Constitution of India, Article 14, 226 -- Cancellation of tender – Defaulter/ Blacklisted was not ground for cancellation -- It being so, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondents to contest the claim of the petitioner by terming him as black listed, when such ground was not the reason for cancellation of tender -- Even otherwise, the respondents have not been able to substantiate their plea that the petitioner had been black listed – Communication did not mention any reason adverse to the petitioner – Writ petition allowed, period for which the bids were invited has already elapsed – Respondent burdened with costs of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs only) to be paid to the petitioner for compensating him for the loss caused to him without justifiable reason.

(Para 10-13)

Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 (29 of 1974), Section 20(3), 55(4)(6) – Constitution of India, Section 226, 227 -- Nakka from the watercourse – Finality of order – Once the matter regarding provisioning of Nakka to the land of respondent No. 3 and/or father of respondent No. 3 was considered and decided by the Superintending Canal Officer and the said order having attained finality, it would be just and expedient not to permit the same issue being agitated again -- Superintending Canal Officer by directly entertaining application of respondent No. 3 and by passing the impugned order has unsettled the settled position, which has not only prevented the finality of decision that has been reached at, but has conveyed a wrong message that a litigant may go on filing applications for a relief claimed and even if the same is denied, it could be granted at some subsequent stage -- This is clearly against public policy and administration of justice -- Civil writ petition allowed and the impugned orders set aside.

(Para 11)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 118, 121 -- Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 (1 of 1913), Section 3(1) (2) and (3), 8, 15, 16 -- Pre-emption decree – Partition of land – Naksha bey – Naksha jeem -- Severance of co-sharer status -- Prior to the passing of the judgment and decree by the trial Court not only the 'naksha bey' had been sanctioned but even the 'naksha jeem' had been prepared and thus, on the date of the judgment and decree, there was severance of the relationship of co-sharers between the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2 and thus, the plaintiffs had no right of pre-emption on the date of the passing of the judgment by the trial Court.

(Para 18)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307, 323, 324, 341, 148, 149 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Attempt to murder – Unlawful assembly – Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner was not armed with any weapon and no injury has been attributed to him -- At the most, he was a member of unlawful assembly and other members of the said assembly had caused injuries to the complainant and his cousin brother -- No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner – Custodial interrogation of the petitioner would not serve any useful purpose – Anticipatory bail allowed.

(Para 7, 8)

A. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 12(5) – Appointment of Arbitrator – Waiver to object ineligibility -- A party can waive its right to object to the ineligibility of an Arbitrator but the same is subject to two conditions -- First, that the waiver is required to be by and done by an express agreement in writing; and second, that such agreement is entered into after the disputes have arisen -- Unless both the aforesaid conditions are satisfied, there can be no waiver of the ineligibility of an arbitrator.

(Para 7)

B. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 12(5) – Appointment of Arbitrator – Waiver to object ineligibility -- Failure, if any, on the part of the respondent to object to the unilateral appointment of the sole arbitrator, cannot be construed as waiver of his right under Section 12(5) of the A&C Act.

(Para 9)

C. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 12(5) – Award by Arbitrator -- Ineligibility of Arbitrator – Effect of --  Award rendered by an arbitrator who is ineligible to be appointed as such cannot be enforced -- A person who is ineligible to act an Arbitrator, lacks the inherent jurisdiction to render an Arbitral Award -- It is trite law that a decision, by any authority, which lacks inherent jurisdiction to make such a decision, cannot be considered as valid -- Impugned award cannot be enforced.

(Para 10-14)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (XXIII of 1989), Section 319 – Summoning u/s 319 Cr.P.C. on the same day of judgment for other accused – Quashing of -- Order of conviction for some accused and acquittal for other accused passed in the first half of the day -- In the second half, the Court first passed an order for sentencing of the persons who were convicted and only thereafter passed an order under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. for summoning the appellant – If a summoning order is passed, either after the order of acquittal or imposing of sentence in the conviction, the same may not be sustainable -- Appeal allowed, summoning of appellant u/s 319 of Cr.P.C. quashed and set aside. Judgment by Constitutional Bench in Sukhpal Singh Khaira’s case (2023) 1 SCC 289 : 2022 INSC 1252 = (2022) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 17296 relied.

(Para 14-16)

A. Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 – Appointment of Lambardar – Less land holding – Effect of -- Petitioner owns more land than appointed candidate/ respondent No. 4 -- Respondent No. 4 has 10 Kanals 16 Marlas of land, which is sufficient to be taken into consideration for the purpose of security of revenue, collected by the Lambardar -- No scope for any interference.

(Para 1, 8.2, 9)

B. Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15, 20 – Punjab Land Administration Manual, Para 307 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Illiterate Candidate – Educated candidate – Preference of -- "Lambardari Rules" do not prescribe any minimum educational qualification for appointment of a Lambardar -- However, considering the duties to be performed by the Lambardar, as envisaged under Rule 20 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules; it would be in the fitness of things to prefer an educated person.

(Para 8.6-8.8)

C. Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 – Appointment of Lambardar –Panch/ Sarpanch – Candidature of -- Being a Sarpanch or Member Panchayat reflects upon the popularity of a particular candidate in the village and is considered as a merit and not as a de-merit.

(Para 8.9)

D. Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 – Appointment of Lambardar – Acquittal in criminal case -- Petitioner had criminal case, although he has been acquitted -- If a person with clean antecedents has been preferred, no fault can be found with the same.

(Para 8.10)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 – Amendment of plaint -- Petitioner initially filed a suit for mandatory injunction, however, reserved her right to seek recovery of the amount through separate legal proceedings -- Subsequently, the petitioner sought amendment of the plaint -- Foundational facts for recovery of amount have already established in the plaint, therefore, the reasoning adopted by the learned trial Court that amendment would change the nature of the suit, is untenable – Order of the trial Court set aside and the application for amendment allowed.

(Para 9, 10)

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (39 of 1987), Section 22A(B), 22C – Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 6 -- Lease of the Gram Panchayat land – Public Utility Service – Maintainability of proceedings before Permanent Lok Adalat -- Lease of the Gram Panchayat land to any bidder is not a part of the Public Utility Services defined under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 -- Proceedings at the first instance could not have been maintainable before the Permanent Lok Adalat.

(Para 5, 6)

Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (31 of 1973), Section 5 – East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 20, 21 -- Eviction of unauthorised person – Right under consolidation – Ground of -- Final authority came to the conclusion that petitioner had encroached upon the land in dispute, auction whereof had taken place on 10.05.1993 -- Question of entitlement, as such, could not be raised and which is now contended on the strength of consolidation proceedings.

(Para 5)

Haryana Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 23 -- Possession of new holding -- Petitioners continued in possession of the old khasra numbers and the effect to the consolidation proceedings has not been given, though revenue record may have been corrected -- Writ petition disposed to give effect to the consolidation proceedings qua the petitioners by way of handing over the physical possession of the land to which they are entitled.

(Para 3, 4)

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887) , Section 44 – Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 7 -- Jamabandi entries – Possession – Presumption -- Possession of plaintiffs-respondent Nos.4 to 7 over the property duly established on record through Jamabandi entries relating to the year 1971-72 till 2006-07 -- Though the land in question is recorded to be owned by the appellant-Gram Panchayat, however, it is in long settled physical possession of the plaintiffs-respondent Nos. 4 to 7, who are cultivating the same -- In terms of Section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, presumption of truth is attached to the entries of possession made in the revenue record in the shape of Jamabandies -- No fault could be found with the reasoning, whereby the appellant-Gram Panchayat was restrained from interfering in the possession of plaintiffs-respondent Nos. 4 to 7, except in due course of law.

(Para 9, 10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304B, 306 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 113B – Dowry death -- Suicide with in seven years of marriage -- Deceased faced cruelty and harassment at the hands of her husband which compelled her to commit suicide -- However, witnesses did not state that such cruelty and harassment was in connection with the demand for dowry -- With respect to the demand for dowry, witnesses have just made some general statements -- It has not been proved by the prosecution that the deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry -- Trial court erred in raising a presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, even though the demand for dowry was not established.

-- A case of abetment of suicide u/s 306 of IPC and cruelty u/s 498A of IPC made out against the husband, although the offence u/s 304B is not made out and consequently, conviction u/s 304B of IPC set aside – Appellant/ husband convicted u/s 306 and 498A of IPC, sentenced to three years of R.I. and a fine of Rs. 25000/- on each count -- Both the sentences ordered to run concurrently.

(Para 4-8)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 52A -- NDPS case -- Second sample to FSL – Permissibility of -- As per the FSL report, nothing to indicate, any damage to the seals or that the sample was in a damaged condition -- Merely because the presence of Codeine is not mentioned in the FSL report in the sample of Rexcof would not amount to compelling circumstances under which the second sample was required to be sent for reanalyses to CFSL, Chandigarh – Application of prosecution for re-testing dismissed by Ld. Trial Court, upheld.

(Para 1, 12, 13)

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 15, 16 -- Haryana Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Less educated candidate – Less land holding – Effect of – Choice of Collector :

-- Respondent no. 4 recommended by Assistant Collector Ist Grade and Assistant Collector IInd Grade. Although, the Collector is not bound by the recommendation made by the Revenue Authorities in favour of a candidate; however, due consideration is to be accorded to such recommendations as they are in a position to assess the suitability of a candidate and such recommendation would have some persuasive value.

-- Respondent No. 4 has about 7 acres of land, which is sufficient to be taken into consideration for the purpose of security of revenue, collected by the Lambardar -- Moreover, land revenue stood abolished in both the State of Punjab and Haryana, long back, thus owning land by the candidates for the post of Lambardar would not be of much significance any further.

-- Respondent no. 4 acquitted in criminal case under Section 170 and 420 IPC.

Learned Collector is the main authority for appointment of the Lambardar -- It is the Collector, who not only appreciates the antecedents of all the candidates in the fray but also personally interacts with them -- Merely because the petitioner is more educated or holds slightly more land than respondent No. 4, it cannot be said that the choice made by learned Collector, keeping in view all the relevant considerations, is illegal or perverse – Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 7-9)

A. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986), Section 21 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 18, 19 -- Offer of possession made on 04.02.2014 -- ADA issued reminders to the appellant on 22.09.2014, 21.11.2014 and 17.01.2018 -- Additionally, ADA accepted the appellant's payment of Rs. 3,43,178/- on 20.06.2019 without any reservations -- NCDRC correctly applied Sections 18 and 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which extend the limitation period where part payments or acknowledgments are made -- Consequently, the cause of action continued to exist, and the filing of the complaint in July 2020 is within the limitation period.

(Para 16)

B. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986), Section 21 -- Pecuniary jurisdiction -- Respondent ADA challenged the pecuniary jurisdiction of the NCDRC, contending that the total payment made by the appellant amounted to Rs. 59,97,178/-, which was less than Rs. 1 crore -- Claim made by the appellant also included compensation for mental agony, harassment, and loss of income, which brought the total claim well above Rs. 1 crore -- In consumer disputes, the value of the claim is determined not just by the amount deposited but by the aggregate relief sought, which includes compensation and other claims -- NCDRC rightly held that it had the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, and this Court affirms that finding.

(Para 18, 19)

C. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986), Section 21 -- Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (16 of 2016), Section 19(10) -- Uttar Pradesh Apartment (Promotion of Construction, Ownership and Maintenance) Act, 2010 (U.P. Act No. 16 of 2010), Section 4(5) -- Offer of possession -- Completion certificate -- Firefighting clearance certificate – Requirement of -- A developer must obtain these certificates before offering possession -- Possession offered without the requisite completion certificate is illegal, and a purchaser cannot be compelled to take possession in such circumstances -- ADA’s failure to provide the required certificates justifies the appellant’s refusal to take possession --  Entire amount deposited by the appellant ordered to be refunded with interest 9% per annum from the date of complaint till the date of refund, the ADA is directed to pay an additional amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs only) to the appellant.

(Para 20-23)

Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (Maharashtra Act No. XXXVII of 1966), Section 2, 126(1) -- Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991, Regulation 3(7), 33, 34 -- Constitution of India, Article 300A – Compensation for surrendering land and developing amenities -- Abandonment of claim -- Delay and laches – Writ petitioners constructed Development Plan Roads at their own cost and voluntarily surrendered the reserved lands to the Mumbai Municipal Corporation – Writ petitioners were granted Floor Space Index (FSI) and/or Transferrable Development Rights (TDR) in the form of Development Rights Certificates (DRC) equal to the gross area of the plots surrendered by them – Writ dismissed on delay and laches by High Court.

-- Held, once the compensation is determined in the form of FSI/TDR, the same is payable even in the absence of there being any representation or request being made -- In fact, a duty is cast on the State to pay compensation to the land losers as otherwise there would be a breach of Article 300-A of the Constitution -- Neither the doctrine of delay and laches nor the principle of abandonment of claim or waiver would apply in these cases.

(Para 2, 4.13, 18)

A. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 6, 8 -- Coparcenary property -- Mutation was sanctioned in accordance with Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 -- The property can no longer be claimed to be a coparcenary.

(Para 4.5)

B. Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), Section 63 – Drafting of Will -- Attestation of Will – Presence of witnesses – Knowledge of contents – Requirement of -- Will is required to be executed in the presence of witnesses or they should receive acknowledgment from the testator that he has signed it.

-- Drafting of the Will and the typing of the Will in the presence of witnesses is not necessary.

-- Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has either seen the testator’s sign or affixed his mark to the Will or has received acknowledgment from the testator that he has signed the Will.

-- Both the witnesses are not required to be simultaneously present at one place.

-- Witnesses are not required to know the contents of the Will -- They are required to attest the signatures of the testator.

(Para 4.17)

C. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 6, 8 -- Coparcenary property – The property not come through male lineal descendants -- In between, there was a civil court decree, transfer deed of some property – The Property was inherited u/s 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and not as a coparcenary property – The property received from different sources including ownership by way of adverse possession as well as receipt of the property from aunt – Held, the property is not coparcenary.

(Para 4.21, 4.22)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 – Maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. -- Arrears of maintenance more than 1 year -- Warrant for realisation -- Learned Magistrate proceeded to issue a warrant for recovery of maintenance for the sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- which admittedly is arrears of maintenance of more than one year -- Once the arrears of maintenance of one year were paid, nothing survived in the petition and the warrant of realization of Rs.1,20,000/- could not have been issued by the learned Magistrate – Order set aside.

(Para 1, 9, 10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 201 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Constitution of India, Article 21 – Murder – Regular bail -- Petitioner is in custody for more than 5 years -- An accused or an under trial has a fundamental right to speedy trial -- When a trial gets prolonged, it is not open to the prosecution to oppose bail of the accused-under trial on the ground that the charges are very serious -- Bail cannot be denied only on the ground that the charges are very serious though there is no end in sight for the trial to conclude -- Out of 48 witnesses, only about 16 to 18 witnesses have been examined – Bail allowed.

(Para 5)

Constitution of India, Article 22(5) – Detention order – Opportunity to represent – Supply of material – Right of -- Detention record reveals that the petitioner has been provided copies of detention order (01 leaf), notice of detention (01 leaf), grounds of detention (03 leaves), dossier of detention (Nil), copies of FIR, statements of witnesses and other relevant documents (01 leaf), (total 06 leaves) -- It was incumbent upon respondents to furnish not only the copy of the FIR but also the statements of witnesses recorded during investigation of the said FIR and other material on the basis of which petitioner’s involvement therein FIR is shown -- Even the copy of the dossier of detention has not been supplied – Petitioner has been hampered by non-supply of these vital documents in making an effective representation before the Advisory Board -- Preventive detention unsustainable in law -- Detention quashed.

(Para 7-9)

A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Divorce -- Adultery -- Adulterer as party – Requirement of -- Rejection of plaint -- Alleged adulterer is not a necessary party as a decree can be passed in his/ her absence -- Likewise, the adulterer is not a proper party since the issue concerning adultery can be adjudicated without making the adulterer a party to the cause -- Proof of adultery need not be conflated with who should be arrayed as a party to a divorce action – Application for rejection plaint dismissed.

(Para 2, 11, 11.1, 17)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Divorce petition -- Rejection of plaint – Petition cannot be rejected in a piecemeal manner upon an application being moved under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

(Para 11, 15)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 311 -- RGPSM’s General Service Conditions, Clause 4 -- Appointment in Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan / SSA -- Termination of service/ contract – Non-renewal of contract -- Appellant topped the revised Merit List, leading to her appointment -- While serving complaint(s) against her : (i) not punctual in attending to her duties, and; (ii) not correctly reported with regard to the events in the hostel -- She, inter alia, frankly admits to being late on occasion, but to compensate for her late-coming, she used to sit till late evening in the office for completion of work.

-- Clause 4 makes it clear that ordinarily, for inefficiency, one month’s notice is sufficient -- The Clause also makes it clear that if someone is found to have indulged in “undesirable activities”, the Mission Director was competent to terminate such person’s services “with immediate effect”.

-- Ld. Single Judge of High Court quashed the order holding that the termination orders being stigmatic in nature, relating to alleged misconduct involving moral turpitude, the same could not have been passed without holding a regular enquiry.

Respondents have placed themselves in a Catch-22 situation – If it is a case of termination simpliciter and non-stigmatic, then one month’s notice was required to be issued to the appellant, which was not done – If impugned order to be seen as falling under the latter part of Clause 4, it would be stigmatic -- Impugned order does visit the appellant with evil consequences and would create hurdles for her re further employment – Order of Ld. Single Judge, upheld, appellant held entitled to all consequential benefits including notional continuation in service at par with other similarly-situated employees, but with the back wages restricted to 50% -- In view of the long passage of time, liberty denied to the respondents to proceed afresh against the appellant as was granted by the learned Single Judge.

(Para 12, 30-36)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 16 -- Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Less land holding – 10^th pass in comparison to BA -- Choice of Collector – Interference in – Petitioner is 10^th Pass having 6 acres of land  -- Respondent no. 4 is BA Pass having 15 acres of land -- Petitioner is younger in age than respondent No. 4 and is sufficiently educated and has sufficient landholding -- Further, the name of the petitioner was recommended by the lower revenue officers and the learned Collector found the petitioner as the most suitable candidate for appointment to the post of Lambardar -- Financial Commissioner/ FC remanded the case by noticing the claim of respondent No. 4 that he is more educated and he holds more land than the petitioner whereas the other relevant aspects have not been taken into consideration -- Choice of Collector is not to be lightly interfered with, even if two views are possible – Order of FC set aside, order passed by ld. Collector, appointing the petitioner as Lambardar upheld.

(Para 7.1, 7.3, 9)

Uttarakhand Government Servants (Appeal & Discipline) Rules, 2003 --  Promotion from Chief assistant to Administrative officer – Departmental enquiry was pending at the time of consideration – Result of promotional post was kept in sealed cover – In departmental enquiry ‘Warning’ issued -- Sealed envelope of the petitioner for his promotion is not being opened by the respondents – Writ petition disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2-Appointing Authority to open the sealed envelope of the petitioner’s promotion within a period of one week, if petitioner is promoted, he shall be immediately given promotion from his due date, as per law.

(Para 1, 3-8)

A. Indian Forest Act, 1927 (16 of 1927), Section 41, 42 – FIR under Forest Act – Acquittal -- Non-mentioning of botanical name of forest produce – Effect of -- Legislature has consciously used the botanical name with some purpose and in the absence of any evidence of the botanical name, the prosecution version that the accused had violated the Rules framed under Section 41 and thereby violated Section 42 of the Indian Forest Act is not acceptable – Acquittal order upheld.

(Para 1, 17, 19, 22, 23)

B. Indian Forest Act, 1927 (16 of 1927), Section 41, 42 – FIR under Forest Act – Guchhies-forest produce -- Mere fact of not handing over the permit to the accused is not sufficient to implicate the accused when the person who had handed over the Guchhies had a valid permit with him.

(Para 21)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 8 Rule 1, 10 – Written statement beyond 120 days – Defence struck off -- Suit for recovery -- Period of 120 days elapsed on 07.03.2024, whereas the written statement filed on 02.07.2024 – Prior to the filing of the written statement, the respondents/plaintiffs had filed an application under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC read with Section VIII Rule 10 CPC for striking off the defence of petitioners/ defendants, when notice was issued to the petitioners/ defendants, the written statement filed – Held, it was not open to the trial Court to permit  filing of the written statement beyond the period of 120 days -- Impugned order rejecting/ discarding the said written statement is in accordance with law.

(Para 1, 7)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11, Order 8 Rule 1, 10 – Written statement beyond 120 days – Defence Struck off -- Pendency of application for rejection of plaint – Ground of -- Contention that period during which the petitioners were pursuing the said application be excluded for counting the period of 120 days for filing written statement cannot be accepted.

(Para 7)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Personal Assistant Cadre Employees’ Service Rules 2018, Rule 20 --  Procedure for Appointment by Direct Recruitment on Group ‘C’ Post Rules, 2008, Rule 5(4) – Appointment of Personal Assistant/ Stenographer -- Carry forward of posts – Procedure of -- Total 152 vacancies were advertised and only 110 candidates were selected -- 42 vacancies are still available – Respondent/ Commission has list of 1830 candidates in order of merit -- By applying the ratio of 1:4 i.e. 42 x 4=168 candidates can still be called for typing and shorthand test from the said list – Writ allowed, respondent-Commission directed to call the candidates, who fall in the list of 1830 candidates in the ratio of 1:4 whose names are there in the list after 648th candidate for supplying 42 vacancies on the post of Stenographer/Personal Assistant in the order of merit till the entire remaining 42 vacancies are filled or list of 1830 candidates is exhausted, whichever is earlier.

(Para 2, 3, 12-14)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 300A, 309 – Leave encashment – Akin to property -- Merger of U.P. Basic Education Board to State of Uttarakhand -- Leave encashment is akin to a salary, which is property -- Depriving a person of his property without any valid statutory provision would violate Article 300-A of the Constitution of India -- Leave encashment paid on account of unutilized leave is not a bounty -- If an employee has earned it and the employee has chosen to accumulate his Earned Leave to his credit, then encashment becomes his right -- Writ allowed, a mandamus issued commanding the respondents to pay Leave Encashment of Earned Leave to the petitioners immediately, in accordance with law.

(Para 9-12)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 309 -- Feeder cadre – Promotional cadre – Whether PayScale can be same -- Sub Inspector is a promotion post from the feeder post of Panchayat Secretary – By revision, the pay scale of Panchayat Secretary was brought at par with the pay scale available to the post of Sub Inspector w.e.f. 01.01.2006 -- No revision of pay was given to the Sub Inspectors -- It is more than settled that the pay scale of promotional post has to be higher than the feeder post – Finance department rejected the proposal consecutively made by the administrative department without assigning any reason – Writ petition allowed, the respondents directed to revise the pay scale and to pay them entire arrears along with interest @ 6% per annum, failing which the arrears shall entail interest @ 9% per annum.

(Para 9-18)

Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13 – Eviction – Arrears of rent -- Assessment of provisional rent – Requirement of – Denial of relationship of landlord-tenant – Held, tenant is denying the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, therefore, Rent Controller rightly declined to assess the provisional rent.

(Para 4)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15(d) – Appointment of Lambardar – Encroachment upon common land – Ld. Collector should have given finding whether possession was unauthorised or not -- Clean image of the candidate and the character of the candidate has to be seen and kept in mind by the Collector -- In such circumstances, the Financial Commissioner had remanded the matter for fresh consideration for which no fault can be found – Order of Financial Commissioner, upheld.

(Para 8, 9)

A. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 18 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 41, 438 -- Anticipatory bail under SC/ST Act – Maintainability of -- Whether Section 18 of the Act, 1989 imposes an absolute bar on the grant of anticipatory bail in cases registered under the said Act? -- The term ‘arrest’ appearing in the text of Section 18 of the Act, 1989 should be construed and understood in the larger context of the powers of police to effect an arrest and the restrictions imposed by the statute and the courts on the exercise of such power -- Bar u/s 18 of the Act, 1989 would apply only to those cases where prima facie materials exist pointing towards the commission of an offence under the Act, 1989 -- Because it is only when a prima facie case is made out that the pre-arrest requirements as stipulated u/s 41 of CrPC could be said to be satisfied.

(Para 13, 46)

B. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(1)(r), 18 – Anticipatory bail under SC/ST Act -- Mere knowledge of the fact that the victim is a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is not sufficient to attract Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 -- Offence must have been committed against the person on the ground or for the reason that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe – While considering,  whether prima facie materials exist, warranting arrest of the appellant, there is nothing to indicate that the allegations/ statements alleged to have been made by the appellant were for the reason that the complainant is a member of a Scheduled Caste -- Appeal succeeds, in the event of arrest of the appellant, he shall be released on bail.

(Para 80-89)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 10, 12 -- Anticipatory bail by minor/ juvenile – Maintainability of -- In the absence of any exclusion as such that the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. would not apply, Court do not see any valid reason as to why any restrictive view is to be taken -- Bail is the rule and denial is the exception and for a child to be placed under disadvantage on account of the fact that the word “arrest” has not been mentioned in the Act does not do any justice to the purpose of the Act -- Omission as such has been made and it would not debar the children from the benefit of the provisions of Section 438 of the Act. View taken in CRM-M-19907-2020, Krishan Kumar (minor) through his mother vs. State of Haryana decided on 24.07.2020 = (2020) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15162 approved.

(Para 39, 49-51)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 10, 12 – Anticipatory bail to Child in conflict with law/ CCIL – Nature and gravity of the accusation, the antecedents of the applicant and the possibility of fleeing from justice etc. are the factors which are to be kept in mind under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in case of a normal accused which would not stand in the way of CICL.

(Para 45)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rule 1 & 2, 3, 4 – Ex-parte interim injunction – Remedy for defendant – Maintainability of appeal -- Since the interim injunction granted by the learned trial court is ex-parte, the defendant-appellant has a remedy to file application for vacating / recalling of ex-parte injunction order under Order 39 Rule 4 C.P.C – Appeal on behalf of defendant-appellant not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

(Para 11, 12)

A. Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (78 of 1956), Section 18, 20 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 – Family Courts Act, 1984 (66 of 1984), Section 7 -- Maintenance -- Family court has jurisdiction for trying cases both under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as well as under Section 20 of the Act of 1956.

(Para 50)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 – Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (78 of 1956), Section 20 – Family Courts Act, 1984 (66 of 1984), Section 7 -- Maintenance to major daughter u/s 125 Cr.P.c. granted by Family court – Challenge to – Section 20(3) of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 makes it statutory obligation of a Hindu to maintain his or her daughter, who is unmarried and is unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or other property -- Section 125 Cr.P.C. limits the claim of maintenance of a child until he or she attains majority -- Held, since the order has been passed by the family court which has jurisdiction to entertain the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. as well as application under Sub-clause (3) of Section 20 of Act of 1956, no purpose will be served in interfering with the revision and relegating the daughter to move a fresh application before the same court under different provision of law i.e. Section 20(3) of Act of 1956 -- No interference is required with the order impugned.

(Para 36, 51-53)

Uttarakhand Annual Transfer for Public Servants Act, 2017 (Uttarakhand Act No. 1 of 2018), Section 18(4), 22(4) – Transfer of employee on administrative ground -- Adverse material has not been confronted to petitioner/ employee – Writ petitions disposed of by permitting petitioners to make representation to the Secretary, who shall look into the matter and take decision as per law within three weeks thereafter – Status quo, qua, posting of petitioners ordered to be maintained till then.

(Para 5-7)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Examination of Handwriting expert – Application for -- Holder in due course -- Burdon of proof -- A burden lies heavy on the person issuing the cheque particularly the accused who does not dispute the authenticity of the signatures to furnish a justifiable explanation as to how such cheque came into the hands of the complainant -- Mere fact that body writing on the cheque in question has not been made by the accused would not offer any kind of defence to the accused – Trial court declined application --  No infirmity in the impugned order,  and the same is upheld.

(Para 1, 11, 12)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint – Cause of action -- At the time of considering the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only the averments of plaint are required to be considered, and no other material -- Averment made by the defendant in the written statement cannot be considered -- Cause of action to file the suit involves evidence, as the issue is a mixed question of fact and law – Trial Court dismissed the application -- No ground warranting any intervention.

(Para 9-11)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Bail – Right of -- “Bail is the Rule and Jail is an Exception” – Objective behind detention of a person is to ensure easy availability of an accused for trial, without any inconvenience, however, in case the presence of an accused can be secured otherwise, then detention is not compulsory -- Right to a speedy trial is one of the rights of a detained person -- Courts shall also take into consideration the fundamental precept of criminal jurisprudence, “the presumption of innocence”, besides the gravity of offence(s) involved.

(Para 13)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 148, 149, 307, 160, 323, 325, 201 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 27, 54, 59 --  Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Attempt to murder – Regular bail -- Though the petitioner was named in the FIR but no specific role attributed to him -- Weapon recovered from the petitioner is yet to be co-related with the injury suffered by the injured before the learned trial court -- Incarceration of about one year and the trial is yet to begin as no charges have been framed -- 27 prosecution witnesses cited in challan -- Trial would take a long time -- Victim is now hale and hearty -- Bail allowed.

(Para 17, 18)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Pension for her own service – Special family pension – Right of -- Clubbing of -- Benefit of special family cannot be rejected on the ground that she is getting pension on account of her retirement – It cannot be clubbed with special family pension to which she was entitled on account of death of her husband in a terrorist attack -- Respondent directed to release special family pension.

(Para 11)

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 14 – Limited estate of lady – Property of female Hindu to be her absolute property -- Defendant no.1 was married in the year 1959-60, much after coming into force the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, on 17.06.1956 -- As such, her limited estate enlarges into absolute estate and she becomes full owner on the date of coming into force the Hindu Succession Act.

(Para 41)

A. National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (34 of 2008), Section 22 – Court of Session -- Special Court – Power of -- Court of Session exercising jurisdiction of the Special Court u/s 22 Sub-section (3) of the NIA Act, can exercise all the powers that have been conferred on the Special Court under Chapter IV of the NIA Act.

(Part 31)

B. National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (34 of 2008), Section 21, 22 – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (37 of 1967), Section 15, 16 – UAPA -- Rejection of bail by Session Court/ Special Court -- Orders passed by the Court of Session u/s 22(3) shall be appealable u/s 21 of the NIA Act -- An appeal would lie before the Division Bench of High Court.

(Para 3, 31, 32)

Uttarakhand Annual Transfer for Public Servants Act, 2017 (Uttarakhand Act No. 1 of 2018), Section 18(4), 22(4) – Transfer of employee on administrative grounds -- Petitioner never confronted with the complaint – Petitioners to move a representation to the Secretary -- Till the representation is decided, the impugned transfer order stayed.

(Para 3-7)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 -- Divorce -- Irretrievably breaking down of marriage – Ground of -- Boggy of irretrievably breaking down of marriage cannot be used to the advantage of a party who is solely responsible for tearing down the marital relationship.

(Para 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 120B – Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000), Section 66(D) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Cheating – Regular bail -- Complainant had been cheated of an amount of Rs.3 lacs -- Amount of Rs.1,50,000/- received in the account of the petitioner – He is a first time offender, in custody since 15.12.2023 but only 02 of the 09 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far -- Trial of the case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon -- Bail allowed.

(Para 5, 8, 9)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 163A, 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Rash and negligent driving – Proof of – Requirement of -- In the eventuality of the persons knocking the door of the Court, by way of filing of the petition u/s 166 of the Act, it is incumbent upon the claimants to establish, rashness and negligence, on the part of driver of the offending vehicle -- Proof of imputation of rashness and negligence, on the part of driver of offending vehicle, is a sine quo non, for sustaining the plea for grant of compensation, while assessing the loss of dependency etc.

(Para 14)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Rash and negligent driving – Proof of – FIR against the unknown driver – Appellants-claimants, ought to have examined the Investigating Officer, who recorded the statements of witnesses and nominated respondent No.1, as accused in a criminal case – FIR and report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. simply tendered into evidence -- It is required on the part of the appellants-claimants to lead evidence of its own, with regard to the factum of accident and to establish the rashness and negligence, on the part of the offending vehicle -- No such, evidence has been led -- No sustenance, as such, can be drawn from the contents of the FIR and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C -- Claim petition dismissed.

(Para 18-21)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 50 – NDPS -- Recovery from Bag – Compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act – Requirement of -- If the recovery was not from the person and whereas from a bag carried by him, the procedure formalities prescribed u/s 50 of the NDPS Act was not required to be complied with.

(Para 7)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 4 -- Fraud – Pleading – Proof of -- Fraud when pleaded has to be pleaded with all the details and has to be proved beyond guilt -- Mere bald assertion made by the plaintiffs that the sale deed was result of fraud shorn of any particulars will not help the cause of the plaintiffs -- In order to make out a case of fraud an express allegation of fraud and all material facts in support of such allegations need to be pleaded with high degree of precision.

(Para 10)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 67 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 482 – NDPS – Anticipatory bail -- Confessional statement made by co-accused u/s 67 of NDPS Act is a very weak piece of evidence and cannot be a basis for the conviction of a person and has to be weighed very cautiously alongwith other piece of evidences -- No recovery effected from the possession of petitioner and has only been nominated as an accused subsequently on the disclosure statement of coaccused – Anticipatory bail allowed.

(Para 4, 5)