***

Right to travel abroad under Article 21, though a facet of personal liberty, is not absolute and must yield to competing considerations including the victim's right to speedy trial and the societal interest in effective administration of criminal justice.

***

A. Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section  442 -- Right to travel abroad -- Pending criminal proceedings -- Scope and limitations -- Right to travel abroad forms part of personal liberty under Article 21 but is not absolute -- Must be balanced against victim's right to speedy trial and societal interest in effective administration of criminal justice -- While considering a request by an accused to travel abroad, courts are required to strike a balance between individual liberty and the need to ensure expeditious progress of criminal proceedings -- Conduct of accused, including institution of successive proceedings, securing interim protections and withdrawal of petitions without adjudication after obtaining interim relief, is a relevant consideration in assessing bona fides -- High Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, permitted accused to travel to USA primarily on medical grounds and previous appearances before trial court -- Availability of adequate medical treatment within India and the accused's overall conduct having not been duly considered, revisional order permitting foreign travel held unsustainable and set aside.

(Paras 8-13)

B. Passports Act, 1967 (15 of 1967) -- Passport -- Return of passport -- Magistrate directing release of passport while requiring separate permission for foreign travel -- Validity – Mere release of passport does not confer a right to travel abroad -- Accused permitted to retain passport but restrained from leaving India without prior permission of Sessions Court.

(Paras 11 -14)

***

Royalty -- Enhancement of rate -- Subsequent statutory amendment prevailing over prior contractual stipulation -- Liability to pay royalty determined with reference to date of removal/dispatch of mineral and not date of auction or acceptance of bid.

***

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (67 of 1957), Section 9 -- Royalty -- Iron ore sold through e-auction -- Bid accepted and royalty deposited at rate of 10% -- Royalty enhanced to 15% before removal of mineral pursuant to amendment of Second Schedule -- Royalty payable at rate prevailing on date of dispatch/removal of mineral -- Contractual stipulation regarding royalty cannot override subsequent statutory amendment -- Additional royalty validly recovered from security deposit -- High Court erred in directing refund.

(Paras 10-13)

***

Speedy investigation – Right to -- Investigation cannot be permitted to remain pending indefinitely -- Constitutional Courts must intervene.

***

Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 193 -- Speedy investigation -- Complaint pending investigation for nearly two decades -- Constitutional Courts obligated to intervene in cases of inordinate investigative delay -- Missing records or inability to trace witnesses no ground to keep investigation pending indefinitely -- Investigating agency required to file appropriate report before Magistrate -- Pendency of investigation for years without chargesheet or closure report held unjustified -- State directed to conclude investigation within six weeks and file appropriate report along with affidavit explaining delay and action taken against delinquent officer.

(Paras 10-18)

***

Divorce -- Mental cruelty -- Wife residing separately for most of matrimonial period, denying conjugal relationship and refusing to accommodate marital obligations -- Parties living apart for over 15 years with no possibility of reconciliation -- Decree of divorce upheld -- Marriage also dissolved in exercise of powers under Art. 142 on ground of irretrievable breakdown.

***

A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), S. 13(1)(ia) -- Mental cruelty -- Persistent denial of sexual intercourse and conjugal relationship without reasonable cause -- Constitutes mental cruelty and furnishes ground for divorce.

(Paras 18-19)

B. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), S. 13(1)(ia) -- Long separation -- Parties living separately for more than 15 years with complete emotional alienation and absence of any effort at reconciliation -- Continuance of marital tie itself amounting to cruelty -- Divorce justified.

(Paras 24-26, 30)

C. Constitution of India, Art. 142 -- Irretrievable breakdown of marriage -- Parties residing separately for over 15 years -- Mediation efforts unsuccessful -- Marriage emotionally dead and beyond salvage -- Supreme Court justified in exercising power to do complete justice by dissolving marriage.

(Paras 29-37)

***

S. 351 BNSS/ S. 313 Cr.P.C. -- Failure to put vital incriminating circumstances including medical evidence of rape, DNA report and forensic evidence to accused -- Trial Court relying upon such material for conviction and award of death sentence -- Serious prejudice caused -- Conviction and sentence set aside -- Matter remanded to Trial Court from stage of recording statements of accused.

***

A. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Ss. 5 and 6 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376-AB and 302 -- Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 313 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 351 -- POCSO offence and murder -- DNA report and forensic evidence -- Conviction based partly on DNA evidence matching victim's blood with articles recovered from accused -- Such incriminating material not put to accused during examination under S. 313 -- Reliance thereon held prejudicial.

(Paras 39-46)

B. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 313 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 351 -- Examination of accused -- Must bring to notice of accused each material incriminating circumstance separately and intelligibly -- Omnibus and composite questions reproducing prosecution evidence do not satisfy statutory requirement.

(Paras 35-38, 44)

C. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 313 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 351 -- Circumstances not put to accused -- Resultant prejudice -- Irregularity held curable -- Conviction and sentence set aside -- Matter remanded for fresh examination of accused and decision afresh from that stage.

(Paras 46-47)

***

Arbitration -- Applicability of 2015 Amendment Act -- Amendment introducing Section 12(5) held prospective -- Ineligibility of arbitrator under Seventh Schedule cannot be applied retrospectively to arbitral proceedings commenced prior to 23-10-2015.

***

Arbitral award -- Execution -- Award arising from arbitral proceedings commenced prior to 23-10-2015 -- Executing Court cannot refuse execution by retrospectively applying Section 12(5) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

***

Arbitral award -- Execution -- Executing Court cannot go behind award -- Award validly rendered under unamended Act required to be executed as it stands -- Retrospective application of Section 12(5) impermissible.

***

A. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Sections 12(5), 21 and 26 -- Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 -- Award passed prior to 23.10.2015 -- Prospective operation -- Where arbitral proceedings had commenced and concluded before coming into force of the 2015 Amendment Act, rights stood crystallized on passing of award -- Amendment Act not applicable retrospectively to concluded arbitral proceedings.

(Para 35(i))

B. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Sections 12(5), 21 and 26 -- Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 -- Arbitral proceedings pending on 23.10.2015 -- Prospective operation – Where the arbitral proceedings are pending as on the date of the amendment and the award is passed post 2015 Amendment Act, the provision pertaining to ineligibility under Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule of the Arbitration Act would not apply retrospectively to such proceedings unless the parties otherwise agree.

(Para 35(ii))

C. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Sections 12(5), 21, 34, 36 and 26 -- Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 -- Award passed prior to 23.10.2015 -- Court proceedings under Sections 34 and 36 instituted after commencement of 2015 Amendment Act governed by amended provisions -- However, execution proceedings do not fall within expression “in relation to arbitral proceedings” under Section 26 of the Amendment Act -- Executing Court at the time of execution of such an award cannot go behind the same to apply the provisions of the 2015 Amendment Act retrospectively and is bound to execute it as it is.

(Para 35(iii))

D. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Sections 12(5), 36 and 26 -- Execution of award -- Arbitral proceedings commenced prior to 23.10.2015 -- Execution of the awards arising from arbitral proceedings commenced prior to the 2015 Amendment Act cannot be said to be unenforceable on the ground of being in conflict with the amended Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act, which is prospective in nature unless otherwise agreed between the parties.

(Para 36)

***

Judgment on admissions -- Statement regarding receipt of amount under family settlement not amounting to admission of liability -- Decree on admission impermissible where liability requires inference and disputed questions of fact require trial.

***

Judgment on admissions -- Framing of issues and direction to lead evidence -- Indicates existence of triable issues -- Subsequent decree on admission unsustainable.

***

Judgment on admissions -- Revisional jurisdiction -- Trial Court having found triable issues and dismissed application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC -- Revisional Court could not substitute its own interpretation of pleadings merely because another view was possible.

***

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 12 Rule 6 -- Judgment on admissions -- Triable issues -- Pleadings to be read as a whole and not piecemeal -- Statement regarding receipt of amount under family arrangement not constituting admission of liability to plaintiff -- Questions relating to entitlement, distribution of shares and enforceable liability requiring evidence – Presence of triable issues bars decree on admission.

(Paras 37-47)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 12 Rule 6 -- Framing of issues -- Court having directed parties to lead evidence after framing issues -- Indicates existence of triable issues -- Subsequent decree on admission unsustainable.

(Para 42)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 115, Order 12 Rule 6 – Judgment on admission -- Revisional jurisdiction -- Scope -- High Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC, could not have substituted its own interpretation merely because another view was possible as the scope of revisional jurisdiction is limited -- High Court reassessed the factual matrix and proceeded to substitute its own interpretation of the pleadings and such an exercise travelled beyond the permissible limits of Section 115 of the CPC -- Decree on admission set aside.

(Para 44, 47)

D. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 12 Rule 6 -- Inconsistent pleadings in another proceeding -- Relevant for appreciation of evidence at trial -- Cannot by itself justify decree on admission.

(Para 45)

***

Reserved judgments -- Constitutional guidelines issued -- Delay in pronouncement held to affect Article 21 rights and institutional credibility of justice delivery system.

***

Reserved judgments -- Judgment to be ordinarily pronounced within maximum period of 3 months from date of reservation.

***

Bail/ Suspension of sentence/ Acquittal -- Orders granting regular bail, suspending sentence, or acquitting a convict in custody should be communicated to the jail authorities and the Trial Court on the date it is pronounced.

***

Bail applications to be pronounced preferably on same day or next day if reserved and uploaded immediately -- Communication of orders to jail authorities and trial courts mandated -- Immediate release directed subject to compliance of conditions.

***

A. Constitution of India, Articles 21, 226 and 227 -- High Courts -- Reserved judgments -- Delay in pronouncement -- Held, right to life and personal liberty includes right to timely adjudication at all stages, including pronouncement of reserved judgments -- Undue delay undermines fairness of adjudicatory process and public confidence in judiciary -- Necessity of systemic reform emphasised.

(Paras 9–11, 18–21)

B. Constitution of India, Article 142 -- Supreme Court -- Binding directions -- High Courts -- Reserved judgments -- Comprehensive framework issued governing timelines, monitoring, transparency and accountability in pronouncement of judgments -- Directions declared binding across all High Courts.

(Paras 15–17)

C. High Courts -- Reserved judgments -- Timelines for pronouncement -- Judgment to be ordinarily pronounced within maximum period of 3 months from date of reservation -- Special expedition mandated in matters involving personal liberty.

(Para 16A(i))

D. Criminal law -- Bail, suspension of sentence, acquittal -- High Courts -- Personal liberty matters -- Bail applications to be pronounced preferably on same day or next day if reserved and uploaded immediately – Orders granting regular bail, suspending sentence, or acquitting a convict in custody should be communicated to the jail authorities and the Trial Court on the date it is pronounced.

(Para 16A(c)–(e))

E. High Courts -- Reserved judgments -- Administrative monitoring -- Monthly automated reporting of pending reserved judgments to Chief Justice mandated -- Registrar General to compile and forward list of delayed matters -- Administrative oversight by Chief Justice strengthened.

(Para 16A(ii)(a), 16B, 17)

F. High Courts -- Reserved judgments -- Supervisory mechanism -- If judgment not delivered within 3 months, matter to be placed before Chief Justice -- Direction to concerned Bench to pronounce judgment within stipulated time -- In exceptional cases, matter may be reassigned to another Bench for rehearing.

(Para 16A(ii)(c)–(d))

G. High Courts -- Transparency -- Website disclosure -- Mandatory display of reserved judgments pending beyond 3 months -- Separate disclosure of cases where operative order delivered but reasoned judgment pending -- Automated email/SMS alerts to advocates introduced.

(Para 16B)

H. High Courts -- Judgments -- Operative order and reasoned judgment -- Where operative part is pronounced, reasoned judgment to be uploaded within 7–15 days -- Delay beyond prescribed period triggers administrative review and litigant remedies.

(Para 16A(i)(i), 16A(ii)(e))

I. High Courts -- Remedies to litigants -- Delay in pronouncement -- If judgment not pronounced within 3 months, party entitled to file application for early pronouncement -- If delay persists, party may approach Chief Justice for re-assignment of matter to another Bench.

(Para 16A(iii))

J. Constitution of India, Article 142 -- High Courts -- Reserved judgments – Institutional reform directed to ensure timely pronouncement of judgments and judicial accountability.

(Paras 15–17)

***

Hindu Succession -- Property inherited under Section 8 devolves upon heirs as tenants-in-common and not as joint tenants – Widow inheriting along with daughters cannot act as karta and alienate entire property on ground of legal necessity.

***

A. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Sections 8, 10 and 19 -- Succession to separate property of male Hindu dying intestate -- Class-I heirs succeeding simultaneously -- Property devolves per capita and as tenants-in-common and not as joint tenants -- Each heir acquires definite and separate share -- Rule of survivorship has no application.

(Paras 6-7)

B. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Sections 8 and 19 -- Tenancy-in-common vis-à-vis joint tenancy -- Distinction -- In tenancy-in-common, each co-owner possesses identifiable undivided share devolving upon his own heirs -- In joint tenancy, ownership remains joint and governed by survivorship -- Property inherited under Section 8 held as tenancy-in-common.

(Paras 7)

C. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Sections 8, 19 and 30 -- Property inherited under Section 8 -- Nature of interest acquired -- Heir takes property in individual capacity and not as karta of Hindu Undivided Family -- Descendants acquire no right therein by birth -- Property does not assume character of coparcenary property merely because it belonged to paternal ancestor.

(Paras 7)

D. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Sections 8, 10 and 19 -- Alienation by widow -- Separate property of deceased devolving upon widow and daughters in equal shares -- Widow cannot claim status of karta of the family or alienate shares belonging to other co-heirs on plea of legal necessity -- Alienation sustainable only to extent of her own share.

(Para 8)

***

Arbitration -- Limitation -- Application under Section 33 -- Commencement of limitation under Section 34(3) -- Limitation for filing application under Section 34 commences only from date of disposal of proceedings under Section 33 -- Maintainability or ultimate success of application under Section 33 irrelevant.

***

A. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Sections 33 and 34(3) -- Limitation -- Commencement -- Request under Section 33 for correction, interpretation or additional award -- Section 34(3) expressly provides that limitation for challenge to award runs from date of disposal of request under Section 33 -- Provision does not distinguish between applications allowed or dismissed nor confine benefit to applications ultimately found maintainable.

(Paras 13-15)

B. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Sections 33 and 34(3) – Limitation -- Arbitral award -- Challenge thereto -- Pendency of proceedings under Section 33 -- Parties not required to institute proceedings under Section 34 during pendency of Section 33 proceedings merely by way of abundant caution -- Limitation under Section 34(3) commences only upon disposal of proceedings under Section 33 -- Starting point of limitation under Section 34(3) is date of disposal of proceedings under Section 33 and not date of original award.

(Paras 14-20)

C. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Sections 33 and 34(3) -- Abuse of process -- Sham, frivolous or mala fide applications under Section 33 filed solely to defeat limitation under Section 34(3) -- Courts may impose exemplary and punitive costs.

(Para 17)

***

SARFAESI Act -- HFCs classified as NBFCs under RBI framework are bound by Rs 20-lakh threshold notification; SARFAESI proceedings for secured debt below threshold held without jurisdiction.

***

A. Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (54 of 2002), Sections 13(2) and 2(1)(m)(iv) – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- SARFAESI Act -- Writ jurisdiction – Maintainability – Challenge to very authority of secured creditor to invoke SARFAESI Act – Issue going to root of jurisdiction – Alternative remedy before DRT not a bar where challenge goes to the very jurisdiction of the secured creditor to invoke the Act.

(Paras 8-12)

B. Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (2 of 1934), Section 45-I(f) – National Housing Bank Act, 1987 (53 of 1987), Section 29A – Housing Finance Companies (HFCs) – Status as NBFCs – RBI Press Release dated 13.08.2019, HFC Directions, 2021, Master Circular dated 05.01.2022 and Scale Based Regulation Directions, 2023 – HFCs treated as a category of NBFCs and governed by notifications applicable to NBFCs.

(Paras 14-30)

C. Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (54 of 2002), Ss. 13(2) and 2(1)(m)(iv) – Central Government Notifications dated 24.02.2020 and 12.02.2021 – NBFCs entitled to invoke SARFAESI Act only where secured debt is Rs.20 lakhs or above – Respondent-HFC specifically classified as NBFC by RBI – Demand in notice under S. 13(2) being Rs.13,86,974.82 – Below prescribed threshold – Action under SARFAESI Act without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside – Creditor free to pursue other remedies available in law.

(Paras 31-36)

***

Contempt of Courts -- Fair and accurate reporting of judicial proceedings -- Judgment becomes operative upon formal pronouncement in open Court and does not await signing for its effectiveness -- Newspaper reports correctly stating outcome of case -- Publication not constituting contempt -- Criminal contempt proceedings against Editors and Reporters dismissed.

***

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971), Sections 2(c) and 4 -- Criminal contempt -- Fair and accurate report of judicial proceedings -- Judgment pronounced in open Court though not yet signed -- Newspaper reports accurately stating that trial stood transferred from Faridkot to Chandigarh -- Neither attempt to overreach Court nor interference with administration of justice -- Initiation of criminal contempt proceedings held unwarranted -- Publication protected under Section 4 -- No criminal contempt made out.

(Paras 7-9, 14-16)

***

Anticipatory bail -- Interim protection withdrawn despite accused joining investigation and recovery already effected -- Custodial interrogation sought merely to ascertain source and destination of illicit liquor -- No allegation of misuse of interim protection -- Withdrawal of interim bail held unsustainable.

***

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 482(2) -- Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (1 of 1914), Section 61 -- Anticipatory bail -- Withdrawal of interim protection -- Accused joined investigation pursuant to interim order and recovery already effected -- Custodial interrogation sought only to ascertain identities of suppliers and prospective purchasers of illicit liquor -- Mere requirement of further information not sufficient ground to withdraw interim anticipatory bail -- Order withdrawing interim protection set aside and anticipatory bail made absolute.

(Paras 9-12)

B. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Sections 442 and 482 -- Revisional jurisdiction -- Exercise by High Court -- Sessions Court having withdrawn interim anticipatory bail on untenable grounds -- High Court competent to invoke revisional jurisdiction while dealing with anticipatory bail petition and set aside unsustainable part of impugned order in interests of justice.

(Paras 4, 7-11)

***

Minor's immovable property -- Development Agreement -- Court permission under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act -- Test of necessity or evident advantage to minor -- Undivided share in land exchanged for share in developed residential property and monetary consideration -- Transaction held beneficial to minor -- Permission granted subject to safeguards.

***

A. Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (32 of 1956), Section 8 -- Minor's immovable property -- Development Agreement -- Prior permission of court -- Scope -- Court while considering application under Section 8 required to independently assess whether proposed transaction is necessary or for evident advantage of minor -- Welfare and best interest of minor paramount consideration.

(Paras 7, 8, 14)

B. Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (32 of 1956), Section 8 -- Development Agreement -- Minor holding undivided share in land -- Proposed transaction yielding share in developed residential property together with monetary consideration -- Undivided interest in undeveloped land being of limited practical utility -- Developed residential property and monetary consideration constituting tangible and beneficial assets -- Transaction held advantageous to minor -- Permission granted.

(Paras 15-18)

C. Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (32 of 1956), Section 8 -- Permission to enter into Development Agreement -- Safeguards -- Minor's monetary entitlement directed to be deposited in nationalised bank till attainment of majority -- Modification of Development Agreement and further alienation of minor's interest made subject to approval of competent court.

(Para 18)

***

Land Revenue Act -- Revision -- Mutation attested in 2004 challenged after about 20 years -- Revisional powers exercisable only within reasonable time though no limitation prescribed -- Belated revision entertained without considering delay or accrued third-party rights held unsustainable -- Order setting aside mutation quashed and mutation restored.

***

A. Jammu and Kashmir Land Revenue Act, Samvat 1996 (1939 A.D.) (XII of Samvat 1996), Section 15 -- Revisional jurisdiction -- Exercise after unreasonable delay -- Mutation attested in 2004 challenged by revision petition filed in 2021 -- No application for condonation of delay and no finding regarding sufficiency of cause -- Revisional powers, though not subject to any prescribed period of limitation, required to be exercised within a reasonable period -- Entertaining revision after nearly two decades without cogent explanation impermissible -- Order of Financial Commissioner set aside and mutation restored.

(Paras 30-44, 47-60)

B. Jammu and Kashmir Land Revenue Act, Samvat 1996 (1939 A.D.) (XII of Samvat 1996), Section 15 -- Revisional jurisdiction -- Delay and laches -- Long-standing mutation remaining unchallenged for about twenty years -- Mutation having remained operative for about twenty years and third-party rights having accrued during intervening period -- Reopening concluded mutation after extraordinary delay without considering effect on accrued rights and settled position held unsustainable.

(Paras 36-45, 52-58)

C. Jammu and Kashmir Land Revenue Act, Samvat 1996 (1939 A.D.) (XII of Samvat 1996), Section 15 -- Revisional jurisdiction -- Fraud -- Mere allegation of fraud does not confer indefinite period for exercise of revisional powers -- Even where fraud is alleged, revisional jurisdiction must be exercised within reasonable time from its discovery -- Bald and unsubstantiated plea of fraud insufficient to unsettle long-standing mutation.

(Paras 39, 49, 57)

***

SARFAESI Act -- NBFCs -- Outstanding debt below Rs 20 lakhs threshold prescribed by Notification dated 12-2-2021 -- SARFAESI proceedings without jurisdiction -- Alternative remedy no bar where challenge raises pure question of law -- Writ petition maintainable -- Demand and possession notices quashed.

***

A. Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (54 of 2002), Ss. 2(1)(m)(iv), 13(2) and 13(4) -- Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs) -- Recovery proceedings -- Invocation of SARFAESI Act -- Central Government Notification dated 12-2-2021 issued under S. 2(1)(m)(iv) prescribing minimum debt threshold of Rs 20 lakhs for notified NBFCs/finance companies -- Outstanding debt below prescribed threshold -- Recourse to measures under Ss. 13(2) and 13(4) without jurisdiction -- Demand notice and possession notice quashed -- Respondents restrained from taking coercive measures except in accordance with law.

(Paras 20-23)

B. Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (54 of 2002), Section 17 – Writ jurisdiction -- Alternative remedy -- Availability of remedy before Debt Recovery Tribunal -- Challenge raising pure question of law relating to jurisdiction and competence of finance company to invoke SARFAESI provisions -- Alternative remedy no bar to exercise of writ jurisdiction -- Writ petition held maintainable.

(Paras 12-15)

***

Married daughter cannot be excluded from compassionate allotment of Fair Price Shop solely on basis of marital status -- Exclusion from definition of “family” held violative of Arts. 14 and 15(1).

***

A. Constitution of India -- Arts. 14 and 15(1) -- Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955) -- Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution) Control Order, 2016, Clause 2(p) -- Equality and non-discrimination -- Fair Price Shop dealership -- Compassionate allotment under dependent quota -- Exclusion of married daughter from definition of “family” -- Validity -- Held, marital status has no rational nexus with object of scheme, namely providing financial relief to dependent family of deceased dealer -- Exclusion based on gender stereotype that daughter ceases to belong to parental family after marriage -- Constitutionally impermissible -- Exclusion of married daughters held violative of Arts. 14 and 15(1).

(Paras 18-23)

B. Interpretation of Statutes -- Purposive construction -- Welfare legislation -- Literal interpretation resulting in discrimination and defeating object of scheme to be avoided -- Cl. 2(p) of U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution) Control Order, 2016 construed purposively -- Expression “daughters” held to include married daughters who establish dependency and satisfy prescribed eligibility conditions.

(Paras 24-26)

***

Mining Act – Ss. 21 & 22 -- Cognizance on police report impermissible -- Theft of minerals from State land constitutes distinct offence under IPC -- FIR quashed qua Mining Act offences but permitted to continue for offences under Ss. 379 and 120-B IPC.

***

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (67 of 1957), Sections 21 and 22 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 379 and 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Quashing of FIR -- Illegal mining -- Cognizance of offences under Mining Act cannot be taken on police report and requires complaint by authorised officer -- Theft of minor minerals from State land constitutes distinct and independent offence under IPC -- Disputed questions regarding validity of mining lease and correctness of demarcation cannot be examined in proceedings for quashing -- High Court cannot conduct mini-trial or appreciate evidence while exercising inherent jurisdiction -- FIR and proceedings under Mining Act quashed -- Proceedings for offences under Sections 379 and 120-B IPC allowed to continue.

(Paras 14-26)

***

NDPS – S. 37 -- Commercial quantity -- Twin conditions mandatory -- Bail granted without consideration of statutory requirements -- Similar NDPS antecedents relevant while assessing likelihood of reoffending -- Custody of 1 year 7 months not prolonged incarceration warranting relaxation of statutory restrictions -- Bail order set aside.

***

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 37 -- Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Commercial quantity -- Grant of bail -- Twin conditions mandatory -- High Court granted bail without consideration of statutory requirements under Section 37 -- Similar NDPS antecedents relevant while assessing likelihood of reoffending -- Custody of 1 year 7 months not prolonged incarceration warranting relaxation of statutory restrictions -- Societal interest and impact of drug trafficking relevant considerations -- Bail order set aside.

(Paras 17-23)

***

Regular bail -- Group assault with iron rods -- No specific overt act attributed to petitioner; main injury attributed to co-accused -- Custody since 18.04.2026 (01 month 10 days); investigation complete; trial not likely to conclude soon -- Bail granted.

***

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Sections 110, 115(2), 126(2), 190, 191(3), 351(3) -- Regular bail – Allegation of group assault with iron rods in street  -- FIR alleges petitioner present in vehicle (Thar) owned by him --  Custody since 18.04.2026 (01 month 10 days) -- No specific injury attributed to petitioner -- Main injury attributed to co-accused -- Custodial interrogation not required -- Trial likely to consume considerable time -- Continued incarceration held improper – Petitioner directed to be released on bail subject to conditions imposed by trial Court -- Petition allowed.

(Paras 3–9)

***

Regular bail -- Abetment of suicide -- Allegation that employer questioned driver regarding missing freight amount leading to suicide -- No prima facie material of instigation, mens rea or proximate nexus at this stage -- Trial likely to take long time -- Clean antecedents -- Bail granted.

***

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Sections 108, 3(5), 115(2) -- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Sections 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) -- Regular bail – Suicide by driver employed with petitioner -- Allegation that deceased was questioned regarding missing freight amount -- Investigation complete and challan presented; charges not framed -- 32 witnesses cited, none examined -- No criminal antecedents -- In absence of prima facie material of instigation, mens rea or proximate link, continued incarceration held unjustified -- Without expressing opinion on merits, appellant admitted to bail subject to conditions of trial Court -- Appeal allowed.

(Paras 3-9)

***

Regular bail -- Murder -- Long custody since 08.09.2022 -- Key prosecution witness (complainant) not supporting prosecution case -- Only 10 of 29 witnesses examined -- Parity with co-accused already granted bail -- Trial not likely to conclude soon -- Bail granted.

***

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 148, 149, 323, 302 -- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Sections 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) -- Regular bail -- Allegation of participation in unlawful assembly causing death of deceased -- Custody since 08.09.2022 -- Trial at early stage with only 10 of 29 witnesses examined -- Material prosecution witness (complainant) turned hostile -- Co-accused already granted bail -- Held, prolonged incarceration without likelihood of early conclusion of trial and parity with co-accused justify grant of bail -- Without expressing opinion on merits, appellant directed to be released on bail subject to conditions of trial court -- Appeal allowed.

(Paras 6, 7)

***

NDPS -- Intermediate quantity (5 Kg 90 grams poppy husk) -- Custody of about 05 months and 27 days against sentence of 03 years -- Sentencing principles of reformation and proportionality applied -- long pendency -- Sentence modified to period already undergone while maintaining fine.

***

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 415 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15(b) -- Appeal against conviction -- Recovery of 5 Kg 90 grams poppy husk from accused -- Case falls in intermediate quantity -- Trial court awarded 3 years rigorous imprisonment with fine -- Appeal confined to quantum of sentence as conviction not challenged -- Supreme Court principles of sentencing emphasising reformation and proportionality applied -- Considering custody already undergone (05 months 27 days) and long pendency, sentence reduced to period already undergone -- Conviction upheld, fine maintained -- Appellant directed to be released if not required in any other case -- Appeal partly allowed.

(Paras 6-16)

***

Anticipatory bail -- Allegations of caste-based abuse, harassment and threat to kill under BNS and SC/ST Act -- Alleged occurrence not in public view and caste status disputed -- No specific overt act attributed and no recovery required -- Bar under Section 18 SC/ST Act not attracted where prima facie ingredients not made out -- Anticipatory bail granted.

***

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 482(2) -- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Sections 296, 299, 351(3), 109 -- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va), 18 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 27 -- Anticipatory bail – Offence under SC/ST Act and BNS -- Allegation that accused abused complainant in name of caste and threatened her -- Defence of false implication and caste dispute raised -- FIR contents show no clear public view occurrence -- Caste certificate dispute raised -- Held, Section 18 SC/ST Act not an absolute bar where prima facie ingredients of offence not made out -- No specific role or recovery attributed to petitioner -- Criminal antecedents alone not ground to deny bail -- Custodial interrogation not required -- Impugned order refusing anticipatory bail set aside -- Appellant directed to be released on anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 482(2) BNSS -- Appeal allowed.

(Paras 7-10)

***

Compromise in criminal appeal -- Conviction under Sections 364, 323, 324 r/w 34 IPC -- Long pendency of about 22 years -- Parties settled dispute amicably and complainant not willing to pursue case -- Conviction affirmed but sentence reduced to period already undergone -- Fine maintained.

***

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act No. 46 of 2023), Section 528 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860), Sections 364, 323, 324 read with Section 34 -- Criminal appeal against conviction – Allegation of abduction and assault arising out of enmity -- Conviction upheld on merits -- During pendency of appeal, compromise arrived at between parties and report of CJM confirming settlement -- Complainant not interested in prosecution -- Custody already more than one year -- Considering long pendency of 22 years and period of custody already undergone, sentence modified to period already undergone while maintaining fine -- Appeal partly allowed.

(Paras 1–17)

***

Anticipatory bail -- Senior citizen accused in boundary wall dispute involving allegations of trespass/assault having civil dispute and referred to mediation -- Petitioner joined investigation pursuant to interim protection -- Custodial interrogation not required -- Anticipatory bail made absolute.

***

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act No. 46 of 2023), Sections 482(2) and 483(3) -- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act No. 45 of 2023), Sections 333, 74, 304(2), 115(2), 351(2), 191(3), 190, 324(4) --Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner, a senior citizen, alleged to have been involved in dispute arising out of boundary wall construction and alleged trespass/assault -- Matter also referred to mediation proceedings -- Interim protection earlier granted with direction to join investigation -- Held, once accused joins investigation and cooperates and custodial interrogation is not required, anticipatory bail can be confirmed -- Petition allowed.

(Paras 1–7)

***

Family pension -- Entitlement -- Second marriage during subsistence of earlier marriage -- Long cohabitation and documentary evidence of marriage -- Even if marriage is void under Section 5(i) Hindu Marriage Act, relationship not immoral -- Entitlement to family pension upheld on principles of social justice and economic empowerment -- Appeal allowed and family pension granted.

***

Constitution of India, Article 14 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Act No. 25 of 1955), Section 5(i) -- Evidence Act, 1872 (Act No. 1 of 1872), Section 114 -- CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, Rule 50 -- Family pension to second wife -- Entitlement -- Appellant claiming family pension of deceased employee as widow -- Marriage disputed on ground of subsisting first marriage -- Evidence of affidavit of deceased, Parivar Register entry and long cohabitation produced – In Section 9 petition marriage held to be nullity -- Presumption of valid marriage drawn under Section 114 Evidence Act based on long cohabitation -- Held, even if marriage is void under Section 5(i) HMA, such relationship though illegal is not immoral -- Financially dependent partner cannot be denied relief solely on that ground -- Claim of the appellant for grant of family pension is governed by the Central Civil Services (CCS) Pension Rules -- Interpretation of pension rules to advance social justice, dignity and economic empowerment of women -- Object of family pension analogous to maintenance jurisprudence -- Deceased had treated appellant as nominee and cohabitation continued for long period -- Appellant held entitled to family pension as widow for purposes of CCS Pension Rules -- Impugned judgment set aside -- Appeal allowed.

(Paras 1–5, 7–12, 14–21)

***

Promotion -- Inspector of Police -- DPC -- Merit-cum-seniority -- Non-communication of “average” ACR -- Such entry cannot be relied upon for adverse effect in promotion -- Violation of principles of natural justice -- Promotion directed from date juniors were promoted with consequential benefits.

***

Constitution of India, Article 14 -- Police service -- Promotion -- Inspector of Police -- DPC proceedings -- Merit-cum-seniority -- ACRs -- Non-communication -- Effect of -- Petitioner, Sub Inspector, denied promotion to Inspector as he was placed below in merit list due to deduction of one mark on basis of “average” ACR for period 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013 -- Said ACR not communicated to petitioner -- Held, every entry in ACR including “outstanding”, “very good”, “good” and “average” must be communicated to employee -- Non-communication of ACRs is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and principles of natural justice -- Uncommunicated ACRs cannot be relied upon for preparation of merit list by DPC -- Petitioner entitled to be considered by ignoring uncommunicated ACR -- Respondents directed to promote petitioner to post of Inspector of Police w.e.f. 31.10.2014, when juniors were promoted, with all consequential benefits and notional seniority -- Writ petition allowed.

(Paras 10–12, 14–18, 21–23, 27–28)

***

Medical education -- Transfer of students -- Fee liability -- Interim Government-rate fee arrangement to protect academic continuity did not create a permanent entitlement -- Students transferred from a defaulting private medical college remained liable to pay outstanding fees at rates applicable to the original institution -- Retention of subsidised fee benefit after completion of the course would amount to unjust enrichment.

***

Constitution of India, Article 142 -- Medical education -- Transfer of students -- Fee liability -- Students originally admitted in a private medical college and transferred to private transferee colleges owing to withdrawal of recognition of the original institution -- Government-rate fees permitted under interim orders as an emergent measure to protect academic continuity did not create a permanent entitlement to pay subsidised fees -- Students remained liable to discharge outstanding fee obligations at the fee rates applicable to the original institution -- Retention of the benefit of Government-rate fees after completion of the course would amount to unjust enrichment and confer an unwarranted windfall.

(Paras 32 to 36, 50, 52)

***

Legal aid – Criminal appeal – Amicus curiae -- Legal aid to an accused person must not be a mere ritual or a token formality -- Amicus had no opportunity to interact with appellant lodged in correctional home and appellant was not informed regarding arrangement made for his representation -- Directions regarding effective legal aid not complied with -- Impugned judgment set aside and appeal remanded to High Court for de novo hearing.

***

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374(2) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Murder -- Appeal against conviction -- Appellant remained in custody during pendency of appeal -- High Court appointed amicus curiae in absence of engaged counsel and dismissed appeal within six days of such appointment -- Amicus had no opportunity to interact with appellant lodged in correctional home and appellant was not informed regarding arrangement made for his representation -- Directions regarding effective legal aid and adequate opportunity to amicus not complied with -- Legal aid to an accused person must not be a mere ritual or a token formality, but a substantive and meaningful exercise that ensures effective assistance of counsel -- Impugned judgment set aside and appeal remanded to High Court for de novo hearing.

(Paras 10 to 15)

***

Bail -- Earlier bail cancelled by Supreme Court -- High Court granted bail without considering earlier cancellation order, CCTV evidence, eyewitness accounts, recovery of country-made pistol and conduct of accused after cancellation of bail -- Bail cancelled.

***

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439, 82 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 452, 504, 506 and 307 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 3, 25 and 27 --  Cancellation of bail -- Earlier bail granted to accused cancelled by Supreme Court -- Accused failed to surrender after cancellation of bail, necessitating issuance of non-bailable warrants and initiation of proceedings under Section 82 CrPC -- High Court subsequently granted bail without adverting to reasons recorded in earlier cancellation order or identifying any changed circumstances -- High Court also failed to consider CCTV evidence, eyewitness accounts and recovery of country-made pistol at instance of accused -- Impugned order held unsustainable and set aside -- Bail cancelled and accused directed to surrender forthwith.

(Paras 23 to 37)

***

Written statement -- File remained unavailable before Trial Court during transfer proceedings -- Defence not liable to be struck off.

***

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 8 Rule 1 -- Written statement -- Application for striking off defence dismissed -- File remained unavailable before Trial Court during period when matter was pending before District Judge in connection with transfer of case -- Written statement filed after file was received back by Trial Court -- Written statement taken on record and application for striking off defence dismissed -- No illegality, perversity or jurisdictional infirmity in impugned order.

(Paras 5 to 5.3)

***

Mesne profits -- Location of demised premises, substantial escalation in price of gold since inception of tenancy and nature of business being conducted from premises taken into consideration -- Assessment at Rs.10,000/- per month upheld.

***

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (3 of 1949), Section 13, 15 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 2(12) -- Mesne profits -- Appeal against eviction order -- Admitted rent Rs.700/- per month -- Appellate Authority directed tenant to pay mesne profits at Rs.10,000/- per month from date of eviction order -- No documentary evidence produced regarding prevailing rent of similarly situated shops -- Appellate Authority considered location of demised premises, substantial escalation in price of gold since inception of tenancy and nature of business being conducted from premises -- Assessment of mesne profits held neither arbitrary, unreasonable nor excessive.

(Paras 6 to 6.4)

***

Execution proceedings -- Appeal against judgment and decree pending before first Appellate Court -- Appeal directed to be decided expeditiously and execution proceedings stayed till disposal thereof.

***

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Sections 96 and 107, Order 21 – Execution of decree -- First appeal pending – Effect of -- Execution proceedings initiated during pendency of appeal -- First Appellate Court directed to decide appeal expeditiously, preferably within six months -- Further proceedings in execution application stayed till disposal of appeal.

(Paras 6 and 7)

***

Impleadment as party -- Plaintiffs assigned and transferred their rights in suit property during pendency of suit -- Petitioner impleaded as plaintiff No.9 under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC and permitted to pursue suit from existing stage.

***

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 22 Rule 10, Order 1 Rule 10 -- Impleadment as party -- Plaintiffs assigned and transferred their rights in suit property in favour of petitioner by registered sale deeds during pendency of suit -- Trial Court dismissed application for impleadment -- Impugned order set aside -- Relief not granted under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and petitioner ordered to be impleaded as plaintiff No.9 under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC and allowed to pursue suit from the stage at which it was pending.

(Paras 8, 11 and 12)

***

Execution of decree for possession -- Pendency of first appeal against decree -- Appellate Court directed to decide appeal expeditiously, preferably within six months, execution proceedings stayed.

***

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Sections 96 and 107, Order 21 – Execution of decree -- First appeal pending – Effect of -- Executing Court dismissed objections and issued warrants of possession -- Execution proceedings stayed during pendency of appeal -- Impugned order set aside -- Appellate Court directed to dispose of appeal expeditiously, preferably within six months.

(Paras 6 and 7)

***

Defence struck off – Non-filing of written statement -- Overly strict approach had been adopted by Trial court -- One effective opportunity granted subject to costs.

***

Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 8 Rule 1 -- Written statement -- Defence struck off for non-filing of written statement -- Application seeking opportunity to file written statement dismissed -- Overly strict approach had been adopted by Trial court -- Impugned orders set aside subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- -- One effective opportunity granted to file written statement -- No further opportunity to be granted. (Paras 7 and 8)

(Paras 6 to 8)

***

Evidence -- Closure of evidence -- Opportunity to examine party as witness -- Matters should be decided on merits rather than technicalities -- Orders closing evidence and refusing recall set aside subject to payment of costs.

***

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) -- Evidence -- Closure of evidence -- Opportunity to examine party as witness -- One effective opportunity to lead and conclude evidence ought to be granted where party seeks to examine himself as a witness -- Matters should be decided on merits rather than technicalities -- Orders closing evidence and dismissing application for recall set aside subject to payment of costs.

(Paras 7 to 9)

***

Rejection of plaint -- Existence of cause of action has to be examined solely from averments in plaint -- Defence of defendant cannot be considered at that stage.

***

Rejection of plaint -- Specific performance -- Whether writing constitutes a valid and enforceable agreement is a matter requiring evidence and adjudication at trial -- Plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on that ground.

***

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 -- Rejection of plaint -- Cause of action -- Whether cause of action is disclosed has to be determined only from averments contained in plaint -- Defence raised by defendant cannot be taken into consideration while deciding application for rejection of plaint.

(Para 4)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 -- Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 10 -- Specific performance -- Agreement to sell -- Whether writing constituted a valid and enforceable agreement can be determined only after parties lead evidence and Court appreciates such evidence -- Plaint not liable to rejection at threshold on plea that no valid agreement came into existence.

(Para 5, 6)

***

Court fee -- Refund of excess court fee -- Issue of court fee is a matter between plaintiff and Court -- Issuance of notice to defendants and affording them opportunity of hearing not necessary.

***

Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Sections 10 and 11 -- Refund of court fee -- Excess court fee -- Issue of court fee is a matter between plaintiff and Court -- Defendants have no role to play in adjudication of claim for refund of excess court fee -- Issuance of notice to defendants and affording them opportunity of hearing not necessary.

(Para 9, 10)

***

Co-sharer property -- Purchaser from co-sharer acquires only such rights and possession as vendor himself possessed and cannot claim exclusive possession unless vendor was in exclusive possession of specific khasra numbers.

***

Permanent injunction -- Joint property -- Co-sharer in joint possession is not entitled to injunction restraining other co-sharers from alleged interference on basis of claim of exclusive possession not proved.

***

Revenue record -- Exclusive possession -- Burden of proof -- Failure to produce revenue record showing vendor's exclusive possession prior to sale deed is fatal to claim of exclusive possession by vendee.

***

Additional evidence -- Relevancy -- Sale deed relating to different khasra numbers and executed by a person not party to suit is neither relevant nor necessary for adjudication of dispute and cannot be permitted in appeal.

***

A. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 8 -- Co-sharer property -- Sale by co-sharer -- Vendor being co-sharer in joint property could transfer only such rights and possession as he himself possessed -- Purchaser cannot claim exclusive possession unless vendor was established to be in exclusive possession of specific khasra numbers at time of sale.

(Paras 13 to 16)

B. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 38 -- Permanent injunction -- Joint possession -- Vendor not proved to be in exclusive possession of suit land -- Purchaser held only a co-sharer in joint possession -- Not entitled to injunction restraining other co-sharers from interference with suit property.

(Paras 14 to 16)

C. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34 -- Revenue record -- Khasra Girdawari -- Exclusive possession -- Khasra Girdawari reflected possession of different co-sharers and joint possession of suit land -- Absence of any revenue record showing exclusive possession of vendor prior to execution of sale deed negatived purchaser's claim of exclusive possession.

(Paras 14 and 15)

D. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), Order 41 Rule 27 -- Additional evidence -- Additional evidence sought to be produced related to different khasra numbers and purchase of share from a person not party to suit -- Evidence neither relevant nor necessary for adjudication of appeal -- Application rightly dismissed.

(Para 16)

***

Ancestral property -- Estate inherited by unmarried and issueless brother from common ancestor attained character of self-acquired property in his hands.

***

Ancestral property -- Father could not suffer consent decree in favour of one son to exclusion of other son having a right by birth in the property.

***

Ancestral property -- Property in which plaintiff had a right by birth could not be subjected to family settlement excluding him.

***

A. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 6 -- Property inherited from ancestor -- Nature of property -- Estate inherited by unmarried and issueless brother from common ancestor attained character of self-acquired property in his hands.

(Para 15)

B. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 6 -- Ancestral property -- Consent decree -- Father had no authority to suffer consent decree in favour of one son to exclusion of other son in respect of ancestral property -- Plaintiff acquired right in property by birth -- Decree not binding to extent of plaintiff's share.

(Para 16)

C. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 6 -- Ancestral property -- Family settlement -- Subject matter of family settlement being ancestral property in which plaintiff had a right by birth could not be subjected to family settlement excluding plaintiff.

(Para 16)

***

Execution proceedings -- Conditional warrants of arrest -- Where decree provides recovery by sale of mortgaged property, arrest of judgment-debtor cannot be resorted to without first proceeding against mortgaged property.

***

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), Section 51, Order 21 Rule 37 -- Execution of decree -- Arrest of judgment-debtor -- Decree directing recovery of amount through sale of mortgaged property first -- Execution Court is required to proceed against mortgaged property before resorting to coercive arrest of judgment-debtor -- Conditional warrants of arrest held unsustainable.

(Paras 4 to 6)

***

Withdrawal of suit -- Suit for injunction based on alleged construction is disputed by defendant and material on record shows no such construction -- Withdrawal with liberty to refile cannot be permitted.

***

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), Order 23 Rule 1 -- Withdrawal of suit with liberty to institute fresh -- Suit for injunction based on alleged construction is disputed by defendant and material on record shows no such construction -- Withdrawal with liberty to refile cannot be permitted -- Dismissal of application upheld.

(Paras 6 to 9)

***

Status quo order -- Allegation that respondents/plaintiffs violated status quo by starting business/working in shops -- Even then, petitioner/defendant cannot unilaterally seal shops during subsistence of status quo order.

***

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 -- Status quo order -- Allegation that respondents/plaintiffs violated status quo by starting business/working in shops -- Even then, petitioner/defendant cannot unilaterally seal shops during subsistence of status quo order -- Such action held unsustainable and direction for de-sealing upheld.

(Paras 2 and 3)

***

First appeal -- Substantial compliance with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC -- Detailed reappreciation by First Appellate Court sufficient to sustain reversal of Trial Court decree.

***

Fraud -- Registered GPA-based sale transactions – Plaintiff failed to establish that transactions were mere loan-security arrangements or were vitiated by fraud – Burden of proof remains on plaintiff; in absence of foundational facts, presumption of genuineness of registered sale transactions stands.

***

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act No. V of 1908), Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 31 – First Appellate Court, being the final court on facts, is required to independently reappreciate entire evidence and assign reasons while reversing Trial Court decree – Requirement is of substantial compliance and not mere technical formality – Detailed reappreciation of oral and documentary evidence, including loan transactions, Exs. B7 and B9, possession, mutation entries, limitation and conduct of parties, held sufficient compliance – Judgment not liable to be interfered with on ground of alleged non-compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC.

(Para 40-42)

B. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Act No. IV of 1882), Sections 53A, 54 and 55 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act No. 1 of 1872), Sections 101 to 103 – Registered GPA – Execution of sale deeds pursuant to GPAs – Fraud alleged -- Burden of proof – Appellant executed registered GPAs in favour of respondents; original title deeds were handed over and registered sale deeds executed followed by mutation entries and subsequent transfers – Burden to prove that transactions were only loan-security arrangements and not genuine sale transactions lies upon the plaintiff – Mere allegation of fraud or fiduciary misuse is insufficient without foundational facts – Burden does not shift to respondents unless foundational facts are first established.

(Paras 43, 44)

C. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Act No. IV of 1882), Sections 54 and 55 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act No. 1 of 1872), Sections 101 to 103 and 114 – Registered sale deeds pursuant to GPA – Fraud alleged – Delay and conduct – Appellant executed registered GPAs and sale deeds in 1998; mutation entries continued for several years and multiple subsequent transactions were effected – No cancellation of GPAs or legal action for nearly a decade – Explanation of delayed knowledge rejected in view of appellant and PW-1 being engaged in real estate business – Non-examination of appellant and attesting witnesses to receipts and GPAs – No expert evidence of forgery or interpolation – Plea of forgery of Exs. B7 and B9 rejected – Appeal dismissed.

(Paras 45-58)

***

Lambardar -- Appointment upheld as proclamation was duly conducted and petitioner failed to apply in time; Collector’s choice found non-perverse -- Writ petition dismissed.

***

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 – Constitution of India, Articles 226/227 – Appointment of Lambardar – Mustri munadi/proclamation – Challenge to appointment – Record showing due proclamation in village including entry in rojnamcha and statements of Panchayat members – Petitioner failed to apply within prescribed time and thus has no locus standi – Financial Commissioner upheld Collector’s order after comparative assessment of candidates and found no perversity in Collector’s decision – Choice of Collector in Lambardar appointment not to be interfered with unless perverse – Writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 not to be exercised to re-appreciate merits – Writ petition dismissed.

(Paras 7 to 9)

***

Partition of land -- Challenge to concluded partition proceedings under Haryana Land Revenue Act -- No objection raised at stage of mode of partition/Naksha Bey/Naksha Jeem -- Tubewell land already allotted and landlocked khasra not entitled to separate Rasta -- Partition upheld as involving equitable adjustment and not mathematical precision -- Writ petitions dismissed.

***

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (Act No. XVII of 1887), Sections 111, 114, 116, 118, 121, 122 and 125 -- Constitution of India, Articles 226/227 -- Partition proceedings -- Mode of partition -- Clause providing that partition will be carried out while maintaining possession -- Petitioners challenging partition on ground of violation of mode of partition, non-allotment of tubewell land, absence of Rasta and unfair partition -- Petitioners already allocated area where tubewell installed has been allotted to them -- No reasonable basis to claim entire Killa number -- Claim for separate Rasta rejected as land found landlocked and not abutting any existing revenue passage -- No occasion for providing Rasta to land locked area -- Petitioners did not raise objections to mode of partition or Naksha Bey and Naksha Jeem at relevant stage -- Partition proceedings completed with Sanad Taksim -- Partition cannot be carried out with mathematical precision and adjustments are required depending upon various factors including possession, location, nature and value of land and passage -- Writ petitions dismissed.

(Paras 7 to 12)

***

Circumstantial evidence -- Murder -- Last seen together theory, extra-judicial confession and recoveries failed to establish a complete chain of incriminating circumstances linking accused to the murder -- Conviction set aside and accused acquitted.

***

Circumstantial evidence -- Last seen together theory -- Where time gap is large and possibility of intervening circumstances exists, last seen circumstance cannot be treated as an incriminating circumstance against accused.

***

Extra-judicial confession -- Weak piece of evidence -- Exculpatory statement implicating co-accused and made while accused were detained by villagers lacks credibility and cannot form basis of conviction.

***

Recovery of weapon -- Recovery from an open and accessible place without proof of concealment does not satisfy requirements of Section 27.

***

Murder -- Circumstantial evidence -- Motive -- Absence of motive assumes significance where chain of circumstances is not complete and raises a reasonable doubt.

***

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302 and 34 -- Murder -- Circumstantial evidence -- Last seen together theory, extra-judicial confession and recoveries failed to constitute a complete chain of incriminating circumstances pointing only to guilt of accused -- Conviction set aside and accused acquitted.

(Paras 18 and 20)

B. Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Sections 3 and 114 -- Circumstantial evidence -- Last seen together theory -- Proximity between last seen circumstance and death is essential -- Where time gap is large and possibility of intervening circumstances exists, last seen circumstance cannot be treated as an incriminating circumstance against accused.

(Paras 7 to 9)

C. Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Sections 24 and 30 -- Extra-judicial confession -- Weak piece of evidence -- Exculpatory statement absolving maker and implicating co-accused is inherently unreliable -- Alleged confession made while accused were detained by villagers under accusation of murder lacked credibility and could not form basis of conviction.

(Paras 10 and 11)

D. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 27 -- Recovery of weapon -- Concealment and knowledge of accused are crucial ingredients of discovery under Section 27 -- In absence of any statement regarding concealment, recoveries made from an open and accessible place do not qualify as recoveries under Section 27 -- Recoveries are of no avail.

(Paras 12 to 15)

E. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Murder -- Circumstantial evidence -- Motive -- Though motive is not imperative where chain of circumstances is so complete as to establish only a hypothesis of guilt, absence of motive assumes significance where prosecution case raises a reasonable doubt.

(Para 17)

***

Attempt to murder -- No material suggesting prior planning, preparation or concerted intention to cause death -- Incident having occurred suddenly when complainant intervened in ongoing altercation, prosecution failed to establish requisite intention or knowledge under Section 307 IPC -- Conviction altered from Section 307/34 IPC to Section 325/34 IPC.

***

Attempt to murder -- Ingredients of offence -- Intention or knowledge to commit murder coupled with an overt act towards its commission are essential -- Nature of injury is not decisive and even simple injuries may attract Section 307 IPC where requisite mens rea is established.

***

Grievous hurt -- Ocular version corroborated by medical evidence -- Participation of accused in causing injuries proved beyond reasonable doubt -- Fractures in both parietal bones near midline with neurological complications and prolonged hospitalization constituted grievous hurt -- Conviction under Section 325/34 IPC justified.

***

Attempt to murder -- Intention -- Words "such intention" in Section 307 IPC refer to intention contemplated under Section 300 IPC -- In absence of proof of intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, conviction under Section 307 IPC cannot be sustained, though such intention may be inferred from weapon used, motive, part of body targeted, nature of injuries and surrounding circumstances.

***

Attempt to murder -- Injury dangerous to life -- Gravity of injury by itself is not determinative of offence under Section 307 IPC and intention to commit murder cannot be presumed merely because injuries were opined to be dangerous to life.

***

Attempt to murder -- Weapons used were ordinary lathis which, in facts of case, could not be regarded as inherently deadly weapons -- No conduct indicative of determined effort to cause death -- Offence held to fall under Section 325 IPC and not Section 307 IPC.

***

Sentence -- Conviction altered from Section 307 IPC to Section 325 IPC -- Accused having undergone substantial period of imprisonment and remained on bail for long period, sentence reduced to period already undergone -- Fine of Rs.50,000/- each directed to be paid to injured, with six months' simple imprisonment in default.

***

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 307 and 325 -- Attempt to murder -- Voluntarily causing grievous hurt -- No material suggesting prior planning, preparation or concerted intention on part of accused to cause death of complainant -- Incident occurred suddenly when complainant intervened in ongoing altercation -- Assault arose in heat of moment and as spontaneous reaction rather than pursuant to any pre-conceived intention to eliminate complainant -- Prosecution failed to establish requisite intention or knowledge necessary to attract Section 307 IPC -- Conviction altered from Section 307/34 IPC to Section 325/34 IPC.

(Paras 33 to 38)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307 -- Attempt to murder -- Ingredients of offence -- To constitute offence under Section 307 IPC, prosecution must establish both intention or knowledge to commit murder and an overt act towards commission thereof -- Conviction can be sustained only where, had death ensued from such act, offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC would have been made out -- Nature of injury not determinative -- Accused cannot be acquitted merely because injuries inflicted were simple in nature, intention or knowledge being the decisive factor.

(Paras 26 and 27)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 320 Seventhly, 320 Eighthly and 325, 34 -- Grievous hurt – Common intention -- Injured witness and eyewitness consistently attributed specific roles to accused -- Ocular version corroborated by medical evidence -- Participation of accused in causing injuries proved beyond reasonable doubt -- Fractures in both parietal bones near midline accompanied by neurological complications and prolonged hospitalization -- Conviction under Section 325/34 IPC justified.

(Paras 29, 36, 37)

D. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 307 and 300 -- Attempt to murder -- Intention -- Words "such intention" occurring in Section 307 IPC refer to intention contemplated under Section 300 IPC -- Intention to cause death, intention to cause such bodily injury as offender knows to be likely to cause death, or intention to cause bodily injury sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death must be established -- In the absence of proof of intention, a conviction under this provision cannot be sustained -- Intention, however, can be inferred from surrounding circumstances, such as the type of weapon employed, the words spoken by the accused at the time of the incident, the motive behind the act, the parts of the body targeted, the nature and extent of the injuries inflicted, as well as the force and manner in which the blows were delivered.

(Paras 31 and 32)

E. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307 -- Attempt to murder -- Injury dangerous to life -- Gravity of injury by itself cannot be determinative of offence under Section 307 IPC -- Intention to commit murder cannot be presumed merely because injuries were ultimately opined to be dangerous to life.

(Para 35)

F. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 307 and 325 -- Attempt to murder -- Weapons used were ordinary lathis -- Though capable of causing grievous hurt depending upon manner of use, could not in facts of case be regarded as inherently deadly weapons -- No conduct indicative of determined effort to cause death -- Offence held to fall under Section 325 IPC.

(Paras 34 and 38)

G. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 325 -- Sentence -- Conviction altered from Section 307 IPC to Section 325 IPC -- Accused had undergone substantial period of imprisonment and remained on bail for long period -- Sentence reduced to period already undergone -- Fine of Rs.50,000/- each imposed payable to injured, with six months' simple imprisonment in default.

(Paras 40 to 42)