A. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 2(g)(s) -- Master-servant relationship – Proof of -- Factum of master and servant relationship has to be proved on the basis the documentary evidence – No appointment order issued in favour of the respondent No.1-workman -- No salary slip issued by the petitioner-school in favour of the respondent No.1-workman has also been brought on record -- Merely that the respondent No.1-workman was working under the supervision of the Head Master, who is appointed by Government, is no ground to assert that there existed master and servant relationship between respondent No.1-workman and petitioner-school so as to claim benefit -- Mere supervisory control over the workman and working of the workman under the Principal employer will not create a master and servant relationship between both.

(Para 6, 7)

B. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 2(g)(s), 17B, 25F – Termination of employee -- Master-servant relationship – Proof of -- Workman was appointed as Peon-cum-Chowkidar by Parents Teacher Association and was paid his salary out of the funds of the Parents Teacher Association -- Merely that the respondent No.1-workman working in the school is not good enough to hold that there existed master and servant relationship between respondent No.1-workman and petitioner-school -- Respondent No.1-workman never agitated his claim qua termination against the Parents Teacher Association, which was the employer -- Award against School passed by the Industrial Tribunal set aside -- Financial benefit already given to the respondent No.1-workman u/s 17-B of the 1947 Act will not be recovered.

(Para 1, 8-12)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379A, 34 -- Mobile snatching case – Acquittal -- Delay of 5 days in FIR – Non providing of ownership of mobile -- Appellants were not named in the FIR – No Test identification parade/ TIP – If no test identification parade is held, then it will be totally unsafe to rely upon the bare testimony regarding the identification of an accused for the first time in the Court -- Small recovery of sums of Rs.1600/- and Rs.1400/- -- Inordinate and unexplained delay in reporting the matter to the police -- Recovery of money is not sufficient to prove the allegations of snatching -- Held, the trial Court had committed a grave error in convicting the appellants-accused – Conviction and sentence u/s 379-A read with Section 34 of IPC set aside.

(Para 11-21)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379A, 34 -- Mobile snatching case -- Identity of snatchers – Proof of -- PW-2, stated that accused present in the Court were the persons who had snatched his mobile phone, but he had not given details of physical description of the snatchers like their complexion, height or features or about the clothing as worn by them in the complaint -- Occurrence took place at 11 PM and it was dark at the time -- It was not explained by this witness as to what was the basis on which he could identify the accused persons -- Possibility of this witness having seen the miscreants and identifying them in dark seems very remote -- Identification of the accused persons not established beyond doubt and this fact has created a serious dent in the story of the prosecution with regard to the involvement of the accused in the subject crime.

(Para 17)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379A, 34 -- Mobile snatching case – Recovery of small amount – Identity of currency notes -- Recovery of sums of Rs.1600/- and Rs.1400/- at instance of accused --  Not proved to be having any specific identification mark -- Small amount could easily be planted -- Alleged recovery was effected on 28.07.2020 whereas the occurrence had taken place on 09.07.2019 -- It does not appeal to reason that the appellants would keep such small amounts of money for such a long time with them fully knowing that the same being incriminating piece of evidence could be used against them for proving commission of the subject crime -- Such like currency notes could be easily available in market -- Recovery of money at the instance of the accused could not be considered to be a circumstance sufficient to prove that the appellants had snatched any mobile phone.

(Para 18, 19)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 Rule 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, Section 47 -- Decree for possession with respect to a specific shop identified by the properties located in all the four directions -- Objector purchased the suit property, ten years after the decree was passed -- All the objection petitions are not required to be decided after framing the issues -- Prima facie, merit of the objection petition is to be examined by the Executing Court – Executing Court gave direction for registration of FIR against the judgment debtors and the objector -- FIR already registered by the decree holder will continue and shall remain unaffected – Objection petition dismissed, orders upheld.

(Para 2, 8-12)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 -- Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (45 of 1988), Section 2(8)(9), 4 – Rejection of plaint -- Benami properties -- Whether a property is a benami, has to be considered not in the light of Section 4 of the Benami Act alone but also in connection with Sections 2 (8) and 2 (9) of the said Act i.e. whether the property if benami falls in the exception -- It is only where the property is benami and does not fall within the exception contained in Sub-Section (9) of Section 2 that a suit may be said to be barred -- However, the issue whether the property is benami and is not covered by the exception, is an issue to be decided on the basis of evidence and not simply on mere averments contained in the plaint -- Defendants have to adduce evidence to prove the property to be benami -- Plaint cannot be rejected at the stage of consideration of application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

(Para 27-29)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 -- Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 14 – Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Absolute property of hindu female -- Plea that plaint is hit by Section 14 of the Act -- No such specific plea was taken by the defendants in the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC -- Such a plea was never raised and argued before either of the courts below -- There is no finding by any court on the above aspect -- Defendants cannot be permitted to raise such a plea for the first time in the Special Leave Petition without there being any foundation to that effect.

(Para 30)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 -- Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 14 – Absolute property of hindu female -- Section 14 of the Act simply provides that the property possessed by a female Hindu shall be held by her as a full owner -- It does not bar or prohibit a suit in respect of such a property -- Therefore, in the absence of any bar contained in the above provision, the suit plaint is not liable to be rejected as barred by law.

(Para 31)

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 13(1(d) -- Criminal misconduct by public servant – Corruption case -- No allegation in the chargesheet that the appellant obtained for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage -- No allegation that the appellant agreed to accept or accepted any gratification -- No allegation that he had agreed or accepted any valuable thing or had dishonestly misappropriated or converted for his own use any property entrusted to him – Held, the ‘criminal misconduct’ as provided in Section 13(1) is not attracted -- Direction to frame charge for the offences u/s 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act set aside.

(Para 14, 15)

Union of India Officer Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976, Regulation 19 -- Disciplinary proceedings -- Allegation of adopting a very casual approach while sanctioning credit proposals in 16 accounts --  Respondent Bank sought the opinion of the CVC (Central Vigilance Commission) -- Even before getting the first stage advice charge sheet was served upon the appellant – Once, the first stage advice of the CVC was called, it was the duty of the respondent-Bank to consider the advice and then take a decision to serve the chargesheet – Held, actions of the respondent-Bank are mala fide and arbitrary -- Appellant was sought to be victimised at the fag end of his unblemished career of 34 years -- High Court committed a gross error by holding that Regulation 19 of the 1976 Regulations was not mandatory – Almost six years have passed since the superannuation of the Appellant – Now, at this stage, it will be unjust to allow the respondent-Bank to resume disciplinary proceedings -- Disciplinary proceedings, including the charge sheet quashed and set aside -- Appellant shall not be entitled to back wages and allowances -- Respondent Bank directed to release all retirement benefits.

(Para 15-25)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11, Order 39 Rule 1 & 2, Section 96  -- Rejection of plaint – Appeal against – Temporary injunction – Legality of -- Where an appeal is filed by being aggrieved by the rejection of a plaint in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the High Court ought not to have granted an order of temporary injunction -- When the plaint itself has been rejected, it cannot be said that the appeal filed against such an order is a continuation of a suit -- Until it is revived / restored, an order of temporary injunction cannot operate against the defendant in the suit.

(Para 5)

A. Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, Rule 15(2) --  Disciplinary proceedings -- Vagueness of charge-sheet – Ground of -- Chargesheet contain the charges against the Appellant supported by documents -- Charge against the Appellant was that she managed to get herself transferred from Kendriya Vidyalaya, Bangalore to Kendriya Vidyalaya, Bombay under a fake transfer order -- In this respect, the language of the said chargesheet is very clear and specific -- A common man on going through the same, would understand as to what were the charges which an employee was called upon to face and defend -- She was the sole beneficiary of the said transfer order -- Plea with regard to the vagueness of the chargesheet cannot be sustained.

(Para 18)

B. Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, Rule 15(2) – Constitution of India, Article 14 -- Disciplinary proceedings -- Non-supply of the copy of the Preliminary Inquiry Report – Ground of – It was never made the basis for coming to a conclusion in the regular Departmental Inquiry with regard to the guilt of the Appellant -- After the preliminary Inquiry, chargesheet was issued to the Appellant and thereafter a regular Departmental Inquiry was held where both the parties had led their respective evidence and on that basis the Inquiry Officer has returned his findings -- The principles of natural justice are founded on three fundamental rules that ensure fairness in legal and administrative proceedings.

-- Firstly, the Hearing Rule (Audi Alteram Partem) which mandates that no person should be judged without being given a fair opportunity to present his case.

-- Secondly, the Bias Rule (Nemo Judex in Causa Sua) which asserts that no one should act as a judge in its own case, thereby safeguarding impartiality and preventing any form of bias.

-- Lastly, the principle of Reasoned Decision, also known as Speaking Orders, requires every decision to be supported by valid and clearly stated reasons to promote transparency and accountability in the decision-making process.

Nothing on record which would indicate that the Appellant had ever sought for the Preliminary Inquiry Report after the issuance of the chargesheet -- No prejudice having been caused because of the non-supply of the preliminary Inquiry Report to the Appellant, the plea of violation of the principles of natural justice would not be available to the Appellant -- Court is not bound to simply accept an assertion of a delinquent employee and proceed to question the disciplinary proceedings without being satisfied with regard to any prejudice having been caused to the employee.

(Para 19-23)

C. Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, Rule 15(2) --  Constitution of India, Article 14 -- Disciplinary proceedings – Delay in conclusion -- Plea of prolongation of the Inquiry for 9 years – Held, mere delay during the inquiry proceedings, when it is explained with regard to the time taken for the inquiry to conclude and that too justifying the same with no prejudice having been caused, cannot be made the basis for vitiating the departmental proceedings -- Inordinate or unexplained delay in the departmental proceedings may be a justifiable ground if tampered with prejudice having been established to have been caused to the delinquent employee in the said process for interference by the Court -- Same is absent and therefore the said plea of delay fails.

(Para 25, 25)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 120B, 420, 468, 471 -- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 13(2), 13(1)(d) -- Quashing of criminal proceedings -- Cheating, forgery and corruption in bank loan – OTS with Bank – Effect of – Dispute culminated in a comprehensive One Time Settlement under which the Bank has received the entire outstanding amount -- Recovery proceedings before the tribunal have been dismissed as settled and no residual claim survives -- Bank has not raised any objection to the closure of the matter and has issued formal acknowledgments of satisfaction -- In identical proceedings the charge sheets quashed – Settlement having taken place after the alleged offence and there being no continuing public interest, the Court saw no justification for allowing the matter to proceed further found appropriate to quash the proceedings -- Appeals allowed.

(Para 7-10)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Cancellation of bail – Parameters -- Law is well-settled that the considerations for grant of bail and cancellation thereof are entirely different -- Bail once granted to the accused should normally not be interfered with/cancelled unless there exist circumstances giving rise to an inference that the bail has been procured by practicing fraud or mis-representation; that the allegations against the accused are so grave that the same have an adverse impact on the society at large and shake the conscience of the Court; that releasing the accused respondents on bail is likely to create a sense of fear and terror amongst the society or that the accused while on bail may abscond or tamper with the prosecution evidence.

(Para 13)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 34, 148, 149, 326, 354, 511 read with 376D, 450 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Cancellation of bail -- Concerted attack on the complainant’s house was launched on the day of election results with the sole objective of wreaking vengeance because he had supported the saffron party --  Complainant’s wife was viciously pulled by the hair and was disrobed -- Accused persons were about to assault her sexually when the lady gathered courage to pour kerosene on her body and gave a threat of self-immolation on which the accused persons including the respondents herein fled away from the complainant’s house -- Charge-sheet filed way back in the year 2022 and till date, the trial has not budged an inch -- Prosecution has alleged that this delay is mostly attributable to non-cooperation by the accused persons including the respondents -- On both counts, i.e., (i) the nature and gravity of the offence which is nothing short of an attack on the roots of democracy and (ii) the imminent likelihood of the accused adversely affecting a fair trial, the bail granted to the accused respondents has to be cancelled -- Bail cancelled.

(Para 17-21)

A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13, 25 – Divorce – Permanent alimony/ Maintenance -- Respondent-husband’s current net monthly income is Rs. 1,64,039/- -- Appellant-wife, who has remained unmarried and is living independently, is entitled to a level of maintenance that is reflective of the standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage and which reasonably secures her future -- Rs. 50,000/- per month would be just, fair and reasonable to ensure financial stability for the appellant-wife -- Amount shall be subject to an enhancement of 5% every two years.

(Para 6-9)

B. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13, 25 – Divorce – Maintenance to son aged 26 years -- Court not inclined to direct any further mandatory financial support -- However, it is open to the respondent-husband to voluntarily assist him with educational or other reasonable expenses.

(Para 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376(2)(n) -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(2)(v) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Rape – Promise to marry – Quashing of FIR -- No material on record to substantiate the allegations of cheating or sexual intercourse under a false promise of marriage – de-facto complainant is a highly educated woman aged 30 year, in the chat, she admitted that she was manipulative and was trying to “get a green card holder” -- It would not be difficult for her to trap the next one -- She would not waste time with the accused appellant and needs to “invest on the next victim” -- She would irritate her victims to the extent that they dump her, and she could happily start with the next one -- She also stated that she was using the accused-appellant -- Accused/ appellant was absolutely justified in panicking and backing out from the proposed marriage upon coming to know of the aggressive sexual behaviour and the obsessive nature of the de-facto complainant -- It cannot be said that the offence was committed by appellant/ accused with the de-facto complainant on the ground that she belonged to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes community – FIRs and all proceedings consequence thereof quashed in entirety.

(Para 22-31)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Registered owner – Liability of -- Sale of vehicle – Effect of -- Contention that the auction had taken place on 23.06.1989 by virtue of which, the Indian Overseas Bank had sold the car in question in open auction to respondent No.4 and the accident had taken place on 18.12.1989 – When the accident (18.12.1989) took place, it was the Indian Overseas Bank who was the registered owner of the car -- Insurance Company had issued the Insurance Policy to the Indian Overseas Bank for the insurance of the car in question – Transfer of the car from the Indian Overseas Bank to respondent No.4 by the Registering Authority was done on 05.02.1991 – Appellant-Insurance Company cannot be absolved of its liability.

(Para 2, 7)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 24 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 – Transfer of Divorce petition – Pathankot to Gurdaspur – Generally, the Courts lean towards the convenience of wife, in case of transfer applications, however, it is not a thumb rule -- Various other circumstances coming forth, also ought to be taken into consideration -- Two sons are studying in B.Sc. (Agricultural) at Hoshiarpur, as well as in 10th class are in the custody of the applicant/ wife -- Applicant herself is working as a teacher -- Interim maintenance has been fixed to facilitate the applicant to bear the expenditure of studies of both the children -- Other weighing factor is distance between the two places, which is less than 40 kilometres and there are well connected means of transport on the said route – Transfer application dismissed.

(Para 9-11)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 18 Rule 17 A – Additional evidence in suit -- Order 18 Rule 17 A of the CPC which provided for production of additional evidence not previously known or which could not be produced despite due diligence has already been deleted from the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 -- Thus, there is no right to lead additional evidence.

(Para 5)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 18 Rule 17A -- Application for comparison through handwriting expert -- Suit for declaration and for possession in 2011 -- Reliance in the suit upon compromise dated 25.10.2010 -- In the written statement it was plea that the compromise dated 25.10.2010 was a result of fabrication -- Once the petitioner has taken the said plea in his written statement, then it was open to him to have led all evidence in support of the said plea till the time his evidence was closed – On 08.08.2023 i.e., after more than 12 years of institution of the suit, an application seeking permission for comparison through handwriting expert filed – After evidence had been closed, application cannot be allowed.

(Para 5, 6)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 500 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 156(3), 173, 199 – FIR for defamation – Permissibility of -- Whether there can be a Chargesheet u/s 500 IPC -- Procedure for initiating any Complaint for defamation, has been specifically provided u/s 199 Cr.P.C – FIR could not have been registered u/s 500 IPC, in view of the express bar u/s 199 Cr.P.C. -- Cognizance for the offence u/s 500 IPC could have been undertaken only on a Complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C filed by the “Person Aggrieved”; no cognizance for the offence u/s 500 IPC can be taken on an FIR -- Furthermore, even the contents of the Complaint do not prima facie establish any case of defamation -- Summoning Orders set aside.

(Para 38-43, 57, 58)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 500 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 156(3), 199 – FIR for defamation – Offences under other Sections also – Permissibility of -- Irrespective of there being other Sections involved in the FIR or not, the cognizance u/s 500 could have been only on the Complaint and not on the FIR.

(Para 45)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 499, 500 -- Defamation -- In order to constitute “defamation? u/s 499, there must be an “imputation” with the “intention” to harm the reputation of the person about whom such imputation is made -- It would have to be shown that the accused intended or knew or had the reason to believe that such imputation would harm the reputation of the complainant or that he would be directly or indirectly suffered by it.

(Para 52)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 499, 500 – Defamation – Essential proof – To attract the offence of defamation there must be publication of imputation intending to harm reputation of the person who felt defamed -- The person, involving whom such publication is made, must prove that in estimation of others his moral or intellectual character is lowered down as a result of such false imputation -- Further, to prove the said aspect it is the duty cast on the complainant to lead all necessary evidence before whom his image is ill-effected and lowered -- Albeit the complainant-PW.1 in his private complaint and the evidence stated that, the imputations as per Exs.P1(a) to P1(d) sullied his reputation, however, that in itself would not suffice to attract the offence under Section 499 of IPC -- The damage of the reputation can be ascertained and determined by other persons’ estimation.

(Para 13)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 – Cheque bounce complaint – Vicarious liability of Director of company --  Role of Director – Pleadings in complaint – Requirement of -- Administrative role of each director would be within the special knowledge of the company or the director of the firm and it is for them to establish that they were not in charge of the affairs of the company -- There is no obligation on the complainant to plead in the complaint as to matters within the special knowledge of the company or the directors or firm about the specific role attributed to them in the company.

(Para 38)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173, 239 -- Discharge of accused – Discharge under the CrPC is salutary – Magistrate is under an obligation to discharge the accused where, from the chargesheet and the appended documents, it is noticed that the trial of such charges is worthless -- Section 239 of the CrPC, which deals with the trial of warrant cases by a magistrate, confines the examination to the final report and documents sent with it u/s 173 of the CrPC -- Allegations in the FIR, transformed through investigation and the collection of evidence, are shaped into a final report -- This receives the attention of the magistrate to decide whether the charge so presented against the accused is groundless -- Magistrate neither acts as a post office nor conducts a mini-trial of the report and the documents before it while exercising the power u/s 239 of the CrPC.

(Para 26, 26.1, Para 26.2)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 239, 397, 401 – Discharge of accused – Revisional powers -- Since the order of discharge is amenable to the jurisdiction of the revisional court, the order of discharge must speak for itself, and only a warranted conclusion is arrived at by the magistrate -- Deviation from the discretionary limits attracts the supervisory jurisdiction of the revisional courts.

(Para 26)

A. Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010, Rule 14 -- Appointment as judicial officer -- Employment by irregular or improper means -- Non-disclosure of former government service – Effect of -- Appellant submitted her resignation as teacher on 25.10.2018 much prior to her interview, which was conducted on 02.11.2018 -- Question of disclosing the past government service is certainly not a material irregularity or a serious misconduct for which she ought to be discharged from service especially when she has successfully completed her training without any blemish -- Not a case where the appellant has suppressed criminal antecedents, which may materially affect her commitment to the judiciary – Held, non-disclosure of past government service cannot be a ground for discharging the appellant -- Show cause notice as well as the order of discharge set aside.

(Para 17-21, 31)

B. Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010, Rule 44, 45, 46 – Constitution of India, Article 14, 16 – Appointment of judicial officer -- Discharge of probationer – Arbitrary or discriminatory discharge – Effect of -- Even though a probationer has no right to hold a post, it would not imply that the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution could be violated inasmuch as there cannot be any arbitrary or discriminatory discharge or an absence of application of mind in the matter of assessment of performance and consideration of relevant materials -- Thus, in deciding whether, in a given case, a termination was by way of punishment or not, the courts have to look into the substance of the matter and not the form.

(Para 26)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 18 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 415 -- NDPS case – Appeal from conviction – Sentence reduced -- Recovery of 500 grams of opium -- Appellant convicted for having in possession of contraband, attracting the offence for which no minimum punishment has been prescribed -- Appellant has already undergone actual sentence of 01 year 08 months and 12 days -- FIR was lodged on 30.04.2019 and the appellant has been suffering the agony of trial for last about 06 years and desires to live a peaceful life – Sentence reduced to already undergone.

(Para 8-10)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20, 37 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 – Constitution of India, Article 21 – NDPS Case -- Commercial quantity -- Recovery of 3 Kg 500 grams of Sulfa (charas) – Regular bail -- FIR on secret information -- Alleged recovery from the public place -- Petitioner is behind bars for 01 year, 05 months and 02 days -- No criminal antecedents as he is not involved in any other case – Accused has a right of speedy trial -- Only 02 prosecution witnesses have been partially examined, out of total 17 prosecution witnesses -- Veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after the conclusion of the trial – Bail allowed.

(Para 4-10)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 397(B)(2), 34 – Robbery – Regular bail -- Petitioner is behind the bars for a period of 01 year 04 months and 02 days -- Involvement of accused in other criminal cases cannot be the sole ground to deny him the concession of bail -- Trial is at the stage of prosecution witness and out of 19 PWs, only 01 has been examined till date -- Further detention without the prospect of conclusion of trial in the near future, would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Bail allowed.

(Para 5, 6)

A. Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar -- Acquittal in criminal case – Effect of -- Although the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal cases, however, once a person with clean image/ antecedents available, then no fault can be found in the choice of the Collector in appointing respondent No.4 as lambardar.

(Para 8)

B. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Choice of Collector – Interference in – Permissibility of -- In the matter of appointment of lambardar, the choice of the Collector is not to be lightly interfered with even if two views are possible unless there is patent illegality or perversity therein.

(Para 9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Conviction in cheque bounce complaints – FIR u/s 420 IPC by accused against complainant party – Quashing of FIR – Finding recorded by the jurisdictional criminal court in 138 NI Act proceedings between the parties would be binding to both the parties in any subsequent proceedings involving the same issue – Respondent cannot maintain a prosecution on the basis of allegations which were precisely his defence in the earlier proceedings wherein he was an accused -- Criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed on this ground alone -- Impugned criminal proceedings instituted against the appellant for offences u/s 420 of the IPC, quashed.

(Para 12, 20-25)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Transfer of employee – Challenge to -- Writ jurisdiction -- It is settled proposition of law that scope of interference in transfer matters is very limited -- It is the employer or higher authorities who have to decide posting of employees -- The Court cannot determine place of posting of employees -- The authorities, in the interest of administration as well public interest has to transfer its employees -- Transfer is an integral part of service -- There is no evidence disclosing that the petitioner has been transferred with mala fide intention or there is violation of policy – Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 4-7)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 -- Eviction petition under rent law -- Amendment of reply – Due diligence – Trial is at fag end -- Case was fixed for arguments, but the arguments were not addressed, even after availing almost 10 opportunities and only thereafter,  the application was filed -- Respondent not able to show that in spite of due diligence, the respondent could not raise the pleas before the commencement of the trial – Proposed amendment application is not bonafide and is only a malicious attempt on the part of the respondent-tenant to prolong the lis – Application for amendment of reply dismissed.

(Para 13-18)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 186, 351, 353, 356 – Obstruction in discharge of official duties – Criminal force – Assault – Use of criminal force or assault on a public servant is essential to attract Section 353 IPC -- Physical movement of the labourers would not amount to use of force far less criminal force on a public servant – Offence u/s 353 IPC not made out -- Obstruction to a public servant must be done with the requisite mens rea i.e. to prevent the latter from discharging his official duty -- Members of the social organization were of the impression that bonded labourers/ children ought to be interrogated at a neutral place i.e. Police Station whereas the officers wanted to interrogate them at the site -- When profile of the allegations emerging from the factual matrix of the case renders existence of mens rea patently absurd or inherently improbable, such prosecution is liable to be quashed as an abuse of process of law.

(Para 22-28)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 186, 353 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 155(2) -- Obstruction in discharge of official duties – Non-cognizable offence – Procedure of -- Section 186 is a non-cognizable offence and in absence of ingredients of Section 353 (cognizable offence) disclosed in the FIR, prior permission of Magistrate under Section 155 (2) Cr.PC was necessary to register FIR -- No such permission was obtained rendering the registration of FIR and ensuing investigation bad in law.

(Para 31)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 186 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173, 195 -- Obstruction in discharge of official duties – Non-cognizable offence – Procedure of -- Cognizance of offence u/s 186 IPC was taken on a police report in breach of Section 195 Cr.PC -- Section 195, inter alia, provides no court shall take cognizance of offence u/s 186 save and except on a complaint in writing by the aggrieved public servant or his superior -- Cognizance taken of the offence u/s 186 on a police report/chargesheet is impermissible in law.

(Para 32)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307, 324 – Constitution of India, Article 142 -- Attempt to murder – Compromise quashing of criminal proceedings – Offence under other sections 323, 504, 427, 447 and 506 of the IPC are compoundable as per Section 320 of the CrPC -- In exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the offences alleged against the appellant u/s 307 and 324 IPC shall also be quashed as the other offences alleged against the appellant are compoundable u/s 320 of the CrPC – Criminal proceedings quashed.

(Para 5-10)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Injury case – Just compensation -- Rs.16,34,400/- with 9% interest awarded by Tribunal by adopting the functional disability to be 100% -- Age of victim was 22 years when he was rendered almost immobile by the injuries suffered in an accident -- A prosthetic limb would cost approximately Rs.2 lakhs and it would have to be changed in every five years -- Victim would require the change of at least five prosthetic limbs in his lifetime considering his age -- Provision of wheelchair would also take approximately Rs.40,000/- which also would have to be changed every five years -- Hence, the total amount of Rs.10 lakhs for the prosthetic limbs and another Rs.2 lakhs for the wheelchair would take care of the future wellbeing of the victim -- Insurance Company to pay an additional amount of Rs.12 lakhs to the victim with simple interest @ 6% -- Amount increased in appeal of Insurance Company.

(Para 6, 7)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Age of candidate – Choice of Collector – Writ jurisdiction -- Respondent No.4 was appointed as the lambardar by the learned Collector -- Said appointment further affirmed by the learned Commissioner and Financial Commissioner -- Respondent No.4 is younger in age than the petitioner and has studied up to 10+2 along with an ITI diploma and he also owns 28 kanals of land in the Village and is an agriculturist – Held, in the matter of appointment of the lambardar age of a candidate is a relevant consideration and also the choice of the learned Collector is not to be lightly interfered with even if two views are possible unless there is patent illegality or perversity therein -- No illegality or perversity in the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities -- Writ petition fails and dismissed.

(Para 5-8)

Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, Section 38B(v) – Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 (17 of 1960), Section 8 -- Allotment of land to Society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act – Plaintiff-ISKCON Bangalore is a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act -- All the documents, from the application for allotment to the grant of exemption under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, indicate that the application for allotment was made on behalf of ISKCON Bangalore and that allotment was made to the said Society -- In the entire correspondence in relation to the allotment of Schedule ‘A’ property, the name of ISKCON Bangalore appears – No application was made by ISKCON Mumbai to correct the BDA record -- Even assuming that ISKCON Bangalore did not possess funds, and even if money came from ISKCON Mumbai, it cannot claim ownership -- Only because the existence of the Bangalore branch of ISKCON Mumbai was proved, one cannot jump to the conclusion that allotment of Schedule ‘A’ property was to ISKCON Mumbai through the Bangalore branch -- Sale deed was executed in favour of ISKCON Bangalore -- High Court's finding that ISKCON Mumbai, through its branch in Bangalore, was the owner of the schedule A property is completely erroneous and deserves to be set aside -- It is completely contrary to the documentary evidence – Impugned judgment of the High Court set aside.

(Para 34, 46-58)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 491 -- Non-deposit surety bond amount – Conviction for 6 months – Challenge to -- Appellant stood surety for convict in appeal against conviction u/s 138 of NI Act – Accused not appeared -- Being a poor person, appellant was unable to pay the amount of bail bonds and pleaded guilty -- Appellate Court should have taken a lenient view -- Punishment imposed on the appellant was too harsh, disproportionate -- Courts should impose monetary penalties or should adopt other measures -- Sentence reduced to the period already undergone by him (1 month and 18 days).

(Para 6, 7)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374, 397, 401 -- Conviction in cheque bounce complaint – Settled amount paid to bank -- Respondent-Bank shown no objection to compounding of offence -- Object and purpose of enactment is to provide a compensatory mechanism for expeditious recovery of money as opposed to punishing the accused -- Amendment carried out in the year 2002 in the NI Act intended to make the nature of offence u/s 138 of the NI Act as a civil wrong while making it compoundable -- Conviction and order of sentence quashed/ set aside -- Petitioner acquitted.

(Para 3, 5-8)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 148 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374, 389 -- Appeal against conviction in cheque bounce complaint -- Suspension of sentence – Condition of deposit of 20% of compensation amount – Challenge to -- Ld. Lower Appellate Court suspended the sentence of the petitioner subject to depositing 20% of the compensation amount within 03 months – Held, appellate Court was required to consider whether the case falls in the exception or not -- Imposition of the condition of depositing 20% of the compensation amount set aside – Matter remanded back to the learned Lower Appellate Court with a direction to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law in the light of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari's case 2013 (12) SCALE 611.

(Para 4-6)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Allegation of encroachment over Panchayat land -- Collector appointed petitioner as Lambardar -- Ld. Commissioner as well as the Financial Commissioner remanded the matter to the learned Collector for verifying the illegal encroachment over the Panchayat land by the petitioner – There is considerable basis for remanding the matter to the learned Collector for verifying the illegal encroachment over the Panchayat land by the petitioner especially considering the fact that certain ejectment orders were produced before the learned Financial Commissioner -- No merit in writ petition dismissed.

(Para 7)

A. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 8 -- Jurisdiction of Arbitration – Fraud – Criminal wrong doing – Statutory violation – Ground of -- Allegations of fraud or criminal wrongdoing or of statutory violation would not detract from the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal to resolve a dispute arising out of a civil or contractual relationship on the basis of the jurisdiction conferred by the arbitration agreement.

(Para 15)

B. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 8 -- generalia specialibus non derogant -- Once an application in due compliance with Section 8 of the Act of 1996 is filed, the approach of the civil court should be not to see whether the court has jurisdiction -- It should be to see whether its jurisdiction has been ousted -- The general law should yield to the special law -- Once there is an arbitration agreement between the parties, a judicial authority before whom an action is brought covering the subject-matter of the arbitration agreement is under a positive obligation to refer parties to arbitration by enforcing the terms of the contract.

(Para 16, 17)

A. Constitution of India, Article 14, 16, 226 -- Reservation in Public appointment – Certificate of caste – Requirement of -- Irrespective of whether an aspirant for public employment belongs to a particular community like SC/ ST/ OBC, the status claimed by him for being accorded the benefit of reservation is per se not decisive -- Such status has to be certified by the competent authority upon following due process and identification that the aspirant is what he claims to be -- Requirement in question is no less mandatory and must be scrupulously followed -- Once a process of recruitment is set in motion, all aspirants are entitled in law to equal treatment -- There cannot be different yardsticks for different sets of aspirants -- Non-compliance with the terms of the advertisement/ notification is bound to trigger adverse consequences of rejection of the aspirant’s claimed status by the selecting body/ appointing authority, should he choose not to adhere to the same.

(Para 14)

B. Constitution of India, Article 14, 16, 226 -- Advertisement for public appointment – Challenge to – Scope of -- Terms of an advertisement issued in connection with a selection process are normally not open to challenge unless the challenge is founded on the ground of breach of Article 16 of the Constitution or, for that matter, Article 14 -- Once an advertisement is issued inviting applications for public employment, it is the responsibility, nay duty, of an aspirant to read and note the terms and understand what its requirements are -- If any aspirant finds any of the terms ambiguous and there is scope for an inquiry inbuilt in the advertisement or is provided by any rule/regulation, an effort ought to be first made to obtain clarity for understanding the requirements accurately.

(Para 19)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379B, 325, 341, 34 – Appeal against conviction – Compounding after conviction in snatching case – Matter has been amicably settled between the parties -- Appeals allowed, as a result of compounding, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence under Sections 379-B, 325, 341, 34 IPC, whereby appellant sentenced to RI for five years and a fine of Rs. 10,500/- along with all consequential proceeding quashed qua the petitioners.

(Para 14, 15)

A. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 13(1)(d)(ii) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 120-B -- Corruption case -- In a case of alleged criminal conspiracy, the prosecution is duty bound to prove by cogent, credible, and admissible evidence that the accused persons had a meeting of minds and participated in a common design.

(Para 14)

B. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 13(1)(d)(ii), 20 -- Corruption case – Demand and acceptance of bribe -- In the absence of demand and acceptance, the presumption u/s 20 of the P.C. Act does not arise and conviction cannot be thus sustained.

(Para 18)

C. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 13(1)(d)(ii), 20 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 120-B – Corruption case – Conspiracy – Presumption – Reversal of burden -- Tehsildar, who employed co-accused BK and was shown to be one of the primary beneficiaries, was not accorded sanction and therefore, did not face trial -- Appellants, despite not being shown to be actual beneficiaries or participants, were convicted on a generalized theory of “connivance” – Held, mere association or presence of a person in a place where a crime is committed does not ipso facto establish participation or conspiracy -- Reversal of burden, in a trial u/s 13(1)(d)(ii) of the P.C. Act and Section 120-B of the IPC, where prosecution has not discharged its primary burden is certainly not permissible in law – Appellant acquitted.

(Para 18-20)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Consortium to parents/ Children -- Compensation for loss of consortium to the children and the parents awarded by Tribunal, upheld.

(Para 5)

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13 --  Haryana Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Hereditary claim -- Petitioner was wrongly appointed as Lambardar (BC) on the ground of his hereditary claim by Collector – Divisional Commissioner rightly set aside the order  of Collector being ultra vires the Constitution -- Respondent No. 4 is more meritorious than the petitioner in terms of his age and educational qualification and his name was recommended by lower revenue officials – No illegality or perversity in the order passed by learned Divisional Commissioner in appointing respondent No. 4 as Lambardar.

(Para 7-9)

Christian Marriage Act, 1872 (15 of 1872), Preamble, Section 5 -- Special Marriage Act, 1954 (43 of 1954), Section 4 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 2(c), 5 – Hindu girl conducted marriage under Christian Marriage Act -- Chairman of Town Panchayat -- Reservation as Scheduled caste – Effect upon -- Having voluntarily embraced Christianity,  she cannot blow hot and cold, claiming to be a Scheduled Caste for the purpose of 'public employment' -- She cannot identify herself a 'Hindu' after solemnization of marriage under the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 -- Conferment of scheduled caste communal status to the 4th respondent, who is a Christian by religion, is nothing but a fraud on the Constitution -- To retain the socio-religious identity of a personality in case of marriages between two persons from two different religions, the only way out which could be adopted by the persons concerned to retain their original religion is to resort to a civil marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954.

(Para 71-75)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 11 – Appointment of Arbitrator -- Bisecting the claim – Arbitrable and non-arbitrable – Permissibility of -- Held, High Court fell in error in bisecting the claim of the appellant into two parts, one arbitrable and the other not arbitrable, when it found arbitration agreement to be there for settlement of disputes between the parties -- The correct course for the High Court was to leave it open to the party to raise the issue of non-arbitrability of certain claims before the arbitral tribunal, which, if raised, could be considered and decided by it –  Parties are, at liberty to take the plea of non-arbitrability of certain claims before the arbitral tribunal.

(Para 12, 13)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 341, 323, 307, 302, 120B, 147, 148, 149 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 3, 25, 5, 27 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder – Conspiracy -- Regular bail -- Common intention – Overt Act -- Merely because no overt act was attributed to the respondent/ accused in the F.I.R., the same cannot be the sole consideration for grant of bail -- First Information Report is not an encyclopaedia of facts -- An FIR is a starter point to set the investigation in motion -- Respondent/accused hatched a conspiracy so as to eliminate the victim and engaged a contract killer to kill the victim  -- High Court failed to consider that the accused are the main accused in the matter and cannot be enlarged on bail because the other co-accused persons have been granted bail -- High Court order granting bail set aside.

(Para 16-20)

A. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (37 of 1967), Section 17, 18, 22C, Section 43D(5) – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- UAPA Case – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Regular bail – Delay in trial – Effect of -- Scope and application of Section 43D(5) of UAPA whereunder the court, at the stage of bail is not required to meticulously examine the admissibility and reliability of evidence -- The degree of satisfaction required under this provision has to be lower than the proof beyond reasonable doubt, but must still be rooted in material that is not inherently improbable or ex facie unreliable -- Rigour of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA would, however, in an appropriate case yield to the overarching mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution, especially where the trial is inordinately delayed or where the incarceration becomes punitive -- However, such relaxation cannot possibly be automatic and must be evaluated in light of the specific facts and risks associated with each case

(Para 23, 24)

B. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (37 of 1967), Section 17, 18, 22C, Section 43D(5) -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8(c), 21(c), 23(c), 29 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 120B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS/ UAPA Case – Regular bail – Despite no direct recovery of contraband effected from the Appellant, the Prosecution’s case is that he played a coordinating and enabling role in facilitating the import of narcotics concealed as talc -- Investigative narrative does not rest solely on physical recovery but proceeds on the basis of conspiracy and facilitation – Absence of direct seizure is not dispositive, particularly where there exists a pattern of covert coordination, fictitious entities, and barter-based compensation – Bail declined.

(Para 25-27, 35)

A. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 13(1)(e), (2) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 109 -- Disproportionate of assets to the income -- Even a non-public servant can be convicted u/s 109 IPC read with 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act.

(Para 15)

B. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 13(1)(e), (2) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 107, 108, 109 -- Disproportionate of assets to the income -- Appellant’s husband acquired assets (disproportionate to his income), during the check period, in appellant’s name – It is not clear, whether the appellant and her husband entered into a prior conspiracy to amass a huge bulk of wealth through bribery, but there is no doubt that after such disproportionate wealth was amassed, the appellant has been actively involved in concealing such wealth by keeping assets in her name -- By doing so, the appellant is guilty of offence of abetment falling u/s 109 IPC read with 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act.

(Para 14, 15)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Tractor-trailer – Liability of Insurance company -- Trailer was being pulled by/ attached to the tractor and then the trailer on which the deceased was present, turned turtle/upturned, resulting in his death -- Tractor which was insured was the reason for the accident -- Had the trailer been stationary at a place and due to some reason, it overturned or a mishap happened, then without the trailer being specifically insured the Appellant would not be liable to pay -- Accident was caused by the tractor, as during the course of being driven/pulled by the tractor, the accident occurred -- Liability of the tractor/ its insurer extended to the accident -- If an insured vehicle hits another vehicle which in turn hits a third vehicle, then for the entire chain of accidents, the liability would pass on to the vehicle which was the root cause of the accident -- No infirmity in the Impugned Order in fixation of liability on the insurer-Appellant for the accident.

(Para 11, 12, 19)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 407, 420 – Cheating – Sentence of imprisonment reduced -- Appellant is a 71-year-old individual who is afflicted with various age-related ailments -- Medical documentation further reveals that the Appellant is a diabetic person and has a history of having suffered three heart attacks -- That apart, the incident is of the year 1994 i.e. more than 30 years old causing mental trauma and agony as faced by the Appellant -- All these factors in the facts and circumstances of this case persuade Court to take a lenient view -- Sentences imposed u/s 407 and 420 of IPC reduced to 2 years and 6 months of rigorous imprisonment from 5 years with fine and default punishment unchanged.

(Para 29, 30)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 11, 21 – Notice for arbitration – Impleadment of parties to whom notice not issued – Power of Arbitration Tribunal – Summary of Conclusions:

I. A notice invoking arbitration under Section 21 of the ACA is mandatory as it fixes the date of commencement of arbitration, which is essential for determining limitation periods and the applicable law, and it is a prerequisite to filing an application under Section 11. However, merely because such a notice was not issued to certain persons who are parties to the arbitration agreement does not denude the arbitral tribunal of its jurisdiction to implead them as parties during the arbitral proceedings.

II. The purpose of an application under Section 11 is for the court to appoint an arbitrator, so as to enable dispute resolution through arbitration when the appointment procedure in the agreement fails. The court only undertakes a limited and prima facie examination into the existence of the arbitration agreement and its parties at this stage. Hence, merely because a court does not refer a certain party to arbitration in its order does not denude the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal from impleading them during the arbitral proceedings as the referral court’s view does not finally determine this issue.

III. The relevant consideration to determine whether a person can be made a party before the arbitral tribunal is if such a person is a party to the arbitration agreement. The arbitral tribunal must determine this jurisdictional issue in an application under Section 16 by examining whether a non-signatory is a party to the arbitration agreement as per Section 7 of the ACA.

IV. In the facts of the present appeal, respondent nos. 2 and 3 are parties to the arbitration agreement in Clause 40 of the LLP Agreement despite being non-signatories. Their conduct is in accordance with and in pursuance of the terms of the LLP Agreement, and hence, they can be made parties to the arbitral proceedings.

(Para 40)