as in presence of witnesses after receiving Rs. 12,00,000/- – Appellant-defendant not denying his signatures over the pronote and receipt – His claim is that plaintiff has forged the pronote and receipt – Mere oral self-serving statement of appellant-defendant is not sufficient to conclude and throw the evidence of plaintiff-respondent, attesting witnesses and scribe who in a consistent manner had asserted due execution of pronote and receipt by appellant-defendant. (P&H HC) Decided on: 17.09.2025

50. Appointment of Lambardar – JBT Teacher – Candidature of – Contention that that respondent No.6 is working as a JBT Teacher and is not available to perform his functions as Lambardar, which should have been treated as a disqualification – Held, once, the said pleaded ‘disqualification’ is not pre-requisite under governing the Rules, merely on the asking of the appellant, the same cannot be treated as disqualification -- For the last 15 years, respondent No.6 has been performing the duties of the post of Lambardar, no complaint has been received that he was not available to discharge the duties of the post as and when required -- Contention of the appellant cannot be accepted – Appeal dismissed. (P&H HC) Decided on: 17.09.2025