Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21(c), 25, 61, 85 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- NDPS – Regular bail -- Commercial quantity – Habitual offender -- Bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in other/another cases -- Petitioner is in custody for the last more than 01 year and 06 months -- Trial may take a long time to conclude -- Prolonged detention without any likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future, would amount to a violation of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Bail allowed.

(Para 7-10)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Defence struck off -- Petitioner is appearing in person before the Ld. Tribunal and could not file the reply in time because of communication gap as well as lack of knowledge -- A lis should be decided on merits rather than on technicalities -- Justice demands that one last effective opportunity is required to be granted to the petitioner to file his written statement -- One last opportunity granted to the petitioner to file written statement subject to payment of Rs.5,000/-.

(Para 4, 5)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Family pension – Excess payment – Recovery of -- Petitioner is a widow and she is getting family pension – Excess payment was made from July’ 2008 to 2019 and there was no connivance, misrepresentation, fraud or mischief on the part of the petitioner --  She further submits that it was lapse of the system which was introduced in 2006 -- Writ petition allowed, respondent-bank ordered to not effect further recovery.

(Para 3-8)

Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (26 of 1947), Section 12, 12A, 12C – Election of Pradhan -- Recounting of votes –  Disparity in the count of votes informed to the appellant and finally disclosed in the official form -- It relates to 19 votes, i.e., the difference between 1193 and 1213 -- Margin of victory of the respondent was 37 votes, and so, in a sense, victory of position would remain yet elusive of the appellant – Held, process has to be in accordance with constitutional principles and established norms  -- Each vote has its own value irrespective of its effect in the final outcome of the election, its sanctity has to be protected -- It was a four-sided election, i.e., four persons were contesting for the post of ‘Pradhan’ -- Three of the four persons submitted by way of affidavit that they had doubts regarding the propriety of the election, and they would support a recount of votes -- Deliberate attempts made to benefit the ultimate victor such as the use of police force to remove the appellant from the vicinity of the polling area – Diary of the Presiding Officer of the polling booths, which is an essential document recording the casting of votes, could not be found despite a concerted effort -- If the Presiding Officers’ records are missing and cannot be verified, it can be found that the final conclusion is within the realm of questionability -- Each and every document pertaining to an election is important and all efforts should be made to preserve the same – Recounting is held to be justified.

(Para 14-18)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 80 – Notice u/s 80 CPC – Importance of -- A statutory notice holds significance beyond mere formality -- Its purpose is to provide the Government or a public officer with an opportunity to reconsider the matter in light of established legal principles and make a decision in accordance with the law -- However, in practice, such notices have often become empty formalities -- Administration frequently remains unresponsive and fails to even inform the aggrieved party why their claim has been rejected – Held, Public Authorities must take statutory notice issued to them in all seriousness -- Public Authorities must not sit over such notices and force the citizens to the vagaries of litigation -- They are expected to let the plaintiff know their stand within the statutory period or in any case before he embarks upon the litigation -- In certain cases, courts may be obliged to draw adverse presumption against the Public Authorities for not acknowledging the notice or telling the plaintiff of its stand and in the absence of that, a stand taken during the course of trial may be considered as an afterthought.

(Para 105, 106, 113)

B. Constitution of India, Article 19(1)(g), 31, 300A – Right to hold property -- Article 300-A provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law -- This Article has been inserted by the Constitution (44th Amendment) Act, 1978 -- Prior to this amendment, the right to property was guaranteed by Article 31 -- While Clause (1) of that Article has been shifted from Part III to Article 300-A, Clause (2) of that Article, which dealt with compulsory acquisition of property, has been repealed -- Sub-Clause (f) of Clause (1) of Article 19, which guaranteed the right to acquire and hold property, has also been omitted by the same 44th Amendment Act, 1978 – The result of these changes, in short, is that the right to hold property has ceased to be a fundamental right under the Constitution and it has been left to the Legislature to deprive a person by the authority of law.

(Para 124)

Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951), Section 100(1)(a)(d)(i), 116A – Election of Member Legislative Assembly / MLA –Seat reserved for Schedule Caste – Challenge to election -- Ground that the appellant/ wining candidate’s grandparents on the paternal side were persons who had migrated from Tamil Nadu, they and their successors were not entitled to claim that they belonged to ‘Hindu Parayan’ of Kerala State -- It was averred that hence, the Appellant is not entitled to contest from a Constituency reserved for candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes from Kerala – Held, a duly issued Caste/ Community Certificate would be amenable to challenge only under the provisions of the statute concerned, and not in an Election Petition – Election Petition dismissed.

(Para 2, 3, 59, 64)

A. Constitution of India, Article 226 – Disciplinary proceedings -- Writ jurisdiction -- High Court is well within its domain to examine whether the disciplinary proceedings suffer from patent illegality, perversity, or violation of constitutional and statutory safeguards, and whether the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the nature of the misconduct.

(Para 5)

B. Constitution of India, Article 20(3), 226 -- Absence from duty for 104 days – Dismissal from service -- Entire departmental enquiry, and finally the punishment of dismissal of service was, in entirety, based on the petitioner’s admission of guilt which could not have been the sole basis of the decision -- Statement of witnesses related solely to the absence of the delinquent official but, no documentary evidence or any other form of proof was produced to examine or verify the justifications put forth by the petitioner for his absence – Petitioner was dissuaded from producing any defence material qua the assurance made by the respondent no. 4 that his admission alone would suffice for lesser punishment or even pardon, inevitably denying him a reasonable opportunity of defence and striking at the root of the principle of audi alteram partem.

--    Inquiry report dated 23.08.1997 was forwarded to the petitioner on 30.08.1997, yet the order of dismissal came to be passed on 11.09.1997 violating the statutorily prescribed limit of a minimum 15 days to submit representation to the report as the petitioner was given only 12 days to respond -- This denial of statutory time for reply is not a mere irregularity but vitiates the fairness in procedure.

--    Penalty of dismissal for overstaying leave, even assuming misconduct, is shockingly disproportionate to the charge -- Impugned penalty cannot be sustained.

Proceedings culminating in the order of dismissal and its affirmance in appeal and revision are unsustainable in law as they stand vitiated on three counts (i) violation of constitutional guarantee against self-incrimination, (ii) denial of natural justice in not affording an effective defence, and (iii) imposition of grossly disproportionate punishment -- Impugned orders set aside, petitioner held entitled to reinstatement with all consequential benefits.

(Para 5, 6)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 2(c), 154 -- Registration of FIR – Cognizable offence -- Since, it is the duty of the police to register an FIR if a prima facie cognizable offence is made out, the police is not required to go into the genuineness and credibility of the said information.

(Para 32)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 2(c), 154, 482 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 – Cognizable offence – Registration of FIR – Jurisdiction of High Court -- Police authorities expressed reluctance to entertain the complaints as it would not be proper on part of the police to investigate against the officers of the CBI, the complainants approached the Constitutional Court for necessary action – High Court exercised its discretion in entertaining the petitions and directing for the registration of the FIR against the two officers, on being satisfied that the commission of a cognizable offence is prima facie made out against them -- It would not be a prudent exercise at this stage to scuttle the registration of the FIR or the investigation, when the High Court in exercise of its constitutional powers had opined that prima facie, a cognizable offence is made out against the two officers, that too upon elaborate consideration of the preliminary inquiry report of the Joint Director of CBI.

(Para 33-36)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389(2) -- Suspension of sentence – Appeal pending -- Three years’ rigorous imprisonment along with fine u/s 147, 148, 323, 325, 354 149 IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act – Despite sincere endeavour, the High Court has not been able to decide the appeal finally -- Right to appeal is a statutory right – Appellants are in custody -- Hearing of the appeal carried by the appellants does not seem to be imminent -- It could amount to a miscarriage of justice if the appellants were made to serve out such term without the appeal being heard -- Sentence suspended, appellants ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 2-6)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 23, 24, 420 -- Cheating -- In order to attract the offence of cheating, a person must knowingly make a false statement which would induce another to part with property or to do or omit to do a thing which the latter would not do or omit unless deceived and thereby is likely to suffer damage/harm in body, mind, reputation or property -- Intention is the gist of the offence.

(Para 13-15)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 464, 465, 468, 471 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Quashing of criminal complaint -- NOC by Fire department – Fake document used -- To attract penal consequences, it must be shown that the false representation was of a material fact which had induced the victim to either part with property or act in a manner which they would not otherwise do but for such false representation -- In the absence of such vital link between the alleged false representation and the issuance of recognition/ renewal of affiliation, the essential ingredient of offence is not satisfied -- Nothing on record to show the appellant had manufactured the alleged fake document which is a sine qua non to attract Section 465 IPC – In fact, the original fabricated document had not been recovered -- No material connecting the appellant to the making of the fake document has been adduced in the impugned charge sheet -- Requisite mens rea, i.e., dishonest intention to cause wrongful loss to the Education Department and wrongful gain to himself has not been demonstrated as the issuance of the recognition was not dependent on the production of the alleged forged NOC -- Chargesheet do not disclose essential ingredients of cheating or forgery – criminal proceedings quashed.

(Para 16-22)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order VIII, Rule 6A – Counter claim by defendant – Nature of – Right of -- A defendant may assert any right or claim against the plaintiff before the filing of the written statement, even if such cause of action is unrelated to the plaintiff’s suit -- Only limitation is that the counter-claim must lie within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court -- Such a counter-claim is treated as a cross-suit and is governed by the rules applicable to plaints, including the obligation to disclose the cause of action and pay requisite court fees -- Legislative intent is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings by allowing both the original suit and the counterclaim to be tried and disposed of in a single trial, thereby avoiding prolonged and protracted litigation -- Rule 6A provides that counter-claim shall be against the claim of the plaintiff and such right or claim shall be in respect of cause of action accruing to defendant against the plaintiff.

(Para 18-20)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order VIII, Rule 6A – Counter-claim against co-defendant -- Relief of specific performance by defendant no. 2 cannot be set up by way of a counter-claim since the same is not directed against the appellant/plaintiff, but is instead directed solely against the co-defendant – It is not permissible.

(Para 22)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483,  193 -- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 7, 13(2), 13(1)(b) – Corruption case – Regular bail -- Investigation culminated in a police report (charge-sheet) filed u/s 7 of the PC Act -- However, investigation qua the role of the appellant is pending – Earlier Interim bail granted made confirmed -- Appellant shall continue to remain on bail on such terms and conditions as have been or may be fixed by the trial court.

(Para 3-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 407, 409, 468, 120(B) – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 482 -- Cheating and forgery – Anticipatory bail – Appellant has joined the investigation and all forged deeds have been seized -- Court considered that custodial interrogation of the appellant is not necessary and that there is sufficient ground for the appellant to be admitted to an order for grant of bail in anticipation of arrest – Bail allowed.

(Para 3-7)

A. Rent laws -- Tenant-landlord relationship – Ownership of landlord – Tenants’ right to challenge -- Tenant having come into possession of the tenanted premises by a rent deed executed by the earlier landlord, cannot turn around and challenge his ownership -- Predecessor of the defendants and the defendants, after their father’s death had been paying rent to the R.D. -- Dispute regarding the title of R.D. could not have been raised by the tenant who had come into the premises by virtue of a deed executed by R.D. to whom, for more than half a century, the tenants were also paying rent.

(Para 10)

B. Rent laws -- Eviction of tenant -- Bona fide need -- No dispute as to the business carried on; of sweets and savouries, in the adjacent shop room -- There is also no dispute on the sons of the plaintiff also having joined the business and the plaintiff’s intention to participate in the business, thus expanding it to the tenanted premises -- Bona fide need hence stands established – order of eviction passed.

(Para 13, 14)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 2(c), 154 -- Registration of FIR – Cognizable offence – Duty of Police -- Once information relating to commission of a cognizable offence is given to the officer-in-charge of a police station, the investigative machinery is required to be set in motion -- It is mandatory to record the substance of the information in a book to be kept by the officer in the prescribed form -- It is mandatory to register an FIR.

(Para 16)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 2(c), 154 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 324, 325, 326 -- Registration of FIR – Cognizable offence – Duty of Police -- Inaction of the officer-in-charge of the Police Station despite being made aware of Medico-Legal Case, involving the appellant, and his admission in the hospital, and the failure in following through by recording his statement at the earliest opportunity and registering an FIR in that regard, clearly manifests total dereliction of duty on his part, be it deliberate or due to sheer carelessness -- Assault upon him would have constituted an offence under Sections 324 or 325 or 326 of the IPC, which are all cognizable, and required decisive and prompt action on the part of the police as soon as they came to know about it -- Secretary, Home Ministry, Government directed to constitute a Special Investigation Team/SIT  comprising senior police officers to undertake an investigation into all the allegations made by the appellant, by registering an FIR in connection with the assault and take appropriate action thereon as warranted -- Further direction given to initiate appropriate disciplinary action against all erring police officials, in accordance with law and due procedure, for the patent dereliction of duties.

(Para 21-24)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 463, 464, 468, 471 -- Cheating -- Forgery -- To attract offence of Section 468 IPC, the prosecution must establish that the accused made a false document within the meaning of Section 464 IPC, with intent to cheat -- Likewise, Section 471 IPC requires proof that the accused used a forged document as genuine, knowing or having reason to believe it to be forged at the time of its use.

(Para 7)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 468, 471, 511 -- Cheating -- Forgery -- Mark-sheet and the revaluation notification went through a chain of custody -- Firstly, from appellant to admission clerk and after the admission clerk had verified and received the alleged documents then the custody was routed to the principal of the college -- Prosecution had failed to prove, by any reliable evidence, that the alleged tampering was effected by Appellant herself or while the documents were in the exclusive custody and control of the appellant this tampering had occurred -- In such circumstances, the passing of the alleged document through the hands of several person before it was detected as forged renders unsafe to arrive at a conclusion that appellant had authored the tampering or possessed the contemporaneous knowledge of such tampering -- It is apt to mention that it is well-established principle of law that suspicion, howsoever grave, cannot replace the standard of legal proof – Conviction set aside.

(Para 8, 15)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 468, 471, 511 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 45 -- Forgery – Tampering -- Expert evidence – Requirement of -- No handwriting or forensic expert opinion was obtained regarding the authorship of alleged tampering -- While expert opinion is not mandatory, nevertheless when authorship is central to establish the guilt of the accused and by direct evidence it is not demonstrated to show that the alleged writing has been made in the presence of a witness, non-examination of an expert or any other cogent proof of authorship to corroborate the alleged forgery beyond reasonable doubt weighs heavily against the prosecution -- Courts below treated “apparent overwriting” as conclusive which approach is alien to the standard proof beyond reasonable doubt -- Conviction set aside.

(Para 9, 10, 15)

D. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 468, 471, 511 – Forged document used to secure admission – Mens rea -- Record do not establish the mens rea which is pre-requisite for Section 471 IPC (knowledge/reason to believe) or for attempt to cheat u/s 420 read with Section 511 IPC being present -- Documents were stamped by college authorities and passed through administrative scrutiny -- In the absence of evidence that the appellant had dishonest intention to either make the false document or knew of its falsity while submitting it, the mental status or mens rea remains unproved – Conversion set aside.

(Para 11, 15)

E. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 313 – Opportunity to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against accused – Right of – Several incriminating circumstances were put to the appellant in compound and omnibus questions -- Section 313 is not an empty formality -- Where there is failure to put material circumstances fairly and distinctly, it causes prejudice and vitiates reliance placed on such circumstances -- Said defect strikes at a valuable statutory right of defence -- Accused was not possibly able to understand the incriminating circumstances put against her and was not able to answer properly because of the compound questions – It causes prejudice to the accused.

(Para 12)

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986), Section 17 -- Consumer complaint – Medical negligence -- Finding contrary to pleadings – sustainability of -- Specific claim in Complaint Case was that there was medical negligence on the part of Doctor and the nursing home in the post-delivery treatment only, as sufficient facilities were not available in the nursing home to deal with post-delivery emergencies, and Doctor failed to take adequate care and caution after the delivery to save the life of the patient – No allegations whatsoever to the effect that the antenatal care and management in any manner -- Entire focus of the NCDRC, was only upon the antenatal care and management of the patient and its pinpointed findings were also in relation to the said period and treatment only – Held, NDRC transgressed its jurisdiction in building a new case for the complainants, contrary to their pleadings -- However, its finding that there was no negligence in the delivery and the post-delivery treatment have attained finality as no separate appeal was preferred by the complainants – Appeal allowed, complaint stand dismissed.

(Para 26-31)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Deceased had a diploma in Pharmacy -- Accident took place on 25.07.2010 – Deceased found to be in a partnership of pharmaceutical distributorship and associated with a Cooperative Bank -- Deceased was also running a medical shop, though prior to the date of the accident the licence stood cancelled – Monthly income assumed at Rs.12,000/- to look after the family of five comprising of himself, his wife, minor daughter and two parents -- Multiplier applied of 14 and the 25% future prospects as deceased having been 43 years old and not in a regular employment is perfectly in order -- 1/4th deduction made also is correct since his family consisted of 4 dependants -- Rs.20,80,000/- assessed as compensation with 6 % interest from the date of application.

(Para 4-7)

A. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 34 -- Mere reason of the manure and waste having been found in the property, cannot lead to a finding of possession.

(Para 10)

B. Revenue record – Onus to prove/ disapprove -- Revenue records produced by the plaintiff showed the corrected area as per the sale deed -- Merely because the correction was done in the course of the suit is no reason to disbelieve the public record maintained -- Even dehors such proof the latest revenue records having shown the actual extent, it was for the defendants to disprove the same -- Trial court ought not to have suspected the sanctity of the correction, unless it was disproved.

(Para 11)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 – Abetment of suicide – Acquittal -- Over a period of few months the neighbours were at loggerheads -- Not only heated exchanges, but physical blows were also alleged to have been administered by the appellant’s party -- Appellant stands acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 323, 504, 506 IPC – Quarrels occur in everyday life, on facts not concluded that there was an instigation on the part of the appellant to such an extent that the victim was left with no other option but to commit suicide -- Appellant acquitted for offence u/s 306 IPC.

(Para 17, 23)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 147 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 438, 442 -- Cheque bounce case -- Compriomise after conviction at revision stage – Acquittal – Complainant and the petitioner have amicably resolved the matter -- Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court, as affirmed by the learned Appellate Court set aside -- Petitioner/ accused acquitted of all the charges framed against him.

(Para 7-9)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 Rule 66, Order 41 Rule 6 – Execution of decree – Appeal pending – Attachment of property – Sale warrant of attached property – Stay of execution -- Sale would defeat the purpose of the petitioner of filing an appeal -- Since the learned Executing Court has already taken the security by warrant of attachment of the property of the petitioner, the application filed by the petitioner under Order 41 Rule 6 CPC deserves to be allowed.

(Para 8, 9)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Disbursement of compensation – Review of -- Rs.1,00,000/- given to the appellant/ mother, Rs. 6,26,000/- to the daughter in law & Rs. 3,00,000/- to minor -- Appellant received the cheque for Rs. 1,00,000/- which she encashed also without any protest and demur -- It was upon a joint application -- Appellant could not be permitted to resile from her own conduct -- She cannot be accounted to approbate and reprobate -- She acted with open eyes, overtly and consciously -- Appellant cannot reopen or dispute the factums of her own act by showing disagreement to the disbursement raising all after-thought contentions.

(Para 2, 6-7)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Death almost five months after the date of the accident -- Injuries suffered in the accident were not very serious -- Non-healing ulcer could have been for various causes, especially when the victim was known to be a diabetic, which necessitated the skin grafting procedure -- In the aftermath of the surgery, the patient succumbed to death -- Merely by reason of the proximity of the accident and the death or the possibility of acute myocardial infarction occurring for reason of a long bed rest, it cannot be assumed, without clear evidence to substantiate the death having been caused as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident – High Court has elaborately considered the evidence of PW-1, the plastic surgeon who carried out the surgical procedure and found the death to be not a direct cause of the accident – No reason to interfere.

(Para 1-3, 11)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Disability certificate – Proof of -- Medical board’s certificate can be accepted, even without a witness being examined.

(Para 7)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Income tax return – Reliance upon -- Registration of the firm of the claimant took place on 06.03.2006 and the income tax returns produced are also for the assessment years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 relatable to the financial years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 which are prior to the accident which occurred on 09.04.2007 -- It cannot be said that the claimant apprehended an accident and got registration of a firm and filed his income tax returns two years prior to the accident -- Income tax return accepted.

(Para 8)

C. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Functional disability -- Amputation of one leg and a portion of the pelvic bone on the same side -- Disability to be assessed as functional disability which reduces the earning capacity of the claimant and not strictly the medical disability -- Claimant was running a business, and the claimant has already been fitted with a prosthetic limb to ensure his mobility – Functional disability assessed at 50% -- Entire medical expenses claimed for which invoices were produced, totalling Rs.12,54,985/-, Rs.1 lakh for pain, shock and suffering and an amount of Rs.2 lakhs for loss of amenities, Rs.1 lakh for the attendant expenses and Rs.4,70,805/- for the purchase of prosthetic leg based on the vouchers awarded -- Rs.10 lakh would suffice to account for the future expenses for continued use of the prosthetic limb and the medical expenses -- Total compensation awarded as Rs. 48,44,790/- with 6 % interest awarded.

(Para 7-13)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Utility Van fell down in gorge -- Package policy issued by the Insurance Company after looking at the certificate of registration and the permit issued – It clearly specified that the vehicle is entitled to carry 4+1 passengers in addition to the goods -- Insurance Company cannot wriggle out of its liability to indemnify the owner – One of the claim petitions is of a pedestrian, which is not clearly demarcated for reason of the 5 persons having been extricated at the accident site from and around the vehicle – Liability is on the Insurance Company and that has to be satisfied fully by the Insurance Company.

(Para 6, 7)

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 14A, 18 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 482 -- Offence under SC/ST Act – Anticipatory bail – Bar u/s 18 of SC/ST Act -- Contention of appellant that the word “Khach” means stupid, arrogant person and the words “Katir and Katiran” mean disrespectful person, bad person and group of such persons collected in huge number and the word “Galuck” means greedy and untrustful person and the word “Nasal” is usually used for persons doing misdeeds/ bad activities, not suited for his family members – State also submitted that the impact of aforesaid words can vary, based on the context and region -- No material on record, from which it can be inferred that at the time of uploading the videos on social media, the appellant was in the knowledge of complainant’s caste -- Nothing to prove that these objectionable words were uttered on account of the fact that the complainant belongs to a particular community -- Bar u/s 18 of the SC/ST Act will not be applicable in the case -- Bail allowed.

(Para 6-8)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 21(C), 29 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- NDPS -- Commercial quantity – Regular bail – Recovery of firearm and cartridges from petitioner -- Recovery of 300 grams of heroin made from the tool box of the motorcycle which was registered in the name of co-accused ‘KS’ who was riding the motorcycle at the relevant time – Petitioner in custody since 31.03.2024 -- None of the 11 prosecution witnesses have been examined – Bail allowed.

(Para 2-6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 27-A, 29 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- NDPS – Regular bail -- Petitioner arrayed as an accused on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused -- 15 grams of ‘Heroin’ was allegedly recovered from co-accused -- Recovered contraband from the co-accused is a non-commercial quantity --  Petitioner has completed incarceration of 01 month and 26 days -- Petitioner is involved in 2 other cases, however, he is not involved in any other case under NDPS Act – Bail allowed.

(Para 7, 8)

Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890), Section 25 -- Custody of child – Interaction through video conferencing -- Child is living with his mother in Ireland and seems to be settled there -- It would not be in his interest to disturb that arrangement at this stage – Every child has a right to the affection of both parents -- Even if parents live apart or in different countries, it is important for the child to maintain a relationship with both of them --  Appellant’s request for video interaction is reasonable -- It balances the reality of the child’s present living situation with the need to ensure that the father remains a part of the child’s life – Interaction with son through video-conferencing for two hours on every alternate Sunday from 10.00 AM to 12 noon (Ireland time) allowed.

(Para 6-11)

Constitution of India, Article 136, 226 -- Disciplinary proceedings – Constable in CISF -- Appellant was issued an out-pass to enable him to visit the hospital between 10:00 AM to 12:00 noon on that day -- Instead of visiting the hospital, the appellant was found at the residential colony at a distance about 12 kms from his Camp – Appellant admitted that he had visited the residential colony to enquire about the quarters allotted to another constable -- He was confined by the civilians at the residential colony and it was only after the arrival of his superior, he was permitted to go – Appellant had indulged in some unwarranted activity by which the civilians were agitated thereby affecting the reputation of the Force amongst the civilians -- Penalty as modified by the Appellate Authority of reducing his pay-scale by one stage for a period of two years and depriving him of any increment during the period of reduction was found to be commensurate with the wrong committed – Not a fit case to exercise discretion under Article 136 -- Appeal dismissed.

(Para 4, 5)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A – Cruelty – Demand for dowry in any form is itself sufficient for Section 498-A of IPC being attracted – Demand made in any form either by the husband or by the relative of the husband would also attract Section 498-A of IPC – Even if the demand exhibits the conduct that would likely to drive the said woman being unable to bear such conduct would attract Explanation (a) – Likewise, harassing of a married woman with a view to coercing her or her relative to meet any unlawful demand would also fall within the mischief of the expression ‘cruelty’.

(Para 8)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A – Cruelty – Complainant/ father of deceased stated that deceased used to tell them during her visit to the paternal home that her mother-in-law used to comment on her sarcastically for dowry -- There is not even a word with regard to any dowry demand having been raised by the appellant – Mother admits that married life of her daughter was happy and cordial and at the time of marriage there was no demand for dowry -- She infact admits at the time of marriage her son-in-law had told that he has no demand of dowry -- Evidence of PW-2 that is the brother of the deceased is in line with the evidence tendered by his mother PW-3 – Conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and the sentence imposed on her cannot be sustained – Appeal allowed.

(Para 9-11)

East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 42, 44 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9, Order 7 Rule 11, Order 47 Rule 1 -- Consolidation scheme – Challenge to -- Jurisdiction of Civil Court -- Decision of the Consolidation Authorities was earlier assailed in the Civil Writ Petition -- Findings recorded in Civil Writ Petition were assailed through SLP and that SLP was also declined by Hon’ble Apex Court -- So in case subsequently some fact emerged whereby it was found that the entire facts were not brought before the Court then the correct approach was to approach the Hon’ble Apex Court -- When respondents/ plaintiffs were having efficacious remedy of review before them, the Civil Court cannot be clothed with the jurisdiction -- Filing of this suit is certainly barred in view of the provisions of Section 44 of the Act, 1948 – Application for rejection of plaint allowed.

(Para 12-14)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 8 Rule 1 -- Non-filing of written statement -- Defence struck off – Discrimination between defendants – Permissibility of -- Defendants no. 1 & 2 not filed written statement despite time granted under Order 8 Rule 1 of the CPC -- Learned Civil Judge without providing any reason or explanation, chose to strike off the defense of the petitioner/ defendant No.1, while simultaneously granting defendant No.2 an additional opportunity to file their written statement – Held, it is blatant discrimination between the two defendants without any justifiable reason -- Such an order is manifestly illegal, and it reflects a grossly improper exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Civil Judge -- Impugned order set aside, revision petition allowed.

(Para 3)

Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 33, 35 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 63, 65 -- Validation of photocopy of document – Permissibility of -- Only original document can be validated not a photocopy of the document -- In cases, where parties are allowed to lead secondary evidence even then photocopy cannot be validated.

(Para 7)

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)