A. Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), Section 2(h), 10, 16, 23 -- Standard form of employment Contract -- Interpretation of -- Unequal bargaining power – Onus of prove -- Legal principles relating to interpretation of standard form employment contracts summarized:-

(i) Standard form employment contracts prima facie evidence unequal bargaining power.

(ii) Whenever the weaker party to such a contract pleads undue influence/ coercion or alleges that the contract or any term thereof is opposed to public policy, the Court shall examine such plea keeping in mind the unequal status of the parties and the context in which the contractual obligations were created.

(iii) The onus to prove that a restrictive covenant in an employment contract is not in restraint of lawful employment or is not opposed to public policy, is on the covenantee i.e. the employer and not on the employee.

(Para 21)

B. Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), Section 2(h), 10, 16, 23 -- Standard form of employment Contract -- Unequal bargaining power – From the prism of employer-employee relationship, technological advancements impacting nature and character of work, re-skilling and preservation of scarce specialized workforce in a free market are emerging heads in the public policy domain which need to be factored when terms of an employment contract is tested on the anvil of public policy.

-- Ensuring retention of an efficient and experienced staff contributing to managerial skills was one of the tools inalienable to the interest of such undertakings including the appellant-bank.

-- This prompted the appellant-bank to incorporate a minimum service tenure for employees, to reduce attrition and improve efficiency.

Viewed from this perspective, the restrictive covenant prescribing a minimum term cannot be said to be unconscionable, unfair or unreasonable and thereby in contravention of public policy -- Imposition of liquidated damages to the tune of Rs.2 Lakhs in the event of pre-mature resignation, upheld.

(Para 25-35)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 9 Rule 13 -- Ex-parte decree – Setting aside of --  Appellant trusted his previous counsel to manage the suit proceedings, however he was not made aware of the ex-parte decree -- It is only after the appointment of the new counsel, the appellant got to know about the exparte decree -- Trial Court had rightly allowed the restoration application filed by the Appellant under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC -- Courts should not shut out cases on mere technicalities but rather afford opportunity to both sides and thrash out the matter on merits -- Further, Court cannot let the party suffer due to negligent or fault committed by their counsel.

(Para 9, 10)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Driver holding HTV license/ Heavy Motor Vehicle License – Accident by LTV (Light Motor Vehicle) – Finding of the Tribunal exonerating respondent No.3-Insurance Company of its liability cannot be sustained in law, set aside -- Respondent No.3-Insurance Company held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants.

(Para 7, 8)

A. Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners’ (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (11 of 1962), Section 1 -- Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 2022 (15 of 2022), Section 1 – Parole/ Temporary release – Object of – The very object of the Act is humanitarian in nature -- Providing opportunities for temporary release ensures that the ties between the prisoner and the society are not severed -- Ensuring that the incarcerated have healthy roots in the society greatly assists in their rehabilitation and reintegration -- It also incentivizes the inmates to maintain good conduct while in custody, that aids the jail authorities in administration as well.

(Para 7)

B. Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners’ (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (11 of 1962), Section 3(1)(d) -- Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 2022 (15 of 2022), Section 3 – Constitution of India, Article 215 -- Parole/ Temporary release – Delay in disposal – Contempt against competent authority -- The incarcerated cannot be expected to live at the whims and fancies of the State and neither does their incarceration entitle the administration to jeopardize their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India -- Since the statute itself bestows the convict with the right to be considered for temporary release and enlists circumstances therefor, it is all the more vital to decide such applications expeditiously. Directions issued :

All applications pertaining to temporary release on parole shall be decided by the concerned authority within a period of 04 months from receipt of such application -- In case, these directions are not adhered to without any justifiable cause, the convicts would be at liberty to move an appropriate application under Article 215 of the Constitution of India seeking initiation of contempt of Court proceedings against the officials concerned – Copy of judgment ordered to be supplied to States of Punjab and Haryana as well as U.T. Chandigarh for compliance thereof.

(Para 8-13)

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 53A – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 -- Execution of decree -- Principle of lis pendens -- Limited rights of the transferee pendent lite -- Such limited rights cannot be stretched to obstruct and resist the full claim of the decree holders to execute the decree in their favour.

(Para 9)

A. Haryana Police Act, 2007 (25 of 2008), Section 65, 68C – Enquiry by State Police Complaint Authority/ SPCA against Inspector/ Asst. Sub-Inspector – Jurisdiction of -- State Police Complaint Authority has power to inquire into complaints against officers holding rank of DSP or above whereas District Police Complaint Authority has power to inquire complaints against personnel upto the rank of Inspector – As per notification dated 24.09.2021 SPCA was competent authority to inquire into complaints -- In view notification, contention of petitioners that State Authority was incompetent to conduct inquiry is mis-conceived.

(Para 8-10)

B. Haryana Police Act, 2007 (25 of 2008), Section 68(c)(2)(i) -- Enquiry by State Police Complaint Authority/ SPCA against Inspector/ Asst. Sub-Inspector – Filing of report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. -- Effect of -- There is substance in the argument of petitioners while they assert that police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been filed with respect to incident occurred -- Trial Court is seized of the matter -- As per Section 68C(2)(i), Authority could not enquire into any matter because report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been filed.

(Para 10)

C. Haryana Police Act, 2007 (25 of 2008), Section 65, 68C – Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (As applicable to Haryana) -- Enquiry by State Police Complaint Authority/ SPCA  against Inspector/ Asst. Sub-Inspector – Finding of SPCA – Disciplinary proceedings on recommendation -- Disciplinary Authority is not bound by recommendations of State or District Police Complaint Authority -- Disciplinary Authority may act upon any complaint received from any source -- Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as made applicable to the State of Haryana) specifically permit Disciplinary Authority to initiate proceedings either suo moto or on the basis of complaint lodged by anyone -- Thus, proceedings initiated by Disciplinary Authority cannot be set at naught on the ground that proceedings were initiated on the basis of recommendations of State Authority --  Held, the Disciplinary Authority would be at liberty to proceed against petitioners without being influenced by observations/ recommendations of State Police Complaint Authority.

(Para 11, 12)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 27 – Hindu law – Stredhan -- Disposal of property – Separate petition – Maintainability of -- Independent proceeding u/s 27 could not be initiated to result in a decree -- Section 27 is not separate and independent matrimonial proceeding so as to entitle the Court to entertain such independent application -- Section 27 provides alternative remedy to the wife so that she can recover the property, which is covered by the section – Held, return of ‘stree dhan’ has to be an issue, to be determined at trial in a proceeding under the Act and not independently on application made under section 27.

(Para 7, 8)

Passports Act, 1967 (15 of 1967), Section 6(2)(f) – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 13(1)(e), 13(2) – Corruption case -- Renewal of Passport – Pendency of FIR – Effect of -- Even though FIR was registered, the investigation so far not completed -- It could not be held that any criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner within the meaning of section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act -- Therefore, for renewal of the passport of the petitioner, permission of the court is not necessary.

(Para 9)

A. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 34 – Suit for declaration – Further relief – Nature of -- Section 34 entitles a person to approach the appropriate court for a declaration, if that person is entitled to (i) any legal character or (ii) any right as to any property -- “Legal character” and “right to property” are used disjunctively so that either of them, exclusively, may be the basis of a suit -- The disjunctive ‘or’ cannot be read as a conjunctive ‘and’.

-- Object of the proviso to Section 34 is to obviate the necessity for multiple suits by preventing a person from getting a mere declaration of right in one suit and then subsequently seeking another remedy without which the declaration granted in the former suit would be rendered otiose.

-- However, the answer to the question whether it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to ask for further relief must depend on the facts of each case and such relief must be appropriate to and consequent upon the right or title asserted.

“Further relief” must be a relief flowing directly or necessarily from the declaration sought, i.e., the relief should not only be capable of being granted but of being enforced by the court and such relief should be necessary to make the declaration fruitful -- The relief must also be such that it is not automatically granted to the plaintiff by virtue of the declaration already sought for.

(Para 26, 27)

B. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 34 – Simplicitor suit for declaration – Maintainability of -- The words used in proviso to Section 34 are “further relief” and “no other relief” -- Since, a further relief must flow necessarily from the relief of declaration, if such further relief is remote and is not connected in any way with the cause of action which has accrued in favour of the plaintiffs, then there is no need to claim a further relief and the proviso to Section 34 will not be a bar -- All that the proviso forbids is a suit for pure declaration without necessary relief where the plaintiff being able to seek such a relief, has omitted to do so -- The proviso must not be construed in a manner which compels the plaintiff to sue for any and all the reliefs which could possibly be granted to him -- The plaintiff must not be debarred from obtaining a relief that he wants for the reason that he has failed to seek a relief which is not directly flowing from the relief of declaration already sought for.

(Para 28)

C. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 31, 34 – Declaratory relief -- Cancellation of deed – Nature of -- Where the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled, he has to seek cancellation of the deed u/s 31 of the Act, 1963 -- But if a non-executant seeks annulment of a deed, he has to only seek a declaration that the deed is invalid, or nonest, or illegal or that it is not binding on him -- Plaintiff who is not a party to a decree or a document, is not obligated to sue for its cancellation -- This is because such an instrument would neither be likely to affect the title of the plaintiff nor be binding on him – Declaration of title is as good as a relief of cancellation of the sale deed or at least, a declaration that the sale deed is not binding on the plaintiff being void and thus non est.

(Para 29-36)

D. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 2 Rule 1, Section 151 – Frame of suit -- Grant of relief -- Inherent power of Court -- Plaint must be read as a whole and the actual relief sought can also be culled out from the averments of the plaint -- Those reliefs can be granted, if there is evidence and circumstances justifying the grant of such relief, though not directly or specifically claimed, or asked as a relief -- Plaintiff had averred in his plaint that the original defendant nos. 1 to 6 had no title or saleable rights over the suit property -- This reflects the intention of the plaintiff to not be bound by any instrument which they may have executed in favour of another party -- Courts have ample inherent powers and indeed it is their duty to shape their declaration in such a way that they may operate to afford the relief which the justice of the case requires.

(Para 37, 38)

E. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 34 -- Declaratory decree/ relief – Power of -- Section 34 of the Act, 1963 is not exhaustive of the cases in which a declaratory decree may be made and the courts have power to grant such a decree independently of the requirements of the Section -- Section 34 merely gives statutory recognition to a well-recognised type of declaratory relief and subjects it to a limitation, but it cannot be deemed to exhaust every kind of declaratory relief or to circumscribe the jurisdiction of courts to give declarations of right in appropriate cases falling outside Section 34 -- Circumstances in which a declaratory decree under Section 34 should be awarded is a matter of discretion depending upon the facts of each case.

(Para 38)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 8, 106 -- Murder – Acquittal -- Circumstantial evidence – Motive -- Recovery of weapon -- A blood-stained weapon even bearing the same blood group as that of the victim would not be sufficient to prove the charge of murder – Regarding motive, the evidence are very vague and vacillating -- Law is well settled that in an appeal against acquittal, interference can only be made if the only possible view based on the evidence points to the guilt of the accused and rules out his innocence -- Prosecution failed to lead clinching evidence to bring home the charges -- Impugned judgment of acquittal does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 6-10)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 (3 of 2021), Section 3, 5 – Bail order – Delay of 28 full days in release of prisoner – Effect of -- Reasons given by the State is the non-mentioning of sub-section (1) of Section 5 – Correction made in the release order by the First Additional Sessions Judge, yesterday – Held, on this trivial non-issue, the applicant/ petitioner has lost his liberty for at least 28 full days -- Liberty is a very valuable and precious right guaranteed to the persons by the Constitution -- It cannot be bartered away on the altar of technicalities -- Ad hoc monetary compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) awarded to the applicant to be paid by State – Enquiry marked.

(Para 11-16)

Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017), Section 132(1)(a), 132(1)(i), 132(5) – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- Offence under GST law – Regular bail – Onerous condition – Condition to deposit Rs.2.5 crores after release on bail -- When attempts are made to foreclose consideration of bail application on merits by voluntarily offering deposits of amounts and thereafter reneging on it by stating that a counsel had no authority and/or that the condition is onerous – Court strongly deprecated this practice -- Today the petitioner is approbating and reprobating, Court cannot allow parties to play ducks and drakes with the Court -- Matter remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits -- Ordinarily the consequence would have been to put the petitioner back in jail -- However, considering the averments made in the modification application, Court granted a limited interim protection to the petitioner from surrendering.

(Para 4-11)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 2(u), 24 – Constitution of India, Article 136, 226 -- Additional Public Prosecutor -- Contractual appointment -- Regularisation of -- Petitioner has not been able to establish any right either statutory or constitutional so as to deserve the relief of regularisation -- Appointment of Additional Public Prosecutors is a structured procedure as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the relevant Rules prevalent in the particular State -- Thus, a claim for regularisation of a person working on the said post on contractual basis cannot be entertained as such relief would be contrary to law -- High Court committed no error in rejecting the Writ Petition -- Special leave petition dismissed.

(Para 3, 4)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 372, 378(4) – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 413, 419(4) -- Acquittal in cheque bounce complaint – Leave to appeal – Right of appeal -- Scope and ambit of proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C./413 BNSS are inherently broader and more accommodating when juxtaposed with the comparatively narrower confines of Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C., 1973/ 419(4) of BNSS, 2023 – Matter relegated to Session Judge :

-- The appeal, along with accompanying application(s) remitted to the learned Sessions Judge with a direction to treat the same as having been filed under Section 372 of Cr.P.C., 1973/ Section 413 of BNSS, 2023. The said learned Sessions Judge may entrust the appeal to himself or assign it to another Court of competent jurisdiction for its disposal, as per law.

-- The Registry directed to send, expeditiously, the complete records of the present appeal (including the paper-book) to the said learned Sessions Judge.

(Para 3, 4)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 34 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Murder – Regular bail – Speedy trial – Right of -- Petitioner is behind the bars from the last 03 years, 11 months and 02 days -- Investigation is complete -- Charges were framed and trial of the case has not made much progress – Right to speedy trial is enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India -- Speedy trial would cover investigation, enquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial etc. i.e. everything starting with the accusation against the accused and expiring with the final verdict of the last Court -- If a person is deprived of his liberty under a procedure which is not reasonable, fair, or just, such deprivation would be violative of his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Bail allowed.

(Para 7-10)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20, 61 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- NDPS – Regular  bail – Conviction in one NDPS case already there – Effect of – Speedy trial – Right of -- Recovery of 87 kgs 800 grams of ganja -- Although the petitioner have been convicted in one case under the NDPS Act, however, that conviction would not come in the way of extending the concession of bail to the petitioner in the instant FIR since it is clearly discernible that the petitioner's right to a fair and speedy trial has been compromised on account of the repeated non-appearance of the prosecution witnesses -- No possibility of the trial concluding in the near future with 16 prosecution witnesses remaining to the examined – Bail allowed.

(Para 3, 6, 7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 307, 323, 506, 341, 148, 149 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- Murder – Regular bail -- FIR was lodged on 04.01.2023 – Deceased was alive till 22.02.2023 – No effort was made to get the other assailants identified – NS/ Eyewitness in his statement made on 16.01.2023 nominated two others to be the conspirators, he did not name the petitioner to be amongst assailants -- It is only on 25.03.2023 i.e. after the death of injured, the petitioner was arrested on the identification of NS/ eye witness -- Charges framed by the trial Court on 11.10.2024 -- Matter adjourned several times for recording prosecution evidence -- However, the most material witness are not appearing despite repeated summons and bailable warrants -- Petitioner is in custody for the last 2 years 3 months and 3 days and he is not involved in any other criminal case -- Prosecution may take long time to conclude its evidence – Bail allowed.

(Para 8-10)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 306, 34 – Abetment to suicide -- Frequent quarrels – Ground of -- Frequent quarrels between the petitioner and the deceased arising out of misunderstandings and discord these alone are not sufficient to constitute an offence u/s 306 of the IPC -- Such disputes between a husband and wife may be considered part of the ordinary wear and tear of marital life and, without credible and substantial evidence, cannot be treated as instigation or abetment to suicide.

(Para 4)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 306, 34 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Abetment to suicide – Regular bail -- Petitioner has already suffered incarceration of 1 year, 1 day and is a person of clean antecedents; co-accused has already been granted the concession of regular bail -- Investigation is complete, challan stands presented and charges framed, out of 14 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far -- Conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time and therefore, detaining the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period would solve no purpose – Right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India -- This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused -- Bail allowed.

(Para 4, 5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 446 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 461, 528 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 – Jump of bail – Surety for Rs. 1 lakh – Liability of -- Delay of 511 days in appeal condoned -- Appellant/ surety had no knowledge that the convict would not surrender on time and there are no allegations of collusion between the appellant and the accused with regard to the accused not surrendering before learned trial Court -- Penalty reduced to Rs.20,000/- from Rs.1,00,000/-.

(Para 3, 7-13)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 38 -- Permanent injunction – Trespasser’ right – Claim as lessee -- For leasing out a Government land, the officials are required to adhere to the relevant statutory provisions -- Appellant failed to plead and prove as to when the lease was created in his favour and what were the terms -- It is not appropriate for the courts to protect possession of the trespassers while granting injunction against a true owner -- Property belongs to the Government -- Mere production of certain receipts evidencing the payment of certain amount without referring to the particular land would not come to the rescue of the appellant – Permanent  injunction declined by Ld. Appellate Court, upheld.

(Para 1, 5, 6)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 372, 378(4) – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 413, 419(4) -- Acquittal in cheque bounce complaint – Leave to appeal – Delay/ Limitation -- Appeal before Session’s Court -- Application u/s 378(4) Cr.P.C. disposed of by directing the learned Sessions Judge to treat the present leave to appeal as an appeal filed u/s 372 of the Cr.P.C. and entrust the same to any appropriate Court to try the same -- The concerned Court shall decide the appeal on merits as per law, as expeditiously as possible -- Concerned Appellate Court need not to adhere to the delay aspect, if any, involved in the case, for the purpose of considering the issue raised in the appeal and its disposal on merit.

(Para 5, 6)

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005), Section 2(o), 2(k), 18, 19, 21, 22, 31 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Breach of Residence / Monetary/ Custody order – FIR for non-compliance – Quashing of FIR -- Penalty for breach of protection order – Mandate of -- The words in Section 31 are plain and ambiguous -- They only mention the protection and interim protection order -- Applying the literal rules of interpretation, Section 31 applies only to the breach of protection orders mentioned in Section 18 and not to residence orders mentioned in Section 19, monetary reliefs mentioned in section 20, custody orders mentioned in Section 21, and compensation orders mentioned in Section 22 -- Had the legislature intended to apply Section 31 to these orders, it would have mentioned them specifically.

– Section 31 of the DV Act creates an offence. It is the rule of interpretation of the statute that criminal statutes are to be strictly construed because they deprive a citizen of his life and liberty, and no act, which does not fall within the purview of the criminal statute, can be added to it by way of interpretation.

Monetary relief which is separately provided in Section 2 (k) of the DV Act cannot be added to the protection order separately provided in Sections 2 (o) and 18 of the DV Act -- Learned Magistrate erred in referring the application to the police under Section 156(3) of Cr.PC -- Police could not have registered the FIR for the breach of the monetary order -- Petition allowed, FIR and consequential proceedings arising out of the said FIR quashed.

(Para 14, 15, 17, 23)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Contributory negligence -- Learner’s License – Effect of -- B.D.O./ injured/ claimant had exercised his authority to travel pillion, despite being aware of the driver holding only a learners licence – Negligence is only a question of fact, when a person drives a vehicle without a licence, he commits an offence, which by itself cannot lead to a finding of negligence, leading to or as regards, the accident -- Mere fact that the driver of the scooter had only a learners licence would necessarily lead to a conclusion of contributory negligence on the part of the scooter driver -- There can be no negligence found on the scooter driver also by the mere fact that the accident occurred on a collision at the tail-end of a long trailer, when the scooter driver had better visibility; which is a question of fact liable to be proved and not merely presumed -- Appellant is entitled to compensation from the insurer of the offending vehicle.

(Para 13, 14)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Amputation of both legs -- Accident occurred on 03.11.1999 -- Rs.16,00,000/- awarded as compensation – Simple interest @ 7% per annum from the date of the award given.

(Para 1, 8)

A. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Section 4, 5, 23 – Maintenance to Senior citizen – Eviction of son – Property already transferred to daughter/ son-in-law – Effect of -- Exfacie Senior citizen ceases to be the owner of the property and it is up to the purchasers to initiate eviction proceedings, if any, against the occupants of any part of it -- Senior citizens are simply entitled to maintenance rather than eviction of their son/ relatives -- It was only in the contingency of son not behaving properly or continuing to humiliate or torture the parents that the eviction proceedings would be necessary against him -- Tribunal was justified in permitting him to continue living therein with the rider of drawing eviction proceedings if he indulges in any untoward behavior or interferes with the life of others.

(Para 26-29)

B. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Section 4, 5, 23 – Eviction of son -- If son has been living in a small portion of the house, may be of his father, in which he has no share and is continuing with the family business from the shop on the ground floor without interfering with the life of others, it does not appear to be prudent to order for his eviction as after all being a son he also has an implied license to live therein – No necessity for the extreme step for ordering the eviction -- Purpose could have been served by ordering maintenance as provided under Section 4/5 of the Senior Citizens Act and by restraining him from harassing the parents and interfering in their day-to-day life.

(Para 29, 34)

C. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Section 23 -- Senior citizen case -- Eviction of person – Power of -- Provisions of the Senior Citizens Act, nowhere specifically provides for drawing proceedings for eviction of persons from any premises owned or belonging to such a senior person -- It is only on account of the observations made by this Court in S. Vanitha vs. Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Ors, (2021) 15 SCC 730 that the Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act may also order eviction if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the protection of the senior citizens -- The Tribunal thus had acquired jurisdiction to pass orders of eviction while exercising jurisdiction under Section 23 of the Senior Citizen Act which otherwise provide for treating the sale of the property to be void if it is against the interest of the senior citizen.

(Para 31)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 142, 148, 323, 506 -- Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023), Section 9 -- Quashing of FIR/ Charge-sheet – Plea of alibi – Held, plea of alibi put forward by the petitioners cannot form a ground for quashing the impugned challan -- Veracity of the defence put up by the petitioners can be gone into by the trial court – High Court in exercise of its powers u/s 528 of BNSS cannot hold a mini trial -- In case, the petitioners feel that their defence of alibi has not been investigated by the Investigating Agency, it is open to them to approach the learned trial Magistrate before whom charge sheet has been filed and seek further investigation of the case -- Petition dismissed.

(Para 6-8)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 11, 96, 100 – Res-judicata – Two suits – Comon judgment -- One appeal – Effect of -- Trial Court dismissed Civil Suit No. 44 of 2004 and decreed Civil Suit No. 95 of 2006 based on common evidence lead by parties after clubbing of the suits -- There is not even a whisper about findings rendered by the Trial Court in Civil Suit No. 95 of 2006 in the grounds of First Appeal preferred against Civil Suit No. 44 of 2004 – Held, Ld. Additional District Judge was justified in dismissing the appeal preferred only against the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 44 of 2004 without assailing the same in Civil Suit No. 95 of 2006 -- Appeal preferred before District Judge as well as present appeal is barred by principle of resjudicata.

(Para 5, 6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 2(iii) (b) and (c), 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 25, 37 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- NDPS – Commercial quantity -- Recovery of 32 kgs of Ganja -- Regular bail -- Definition of Ganja under NDPS Act takes in its ambit only the flowering or fruiting tops of cannabis plant and excludes the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops -- Thus, the definition of ‘Ganja’ is restricted and it does not include the seeds and leaves of Ganja plant -- Police while weighing the contraband did not segregate flowering tops from other material -- Petitioners ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 6-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304A – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 -- Causing death by negligence -- In order to attract the offence u/s 304A, the death must be the direct or proximate result of the rash or negligent act of the accused -- Petitioner cannot be attributed with criminality in taking up the work, since the harm involved, due to the passing of live electric wires, adjacent to the building was not foreseeable -- Unfortunate incident occurred when the worker stretched his hand while fixing the reducing coupling, as part of the plumbing work, and accidentally touched the live wire -- In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be attributed with either rashness or negligence – Criminal proceedings quashed.

(Para 5, 6)

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (39 of 1987), Section 22C, 22E – Public Utility Services – Permanent Lok Adalat – Territorial Jurisdiction – Insurance policy was issued from Chandigarh Branch, whereas, the place of occurrence/ accident is in district Auraiya (Uttar Pradesh) – Application preferred by the petitioner before the PLA at Gurugram is a misconceived motion, on account of territorial jurisdiction – Liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the competent authority/Court of territorial jurisdiction in accordance with law.

(Para 3, 4)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 354A(1)(i) – Sexual harassment -- In order to attract Section 354A(1)(i) IPC, it has to be shown that the petitioner has resorted to physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures – Thus it is of prime importance to show that the offender had committed the act with sexual intention.

(Para 5)

B. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 7 – POCSO – Sexual assault -- To establish the offence of sexual assault as envisaged u/s 7 of the POCSO Act, it has to be shown that the offender had done the act with sexual intent.

(Para 5)

C. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 7 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- POCSO – Allegation of sexual assault against Doctor – Quashing of Criminal proceedings -- Victim complained about chest pain and abdominal pain -- Medical examination of the victim was conducted by the petitioner in the presence of the mother of the victim on the first occasion, and in the presence of the elder sister of the victim on the second occasion -- It is too hard to believe that the petitioner would have resorted to sexual advances upon the victim in the close presence of the victim’s mother and elder sister -- Neither the statement given by the victim to the Police, nor her statements to the learned Magistrate u/s 164 Cr.PC, contained any indication that the alleged act committed by the petitioner was with sexual intent – Chances of that adolescent girl getting misunderstood about the act of the petitioner, cannot be ignored -- Section 41 of the POCSO Act assumes much relevancy -- Provisions of Sections 3 to 13 shall not apply in case of medical examination or medical treatment of a child when such medical examination or medical treatment is undertaken with the consent of his parents or guardian – Criminal proceedings quashed.

(Para 5, 6)

Constitution of India, Section 226 – Promotion of employee – Right to be considered --  Appellant was proceeded against both departmentally and under the criminal law -- Criminal case being lodged in which he was arrested but later acquitted -- Departmental proceedings set aside in 2009 by the Government -- In such circumstances, the appellant could not have been disentitled from a consideration in the year 2019 -- Writ petition was also filed in the year 2019 – Held, appellant must be considered for promotion, dehors any disentitlement due to his having become overaged -- The consideration will be made and if found eligible, he shall be promoted from 2019 and consequential benefits also shall be paid to him -- It is trite that the employee has no right to be promoted but has a right to be considered, when selections for promotions are carried out, unless disqualified; which right has been impinged, unjustly, in the case – Appeal allowed.

(Para 4)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Functional disability – Amputation of leg – Functional disability of 100% cannot be assessed only because he cannot carry on the vocation which he was carrying on earlier -- It is not as if the appellant was vending fruit on his foot, especially when it is seen that he was filing an Income Tax Return -- Injured was having a shop in Bazar Samiti -- Definitely, the disability would affect his income, and he would probably have to engage an employee in his shop -- Functional disability can be assessed at 60%.

(Para 5)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Amputation of leg – Functional disability assessed at 60% -- Conveyance charges fixed at Rs.50,000/- -- For pain and suffering, considering amputation of his left leg, Rs.2 lakhs awarded – For reasonable period of bed rest at 6 months and for special diet and attendant Rs. 15,000/- per month awarded – Income loss for 1-1/2 months assessed at Rs. 19,624/- -- So far as the income during treatment it must be preserved as awarded by the Tribunal – Total compensation assessed at Rs.32,34,353/-

(Para 5, 6)

A. Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), Section 2(d) – Consideration -- Past consideration is as good as present consideration --  Word ‘consideration’ has been defined in Section 2 (d) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 which has a wider connotation and includes within its sweep not only the monetary consideration but even promises including promise to render future personal service.

(Para 13)

B. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 54 – Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), Section 201, 202 – Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (45 of 1988), Section 3, 4 -- Sale by Will/ Agreement to Sell/ General Power of attorney/ Affidavit -- PW-1/ S K deposed that her brother/ A.K. was only a Class IV employee and on her request and on her behalf he applied for the house in his name -- A.K/ Brother executed an agreement to sell, General Power of Attorney, registered Will and an affidavit – Hence, Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 could not be invoked -- After the death of A.K. on 14.08.1984, his widow and children never made any attempt to pay the instalments -- All instalments were paid by S.K. and her daughter -- All the documents of the property have been produced by the plaintiff -- Hence, it is proved that there was sale of the house in favour of Ms. S.K. by A.K -- Likewise, the General Power of Attorney will not cease to have effect because Ms.SK has interest in the property in view of agreement and Will -- Case falls under Section 202 and not 201 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

(Para 13, 18)

C. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 13 -- Agreement to sell of imperfect title – Effect of -- Section 13 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 enables the purchaser to claim specific performance against person with no title or imperfect title -- Clause (a) of Section 13 (1) provides that if the vendor has subsequent to any contract acquired any interest in the property, the purchaser may compel him to make good the contract out of such interest -- If there was any defect in his ownership, the same stood rectified on payment of instalment.

(Para 14)

D. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 68 -- Will – Proof of -- Suspicious circumstances -- Execution of the Will proved by examining both the attesting witnesses – Despite lengthy cross examination, the defendants failed to impeach their credibility – Will is not surrounded by suspicious circumstances because of various documents executed by A.K. including agreement to sell, General Power of Attorney, affidavit, apart from the Will.

(Para 15, 16)

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005), Section 12, 13 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 223 – Application under DV Act – Cognizance by Court – Requirement of – It is not a complaint within the meaning of Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. or 223 of the BNSS -- Therefore, there is no need to take cognizance upon an application under the D.V. Act, 2005 – Ld. Magistrate on receipt of the application shall only fix a date for hearing within three days from the date of filing of the application u/s 12(4) of the said Act -- Order of cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate is bad in law – Order set aside -- Ld. Judicial Magistrate directed to issue notice upon the present petitioners in D.V. Case.

(Para 7, 8)

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Section 22(2) -- Senior citizen case – Vacation/ Eviction of one son – Permissibility of – Senior citizen is residing at First Floor with other son – Petitioner is paying monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- -- Balance of equities also have to be maintained -- Mechanical orders cannot be passed merely on the ground that the senior citizen wants one of the children out of the premises -- There is enough space for accommodation available to the respondent No. 4-senior citizen coupled with the fact that a sum of Rs.10,000/- as a financial maintenance is also being paid to the respondent No. 4-senior citizen, the impugned order directing vacation of petitioner from the premises cannot be sustained -- Petitioners allowed to possess two rooms on the ground floor as long as the petitioners keep on paying a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent No. 4-senior citizen as maintenance henceforth till he is alive.

(Para 6-8)

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (39 of 1987), Section 22C, 22E – Public Utility Services – Permanent Lok Adalat – Territorial Jurisdiction – Insurance policy was issued from Chandigarh Branch, whereas, the place of occurrence/ accident is in district Auraiya (Uttar Pradesh) – Application preferred by the petitioner before the PLA at Gurugram is a misconceived motion, on account of territorial jurisdiction – Liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the competent authority/Court of territorial jurisdiction in accordance with law.

(Para 3, 4)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 482 -- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Section 109, 105, 324(2), 191(3), 190, 351(2) – Anticipatory bail – Attempt to murder -- Submission that for the purpose of obtaining information about the identity of other assailants and for the purpose of recovery of incriminating evidence, further custodial interrogation is required – Held, accused while joining investigation is not expected to make self-incriminating statement under the threat that State may seek withdrawal of the interim protection granted to him – Pretrial incarceration of the petitioner is not required -- Petition allowed, order granting interim bail made absolute.

(Para 4, 5)

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 75 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 21 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 -- Summoning to Chairman of Managing Committee in protest petition -- Quashing of – Sexual assault on 4 year old child -- Prime accused was less than 7 years of age -- It is impossible to even allege that the appellant, being Chairman of the Managing Committee, had the actual charge of all the children studying in the school run by the institution -- It cannot be said that he had control over all the children in the School -- Assuming that the appellant was morally responsible, Section 75 of the JJ Act cannot be applied unless it is shown that the appellant had the actual charge of the victim child or control over the victim child – Orders passed by Special Judge summoning the appellant, affirmed by High court. set aside.

(Para 3, 7-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120B – Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022 (4 of 2023), Section 4, 7, 8, 11  -- Public Gambling Act, 1867 (3 of 1867), Section 4A -- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 7 and 7A -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 --  Corruption, Cheating and forgery -- Regular bail – Taking into consideration the fact that the appellant is a Police Constable, expecting him to cooperate with the further investigation and he has been under incarceration for almost one year and is not likely to abscond if released on bail – Bail allowed.

(Para 2-4)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Non-impleadment of married daughter of deceased – Effect of – Claim petition dismissed by Tribunal -- Only ground for dismissing the claim petition was that the married daughter not impleaded as a party – Held, non-impleadment of a party would not be a ground for rejection of the claim petition -- Claim petition can be filed by all or any one of the legal representatives – Matter remanded back.

(Para 2, 8, 9)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Witness of person who is not examined u/s 161 Cr.P.C. – Evidential value -- Absence of a statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. does not, by itself, render a witness’s testimony inadmissible or unreliable in civil proceedings, particularly in a motor accident claim petition -- Motor Accident Claims Tribunals are guided by the principle of preponderance of probabilities rather than strict rules of evidence -- Testimony of PW1, corroborated by the circumstances of the case and the admission of the accident by respondent no.1, sufficiently establishes the involvement of the offending vehicle and the rash and negligent conduct of its driver -- Tribunal’s observations regarding alleged collusion between the claimant and PW1 are speculative and unsupported by evidence -- Tribunal’s findings on collusion are legally untenable and merit rejection – Order/ award of Tribunal dismissing the claim petition set aside.

(Para 11-16, 22)

A. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 6 -- Coparcenary property -- Hindu Joint Family Property – Alienation of share – Permissibility of -- In a coparcenary property the shares of the person in the property can be alienated but not the piece of the property which belongs to Hindu Joint Family Property.

(Para 23)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 145 – Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 34 -- Suit for declaration of title/ possession / validity of sale deed – Maintainability of proceeding u/s 145 Cr.P.C. -- Once the civil suit between the parties is pending for declaration of title or possession or regarding validity of the sale deed, in that situation, a parallel proceeding u/s 145 of CrPC cannot be initiated or allowed to be continued -- Orders passed under Section 145 CrPC set aside.

(Para 24, 25)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388 – Extortion – Stage before committing an extortion -- Section 383 defines extortion, the punishment therefor is given in Section 384 -- Sections 386 and 388 provide for an aggravated form of extortion -- These sections deal with the actual commission of an act of extortion, whereas Sections 385, 387 and 389 IPC seek to punish for an act committed for the purpose of extortion even though the act of extortion may not be complete and property not delivered -- It is in the process of committing an offence that a person is put in fear of injury, death or grievous hurt.

(Para 10)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 387 – Stage before committing an extortion -- Commission of an offence of extortion is not sine qua non for an offence under this Section -- It is safe to deduce that for prosecution u/s 387 IPC, the delivery of property is not necessary.

(Para 14)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 387 – Stage before committing an extortion -- Penal law – Strict interpretation -- It is a well-settled principle of law that penal statutes must be given strict interpretation -- The Court ought not to read anything into a statutory provision that imposes penal liability -- Scope of the provision cannot be extended by reading into it words which are not there -- Section 387 IPC, being a penal provision, has to be strictly interpreted, and no condition/ essential ingredient can be read into it that the Statute/ Section does not prescribe.

(Para 19, 24)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Transfer of employee – Challenge to -- Petitioner has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting and she has no vested right to remain posted at a particular station, but at least respondent-State should have taken due care, while choosing the station of posting of petitioner, keeping in view her earlier term in hard/ tribal area coupled with the fact that her husband is also working in Government Senior Secondary School – Petitioner given liberty to file representation to the competent authority, praying therein for her adjustment at a convenient station on the ground of couple case, which shall be decided by the competent authority within a period of ten days, taking note of concessions available to couples and employees, having earlier served tribal/ hard areas.

(Para 5, 6)

Insecticides Act, 1968 (46 of 1968), Sections 3(K)(I), 17, 18, 29, 33 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Quashing of complaint/ summoning order -- Director of Company – Liability of -- When a company nominates a responsible person for compliance under the Act, other officials cannot be held vicariously liable -- No specific allegations made against the petitioners demonstrating their involvement in the quality control process of the company -- Complaint explicitly identifies the Manager Quality Control-cum-responsible person, who has already been proceeded against – Prosecution of the petitioners, who were not responsible for quality control, would constitute an abuse of the process of law -- Petitions allowed, complaint along with all consequences proceedings arising therefrom including the summoning order quashed qua the petitioners.

(Para 9-12)

A. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 21 -- Commencement of arbitral proceedings – Notice for arbitration -- Proceedings are deemed to have been initiated from the date the notice invoking the arbitration clause “is received by the respondent” -- The clause does not require the notice to be served by all the parties to the agreement -- Notice by one of the parties to the agreement would be a sufficient compliance of the statutory provision.

(Para 6)

B. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 21 – Notice for arbitration – Nature of -- Giving of such a notice is purely procedural and not a decisive step -- Its form and terms do not call for a strict scrutiny -- Technicality cannot be attached with a notice served under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act as that would defeat the objective of the statute, which provides for a speedy resolution of the disputes.

(Para 6)

C. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 11 -- Appointment of Arbitrator -- Accounts of firm -- Dissolution of partnership firm – Pendency of civil and criminal case – Effect of -- On the dissolution of a partnership firm, the arbitration clause does not come to an end -- Dispute relating to the accounts of a partnership firm is a dispute, which touches the affairs of the firm and is clearly referable to an Arbitrator and the parties cannot be compelled to take a recourse to the civil courts -- Pendency of a civil and criminal litigation inter se partners, cannot estop one of the partners from invoking the arbitration clause or bar the reference of dispute for adjudication to an arbitrator for determination – Arbitrator appointed.

(Para 7-9)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 140, 166, 168 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Married daughter – Legal heir -- Dependency of -- Once a daughter is married, logical presumption is that she now has rights on her matrimonial household and is also financially supported by her husband or his family, unless proven otherwise -- Sections 166 and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 focus on the financial relationship between the deceased and the Claimant -- A married daughter may be considered a legal representative but she will not be eligible for loss of dependency compensation unless it is proven by the daughter that she was financially dependent on the deceased -- Appellant No. 1 failed to prove that she was being financially supported by her mother post marriage and hence cannot be said to be a dependent of her mother, the deceased -- High Court rightly hold that Appellant No.1, as the legal representative of the deceased, will only be entitled to compensation envisaged in Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 as liability under the same does not cease to exist in the absence of dependency.

(Para 13, 14)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 140, 166, 168 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Death of daughter -- Dependency of aged mother of about 70 years  – Possibility of future dependency – Consideration of -- She was solely dependent on the deceased as she lived with her and had no independent income, there is no evidence on record to rebut the same – Held, obligation of a child to maintain their parent in old age is as much of a duty as the obligation of a parent to maintain their child during minority --  Even if it is assumed that Appellant No. 2/ mother was not dependent on the deceased at the time of the accident, the possibility of future dependency cannot be disregarded -- Appellant No. 2/ mother held entitled to compensation of Rs.19,22,356/-.

(Para 15-20)

Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (10 of 1993), Section 2(d) – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Human rights – Violation of -- Refusal to register FIR – Use of filthy language by Inspector -- Additional Chief Secretary directed by State Human Right Commission to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the third respondent-complainant and liberty was granted to the Additional Chief Secretary to recover the said amount from the appellant/ Inspector of Police – Every citizen of India who goes to a Police Station to report commission of an offence deserves to be treated with human dignity -- That is his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India -- A citizen who wants to report commission of an offence, should not be treated like a criminal -- It was rightly found by the Commission and by the High Court that there was a violation of human rights on the part of the appellant -- No interference is called for with the impugned judgment and order -- Appeal dismissed.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 47, Order 21 – Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 38 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Article 136 – Limitation -- Subsequent Execution petition – Maintainability of -- Decree of permanent prohibitory injunction – Restrain from interference to the peaceful possession of the scheduled property -- A satisfaction recorded in one Execution Petition would not result in the dismissal of a further E.P. filed on the ground of a subsequent interference caused -- There would be no limitation to enforce or execute a decree granting perpetual injunction -- When a permanent injunction is granted it operates perpetually against the judgment debtors, their assignees and successors and it could be enforced at any time, breach is occasioned.

(Para 6, 7)

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Section 115(2), 118(1), 333, 191(3), 190 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 482 -- Anticipatory bail – House-trespass – Rioting – Non-recovery of weapon – Ground of -- Petitioners have joined investigation – State submitted that custodial interrogation is required for the purpose of effecting recovery of weapon of offence – Held, non-recovery cannot be considered as ground for denial of bail – Anticipatory bail allowed.

(Para 4)