***

NDPS -- Bail involving commercial quantity -- Prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay in trial without fault of the accused -- The fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 dilutes the statutory embargo created under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

***

Second/successive regular bail petition -- Maintainable in law -- Requires substantial, effective and consequential change in circumstances to succeed.

***

Bail -- Criminal antecedents -- Involvement of the accused in other FIRs cannot be the sole ground to decline the concession of regular bail if a case is otherwise made out on the merits of the present FIR.

***

A. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- Second/successive regular bail petition -- Maintainability of -- A second/successive regular bail petition is maintainable in law whether the earlier petition was dismissed on merits, dismissed as withdrawn, dismissed as not pressed or dismissed for non-prosecution -- For the second/successive regular bail petition to succeed, the petitioner is required to show substantial, effective and consequential change in circumstances.

(Para 6.1)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 15(c) and 37 -- Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Bail in commercial quantity -- Delay in trial -- Petitioner was found in alleged possession of 70 Kgs. of poppy husk and had suffered incarceration for 01 year, 01 month and 21 days -- Charges had been framed, but none of the 29 prosecution witnesses had been examined -- Trial was procrastinating and folly thereof cannot be saddled upon the petitioner -- The right to a speedy and expeditious trial is an essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 -- Where the trial has failed to conclude within a reasonable time, resulting in prolonged incarceration, the rigor imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act stands diluted -- Grant of bail in a case pertaining to commercial quantity, on the ground of undue delay in trial, cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 of the NDPS Act -- Bail granted.

(Paras 2, 6, 6.2, 6.3 and 7)

C. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- Bail -- Criminal antecedents -- Petitioner was stated to be involved in three other FIRs -- The antecedents of a person are required to be accounted for while considering a regular bail petition -- However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail upon ratiocinating the facts and circumstances of the said FIR.

(Para 6.4)

***

NDPS -- An uncorroborated disclosure statement holds limited evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for implication.

***

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 21(b), 27(a) and 29 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- Regular Bail – Recovery of 15.17 grams of heroin and Rs. 2,110/- pleaded to be drug money from co-accused -- Evidentiary value of disclosure statement -- Petitioner was nominated in the FIR on the basis of the disclosure statement of a co-accused -- No recovery was effected from the petitioner -- Petitioner was not present at the spot -- Such disclosure statements, in the absence of corroborative evidence, hold limited evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for implicating the petitioner -- The veracity and weightage to be attached to the disclosure statement is a matter for trial -- Mere involvement of the petitioner in other FIRs cannot, by itself, be a sufficient ground to decline regular bail when a case is otherwise made out -- Further detention as an undertrial not warranted -- Bail granted.

(Para 1, 6-7)

***

Clog on equity of redemption -- Right to redeem cannot be postponed -- A mortgagor's right to redeem the mortgaged property accrues on the date the term postponing redemption is read down as a clog on redemption.

***

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 60 -- Mortgage -- Clog on equity of redemption -- Right to redeem -- Defendants challenged a clause in the mortgage deed postponing redemption for 99 years as a clog on the right of redemption -- Held, the right to redeem cannot be postponed -- A mortgagor's right to redeem the mortgaged property accrues on the date the term postponing redemption is read down as a clog on redemption -- Consequently, limitation for redemption begins to run from that date.

(Paras 5-7)

***

Commercial Disputes -- A party cannot invoke the procedural doctrine of "relation back" of amended pleadings to bypass the mandatory document disclosure requirements under the Commercial Courts Act.

***

Disclosure of documents -- A continuing obligation -- Every document in a party's power, possession, control or custody as on the date of filing the amended written statement must be disclosed.

***

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 11Rule 1(10) (as applicable to commercial disputes) -- Disclosure of documents -- Doctrine of relation back -- Once amendment of the written statement is permitted, the amended written statement becomes the operative pleading and the foundation of the defence -- Consequently, the obligation of disclosure extends to all documents in the party's power, possession, control or custody on the date the amended written statement is filed -- Permitting a party to withhold documents available at that stage by relying on the doctrine of relation back would encourage piecemeal disclosure and defeat the legislative object of ensuring early, complete and candid disclosure in commercial litigation.

(Paras 3.3, 9, 12-16)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), Order 11 Rule 1(10) -- Stage of proceedings -- Diligence -- The disclosure obligations under Order XI are intended to prevent surprise and ensure certainty in trial -- Where the plaintiffs had already concluded their evidence and the matter had reached the stage of defence evidence, greater diligence was expected from the defendant in establishing sufficient cause for non-disclosure of documents.

(Para 20)

***

Filing of additional documents -- A "stop and go" or piecemeal approach cannot be permitted -- Evidence, however voluminous, cannot water down the statutory intent and rigours of the Commercial Courts Act.

***

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 -- Transfer of pending suits -- Upon transfer of a suit or application, the procedures prescribed under the Act apply thereto.

***

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), Order 11 Rule 1(4) and (5) (as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015) -- Filing of additional documents -- Delay and Reasonable Cause -- Appellant filed an application to bring voluminous emails and backend data on record five years after the suit had been converted into a commercial suit, during the stage of the plaintiff's evidence, on the ground that certain new facts had emerged during cross-examination -- The documents had always been in the appellant's possession since the filing of the plaint -- A plaintiff, while leading evidence, is expected not only to produce all relevant documents but also to anticipate the questions likely to arise in cross-examination -- Permitting production of voluminous documents after five years would condone a "stop and go" or piecemeal approach -- Evidence, however voluminous, cannot water down the statutory intent and rigours of the statute, which seeks the expeditious resolution of high-stakes commercial disputes.

(Para 12-14.1, 16)

B. Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (4 of 2016), Section 15 -- Transfer of pending suits -- Section 15 mandates transfer of all suits and applications of specified value to the Commercial Division or Commercial Court, as the case may be -- Upon such transfer, the procedures prescribed under the Commercial Courts Act apply to the transferred proceedings.

(Para 14.2)

***

Rent laws -- Bonafide need -- Alternate accommodation is used for storing waste material does not negate the landlord's bona fide requirement to use the demised premises for a business.

***

A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (3 of 1949), Section 13 -- Eviction -- Bona fide requirement -- Alternate accommodation -- Landlady sought eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement for herself and her son -- Rent Controller and Appellate Authority concurrently ordered eviction -- High Court, in revision, reversed the findings holding that the landlady had concealed the existence of another vacant shop used for storing waste material -- Held, the mere fact that another shop was being used for storing waste material does not negate the landlord's bona fide requirement to use the demised premises for business -- Once the requirement is found to be genuine, the landlord's subjective choice of premises must ordinarily be respected and the Court cannot substitute its own view as to which premises should be used -- High Court erred in interfering with concurrent findings -- Eviction decree restored.

(Para 2, 6.1, 9, 11)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (3 of 1949), Section 15 (5) -- Eviction -- Revisional jurisdiction -- Scope -- High Court cannot reappreciate evidence or disturb concurrent findings of fact merely because another view of the evidence is possible -- Interference is permissible only where findings suffer from jurisdictional error, perversity or material illegality -- High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction.

(Para 10, 11)

***

Estoppel -- Developer is estopped from resiling from a Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement (PAAA) after obtaining vacant possession, demolishing the old premises and completing redevelopment.

***

Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement --  PAAA is a statutory contract regulated and enforceable by MHADA, not merely a private arrangement.

***

Occupier -- Status -- Developer having accepted possession pursuant to the PAAA cannot subsequently dispute the appellant's status as an occupier.

***

A. Contract Law -- Redevelopment of cessed buildings -- Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement (PAAA) -- Estoppel -- Conduct of developer -- Resiling from agreement -- Developer obtained consent of occupants, secured vacant possession, demolished the old building and completed redevelopment on the promise of allotting alternate accommodation under the PAAA -- Thereafter sought to dispute the appellant's status as an occupant and challenged the PAAA -- Held, developer having acted upon the PAAA and obtained possession pursuant thereto is estopped from denying the appellant's entitlement under the agreement -- Mere non-utilisation of the entire fungible area is no ground to resile from the agreement or deny allotment of the agreed premises -- Civil suit challenging the PAAA after an undertaking before the High Court held misconceived and mala fide -- High Court directed not to proceed with Civil Suit -- Developer directed to execute the PAAA and hand over possession of the agreed apartments within two months, failing which appellants entitled to damages at the prevailing monthly rental value.

(Paras 19 - 21, 24 - 25)

B. Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991, Regulation 33(7) -- Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (28 of 1977) --- Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement (PAAA) -- Nature -- Statutory contract -- Jurisdiction of MHADA -- High Court erred in treating the PAAA as a mere private arrangement -- PAAA executed under the statutory redevelopment scheme framed under the MHAD Act and Development Control Regulations is regulated by the statute and enforceable by MHADA, under whose NOC the redevelopment project is undertaken -- Orders directing execution of the PAAA and handing over possession held valid and sustainable.

(Paras 8 and 22)

C. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (28 of 1977), Section 2(25) -- Occupier -- Meaning -- Distinction from statutory tenant -- Rights on redevelopment -- 'Occupier' includes a person liable to pay rent, a rent-free tenant, a licensee in occupation or a person liable to pay damages for use and occupation -- Occupancy is distinct from statutory tenancy and does not depend upon continuation of tenancy rights -- Even a person in possession liable to pay damages may qualify as an 'occupier' for the purposes of redevelopment and re-allotment -- Public notice and contemporaneous records consistently showed appellant as joint occupant of the old premises -- Consequently, appellant was entitled to allotment under the PAAA irrespective of probate, which was obtained only by way of abundant caution -- Developer could not subsequently dispute appellant's status as an occupier after having accepted possession pursuant to the redevelopment scheme.

(Paras 12 - 15, 19 and 22)

***

Property Law -- Ancestral estate -- Where several settlements and consolidations have intervened, plaintiffs claiming a share in the ancestral estate must establish that the suit property was allotted in lieu of the estate left by the common ancestor -- Failure to establish such nexus warrants dismissal of the suit.

***

Revenue records -- Excerpt prepared by Special Kanungo or Patwari Muharrir -- Proof -- Excerpt is not evidence unless duly proved -- Admissibility of a document and its mode of proof are distinct issues -- Mere exhibition of a document without objection does not dispense with the requirement of proving it -- Reliance on an unproved excerpt raises a substantial question of law.

***

A. Property Law -- Ancestral estate -- Identification of suit property -- Plaintiffs filed a suit claiming a share in the estate of an ancestor who died in 1906, seeking a share out of 514 kanals 13 marlas of land. -- Several settlements and consolidations of holdings had taken place in the village since the ancestor's death -- It was incumbent upon the plaintiffs to connect the present suit property to the estate left by the ancestor to discharge their onus -- Although the plaintiffs proved themselves to be legal heirs, they failed to connect the suit property to the ancestor's estate -- Courts below erred in decreeing the suit without recording any finding on whether the suit land was actually allotted in lieu of the estate left by the ancestor.

(Paras 14, 16, 20 - 21)

B. Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules and Orders, Volume I, Chapter 9 -- Procedure for obtaining excerpts -- Special Kanungo or Patwari Muharrir -- Excerpt from revenue records -- Proof -- Chapter 9 provides that an excerpt prepared by a Special Kanungo or Patwari Muharrir is not evidence unless proved -- Author must produce the original revenue records, be put on oath and state that the excerpt is a true copy of the original records -- PW-1, who prepared the excerpt, admitted in cross-examination that he could neither read nor write Urdu -- Consequently, the excerpt remained unproved -- Held, admissibility of a document and the mode of proof thereof are two different issues -- Though the excerpt was admitted in evidence without objection, the plaintiffs were not absolved of their duty to prove the document in accordance with law -- Judgment and decree passed by the Courts below are found to be unsustainable and are hereby set aside. Suit filed by the plaintiffs is ordered to be dismissed.

(Paras 17-22)

***

NDPS -- Evidentiary Value of Official Witnesses -- The testimony of official witnesses cannot be disregarded or distrusted merely on account of their official status or for want of corroboration by independent witnesses.

***

NDPS -- Personal Search -- Section 50 applies to the personal search of the accused and has no application where the recovery is effected from an article carried by him.

***

NDPS -- Drawing representative samples at the spot of seizure without the presence of a Magistrate is merely a procedural irregularity which neither vitiates the trial nor renders the primary evidence inadmissible, provided no prejudice is caused to the accused.

***

       A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985) -- Evidentiary Value of Official Witnesses -- Independent Witnesses to the seizure turned hostile -- Examination of independent witnesses is not an indispensable requirement and their non-support or absence is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution’s case -- Testimony of the official witnesses inspired confidence and there was no reason to disbelieve or discard it -- Conviction may be based on the testimony of official witnesses.

(Para 10, 11)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 50 – Personal Search -- Applicability of Section 50 to search of articles -- The appellant was apprehended carrying a water bottle containing 100 grams of smack -- He alleged non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act -- Protection under Section 50 is confined to the "personal search" of the accused and has no application where the search is of an article, such as a bag or water bottle, carried by him.

(Paras 3, 12, 13)

C. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 52A -- Representative Samples were not drawn in the presence of the Magistrate -- Mere procedural non-compliance does not, by itself, entitle the accused to claim acquittal – Appellant failed to demonstrate serious prejudice caused due to non-compliance -- Primary evidence like the panchnama or seizure memo cannot be overlooked.

(Para 14, 15)

D. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Amendment Act, 2001 (9 of 2001), Section 41 -- Quantity-based sentencing regime -- Retrospective effect -- The amended provisions would only apply to cases which were pending before the Trial Courts or under investigation as on 02.10.2001 -- Specifically excludes cases where the trial had concluded, and the matter was pending in appeal -- Appellant already been convicted by the Trial Court on 07.04.1997 and appeal pending -- The benefit of Section 21 cannot be extended.

(Para 18)

***

Market value of acquired land — While adjudicating a reference under Section 64, the Authority/Court possesses full and independent jurisdiction to determine the true market value on the basis of the entire evidence on record and is not bound by the parameters prescribed under Section 26.

***

A. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 54 -- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), Sections 26, 64 & 69 -- Determination of market value -- Scope of jurisdiction of Authority/Court -- Criteria prescribed under Section 26 are intended exclusively for the Collector while determining market value and are merely guiding factors for the Authority or Court -- While adjudicating a reference under Section 64, the Authority/Court possesses full and independent jurisdiction to determine the true market value on the basis of the entire evidence on record and is not bound by the parameters prescribed under Section 26.

(Paras 10 to 20)

B. Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), Sections 26 & 69 -- Interpretation of statute -- Legislature having consciously used the expression "Collector" in Section 26 and omitted the expressions "Authority" or "Court", the provision cannot be interpreted to extend its applicability to the Authority or Court while determining compensation under Section 64.

(Paras 12 to 14.1.2)

C. Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), Section 26(1)(a) -- Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899) -- Collector rate/Guideline value --  Collector rate prescribed for registration of instruments represents only the minimum value for revenue purposes and cannot be treated as conclusive evidence of the prevailing market value for determination of compensation in land acquisition proceedings.

(Paras 16 to 16.2)

D. Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), Section 26(1)(b) -- Market value -- Sale exemplars -- Highest bona fide sale instance ordinarily constitutes the safest guide for determination of market value -- Averaging of sale transactions is permissible only where the exemplars fall within a narrow price bandwidth and are otherwise comparable.

(Paras 17 to 17.7)

***

Surplus Area -- Banjar Qadim land not liable to be included in surplus area.

***

Revenue Record -- Non-reflection of surplus declaration -- Cannot prejudice rights of a bona fide purchaser.

***

A. Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (10 of 1953), Section 2(8) -- Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (26 of 1972), Section 12 -- Surplus Area -- Banjar Qadim land -- Inclusion of -- Validity of -- Banjar Qadim land not being liable to be taken into consideration while determining permissible or surplus area, its inclusion renders the order declaring surplus area without jurisdiction -- Such an order cannot be sustained merely because no objection was raised by the landowner during surplus proceedings.

(Paras 14 to 17)

B. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 41 -- Bona fide purchaser -- Protection of -- Revenue record continued to depict vendor as owner in possession despite alleged declaration of surplus area -- Purchaser having acted in good faith after making due enquiry from official revenue record is entitled to protection under Section 41 -- State cannot defeat rights of such purchaser by relying upon an order never reflected in public revenue record.

(Paras 18 & 19)

D. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), Section 100 -- Second Appeal -- Interference with judgment of First Appellate Court -- First Appellate Court ignored settled legal position excluding Banjar Qadim land from determination of surplus area and upheld an order suffering from inherent lack of jurisdiction -- Judgment and decree set aside -- Judgment and decree of Trial Court restored.

(Paras 20 to 23)

***

Rejection of plaint -- Where the plea of statutory bar depends upon adjudication of disputed facts, the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.

***

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11(d) -- Rejection of plaint -- Scope -- While deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, Court is required to confine itself exclusively to the averments contained in the plaint and documents relied upon by the plaintiff -- Defence taken by the defendant and disputed questions of fact cannot be considered -- Rejection under clause (d) is permissible only where the statutory bar is apparent from the plaint itself.

(Para 4)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11(d), Order 23 Rule 1(4) -- Rejection of plaint -- Earlier suit withdrawn without liberty to file a fresh suit -- Plaintiff specifically pleaded that earlier suit was withdrawn on the assurance of defendants that the electricity transformer installed over the suit land would be shifted and that such assurance was subsequently breached -- Applicability of the bar under Order XXIII Rule 1(4) dependent upon adjudication of disputed questions of fact -- Plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold.

(Paras 5, 6 & 8)

***

Rejection of plaint -- Disputed questions requiring evidence or founded on incomplete extraneous material cannot form the basis for rejecting the plaint at the threshold.

***

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 -- Rejection of plaint -- Scope -- While deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, Court is required to examine the averments contained in the plaint as a whole -- Written statement or any kind of evidence cannot be looked into at that stage -- Suit cannot be held to be barred by law on the basis of disputed or incomplete extraneous material.

(Para 5)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11(d), Order 23 Rule 1(4), Order 2 Rule 2 -- Rejection of plaint -- Plea that subsequent suit was barred on account of withdrawal of an earlier suit without liberty -- Defendant relied only upon the first page of the alleged earlier plaint and the withdrawal order -- Complete plaint not available and record of earlier suit admittedly untraceable -- Held, it could not be concluded at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC that the suit was barred under Order XXIII Rule 1(4) or Order II Rule 2 CPC.

(Paras 4 & 5)

***

Partition suit -- Co-sharers reflected in the revenue record are not required to be impleaded where the suit relates to a constructed house situated in an abadi area and such co-sharers have no concern with the property in dispute.

***

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 10 -- Impleadment of parties -- Necessary party -- Partition suit -- House situated in abadi area -- Other co-sharers reflected in Jamabandi having no concern with the house in dispute -- Merely because they are recorded as co-owners in the revenue record, they are not required to be impleaded as defendants for effective adjudication of the suit.

(Para 4)

B. Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 10 -- Supervisory jurisdiction -- Impleadment of parties -- Trial Court allowed impleadment of all co-sharers without appreciating the admitted nature of the suit property -- Order held not justified and set aside in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction.

(Para 4)

***

Rent laws -- A tenant cannot enlarge the scope of eviction proceedings by seeking impleadment of a third party inducted into possession without the landlord's consent or nay internal arrangements or arbitral disputes with such person.

***

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 10 -- Impleadment of parties -- Necessary and proper party -- Plaintiff is dominus litis and cannot ordinarily be compelled to sue a person against whom no relief is claimed -- A person can be impleaded only if he is a necessary party, without whom no effective decree can be passed, or a proper party whose presence is necessary for complete and effective adjudication of the issues involved -- A stranger claiming an independent or collateral right cannot insist upon impleadment merely because his interest may incidentally be affected.

(Paras 5 to 7)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 10 -- Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13 -- Eviction petition -- Landlord and tenant -- Impleadment of third party -- Tenancy originally created in favour of petitioner -- Subsequent partnership deed, internal arrangement or arbitral award inter se partners cannot alter contractual relationship between landlord and tenant or compel landlord to implead a person whom he has never recognised as tenant -- Proposed party held neither necessary nor proper party.

(Paras 8 to 11)

C. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) -- Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13 -- Eviction petition -- Arbitral award between tenant with his partners -- Award determining rights and liabilities between partners inter se -- Does not bind landlord, who was not a party to arbitration -- Cannot modify or prejudice independent contractual rights arising under tenancy.

(Para 9)

D. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 10 -- Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13 -- Eviction petition -- Impleadment -- Tenant cannot by his unilateral act of inducting a third person into possession without landlord's consent, compel the landlord to implead such person or enlarge the scope of eviction proceedings -- Inter se disputes between tenant and third party are alien to landlord's claim for eviction.

(Paras 10 & 11)

E. Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Supervisory jurisdiction -- Interference with discretionary orders -- Power under Article 227 confined to cases of jurisdictional error, patent illegality, perversity or manifest failure of justice -- High Court cannot exercise supervisory jurisdiction as an appellate court merely because another view is possible -- Order refusing impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, being based on settled principles and free from jurisdictional error, calls for no interference.

(Paras 12 to 14)

***

Interrogatories are intended to secure admissions on material facts and not to satisfy curiosity or conduct a fishing enquiry; leave to administer them is discretionary and will not be granted unless necessary for fair adjudication or saving costs.

***

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 11 Rules 1 & 2 -- Interrogatories -- Leave to administer interrogatories -- Not a matter of right -- Leave can be granted only where Court is satisfied that proposed interrogatories are necessary for fair disposal of the suit or for saving costs -- Every question cannot be permitted merely because it is framed as an interrogatory.

(Para 4)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 11 Rules 1 & 2 -- Interrogatories -- Scope and object -- Intended to obtain admissions regarding material facts directly in issue or relevant to matters in controversy -- Cannot be employed for a roving or fishing enquiry -- Cannot be used for collecting evidence, conducting advance cross-examination or eliciting facts having no nexus with determination of substantive issues.

(Para 5)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 11 Rule 2 -- Interrogatories -- Relevancy -- Proposed interrogatories sought to ascertain whether written statement signed by one defendant had been filed with authority and knowledge of other defendants -- Written statement admittedly presented through common counsel -- Such procedural aspect having no direct bearing on rights of parties or issues involved in the suit not a proper subject-matter for interrogatories -- Leave rightly refused.

(Paras 6 to 8)

D. Constitution of India, Article 227 – Leave to administer Interrogatories -- Supervisory jurisdiction -- Interference with discretionary orders -- Grant or refusal of leave to administer interrogatories is a matter of judicial discretion of the Trial Court -- High Court will not interfere unless discretion has been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, perversely or contrary to settled legal principles -- Impugned order reflected due application of mind and suffered from neither jurisdictional error nor patent illegality -- No interference warranted.

(Paras 9 & 10)

***

Street vendors -- Relocation to vending zones must be accompanied by adequate public amenities.

***

A. Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 (7 of 2014) -- Street vendors -- Relocation -- Vending zones must be fully operational with basic civic amenities and proper signage -- Authorities directed to issue smart cards to vendors, install CCTV cameras, maintain vendor database, provide public amenities and establish helpline to ensure safety, transparency and effective regulation.

(Paras 1, 6)

B. Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 (7 of 2014), Section 11 & 20 -- Appeals and applications -- Expeditious disposal -- Pending applications/appeals to be decided within 60 days after affording opportunity of hearing -- Fresh applications/appeals to be decided within 30 days, subject to provisions of the Act and Bye-laws.

(Para 6)

C. Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 (7 of 2014) -- Essential Service Providers -- Notification dated 17.07.2020 expanding definition of Essential Service Providers and extending vending hours beyond original Bye-laws -- Issued during COVID-19 pandemic -- Having outlived its purpose, notification quashed and earlier notification restored.

(Para 7)

***

Compromise decree -- Compromise must be in writing and signed by parties -- Counsel cannot bind client without express authority or exigent circumstances.

***

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), Order 23 Rule 3 -- Compromise decree -- Validity -- Compromise must be in writing and signed by parties -- Signature of counsel without express authority or exigent circumstances is insufficient to bind party -- Voluntary consent of parties is mandatory -- Compromise decree passed without compliance with mandatory requirements of Order 23 Rule 3, not sustainable -- Decree rightly set aside.

(Paras 5.1 to 5.6)

***

Committal in complaint case -- Offence exclusively triable by Court of Session -- Section 244 has no application at pre-committal stage -- Magistrate is not required to record pre-charge evidence before committing case.

***

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Sections 209 & 244 -- Complaint case -- Committal of case -- Offence exclusively triable by Court of Session -- Recording of pre-charge evidence under Section 244 -- Not mandatory -- Magistrate is only required to comply with Sections 207/208 and commit the case under Section 209 -- Section 244 has no application at pre-committal stage -- Magistrate is not required to hold inquiry or record prosecution evidence before committing case to Court of Session -- High Court erred in remanding matter for compliance with Section 244 -- Impugned order set aside.

(Paras 6, 9-14)

***

MACT -- Functional disability prevails over medical disability in determining just compensation.

***

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Motor accident compensation -- Permanent disability -- Functional disability vis-à-vis medical disability -- Assessment of compensation -- Skilled worker -- Carpenter -- Amputation of right leg above knee -- Functional disability to be assessed with reference to nature of occupation and impact on earning capacity -- Carpenter unable to perform work requiring sitting position -- Functional disability assessed at 100% despite 70% permanent physical disability -- Accident occurred in November 2004, monthly income of skilled carpenter assessed at Rs.9,000/- -- Future prospects payable even in injury cases involving permanent disability -- Compensation towards prosthetic limb, future replacement and maintenance, attendant charges, transportation charges, loss of amenities and loss of income during laid-up period awarded -- Compensation enhanced from Rs.11,51,423/- to Rs.35,95,923/- with interest @ 6% per annum.

(Paras 5.2 to 10)

***

Adverse possession -- State cannot claim adverse possession over private property without acquisition or payment of compensation.

***

Constitution of India, Article 300-A -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Article 65 -- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), Sections 26 and 27 -- Adverse possession -- State as welfare State -- Suit for possession based on title -- Land utilised for distributary without acquisition -- Compensation not paid -- State cannot dispossess citizen of property except by authority of law -- Right to property a constitutional and human right -- State cannot perfect title by invoking doctrine of adverse possession over citizens' land -- Limitation under Article 65 not attracted where State remains in illegal possession without due process of law -- Land used for public purpose cannot be retained without payment of compensation -- Landowners entitled to fair market value with all statutory benefits by treating acquisition as deemed acquisition.

(Paras 17 to 26)

***

Defamation -- Truthful reporting/publication of an FIR cannot be criminalised merely because it affects the reputation of the person named therein.

***

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 499, 500 & 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Criminal defamation -- Quashing of complaint -- Publication of news item based on First Information Report (FIR) -- Complaint made to police protected under Eighth and Ninth Exceptions to Section 499 -- Accurate and fair publication of contents of FIR does not constitute defamation -- Joint complaint by two complainants arising from same cause of action maintainable -- Editor not a necessary party where reporter himself authored the impugned publication -- Contents of FIR made to police protected and publication thereof by newspaper also protected -- -- Complaint, summoning order and consequential proceedings quashed.

(Paras 13 to 25)

***

Service Law -- Deputation -- Borrowing organisation liable to release leave salary and recover reimbursement from parent organisation.

***

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (39 of 1972), Section 7(3-A) -- Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations, Schedule XVIII, Rule 12(a), Article 240-BB, 185-B -- Government Instructions -- Employee resigned after serving on deputation -- Gratuity and leave encashment withheld due to dispute between parent and borrowing organisations regarding liability -- Held, Rule 12(a) makes the parent organisation responsible for disbursement of leave-related benefits during deputation, while Government Instructions below Article 185-B require the borrowing organisation to sanction and initially release leave salary and thereafter seek reimbursement from the parent organisation -- Gratuity remains the exclusive liability of the parent organisation under Article 240-BB -- Administrative correspondence between departments cannot deprive an employee of statutory retiral benefits -- Delay in payment of gratuity attracts interest under Section 7(3-A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act at 10% per annum, while leave salary directed to carry 6% interest from the date of filing of the writ petition till realization.

(Paras 10 to 17)

***

Rejection of plaint -- Adverse Possession -- Whether property was privately partitioned and title perfected by adverse possession are triable issues not liable to be decided under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

***

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11(a) -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Article 65 -- Title by adverse possession -- Rejection of plaint -- Cause of action -- Co-owners -- Plaint rejected on the ground that plaintiffs, being co-owners, could not claim title by adverse possession -- Plaint specifically pleaded private partition pursuant to an arbitral award and exclusive, open, peaceful, continuous and hostile possession since 1982, maturing into adverse possession in 1994 -- Whether the property stood privately partitioned and whether plaintiffs acquired title by adverse possession are triable issues involving mixed questions of fact and law requiring evidence -- While considering an application under Order VII Rule 11(a), Court is required to examine only the averments contained in the plaint and the documents relied upon by the plaintiffs to ascertain whether a cause of action is disclosed -- Even if the plea of adverse possession ultimately fails, the suit for permanent injunction to protect admitted possession remains maintainable -- A plaint cannot be rejected partially -- Order rejecting plaint set aside and matter remanded for trial.

(Paras 11 to 19)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint -- If it is shown from the averments made in the plaint and the documents relied upon by the plaintiff, which are to be taken as true at their face value, that the plaintiff would be entitled to a decree as prayed in the suit, the plea of a defendant for rejection of the plaint has to be turned down.

(Para 11)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11(a) – Rejection of plaint -- While dealing with an application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the courts have to determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action by carefully scrutinizing the averments made in the plaint together with the documents relied upon by the plaintiffs.

(Para 11)

***

Prevention of Corruption Act -- Mere recovery of tainted money without proof of demand and acceptance cannot sustain conviction, and presumption under Section 20 does not arise.

***

A. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) & 20 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 120-B -- Illegal gratification -- Demand and acceptance -- Criminal conspiracy -- Appeal against acquittal -- Respondents acquitted by High Court of offences under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120-B IPC -- Mere recovery of tainted money held insufficient in absence of proof of demand and voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification -- Presumption under Section 20 arises only after foundational facts of demand and acceptance are established -- Prosecution failed to prove criminal conspiracy as there was no cogent evidence of meeting of minds between accused -- Withholding of material electronic evidence justified adverse inference against prosecution -- High Court's appreciation of evidence held to be a plausible view warranting no interference under Article 136 of the Constitution -- Appeals dismissed.

(Paras 11 to 37)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 120-B -- Conspiracy cannot be inferred merely on the basis of suspicion or association and that there must be cogent material indicating meeting of minds between the accused persons -- To establish a charge of conspiracy, knowledge about indulgence in either an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means is necessary.

(Para 21)

***

Quashing of FIR -- Matrimonial dispute -- Mere matrimonial discord not sufficient to constitute offence under Section 498-A IPC -- Proceedings quashed.

***

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 498-A, 406 & 34 -- Quashing of FIR -- Divorce by mutual consent -- Absence of allegations of dowry demand or statutory cruelty -- Mere matrimonial discord not sufficient to constitute offence under Section 498-A IPC -- Allegations that the complainant was not taken back to the matrimonial home and that the matrimonial house was subsequently sold did not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC -- Parties had categorically stated before the Family Court that nothing remained due or payable inter se after dissolution of marriage -- Inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS can be exercised even after filing of the charge-sheet where continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court and would not serve the ends of justice -- Proceedings quashed.

(Paras 16 to 24)

***

Section 304 Part II IPC -- Sentence -- Culpable homicide not amounting to murder -- Long lapse of time -- Period already undergone -- Conviction maintained -- Sentence modified.

***

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 304 & 34 -- Sentence -- Alteration of sentence – Conviction under Section 304/34 IPC for causing death during a sudden altercation by pushing the deceased into a dry canal -- Evidence disclosed that fatal injuries were sustained due to the fall into the rock-bed canal and not by the alleged stone blows -- Case fell under Part II of Section 304 IPC as the act was committed with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death or such bodily injury as was likely to cause death -- Incident occurred in 1997 -- Appellant was over 60 years of age by the time of disposal of appeal and had already undergone imprisonment for more than one and a half years -- Considering the prolonged lapse of nearly three decades, age of the appellant and overall facts and circumstances, while maintaining the conviction, substantive sentence reduced to the period already undergone.

(Paras 11 to 18)

***

Electrocution death -- Absolute liability -- Electricity transmission company liable irrespective of negligence of deceased -- Compensation upheld.

***

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 96 -- Electricity -- Electrocution -- Compensation -- Electricity transmission company -- Death due to electrocution from high-voltage transmission line passing through tree branches -- Defence of contributory negligence rejected -- Electricity being an inherently hazardous activity, electricity company under statutory obligation to maintain transmission lines and ensure public safety -- Principle of absolute liability applicable -- Liability to compensate not dependent upon proof of negligence and cannot be avoided by alleging negligence of deceased -- Decree awarding compensation upheld and appeal dismissed.

(Paras 9 to 16)

***

Dowry harassment -- Cognizance under Section 319 Cr.P.C. -- General and omnibus allegations against sister-in-law (Jethani) -- Mere relationship with husband not sufficient to sustain cognizance in absence of specific allegations -- Cognizance quashed.

***

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 498A, 406 & 323 -- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961), Sections 4 & 6 -- Cognizance -- Matrimonial dispute -- Sister-in-law (Jethani) summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. after police filed charge-sheet only against husband -- Petitioner residing separately and no material showing involvement in demand of dowry or matrimonial affairs -- Allegations against petitioner found to be general, vague and omnibus -- No specific overt act attributed showing cruelty, harassment or demand of dowry -- Mere relationship with husband not sufficient to prosecute in absence of specific allegations -- Order taking cognizance and revisional order quashed.

(Paras 9 to 13)

***

NI Act -- Suspension of sentence -- Deposit of 20% compensation -- Requirement not absolute -- Appellate Court must exercise judicial discretion and consider exceptional circumstances before imposing condition of deposit.

***

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 148 -- Suspension of sentence -- Appeal against conviction under Section 138 -- Deposit of 20% of compensation -- Appellate Court directed appellant to deposit 20% of compensation while suspending sentence without examining whether the case fell within the exceptions recognised by the Supreme Court and the Division Bench of the High Court -- Requirement of deposit under Section 148 is not absolute and may be reduced below 20% or waived altogether in exceptional circumstances by assigning reasons -- Failure to exercise judicial discretion rendered the impugned order unsustainable -- Matter remanded to the Appellate Court for fresh consideration after affording opportunity to the appellant to establish exceptional circumstances warranting reduction or waiver of deposit.

(Paras 5 & 6)

***

Pay Commission -- National Health Mission (NHM) employees -- 7th Pay Commission -- Denial of revised pay scales despite approved Service Bye-laws and parity with HSSPP employees held arbitrary -- Revision of pay scales with arrears and interest directed.

***

Constitution of India, Articles 14, 16, 226 & 227 -- National Health Mission (NHM) -- Contractual employees -- 7th Pay Commission -- Legitimate expectation -- Service Bye-laws, 2018 -- Contractual NHM employees claimed revised pay scales under the 7th Pay Commission on the basis of approved Service Bye-laws framed on the pattern of Haryana School Shiksha Pariyojana Parishad (HSSPP) -- State had already extended benefits of the 6th Pay Commission under the same framework -- Having consistently implemented the Service Bye-laws and maintained parity, State could not arbitrarily deny revised pay scales under the 7th Pay Commission -- Administrative delay or inter-departmental indecision could not defeat rights flowing from approved Service Bye-laws -- Denial of revised pay scales held arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 -- State, being a model employer, could not approbate and reprobate after acting upon the Bye-laws for years -- Respondents directed to grant revised pay scales under the 7th Pay Commission with effect from 01.01.2016, together with arrears restricted to 38 months preceding institution of the writ petitions and interest @ 6% per annum.

(Paras 20 to 39)

***

Sentence -- Forgery -- Use of forged document in judicial proceedings -- Principle of proportionality -- Long lapse of time -- Absence of criminal antecedents -- Conviction maintained -- Sentence reduced to period already undergone.

***

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 -- Sentence -- Appellant convicted for producing forged land rights document to furnish surety in bail proceedings -- Though offences involving use of forged documents before Court are serious and undermine the administration of justice, sentence must satisfy the principle of proportionality -- Occurrence of 2014 -- Appellant faced criminal proceedings for over a decade -- No criminal antecedents or subsequent involvement in similar offences -- Forged document detected at the threshold without causing irreversible pecuniary or proprietary consequences -- Appellant had already undergone more than two years' incarceration -- Conviction maintained -- Substantive sentence reduced to period already undergone -- Fine maintained.

(Paras 17 to 27)

***

Specific performance – Unexplained delay -- Mere filing of suit within limitation not sufficient for specific performance -- Readiness and willingness mandatory.

***

A. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 16(c) -- Specific performance -- Continuous readiness and willingness -- Delay in filing suit -- Plaintiff failed to establish availability of balance sale consideration during the relevant period, as the Fixed Deposit Receipts relied upon were created several years after institution of the suit -- Suit for specific performance filed after two years and nine months from refusal though within the prescribed period of limitation -- Held, continuous readiness and willingness is a condition precedent for grant of specific performance and mere filing of the suit within limitation does not entitle a plaintiff to equitable relief -- Unexplained delay coupled with failure to prove financial readiness disentitled plaintiff to decree for specific performance.

(Paras 29 to 44)

B. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 16(c) -- Specific performance -- Readiness and willingness -- Readiness refers to the financial capacity, while willingness reflects the conduct and intention of the party seeking enforcement of the contract -- Both conditions must be established cumulatively for grant of a decree for specific performance.

(Para 30)

***

Second appeal -- High Court cannot substitute decree for mandatory injunction with compensation in absence of pleadings or consent.

***

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100 and Order 21 -- Mandatory injunction -- Removal of encroachment -- Modification of decree -- Scope of second appeal -- Trial Court decreed removal of illegal encroachment and lintel, which was affirmed in first appeal -- High Court, instead of deciding the second appeals on merits, set aside the decrees and directed the Executing Court to assess the value of the construction and grant monetary compensation to the plaintiffs in lieu of removal of encroachment -- Held, in absence of any prayer for damages or compensation and without consent of the plaintiffs, the High Court could not compel acceptance of monetary compensation in substitution of the decree for mandatory injunction -- Executing Court could not be directed to undertake valuation without any decree authorising such exercise under Order XXI CPC -- Impugned judgment set aside and matter remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with Section 100 CPC.

(Paras 5 and 6)

***

Regular bail -- Attempt to murder -- Mere lalkara without attribution of injury -- Bail granted.

***

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Sections 109(1), 115(2), 126(2), 3(5), 54 and 351(3) -- Regular bail -- Attempt to murder -- Sole allegation against petitioner was that he raised a lalkara, pursuant to which co-accused allegedly inflicted a hockey blow on the head of the victim -- No injury attributed to petitioner -- Petitioner in custody since 20.03.2026 -- Investigation complete and challan presented -- Petitioner had clean antecedents and was not involved in any other criminal case -- Held, further custodial detention not warranted -- Bail granted.

(Paras 2 to 7)

***

MACT -- Assessment of income on educational and professional prospects upheld -- Parents of unmarried deceased entitled to filial consortium.

***

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Sections 166 and 140 -- Compensation in fatal accident claim -- Assessment of income -- Deceased was pursuing CA (Final) and undergoing articleship -- Though actual stipend ranged between Rs.3,595/- and Rs.14,410/- per month, Tribunal assessed monthly income at Rs.55,500/- by considering educational advancement, professional prospects and likely career progression -- High Court rightly upheld such methodology -- Supreme Court held that determination of just compensation is not a matter of mathematical precision and further enhancement cannot rest on speculation regarding future professional success -- Parents of deceased unmarried son held entitled to filial consortium of Rs.40,000/- each under conventional heads -- Compensation enhanced from Rs.81,21,900/- to Rs.82,01,900/-.

(Paras 19 to 30)

***

MACT -- Physical disability not conclusive -- Functional disability determines loss of earning capacity -- Mason suffering above-knee amputation held to have 100% functional disability despite 70% physical disability.

***

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in injury claim -- Functional disability -- Assessment -- Injured aged 30 years suffered above-knee amputation -- Physical disability assessed at 70% -- Claimant was a mason dependent entirely on manual labour -- Functional disability required to be assessed at 100% as injury rendered claimant incapable of pursuing his avocation -- Loss of earning capacity to be computed by treating functional disability at 100% and not on the basis of physical disability -- Monthly income of Rs.12,000/- with addition of 40% towards future prospects and multiplier of 17 applied for recalculation of compensation -- Future medical expenses for artificial limb/prosthesis enhanced from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- -- Total compensation enhanced from Rs.29,01,570/- to Rs.40,29,730/-.

(Paras 20 to 29)

***

Cancellation of bail -- Addition of aggravated offence -- Bail granted for bailable offences cannot continue on addition of graver non-bailable offence -- Cancellation upheld.

***

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Sections 436 and 439(2) -- Cancellation of bail -- Addition of graver/non-bailable offence during investigation -- Accused initially granted bail by police when only bailable offences were found established -- Subsequently, non-bailable offence under Section 452 IPC added during further investigation -- Held, liberty granted in relation to minor/bailable offences cannot continue after addition of graver and non-bailable offence -- Court competent to direct custody/cancel bail under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. -- Order cancelling bail upheld.

(Paras 7 to 10)

***

Compromise in rape case -- FIR cannot be quashed merely on basis of compromise -- Prosecutrix at liberty to appear before Investigating Officer.

***

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 -- Quashing of FIR -- Compromise between accused and prosecutrix -- Allegation of rape -- Prosecutrix expressed unwillingness to pursue proceedings and entered into compromise with accused -- Held, offence of rape is a heinous crime and not a private dispute -- Criminal proceedings for such offence cannot be quashed merely on basis of compromise between parties -- Offence has serious impact on society -- Petition seeking quashing of FIR dismissed -- Matter at investigation stage -- Prosecutrix at liberty to make statement before Investigating Officer -- Investigating Officer free to submit appropriate report upon completion of investigation.

(Paras 3 to 8)

***

Regular bail -- Theft of electricity conductors/wires -- Accused not named in FIR -- Implication solely on disclosure statement of co-accused -- No recovery from accused -- Investigation complete -- Bail granted.

***

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- Electricity Act, 2003 (36 of 2003), Section 136 -- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Section 3(5) -- Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Regular bail -- Theft of electricity conductors/wires -- Petitioner not named in FIR -- Nominated solely on basis of disclosure statement of co-accused -- No criminal antecedents -- Investigation complete and final report presented -- No recovery required from petitioner -- Offence triable by Magistrate and punishable with imprisonment up to three years -- Trial not likely to conclude in near future -- Further detention would violate right to personal liberty under Article 21 of Constitution -- Bail granted.

(Paras 3, 5 & 6)

***

Municipal elections -- Free and fair elections -- High Court directs uninterrupted videography and CCTV monitoring of entire election proceedings and adequate security arrangements.

***

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (3 of 1911), Section 20 -- Municipal elections -- Election of President, Vice-President and Senior Vice-President of Municipal Council -- Uninterrupted videography and CCTV monitoring -- High Court directs proper videography and CCTV monitoring of entire election proceedings inside premises -- Videography to be preserved for six months, extendable by competent Court -- Senior Superintendent of Police also directed to provide adequate security for conduct of fair elections -- Directions issued to ensure transparency, fairness and integrity of electoral process.

(Paras 2 to 4)

***

NDPS -- Recovery of commercial quantity from co-accused -- Petitioner neither named in secret information nor found in possession of contraband -- Bail allowed.

***

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 21(C) and 29 -- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Section 111(2)(ii) -- Commercial quantity -- 1.103 Kgs. heroin -- Regular bail -- Petitioner not named in secret information -- Implication solely on basis of disclosure statements of co-accused -- No recovery effected from petitioner -- Named by co-accused in successive disclosure statements -- Final report submitted -- 31 prosecution witnesses cited and none examined -- Trial likely to take considerable time -- Continued incarceration held unjustified -- Bail granted.

(Paras 2, 6 & 7)

***

Regular Bail -- Robbery and cheating -- Custody for more than two months -- Settlement of monetary dispute between parties -- Continued incarceration held unjustified.

***

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Sections 310(2), 310(4) and 238 -- Regular bail -- Allegations of robbery and cheating arising out of purported money-doubling scheme -- Petitioner in custody for more than two months -- No recovery to be effected from petitioner -- Matter stated to pertain to monetary transaction which stood settled between parties -- Trial likely to take sufficiently long time -- Merits of allegations to be examined during trial -- Continued incarceration held to serve no useful purpose -- Petitioner entitled to grant of regular bail.

(Paras 3, 5 & 6)

***

Mandatory Injunction -- Encroachment proved -- Litigant approaching Court with false pleadings and unclean hands not entitled to discretionary relief.

***

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Sections 36, 39 and 41(i) -- Mandatory injunction -- Encroachment -- Discretionary relief -- Demarcation report proved encroachment made by defendants -- Plaintiff having falsely pleaded date of construction and suppressed material facts, approaching Court with unclean hands and resorting to falsehood not entitled to discretionary relief -- Courts not bound to grant mandatory injunction merely because encroachment stands proved.

(Paras 17 to 23)

***

MACT – Home Maker died -- Additional compensation under head “Loss of Domestic Care” recognised -- Rs.30,000/- per month prescribed as basic minimum monthly income under said head -- Amount to be revised cumulatively by 10% every three years.

***

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) -- Compensation -- Death of homemaker -- Loss of Domestic Care -- Compensation based on notional income suffers from inherent disadvantage where homemaker has no conventional monetary contribution -- Composite sum of Rs.30,000/- per month to be taken as basic minimum monthly income under head “Loss of Domestic Care”, subject to existence of loss of household management, maternal support and spousal support -- Amount to be revised cumulatively by 10% every three years -- Where homemaker is part of workforce, compensation under head “Loss of Domestic Care” to be in addition to the proved monthly income.

(Para 20)

***

Right to walk and right to demarcated footpaths are fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 -- Violation thereof entitles citizens to invoke constitutional and legal remedies for restitution and compensation.

***

Constitution of India, Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c), 19(1)(d) and 21 -- Fundamental rights -- Right to walk -- Right to demarcated footpaths -- Right to movement guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d), read with Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c) and 21, includes right to walk and right to demarcated footpaths -- Such rights are primary and have priority over movement by motorised vehicles -- Urban Development Authorities, Municipal Corporations, Municipalities and Panchayats have corresponding duty to demarcate, construct, maintain and safeguard footpaths and other pedestrian infrastructure -- Violation of right to walk on demarcated footpaths entitles citizens to invoke constitutional and legal remedies against duty bearers for restitution and compensation, independent of remedies available under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

(Paras 20)

***

NDPS -- In absence of evidence of joint possession, quantity recovered from separate bags carried by accused cannot be clubbed to constitute commercial quantity

***

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 20(b)(ii)(B), 20(b)(ii)(C) and 35 -- Conscious possession -- Commercial quantity -- Separate recoveries from different accused -- Clubbing of quantity -- Prosecution proved conscious possession of contraband recovered from respective bag/ sack of accused -- However, in absence of evidence establishing joint possession or common intention, quantities recovered under separate seizure lists cannot be aggregated to constitute commercial quantity -- Conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) altered to Section 20(b)(ii)(B).

(Paras 34 to 37)

***

Absence of informant – POCSO -- Once information regarding bail application has been duly served, non-appearance of informant cannot preclude Court from hearing bail application.

***

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483(2) -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 5 and 6 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2020, Rule 4(13) and 4(15) -- Bail -- Hearing of bail application -- Presence of informant -- Statutory requirement is to afford opportunity of hearing to informant -- Once information regarding bail application has been duly served, non-appearance of informant cannot preclude Court from hearing bail application -- Informant may repose trust in Public Prosecutor or A.G.A. to oppose bail -- Preliminary objection regarding maintainability of hearing in absence of informant rejected.

(Paras 3 to 7)

***

Marriage registration -- 30-day notice period under Special Marriage Act, 1954 cannot be waived due to personal hardship.

***

Special Marriage Act, 1954 (43 of 1954), Sections 5, 6, 7 and 16 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Marriage registration -- Waiver of 30-day notice period -- Personal hardship arising from imminent joining abroad -- Statutory waiting period forms part of legislative framework -- High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India, cannot direct statutory authorities to act contrary to express mandate of statute -- Mere inconvenience or hardship cannot furnish ground to bypass mandatory statutory compliance -- Petition seeking relaxation of statutory period dismissed.

(Paras 7 to 13)

***

FIR against public servants -- Direction for registration of FIR under Section 4 of SC/ST Act without recommendation of administrative enquiry held unsustainable.

***

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 4(2) Proviso and Section 4(3) -- Public servants -- Dereliction of duty -- Direction for registration of FIR -- Sessions Judge directing registration of FIR against Circle Officer and Station House Officer under Section 4 of SC/ST Act without recommendation of administrative enquiry -- Recommendation of administrative enquiry a condition precedent and mandatory safeguard for initiation of penal proceedings against public servants -- Continuation of proceedings in absence of compliance with statutory mandate amounting to abuse of process of law -- Impugned order directing registration of FIR under Section 4 of SC/ST Act set aside qua applicants in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(Paras 5 to 10)