Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 10 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Agreement to sell of vehicle by registered owner – Reliance upon – Impleadment of buyer as necessary party – Permissibility of – Submitted that even after the accident, buyer had taken the vehicle on ‘Sapurdari’, thus he is in possession of the ‘offending vehicle’ and is the owner thereof on the basis of the agreement and he ought to have been impleaded as a necessary party by the learned Tribunal – Held, buyer never got the vehicle transferred in his name before the registering/ licensing authority – Since the vehicle continues to stand registered in the name of the petitioner, it cannot be held that buyer has become the registered owner of the said vehicle – Tribunal dismissed the application – No illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal – Revision dismissed.

(Para 7)

Constitution of India, Article 227 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 -- Delay in Execution – Expedite decision – Direction for -- Revision for issuance of direction to the learned Executing Court to decide the execution petition within a time bound manner period -- Executing Court requested to dispose of the execution petition as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 04 months, as any further delay may cause serious prejudice to the rights of the petitioners-land owners.

(Para 9)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 10, 28 – Decree for specific performance – Extension of time to deposit amount – Whether amounts to modification -- Extension of time for payment does not amount to modification of the decree -- Court does not lose jurisdiction after granting a decree for specific performance, nor does it become functus officio -- Learned Court below ought not to have recorded a finding that, as specific time of two months had been granted for deposit of the balance sale consideration and the application for depositing the said amount was moved at a later stage, the same was liable to be dismissed – Order set aside, one month’s further time granted to the petitioner-plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration amount of Rs. 10,000/- in Court. Balbir Singh’s case (2025) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 19829 = 2025 INSC 81 relied.

(Para 7-9)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 2 Rule 2 – Redemption of Mortgages (Punjab) Act, 1913 (2 of 1913), Section 13 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 67 – Foreclosure of mortgage -- Res-judicate U/O 2 R 2 CPC -- In the previous litigation it was held that plaintiffs are mortgagees in possession of the suit land – Thereafter respondent/ defendant-State preferred a petition for redemption of mortgage before the competent authority and that petition was dismissed – Held, once the right of redemption of the mortgage has stood extinguished by lapse of time, then the right to foreclose the mortgage has accrued in favour of appellants/plaintiffs, in view of the provisions of Section 67 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Plaintiffs have got a fresh cause of action -- Present suit wrongly held to be barred by res-judicata under Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC – Judgment and decree under challenge set aside.

(Para 17-19)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100 – Punjab Courts Act, 1918 (6 of 1918), Section 41 -- Scope of second appeal -- It is a settled proposition of law that in Punjab and Haryana, second appeals preferred are to be treated as appeals under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 and not under Section 100 CPC.

(Para 10)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 16 -- Closing of evidence – Witness not served – Coercive step – Duty of Court -- Once the witnesses have been ordered to be summoned, as per the list furnished by the one of the parties to the lis, then it is incumbent upon the Court concerned to ensure about summoning of the witnesses and if for one reason or other, witnesses are not making appearance, or their service is not effected, then the Court concerned is required to take coercive steps and proceed further.

(Para 7)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 47, Order 16 --  Objection to execution petition – Summoning of witness – Service not effected – Coercive step – Requirement of -- When the witnesses were summoned and their service was not effected, there cannot be said to be any lapse, on the part of the petitioner-objector -- Executing Court was required to further secure the service of the witness, who is a government employee -- Learned Executing Court directed to give three opportunities to the petitioner-objector to summon the witness and lead evidence and shall also be at liberty take coercive steps to secure the presence of the Clerk of Sub-Registrar along with record.

(Para 7, 8)

A. Punjab Police Rules, 1934, Rule 16.2 -- Absence from duty – Dismissal of Constable from service -- Absence of the respondent from the duty on various occasions in a short tenure of service of around 7 years, is a gross indiscipline on the part of the respondent – No illegality in the order passed by the disciplinary authority whereby the services of the respondent have been dismissed.

(Para 25)

B. Punjab Police Rules, 1934, Rule 16.2(1) – Dismissal of constable from service – In the first part of Rule 16.2, punishment of dismissal can be awarded to the delinquent for the gravest act of misconduct -- In the second part, the punishment can be awarded as a cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service – Respondent/ employee was dealt by the department earlier on three occasions having remained absent from duty and the penalties were inflicted for the same -- It is the fourth time when he remained absent to which, a chargesheet was issued and his guilt was found proved – Disciplinary authority, while imposing the penalty, had merely referred the past conduct and also given weight to the gravest act of misconduct -- Order of dismissal is not based on the charge of “cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service” -- Therefore, mere reference of the past conduct would not amount to constitute dismissal of the respondent based on the second limb of Rule 16.2(1)  -- Held, dismissal of the respondent was based on gravest act of misconduct, for which he was dealt with by the disciplinary authority following the procedure as prescribed and in due observance of principles of natural justice, hence, not find any fault in the same.

(Para 25-33)

Electricity Act, 2003 (No.36 of 2003), Section 86(1)(b) – Supply of electricity -- Terrif – Fixation of – Power of -- A generating company and a distribution licensee cannot, by private agreement, execute a PPA on their own or stipulate tariff therein as per their choice, for supply of electricity within a State, without seeking the review and approval of the Electricity Regulatory Commission under Section 86(1) (b) of the Act of 2003.

(Para 31)

Constitution of India, Article 19(1)(g), 21 -- Debarment from tender -- Indefinite period – Permissibility of – Debarred from participating “in future tenders in the division” -- Debarment has been recognised as a method of disciplining deviant suppliers -- An order of debarment can never be for an indefinite period -- Order of debarment dated 01.03.2023 does not specify the period for its operation -- If it is assume to be for a period of one year, the said period is over by 01.03.2024 -- If it is assumed to be for two years, even that period is over -- Under these circumstances, Court declared debarment is over.

(Para 6-8)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 -- Interlocutory injunction -- Call has to be taken by the Courts for issuance of interlocutory injunction, at the time, when the existence of legal right is asserted by the plaintiff and there is alleged contest, qua the violation of this legal right and the same, as such remains uncertain, before the Court, till the evidence adduced, is to be appraised by the Court -- The purpose of interim injunction is to mitigate the risk of injustice to a person, knocking the door of the Court, during the interregnum period of resolvement of uncertainty, vis-a-vis, violation of legal right.

(Para 10)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 -- Interlocutory injunction -- Court ought to consider three ingredients i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss -- Considering the existence of these three conditions, the need for such protection has to be weighed against the corresponding need of the defendant to be protected against the injury, resulting from his having been prevented from exercising his own legal rights, for which, he could not be adequately compensated -- Thus, the Courts are supposed to weigh one need against another and determine, where the balance of convenience lies.

(Para 10, 11)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 -- Interim injunction  -- Existing of tubewells/ borings is not disputed by the defendants -- Plaintiff No.2 asserts himself to be the co-owner in the suit land -- On account of tubewell, not being put to use, will cause irreparable injury to the plaintiffs also, if the defendants are not restrained from destroying the tubewells as well as PVC pipes or from creating hindrance in the running of the tubewells/boring -- Defendants cannot be allowed to take law in their own hands and cause damage to the tubewells/borings or PVC pipes -- Learned trial Court appropriately allowed the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC further correctly affirmed by learned Appellate Court warrant no interference.

(Para 12-16)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 17 Rule 3 -- Closing of evidence  – Setting aside of -- Petitioner/ landlord filed eviction petition, the delay in the proceedings, if any, would primarily prejudice the petitioner -- Five witnesses of the petitioner have already been examined -- No witness of respondent No.1/ tenant has been examined till date -- One of the witnesses that remains to be examined is the Clerk (Record Keeper) Nagar Council, although the summons issued to him were received back served yet the said witness did not appear and thus, bailable warrants were issued, however, the Court instead of enforcing the attendance of the said witness thereafter, did not proceed to do so – One last effective opportunity granted to the petitioner to complete his entire evidence, at his own responsibility subject Rs.10,000/- as costs.

(Para 3)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 8 Rule 1, 10 – Non-filing of Written Statement within time – Defence struck of -- Petitioners on affidavit stated that written statement was prepared and ready for submission on 15.07.2025 and it could not be submitted because it was to be filed along with receipt of payment of cost of Rs.3,000/- -- Because of the technical glitch in the server, the receipt of deposit of cost was received at 03:00 p.m. on 15.07.2025 and by that time, the impugned order was passed -- Petition allowed, impugned order set aside to the extent of striking off the defence of the petitioners/defendants – Court directed to permit the petitioners/defendants to file written statement on the next date of hearing.

(Para 6-8)

Constitution of India, Article 21, 226 -- Life and liberty – Right to live with person of choice/ Married man – Bigamy -- Corpus has stated that she would like to live with the person with whom she had eloped/ married man -- She cannot be treated like Chasser -- Corpus 'X' is more than 18 years/ adult -- No law that prevents her from living along with the said person -- Only the first wife can register a case against her husband and her if such an eventuality takes place, to prosecute them for bigamy -- The person whom she wants to live with has already left his first wife and is proposing to take a divorce – The Court cannot pontificate on matters relating to morality -- Police requested to release the Corpus 'X' after taking an undertaking from her that she is going to live with the person of her choice and also take an endorsement from the person with whom she is living that he has accepted the company of the Corpus -- Petition disposed of.

(Para 1-8)

Himachal Pradesh Home Guards Act, 1968 (20 of 1968), Section 5 --  Employment Assistance Scheme to the dependents of Government Servants (H.P.) -- Death of Home Guard – Compassionate appointment – Right of -- When the job performed by Home Guards has been assessed to be purely of temporary nature, it will not be prudent to hold their dependents entitled to benefit under Compassionate Appointment Scheme -- Dependents of a Home Guard cannot raise claim for permanent job, when the Home Guard himself renders only a voluntary and temporary job -- Dependents of Home Guard cannot claim right to any Government service having larger scope than the nature of job held by the Home Guard – Petition dismissed.

(Para 11)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 27 -- Adverse possession against private person – Protection of possession -- Writ jurisdiction -- Petitioners are claiming that they have perfected their title over the land in question by way of adverse possession -- All these pleadings are in the realm of Civil Court and if the owner of the land or some other person, may be at his behest or otherwise, is trying to disturb their possession, as is alleged, the petitioner can always go to the Civil Court and seek appropriate reliefs including police assistance -- Writ petition is not maintainable, the same is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Civil Court for the redressal of their grievance.

(Para 5-7)

Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958), Section 3, 4, 11 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 372 – Release on probation -- Appeal by complainant – Maintainability of -- A de facto complainant can prefer an appeal against the order passed by the learned Trial Court under Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act – Learned Appellate Court held that since the proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C. did not enable the complainant to file an appeal against the inadequacy of the sentence, therefore, the appeal does not lie u/s 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act – Held, section 11 (2) contains a non obstante clause and will prevail over the provisions of the CrPC -- Therefore, it is impermissible to import the provisions of appeal contained in the CrPC to the Probation of Offenders Act -- Matter remanded to the learned Appellate Court with the direction to rehear the matter on merits. Prithvi Raj’s case (2004) 8 SCC 303 relied.

(Para 11-14)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 26 Rule 9 --  Appointment of Local Commissioner – Right of parties -- Requirement of the provision is that it is the satisfaction of the Court which puts into motion the provision of Order XXVI Rule 9 – Said satisfaction obviously can also be on the basis of the application of the parties also -- But, the parties per se have no right under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC to call upon the Court to appoint a Local Commissioner as a matter of right to visit the site and thus collect evidence, which a party has not been able to place before the Court to prove its case -- Provisions of Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC are for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute and not creating any evidence in favour of either of the parties.

(Para 5)

Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (1 of 1951), Section 143, 145 -- Declaration of the land as non-agricultural – Non-Registration of – Effect of -- Section 145 of the UPZALR Act does not cast any duty on the land owner to get it registered -- As per Section 145 of the UPZALR Act, it is the duty of the Assistant Collector-in-charge of the Sub-Division to forward a copy of the declaration made u/s 143 of the UPZALR Act to the Sub Registrar to do the needful -- Such registration is to be made free of cost notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Registration Act, 1908 -- No fee has to be paid as the relevant registration was free of cost -- Merely on account of deficiency by the officers, the appellant cannot be deprived of the benefits of the declaration so made.

(Para 17)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 114 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 411 – Stolen cash – Presumption -- Cash so recovered had no special or distinct identification characteristics and thus, the same could not be linked to amount allegedly stolen from the deceased even if such allegation was proved by tangible evidence -- To base a conviction u/s 411 IPC solely on the ground that both the accused were unable to account for being in possession of such huge amount of cash is both incorrect and untenable.

(Para 14, 14.2)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 102 – Criminal Trial – Burdon of proof -- In a criminal prosecution, the initial burden is always on the prosecution to discharge, whereby the allegations raised by it against the accused person are preliminarily satisfied -- If the prosecution is unable to do so, by virtue of Section 102 of Evidence Act, the criminal trial initiated against the accused deserves to be dismissed without asking the accused to lead any evidence from the side of defence.

(Para 14.1)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379, 411 – Acquittal for offence of theft – Conviction for possession of Stolen goods – Legality of -- Trial Court acquitted both accused u/s 379 IPC -- In order to uphold conviction u/s 411 IPC, it is sine qua non that the property in the possession of accused is a stolen property -- If the property is not a stolen property, the charge u/s 411 IPC cannot be sustained -- Appellant acquitted.

(Para 15-19)

A. Constitution of India, Article 14, 21 -- Temporary labelled employees – Long-term extraction of labour – Equal protection – Financial stringency/  Budget – Excuse of -- Duty of Government -- “Ad-hocism” thrives where administration is opaque – State (Union and the State governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer -- It cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions -- Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices -- Long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection -- Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines.

(Para 17, 18)

B. Constitution of India, Article 14, 16, 21 --  Temporary labelled employees – Creation of supernumerary posts -- Regularization of -- As a constitutional employer, the State is held to a higher standard and therefore it must organise its perennial workers on a sanctioned footing, create a budget for lawful engagement, and implement judicial directions in letter and spirit -- Delay to follow these obligations is not mere negligence but rather it is a conscious method of denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity for these workers -- Creation of supernumerary posts, full regularization, subsequent financial benefits, and a sworn affidavit of compliance, is a pathway designed to convert rights into outcomes and to reaffirm that fairness in engagement and transparency in administration are not matters of grace, but obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

(Para 20)

Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), Section 7(A), 11(2) – Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (54 of 2002), Section 35 -- Provident Fund dues  -- Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) -- Bank Charge over property – Priority of -- It would be appropriate that the High Court first deals with the issues raised by Axis Bank that it has first charge and priority over and above the EPFO to satisfy its dues from the secured property in view of Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act -- High Court will examine the priority of first charge amongst the EPFO and the secured creditors i.e. the Axis Bank and other two Banks, namely, State Bank of India and the State Bank of Travancore (now taken over by SBI) in view of Section 11(2) of the PF Act – Matter remanded back.

(Para 11)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11, Order 30 Rule 10 – Suit against Proprietor -- Rejection of plaint -- Proprietorship concern as party – Mandate of -- A proprietorship concern is not a juristic person -- Proprietorship concern cannot be equated either with a company or with a partnership firm – Order XXX deals with partnership basically, however, Rule 10 thereof refers to proprietorship – It makes very clear that proprietorship concern cannot sue but it can be sued – Whether proprietorship concern is sued in its name or through its proprietor representing the concerned is one of the same thing -- Order XXX Rule 10 CPC does not in any manner debar a suit being filed against the proprietor – Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law to decide the suit on its own merits.

(Para 4, 5)

A. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 35(2) – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- Constitution of India, Article 21 -- POCSO – Regular bail -- Challan filed on 18.04.2024 and supplementary Challan was filed on 29.06.2024 -- Trial was required to be concluded before 30.06.2025, in terms of Section 35 of the POCSO Act -- Charge-sheet was framed on 25.10.2024 -- After framing of charge, though dates repeatedly came to be fixed for recording the statement of prosecution witnesses, but not even a single prosecution witness has been examined -- Continued incarceration of bail petitioner during trial would not only amount to pre-trial conviction, but would also be violative of Article 21 – Bail allowed.

(Para 10-12)

B. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012),  Section 35 -- POCSO -- Statement of child victim -- Some dispute with regard to age of the accused, but there was no bar, if any, for the trial Court to record the statement of child-victim within the specified period of thirty days, from the date it took cognizance of the offence.

(Para 12)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 -- Rejection of plaint -- A plaint can be rejected if it does not disclose a cause of action, if the relief claimed is under-valued and the plaintiff on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so, where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped and plaintiff on being required by Court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time fixed by the Court, fails to do so, where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law etc.

(Para 7)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 -- Rejection of plaint – Pleadings -- Court is not to step out of the pleadings as are contained in the plaint and the documents appended therewith -- Defence of the other party is not to be taken into consideration at the time of deciding the application filed under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC.

(Para 8)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 -- Rejection of plaint -- Cause of action -- In terms of the averments made in the plaint, the cause of action is stated to have lastly accrued on 11.01.2016 and the suit was filed in the year 2016 itself, prima facie, it cannot be said from the perusal of the plaint that the suit is barred by limitation -- Trial Court dismisses the application filed under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC, call for no interference.

(Para 11)

A. Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954 (6 of 1954), Section 128, 133 – Mode of partition -- Instrument of partition -- Mode of partition not assailed by the petitioner and challenge was laid only to the final partition -- It is settled law that until and unless the mode of partition is assailed by a party, it is precluded from assailing the same subsequently as well as the instrument of partition on the said ground.

(Para 8)

B. Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954 (6 of 1954), Section 133 – Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Instrument of partition – Writ jurisdiction -- High Court in exercise of its power of judicial review, is not to act as an Appellate Authority and re-appreciate the evidence – The Court has to look into procedural infirmities, if any, coupled with perversity, if any, that can be demonstrated by the parties concerned.

(Para 10)

Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (9 of 1932), Section 69(2) -- Suit by un-registered partnership firm – Maintainability of suit – Objection as to non-compliance of Section 69 (2) of Partnership Act -- Stage of -- It is settled that the provisions of Section 69 (2) of Indian Partnership Act, 1932 bear mandatory character -- Registration of a firm is to be a sine-qua-non for institution of suit falling within the mischief of Section 69 (2) of the Act  -- Non-compliance has been held to be a jurisdictional defect -- It has also been held that the objection as to noncompliance of Section 69 (2) of Indian Partnership Act can be taken even at the stage of execution -- Non-compliance of Section 69 (2), if established, will go to the root of the controversy having effect on the jurisdiction of civil court to entertain the suit.

(Para 19-23)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 200 – Complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. without approaching police – Description of complainant -- Legality of -- A complainant has the option either to approach the Police agency with an application for registration of FIR u/s 154 Cr.P.C or he/she has option to approach the Magistrate with a complaint u/s 200 of the Cr.P.C. -- Discretion entirely lies with the complainant -- No bar to approach the Magistrate with a criminal complaint instead of approaching the Police even in cases where cognizable offences are disclosed from the contents of the criminal complaint.

(Para 7)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200, 202 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 – Cheating -- Summoning of accused – Enquiry/ investigation u/s 202 Cr.P.C. – Requirement of -- Where the allegations made in the complaint supported by the preliminary evidence clearly disclose commission of offence u/s 420 of IPC, it was not at all necessary for the learned Magistrate to direct investigation in terms of Section 202 of Cr.P.C before issuing process against the petitioner – It is only in the cases, where the Magistrate is unable to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding that he is required to direct investigation of a case in terms of section 202 of Cr.P.C and postpone the issue of process against the accused.

(Para 9)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156(3), 482 -- Quashing of criminal proceedings -- Affidavit in support of complaint – Mandate of -- Complaint filed u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C., not being supported by a duly sworn affidavit of the complainant, suffers from a fatal procedural defect -- In the absence of such an affidavit, the complaint could not have been acted upon, and the order of the learned Magistrate directing registration of the FIR suffers from a jurisdictional error -- Rejection of the Petitioner’s discharge application, which is rooted in such procedurally defective initiation, cannot be sustained in law – Proceedings quashed.

(Para 11-14)

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005), Section 12, 20 -- Maintenance to wife – Domestic Incident Report (DIR) – Requirements of -- Financial liabilities of husband – Effect of -- Trial Court taking into consideration gross salary as Rs.43,874/- of petitioner/ husband granted Rs.12,000/- per month as interim relief/ maintenance.

-- Appellate Court said that in absence of DIR a Magistrate empowered to pass ex parte or interim relief as well as final order under D. V. Act -- Under Section 20 of the D.V. Act, an aggrieved wife is entitled to monetary relief, including maintenance, to ensure that she does not suffer from deprivation or financial distress.

-- Appellate Court also said that aggrieved person/ respondent no.1 cannot be left to struggle for survival merely because the appellant/petitioner claims financial liabilities, like repaying of loan -- He has a wife and he is liable to take care of her -- Court is required to balance the needs of the wife with the financial capacity of the husband.

Interim relief/ maintenance do not call for any interference -- Petition dismissed.

(Para 6-11)

A. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971), Section 12 -- Contempt of Court – Delayed payments – As per order dated 17.01.2018 outstanding amount was be paid within a period of three months -- Payments commenced in 2019, well beyond the timeline fixed – Explanation tendered refers to administrative hurdles post-merger of bank and retrieval of records dating back over three decades --  While such circumstances cannot justify laxity -- Element of mens rea, essential for sustaining a charge of civil contempt, cannot be inferred merely from the factum of delay – Petitioner was dismissed in 1985 and secured favourable orders as early as 2004, attained the age of superannuation in or around 2006 -- A reasonable lump sum payment is warranted -- Rule discharged --  Petitioner compensated, respondent-Bank directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- within a period of eight weeks, failing which interest at the rate of 8% will be payable till the date of disbursement.

(Para 14-21)

B. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971), Section 12 -- Contempt jurisdiction – New claims -- Contempt jurisdiction is not a forum for asserting new claims or seeking substantive reliefs which were neither raised nor granted earlier.

(Para 19)

Employees’ Compensation Act 1923 (8 of 1923), Section 2(dd)(iii)(viii), 30(1)(a) – Repair and paint work – Death of employee/ causal worker – Compensation -- Employees Compensation Commissioner accepted the employment of the deceased as casual worker on daily wages, but had rejected the claim petition as it is not maintainable under the Employees Compensation Act – Held, any person engaged in construction, maintenance, repairing or demolition of any building, which is more than one story in height above the ground is treated as employee -- Deceased was engaged for repairing/painting work and was fell down from third story – Deceased held to be an employee under the ambit of Employees Compensation Act -- Appeal allowed, order of Commissioner set aside -- Matter remanded back to the Employees Compensation Commissioner to decide the claim petition as fresh.

(Para 11-17)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 -- Amendment of written statement -- Amendment qua the detailing of the khasra numbers regarding a passage -- Application allowed, defendant-petitioners permitted to give the khasra numbers of the passage which already stands mentioned in the unamended written statement.

(Para 5)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rule 1 & 2  -- Temporary injunction – Finding on merit – Permissibility of – While dismissing the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC a categoric finding has been given by the Trial Court that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction which would amount to rejecting the suit at the stage of deciding the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC – Appeal also dismissed -- Held, impugned orders cannot be sustained, accordingly set aside.

(Para 1, 5)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 9 Rule 8, 9 – Suit dismissed in default – Restoration of suit --  Dead bodies of the applicant’s relatives recovered, due to which he could not appear on the date fixed -- Trial Court ought to have considered the matter from the right perspective and should have restored the suit -- Matters should always, as far as possible, be decided on merits and petitions should not be rejected on mere technicalities -- Application for restoration filed by the petitioner/plaintiff/applicant allowed, and the suit is ordered to be restored to its original number.

(Para 9-13)

Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7(iv)(c), Article 17(iii) of Schedule II – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint -- Ad-valorem court fee -- Sale deed – Challenge to – Plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 and 2 are owners in possession of 50% share of the property -- Challenge is to the sale deed and transfer letter executed by defendant Nos.2 and 3 in favour of defendant No.6-petitioner -- Plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 and 2 are neither the executant of the said documents nor they are seeking possession of the suit property as they are already in joint possession -- In the case of a non-executant of deed, who is already in possession of the property and seeks to get the document annulled then he would be required to pay court fees as applicable under Article 17(iii) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act, 1870 – Held, there would be no requirement to affix ad valorem court fees – Application dismissed.

(Para 1, 5-7)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Assessment of income -- Rs.9,000/- per month assessed by the Ld. Tribunal – Deceased left behind his widow, three minor children and old aged parents -- Minor children have their entire life ahead of them -- Their education has to be taken care of as well as the living expenses of all the claimants -- Compensation should at least be sufficient to mitigate the financial difficulties the family is likely to face – Keeping in view the rising prices as well as the fact that the education of the minor children is still at the threshold, Court deemed it appropriate not to interfere in the income of the deceased as assessed by the Tribunal -- Argument that the income ought to have been assessed as per the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 rejected.

(Para 7, 8)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166, 173 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41 Rule 33 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Power of Court of Appeal – Appeal of Insurance Company – No cross-appeal by claimants – Just compensation -- Claimants relied upon Surekha & Ors. vs. Santosh & Ors., 2021 (16) SCC 467 to contend that even though no cross appeal was filed, the claimants would be entitled to enhanced compensation by addition towards loss of future prospects, which ought to have been 40% keeping in view the age of the deceased, who was 30 years of age at the time of his death -- Argument of the claimants accepted -- An addition of 40% made towards loss of future prospects -- Claimants held entitled to (Rs.18,000/- (Rs.15,000+20% increase) towards loss of estate and (Rs.18,000/- (Rs.15,000+20% increase) towards funeral expenses as also to Rs.48,000/- each (Rs.40,000+20% increase) towards loss of consortium – Total compensation assessed at Rs.22,51,800/- -- Interest @ 7.5% per annum awarded on enhanced amount from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of the entire amount awarded.

(Para 5, 11, 9-13)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 12 Rule 6 – Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Revision petition for issuance of direction to Trial Court for pronouncing the judgment and decree in terms of Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC -- Contends that the deliberate delay on the part of the respondents-plaintiffs is causing constant emotional disturbance and relentless anxiety to the petitioner, apart from paving the way for multiplicity of proceedings in the interregnum – Learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) directed to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible.

(Para 1-6)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 9 Rules 7, 13, Section 151 -- Stay of execution of ex-parte decree -- Application for setting aside ex-parte judgment and decree pending -- Proceedings before the executing Court stayed until the application filed by the revisionist-petitioner under Order IX Rules 7 and 13, read with Section 151 of the CPC is adjudicated upon by the Court --  The learned lower Court directed to expedite the proceedings in the said application and dispose of the same within a period of two months from the next date of hearing fixed before it.

(Para 1, 7)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 18 Rule 3A – Party to appear before other witnesses – Only exception is that the Court may permit him for reasons to be recorded in writing that he may appear as his own witness at a later stage – Application is bereft of any details as to who are the summoned witnesses required to step into the witness-box before he can appear as his own witness -- Reasons why these witnesses are to be examined before the plaintiff-petitioner steps into the witness-box are also woefully missing – Application under Order XVIII Rule 3A dismissed by Trial Court -- In the absence of any details regarding which witness and for what reason the said witness needs to be examined, no fault can be found with the order.

(Para 1, 6, 7)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141, 145 – Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (9 of 1932), Section 25 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 223 – Cheque bounce complaint – Non-impleadment of Partnership firm as accused – Maintainability of Complaint against Partner – Vicarious liability/ Joint and several – Since the liability is joint and several, even in the absence of a partnership firm being proceeded against by the complainant by issuance of legal notice as mandated u/s 138 of the Act or being made an accused specifically in a complaint filed under Section 200 of CrPC, (equivalent to Section 223 of the BNSS), such a complaint is maintainable.

(Para 7.21, 9.9)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 223 -- Cheque bounce complaint -- Offence by partnership firm – Partners personally, jointly and severally liable in the case of a partnership firm, when the offence has been proved against a partnership firm -- Partnership firm is only a compendious name for the partners of the firm, any offence committed u/s 138 read with Section 141 of the Act would make the partners of the firm jointly and severally liable with the firm.

(Para 9.10, 9.11)

C. Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (9 of 1932), Section 4, 5 -- Partnership firm – Whether a Separate Legal Personality -- A partnership firm, unlike a company registered under the Companies Act, does not possess a separate legal personality and the firm’s name is only a compendious reference for describing its partners -- This fundamental distinction between a firm and a company rests on the premise that the company is separate from its shareholders -- Even the registration of a firm does not mean that it becomes a distinct legal entity like a company -- Hence, the partners of a firm are co-owners of the property of the firm, unlike shareholders in a company who are not co-owners of the property of the company.

(Para 7.9, 7.10, 8)

D. Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (9 of 1932), Section 42 (c) -- Partnership firm and partners – Death of partner -- Perpetual Succession -- A partnership firm’s fundamental identity is contingent on the partners and undergoes a change with a change in partners, subject to contract -- Section 42(c) of the Partnership Act provides that subject to contract between the partners, a firm is dissolved by the death of a partner.

(Para 7.17)

E. Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (9 of 1932), Section 25, 26 -- Liability of Partners -- Liability of partners for the debts of the business is unlimited and they are jointly and severally liable for all business obligations of the partnership firm --  Any liability of a firm has the same effect of a liability against the partners -- Debt of the firm is the personal debt of a partner and the debt of the firm has to be incurred by each partner as a financial personal liability -- The liability of the firm for acts done by the partner would arise when such acts are done in the ordinary course of the business of the firm.

(Para 7.18-7.20, 7.22)

F. Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (9 of 1932), Section 25, 26 -- Liability of Partners – Penalty -- Since the firm by itself cannot transact any business, if a partner of the firm commits any breach, all the partners would become liable for the consequent penalties, just as the firm would be liable -- Further, if a penalty is imposed on a partnership firm for contravention of a statute, it amounts to levy of penalty on the partners also and there is no separate or independent penalty on the partners for the said contravention.

(Para 7.23)

G. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141, 145 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 223 – Cheque bounce complaint – Liability of Directors, manager, Secretary and other officer -- Director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company cannot be proceeded against per se by virtue of the position they hold in the company but can be proceeded against only when there is proof that the offence u/s 138 was committed by the company with their consent or connivance or due to negligence on their part -- Standard of proof is higher under sub-section (2) of Section 141 vis-à-vis the category of persons mentioned therein with regard to their specific role in the commission of the offence u/s 138 of the Act.

(Para 9.4)

Constitution of India, Article 227 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 115 – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4, 6, 11 – Acquisition of land  -- Compensation for land acquired – Long pendency of Execution petition -- Execution application filed by the petitioners on 14.09.2022 is still pending and the petitioners are waiting to get their amount of compensation on the basis of order dated 16.03.2022 passed by this Court – The Court of Addl. District and Sessions Judge requested to dispose of the Executing Petition as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of next 04 months, as any further delay is going to cause serious prejudice to the rights of the petitioners/land owners.

(Para 6-8)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 Rule 66 – Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Notice to Judgment debtor – Service through wife – Permissibility of -- It is argued that the petitioner was not personally served and, therefore, he deserves an opportunity to contest the execution proceedings by raising objections on the application under Order XXI Rule 66 CPC – Held, notice had been duly served upon the petitioner through his wife -- Despite such service, the petitioner failed to appear before the executing Court, and was rightly proceeded against ex parte -- No illegality or infirmity in the impugned order -- Civil Revision Petition dismissed.

(Para 7, 8)

Constitution of India, Article 227 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 17 Rule 3 -- Closing of evidence  by Court order – Setting aside of -- Petitioners-plaintiffs did not lead any evidence inspite last opportunities -- Submission that the omission on their part in not examining witnesses or leading evidence cannot be construed as deliberate or intentional, inasmuch as compromise talks were in progress between the parties -- Further submitted that the respondent-defendant had failed to disclose that his mother and sisters also have a share in the suit property, and upon the petitioners-plaintiffs coming to know of the same, the respondent-defendant had assured that he would clear the title in all respects, but failed to do so -- Impugned order set aside, learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), directed to give two effective opportunities to the petitioners-plaintiffs to conclude their entire evidence.

(Para 3-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 290, 341, 171F -- Police Act, 1861 (5 of 1861), Section 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Public nuisance – Dharna – Quashing of FIR -- Even if the case of the respondent-State is accepted at its face value, it cannot be concluded that the appellants, while conducting the rally and dharna, engaged in any form of obstruction of the road in a manner that led to the offences alleged -- Appellants were exercising their right to freedom of speech and expression and to assemble peacefully – No purpose will be served by continuing the prosecution -- It would have been appropriate for the High Court to have exercised the power available under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of the court’s process – Appeal allowed, FIR and the proceedings quashed.

(Para 16-18)

A. Constitution of India, Article 14, 21 – Medical disability of employee -- Pre-mature retirement – Sustainability of -- Appellant was prematurely retired from service on medical grounds without any meaningful effort by the Respondent–Corporation to explore his suitability for alternate employment – Corporation’s omission to consider redeployment violates both statutory and constitutional obligations -- Duty to reasonably accommodate such employees is now part of our constitutional fabric, rooted in Articles 14 and 21 -- Respondent–Corporation directed to appoint the Appellant to a suitable post, consistent with his condition, and on the same pay grade as he held on 06.01.2016 – Appellant shall be entitled to 25% of the arrears of salary, allowances, and benefits from the date of his termination to the date of reinstatement -- Intervening period shall be reckoned as continuous service for all purposes.

(Para 40, 42)

B. Constitution of India, Article 14, 21 – Removal from service -- Pre-mature retirement of employee -- Judicial restraint guards against overreach, it must not become an excuse for disengagement from injustice -- When an employee is removed from service for a condition he did not choose, and where viable alternatives are ignored, the Court is not crossing a line by intervening, it is upholding one drawn by the Constitution itself -- The employer’s discretion ends where the employee’s dignity begins.

(Para 41)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- National of United States – Future prospects – Deceased was self-employed in U.S. -- Future prospects of a person self-employed in a foreign country like United States, compared to a person in this country, would become difficult for the simple reason that the socio-economic-political conditions in any foreign country would be different -- In order to determine the just compensation to a person who died in an accident occurred in India, the dictum of law in Pranay Sethi’s case (2017) 16 SCC 680 = (2017) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 10002 = 2018(1) L.A.R. 1 shall have to be followed and applied specially when no material evidence is offered to determine the future prospects in the foreign country -- Accordingly, the Court is inclined to extend the benefit of future prospects’ component for the compensation payable as per the principles in Pranay Sethi’s case – Total compensation comes to 1,60,15,280/- alongwith 5% interest p.a.

(Para 5.4)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Conventional heads -- Deceased was aged 31 years, 40% addition made in the established income towards future prospects -- Under the conventional heads namely loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses made at Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively -- Dependent of the deceased are wife, the daughter and the parents, therefore, for each of them Rs.40,000/- will be the part of compensation towards loss of consortium amounting to Rs.1,60,000/-.

(Para 5.5., 5.6)

A. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 6, 11 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Acquisition of land – Title dispute – Restitution of compensation -- Jurisdiction of civil Court -- Once the ownership and wrongful enrichment were proved, the Trial Court was well within its jurisdiction to grant full and effective relief, including restitution -- Denial of consequential reliefs despite a declaration of ownership has resulted in manifest injustice.

(Para 16)

B. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 11, 30 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Acquisition of land – Entitlement of compensation -- Title dispute – Jurisdiction of civil Court -- It is settled law that where title and ownership are in question, Civil Courts retain jurisdiction, even in matters of compensation related to acquisition -- Suit is not barred by Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act -- Section 30 only applies where a dispute regarding apportionment of compensation is pending before the Land Acquisition Officer.

(Para 20)

C. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 39 – Mandatory injunction -- Relief under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act (mandatory injunction) is permissible where:

I. A legal duty exists,

II. There is a breach,

III. Plaintiff is entitled to relief to prevent unjust gain/loss.

When the ownership is established and the revenue entries are proved to be erroneous, any benefit drawn from such illegal entries must be undone.

(Para 24)

D. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 6, 11 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9, 11 – Acquisition of land – Restitution of compensation -- Jurisdiction of Civil Court -- Issue of ownership was already settled in 1969 -- Cause of action arose only when compensation was wrongly disbursed in favour of respondents based on fraudulent revenue entries -- Suit was filed within limitation after appellants discovered the wrongful receipt of funds – Suit is also not barred by Res Judicata or Limitation.

(Para 25)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Bail by High Court – UAPA case -- High Court noticed that accused no. 11/ his connections with an organisation by the name of AL-Hind is not a banned organisation under the schedule to UAPA -- Apart from the above, impugned order by the High Court was passed on 21.04.2022 almost 3-1/2 years ago and as such, it may not be just and proper to interfere with the same at this stage -- Further, charges have not been framed so far and trial has not commenced – No justification to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court granting bail.

(Para 9, 10)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – UAPA Case – Regular Bail -- High Court has found accused no. 20/ his involvement with banned terrorist organisations, his active role in operating dark web and assisting the members of the banned terrorist organisations -- High Court further noticed the involvement of accused no.20 in another case under UAPA – Held, High Court was justified in not granting bail to accused no.20.

(Para 11, 12)

C. Constitution of India, Article 21 – Speedy trial -- Life and liberty – Trial has not commenced despite lapse of 5-1/2 years -- Accused cannot be allowed to languish in jail without being given a fair and speedy trial -- Trial Court be directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within a period of two years considering that there are more than 100 witnesses to be examined by the prosecution.

(Para 13)

Constitution of India, Article 136, 226 -- Disciplinary proceedings – Allegation of corruption – Removal from service with superannuation benefits -- Inquiry Officer appreciated the evidence led by five loanees who categorically deposed that they had paid money to the respondents for coordinating sanction of their loans despite their documents being deficit -- PW-6, Field Officer stated that all the accounts were irregular -- When respondent appeared in response to a show cause notice before imposition of penalty, points towards the direction where he apparently admitted his guilt and had sought mercy -- Leniency was shown by the Appellate Authority by reducing the penalty from ‘dismissal’ to ‘removal from service’ with superannuation benefits – High Court allowed the writ and respondent was directed to be reinstated with back wages – High Court order set aside, order passed by the Appellate Authority imposing punishment of ‘removal from service’ with superannuation benefits restored.

(Para 14, 15)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 -- Amendment of plaint – Delayed application – Ground of -- No doubt the plaintiff-petitioner has been remiss in not filing the application for amendment earlier, however, the same cannot be a ground for denying the amendment especially in view of the fact that the evidence is yet to be started -- Application allowed subject to payment of ?10,000/- as costs.

(Para 3, 4)

A. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Multiple Appointments challenged -- Doctrine of severability – Detailed analysis – Requirements of -- Validity of an individual appointment must be assessed on the basis of the appointee's own merit, eligibility, and conformity to the applicable rules -- Courts must resist the tendency to issue blanket invalidations of entire batches of appointments merely on the basis of procedural infirmities that affect only a portion of the appointments – Principles of fairness, proportionality, and individual justice are foundational to administrative law and demand that a case-by-case analysis be undertaken before issuing sweeping orders of cancellation -- Where multiple appointments are challenged on general grounds, authorities and courts must undertake a detailed fact-specific analysis before concluding that all such appointments are void -- Doctrine of severability must not remain a mere theoretical doctrine but must guide real administrative action and judicial reasoning in service matters.

(Para 26, 49)

B. Constitution of India, Article 14, 16 – Employment – Irregular appointment – Illegal appointment – Challenge to -- Right to employment, though not a fundamental right, is nevertheless protected under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution insofar as it requires fair, just, and non-arbitrary treatment of similarly situated individuals -- Appellants' dismissal, without issuing a show cause or opportunity of hearing, is a clear violation of principles of natural justice -- The jurisprudence around irregular versus illegal appointments must not be blurred -- An irregular appointment is one where procedure is not strictly followed but the appointee is otherwise qualified and the post is sanctioned -- An illegal appointment, on the other hand, is void ab initio, such as where the appointee is ineligible or the post does not exist -- When appointments are questioned on grounds of irregularity, the inquiry must not end with detecting the infirmity but must proceed further to distinguish those whose appointments are unimpeachable -- Justice demands separation, not erasure.

(Para 30, 31)