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

(Para 10-14)

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

(Para 8-10)

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

(Para 10)

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

(Para 10)

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

(Para 10)

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

(Para 1, 11)

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

(Para 18)

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

(Para 19)

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

(Para 11-14)

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

(Para 12, 13)

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

(Para 13, 32, 33)

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

(Para 38)

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

(Para 39)

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

(Para 1, 7)

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

 (Para 8, 9)

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

(Para 2, 4, 6)

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

(Para 7)

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

(Para 13-16)

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

(Para 8-12)

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

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

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

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

(Para 5-8)

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

(Para 8)

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

(Para 8-10)

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

(Para 5)

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

(Para 5, 6)

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

(Para 6)

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

(Para 6-8)

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

(Para 1, 4, 7-9)

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

(Para 5-8)

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

(Para 7, 8)

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

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

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

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

(Para 3-5)

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

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

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

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

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

(Para 2, 6-8)

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

(Para 5, 6)

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

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

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

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

(Para 7-10)

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

(Para 9-13)

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

(Para 6-8)

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

(Para 45)

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

(Para 47-50)

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

(Para 5-7)

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

(Para 7.1-7.3)

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

(Para 22, 23)

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

(Para 19)

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

(Para 21, 22)

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

(Para 5, 6, 13-20)

A. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Abandonment/ Scrapping of selection process – Right to appointment – Power of State -- While it is settled law that mere participation in a selection process does not vest an indefeasible right to appointment, the State’s power to cancel such a process is not absolute and must be grounded in justifiable reasons -- Constitutional Courts, in the exercise of judicial review, are empowered to scrutinize an employer's decision to abandon a recruitment process, particularly when it has reached an advanced stage of conclusion -- If such a decision is found to be arbitrary or lacks a rational nexus with the intended objective, the Court may issue appropriate directions to provide relief.

(Para 9)

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Abandonment/ Scrapping of selection process – Right to appointment – Selection process cancelled at an advanced stage -- Communication indicates that the selection process was scrapped solely to facilitate a transition to online recruitment -- Abandoning a nearly-concluded selection for a mere procedural change, without any allegation of irregularity, constitutes an arbitrary exercise of power -- Decision is legally flawed and lacks a rational nexus to the objective of fair recruitment -- Cancellation is both unreasonable and unsustainable in the eyes of law – Four posts are presently lying vacant, the appellants can conveniently be accommodated against those vacancies, which would effectively resolve the controversy without causing prejudice to the respondents – Writ petition disposed of.

(Para 13-24)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Income tax return – Proof of source of income – Requirements of -- Plea of Insurance Company that the respondent-claimant has proved the income of the deceased by placing on record and proving the Income Tax Return for the relevant year, yet he failed to demonstrate the source of income earned by the deceased – Held, plea taken is without substance and cannot be accepted – Held, neither High Court hearing appeal nor the tribunal could have gone into the source of income of the deceased, which was duly recorded in the ITR filed by her with the Income Tax authorities.

(Para 11, 12)

Uttarakhand Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2003, Rule 3 (b) (ii), 7 -- Reversion after promotion – Legality of – Petitioners were granted promotion on 29.01.2021 to the post of Sahayak Nideshak/Lekha Parikshak Adhikari on the recommendation made by duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee – Rendered satisfactory service for a period of more than four years on the promotional post – Reduction to a lower post, grade, or time scale is a major penalty – Held, procedure for imposing major penalties can be imposed only after following procedure prescribed under Rule 7 of the Rules, 2003 – No such procedure followed -- Impugned order set aside.

(Para 6-8)

Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017), Section 75 -- GST -- Show cause notice – Opportunity for hearing – On the date given for personal hearing, the petitioner intimated the respondent that he was travelling out of the country -- Respondent authority failed to grant any adjournment – Adverse order passed – Matter remitted back to the authority to recommence from the stage of personal hearing.

(Para 2-4)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 366 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 17 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 – POCSO – Kidnapping – Regular bail -- Age of victim as 17 years -- Applicants being relatives of the main accused not directly involved, and are stated to have abetted sexual offences, committed by the main accused who is their relative – Considering the nature of the charges framed against the applicants in the case and their continued incarceration since their arrest, without reference to the prosecution evidence, regular bail allowed.

(Para 11-15)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 309 – Airman in Airforce -- Appointment in State Administrative Service – Petitioner participated in the selection process for selection to the J&K Administrative Services and at the time of applying for the same, he had sought permission from the relevant authorities of the Air Force, however, the said permission was rejected on the ground that the post for which he had applied did not fall in Group-A :

-- Petitioner belongs to a far flung village, that was militancy infested at the time when he was undergoing schooling – Pleaded that both his parents were uneducated hailing from an economically weaker background as such he has undergone studies after facing acute hardships and difficulties -- It is because of these adverse conditions that the petitioner could not continue the studies in a college in a regular mode and instead he had to join employment with Indian Air Force so as to feed himself and his family -- Due to his brilliance, the petitioner without any formal coaching and without any regular studies, obtained the requisite merit in the Combined Competitive Examination and made it to J&K Administrative Service -- This attitude of the petitioner and his urge to attain higher goals and excellence in his career is required to be appreciated and encouraged.

-- Even while performing his duties with Air Force, the petitioner had shown great dedication -- Petitioner had no disciplinary violations in his service meaning thereby that while performing the job as an Airman, he has not given scope for any complaints.

-- Petitioner has potential to attain great heights in his career, denying him permission to continue his service as an Officer of the J&K Administrative Service would work very harshly against him and in fact would discourage and dishearten him immensely, that would lead to wastage of a great talent.

Writ petition disposed of with a direction to the respondents to issue NOC and discharge certificate in favour of the petitioner subject to deposition of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs) with the Air Force authorities within two months.

(Para 11-24)

Haryana Law Officers (Engagement) Act, 2016 (18 of 2016), Section 5, 15 -- Haryana Law Officers (Engagement) Rules, 2016 -- Contractual engagement of Deputy Advocate Generals (DAGs) and Assistant Advocate Generals (AAGs) -- Entitlement of medical reimbursement, LTC facility and other pensionary benefits including the earned leave -- Doctrine of legitimate expectation :

Whether the petitioners, in light of the nature of their duties and conditions of service, can be denied core service benefits solely on the nomenclature of “contractual engagement” ?

To restrict their entitlements on the basis of nomenclature alone would be arbitrary, undermine the dignity of the profession, and contravene the principles of equality, consistency, and legitimate expectation inherent in constitutional governance -- Doctrine of legitimate expectation comes into play -- Petitioners as AAG/DAG are performing duties with higher responsibility and quantum of work than the other Law Officers working in various departments of the State Government -- Being deprived of their private practice, the denial of such benefits like LTC, Medical reimbursement and other emoluments tantamount to putting them at discrimination with the Law Officers such as ADAs, DDAs and DAs deputed in Government Departments -- Respondents directed to release benefits like LTC, Medical reimbursement and other benefits/emoluments to the officers appointed as AAG/DAG including the petitioners.

(Para 18-34)

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 121 -- Sanad takseem issued – Jurisdiction of Collector thereafter -- Naksha 'Bey' challenged by the petitioners by filing an appeal before learned Collector, however; during the pendency of appeal, partition proceedings concluded with the drawing of sanad takseem – Thereafter, learned Collector had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter.

(Para 5)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 – Eviction petition – Application for amendment of written statement – Expedite disposal of same advisable -- Application for amendment on 10.01.2025, to which, reply was filed on 30.05.2025 -- Grievance of the petitioner/ landlord is that hearing in the application is being deliberately delayed by the respondent – Held, though the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller on the application show it was adjourned on a joint request, it is always advisable that such applications are decided at the earliest -- Revision petition disposed of with a direction to the Court concerned to make efforts to hear arguments on the application, preferably on the date and thereafter to decide the said application expeditiously.

(Para 4, 5)

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 11 – Title dispute -- Long pendency – Direction for expeditious disposal -- Petition u/s 11 of the 1961 Act pending before Additional Deputy Commissioner/ respondent No.3 for the last about eight years -- Decision thereupon has been unnecessarily delayed -- Respondent No.3 directed to dispose of the petition within four months in accordance with law.

(Para 3)

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 18, 28A, 54 -- Acquisition of land – Award – Some co-owner challenged the same – Rights of other co-sharer, who did not challenge – Held, being ignorant of prosecuting the cause, appellant/ land-loosers did not challenge the award passed either by filing an application u/s 18 of the Act or no application was filed u/s 28A of the Act after the appeal came to be disposed of in favour of one of the co-owners enhancing the compensation they cannot be denied compensation for the lands lost by them to which they are legitimately entitled to and same cannot be denied on hyper technical grounds -- Appellants held entitled for the interest for a period of five years to be reckoned from today backwards and they would be entitled to all other consequential benefits which flow from award of compensation and the respondent(s) authorities shall compute the compensation as has been determined by the award passed u/s 18 of the Act and/or modified by the High Court or Supreme Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction.

(Para 8, 12)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 9 -- Necessary parties -- Partition proceedings involved more than 177 kanals of land distributed among all village proprietors -- Certain proprietors were allotted portions of the suit land now claimed by the plaintiffs as part of the bachat land -- All proprietors who were parties to the original partition proceedings constitute necessary parties to the present suit -- If the partition is flawed qua any of the proprietors, it is flawed in its entirety and must be re-conducted, thereby directly impacting the rights of those not impleaded herein -- Consequently, the finding of the learned Civil Judge that all proprietors were not necessary parties is manifestly erroneous and cannot be sustained.

(Para 12-12.2)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 22 -- Suit against dead person – Maintainability of -- A suit cannot be instituted against a dead person, for such a proceeding is a nullity, being void ab initio -- A dead person is a juridical non-entity, and the law does not recognize the institution of a suit either by or against a party who ceased to exist prior to its filing -- The only legally permissible course in such a situation is to implead, the legal heirs or successors-in-interest in their own independent capacity, failing which the suit suffers from a foundational defect -- Order XXII is wholly inapplicable -- Principle actus curiae neminem gravabit has no application, because the defect is inherent and incurable -- Suit having been instituted against a deceased defendant, was inherently defective and non-maintainable, and any decree founded thereon is inexorably rendered coram non judice and unenforceable.

(Para 13-14.5)

C. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16, 111-121, 158(1)(xvii) – Partition proceedings -- If the plaintiffs were genuinely aggrieved, the statutory route under the Act was the ‘sine qua non’ for redress, and their failure to adopt it is fatal to the suit -- Their attempt to invoke the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, in conscious disregard of the statutory framework, amounts to a clear circumvention of the legislative scheme -- A suit instituted in violation of such a statutory bar is not merely irregular but fundamentally unsustainable.

(Para 15.1)

D. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16, 111-121, 158 – Partition proceedings – Jurisdiction of civil court -- Maintainability of suit -- When a statute expressly creates rights, prescribes obligations, and provides a special forum for adjudication, the jurisdiction of Civil Courts stands ousted by necessary implication -- In such a scenario, the principle of ‘ubi jus ibi remedium’ operates only within the contours of the statutory framework, and parties must exhaust the remedies provided therein -- Any decree passed by a Civil Court in derogation of such statutory bar is ‘void ab initio’, attracting the maxim ‘coram non judice’ an act done by a court lacking jurisdiction is a nullity in the eyes of law -- Plaintiffs’ conscious awareness of the statutory mechanism, coupled with their deliberate omission to invoke it, renders the suit inherently non-maintainable under Section 158 of the Act -- A party aggrieved by an order passed by a Revenue Officer must avail the statutory remedy of appeal or revision under the Act, and a civil suit challenging such proceedings is not maintainable.

(Para 15.2, 15.3)

E. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 44 -- Wazib-ul-Arz – Presumption -- Wazib-ul-Arz constitutes an integral component of the record-of-rights prepared under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 -- Consequently, a statutory presumption of truth attaches to it under Section 44 -- Wazib-ul-Arz produced on the record stands duly proved, and the contention that it required further formal proof, or that any interpolation had occurred, is devoid of substance. Gram Panchayat of Village Tulewal’ case 2014(11) RCR (Civil) 2674 relied.

(Para 16.4)

A. Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994), Section 6, 10, 51 – Haryana Panchayati Raj Rules, 1995, Rule 4 -- Suspension of Sarpanch – Proposal of Acting Sarpanch passed in favour of petitioner -- No-confidence motion – Requirements of – BDPO directed the petitioner to handover the charge to some other Panch -- Petitioner cannot be held to be a duly elected Sarpanch as envisaged u/s 6 of the 1994 Act read with Rule 4 of 1995 Rules; therefore the provisions contained under Section 10 of the 1994 Act which provides for ‘No Confidence Motion’ against a duly elected Sarpanch, is not attracted -- Contention of the petitioner that he cannot be removed from post of Acting Sarpanch without following process/procedure as envisaged under Section 10 of 1994 Act rejected – Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 2, 8-11)

B. Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994), Section 6 – Haryana Panchayati Raj Rules, 1995, Rule 4 -- Casual filling of vacancy – Sarpanch/ Panch -- If a casual vacancy has arisen, then in that eventuality, the authorities are required to elect a Sarpanch, panch, etc., in the manner as may be prescribed and any person elected to fill up a vacancy under Section 6 of 1994 Act, is to hold office for the unexpired portion of the term for which the person in whose place he is elected would have otherwise continued in office -- Manner prescribed for filling of a casual vacancy is envisaged under Rule 4 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Rules, 1995.

(Para 12)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 430 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376AB, 376(2) -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 – POCSO – Rape – Conviction for 20 years – Appeal -- Suspension of sentence -- Debatable issues would arise, in particular, absence of injuries in the alleged victim’s MLR -- Absence of semen on any of the exhibits of the alleged victim, especially when such exhibits were collected on the day of the alleged occurrence and that prior to their collection, as per the alleged victim’s MLR, she had neither bathed nor washed -- Applicant is a first-time offender who has already undergone actual custody of 07 years, 06 months and 01 day, which includes nearly 04 years after his conviction -- Appeal not likely to be heard in the near future -- Sentence suspended.

(Para 1, 6)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules Rule 15 – Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Power of appellate authority – Collector is appointing authority -- Divisional Commissioner set aside appointment -- Divisional Commissioner should not have appointed the appellant instead the matter ought to have been remanded back to the Collector – Held, in case, the initially selected candidate is found to be ineligible or not suitable, then the claim of all the who have applied is to be considered afresh.

(Para 5)

A. Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15, 16 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Subsequent disqualification – Effect of -- Eligibility and disqualification is to be seen upto the date of appointment as Lambardar -- In case any such disqualification is adapt prior to the appointment, the same will invalidate the appointment itself but in case any disqualification is suffered after the appointment that can only lead to taking action against the Lambardar, in accordance with law.

(Para 5)

B. Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15, 16 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Subsequent conviction – Effect of -- Appointment in February, 2014 – Complaint u/s 138 of NI Act was field in June, 2014, which resulted into his conviction on 09.02.2015 -- Thereafter, on an appeal preferred, on 18.01.2019, the appellant acquitted – Held, on the date when the appointment was made, there was no conviction rather there was no proceeding even pending on such date – Remanding the case for fresh consideration is not correct appreciation of the facts on record – Order set aside.

(Para 7)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 7 -- Appointment of Lambardar -- Eviction proceedings u/s 7 of PVCL Act, 1961 pending against appointed candidate/ petitioner -- Held, comparative merits/demerits of candidates indeed require re-look at the hands of learned Collector, therefore, order passed by learned Divisional Commissioner and further affirmed by learned Financial Commissioner, remanding the matter regarding appointment of Lambardar to learned Collector for afresh decision, does not call for any interference.

(Para 7)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Ejectment of tenant -- Bonafide need -- Premises alleged to be available to the landlord is situated on the first floor, whereas evidence on record demonstrates that the demised shop is commercially more advantageous and suitable for running a boutique business -- Landlord is the best judge of his or her bona fide requirement -- Tenant or the Rent Controller cannot compel the landlord to adjust in an alternative premises or to reorganize his/ her affairs in a manner suggested by the tenant – Eviction order upheld.

(Para 1, 8, 9)

A. Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Appointment of lambardar by authorities -- Interference in -- Once the revenue authorities, on the basis of the record, preferred respondent No.4 to the post of a Lambardar of the village concerned, the same need not to be interfered merely on the basis that the appellant thinks that he is a better suited candidate than respondent No.4.

(Para 4)

B. Haryana Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 – Appointment of Lambardar – FIR against candidate – Effect of -- At the time of the consideration, there was an FIR registered against the appellant, though he was acquitted later on – Held, once at the time of consideration, respondent No.4 had clean record as compared to the appellant, appointing respondent No.4 as Lambardar, cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal.

(Para 4)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Appointment of Lambardar -- Re-consideration on remand -- Once the case has been remanded back, the Collector will decide as to who is the best candidate for the appointment to the post of Lambardar on the basis of the facts before him without being influenced by any observation made either by the revenue authorities or by High Court.

(Para 3)