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

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

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

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

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

(Para 7-9)

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

(Para 16)

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

(Para 18, 19)

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

(Para 20-23)

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

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

(Para 2, 4.13, 18)

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

(Para 4.5)

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

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

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

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

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

(Para 4.17)

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

(Para 4.21, 4.22)

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

(Para 1, 9, 10)

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

(Para 5)

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

(Para 7-9)

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

(Para 2, 11, 11.1, 17)

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

(Para 11, 15)

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

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

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

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

(Para 12, 30-36)

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

(Para 7.1, 7.3, 9)

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

(Para 1, 3-8)

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

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

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

(Para 21)

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

(Para 1, 7)

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

(Para 7)

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

(Para 2, 3, 12-14)

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

(Para 9-12)

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

(Para 9-18)

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

(Para 4)

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

(Para 8, 9)

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

(Para 13, 46)

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

(Para 80-89)

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

(Para 39, 49-51)

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

(Para 45)

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

(Para 11, 12)

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

(Para 50)

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

(Para 36, 51-53)

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

(Para 5-7)

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

(Para 1, 11, 12)

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

(Para 9-11)

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

(Para 13)

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

(Para 17, 18)

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

(Para 11)

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

(Para 41)

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

(Part 31)

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

(Para 3, 31, 32)

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

(Para 3-7)

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

(Para 6)

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

(Para 5, 8, 9)

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

(Para 14)

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

(Para 18-21)

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

(Para 7)

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

(Para 10)

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

(Para 4, 5)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Benefit of increments withdrawn from employee – Recovery of -- Petitioner is working as SS Master, which is a Class-III Post -- Benefit of the increments given in the year 2011, withdrawn in the year 2021 after a period of ten years – Held, no recovery can be made from the petitioner -- Any recovery done from the petitioner be refunded back to him within a period of eight weeks.

(Para 6-9)

A. Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (23 of 1940), Section 22, 27, 32 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 – FIR under Drugs Act -- Quashing of FIR -- Police did not have the powers to register an FIR or even conduct an investigation concerning offences u/s 27 of the 1940 Act -- FIR quashed.

(Para 10-15)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 – Cheating -- Deliberate false representation with an intent to deceit, leading to the delivery of property, is an essential requirement to attract mischief of an offence u/s 420 of IPC -- Statements u/s 161 of the Cr.P.C. indicates that the petitioners offered injections at inflate prices without a valid licence aiming to deceive them -- However, there are no allegations of delivery or sale of actual property -- Thus, the essential elements to attract an offence under Section 420 of the IPC are missing – FIR quashed.

(Para 7, 15)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41 Rule 27, Section 100 – Application for additional evidence – Decision upon – Mandate of -- When an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is moved during pendency of the appeal, it is incumbent on the part of the appellate Court to consider the same at the hearing of the appeal on merits so as to find out whether the documents for evidence proposed to be adduced have any relevance/ bearing on the issues involved or not -- Appellate Court directed to dispose of the application in accordance with law and then decide the appeal accordingly.

(Para 9, 10)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Dismissal from service – Acquittal in criminal case – Right to re-instatement -- In departmental proceedings petitioner found guilty of misappropriation of 80 Urea bags and embezzlement of Rs.29,656/- and award was passed against petitioner – No appeal/ revision filed against by petitioner – Held, acquittal from criminal proceedings does not automatically entitle an employee to reinstatement -- No ground to interfere with impugned dismissal order.

(Para 2-4)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41, Order 42 Rule 1 – Appeal against appellate decree – Procedure -- Order XLI of the Code would apply to the appeals from the appellate decrees also, as contemplated in Rule-1, Order XLII of the said Code.

(Para 11)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41 Rule 25, 27 – Appeal – Procedure -- Appellate Court cannot create a new case for the party, frame the issues and decide the issues without following the procedure contemplated under Order XLI of CPC.

(Para 12)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41 – Appeal – Pleadings – It is well-settled principle of law that the Court cannot create any new case at the appellate stage for either of the parties, and the appellate court is supposed to decide the issues involved in the suit based on the pleadings of the parties.

(Para 14)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304B, 498A – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106, 113B -- Dowry death – Presumption – Onus of proof -- Deceased subjected to harassment and cruelty and death occurred within seven years of marriage sustaining 100% burn injuries inside her matrimonial home -- Onus was on the appellants/ accused to establish that it was not a dowry death -- Section 106 of the Evidence Act also put burden on the appellant no.1-husband who went to sleep with her in the same room, but escaped unscathed to explain as to how the death had occurred -- High Court arrived at the rightful conclusion reversing the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court and in convicting and sentencing the appellants.

(Para 7-10)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 216 -- Charge-sheet can be amended/altered at any stage before pronouncement of judgment -- Either prosecution or accused can file application for amendment of charge and in case Court comes to conclusion that charge required to be amended then Court can suo moto amend charge-sheet at any stage before judgment is pronounced.

(Para 6)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420 – Criminal breach of trust – Cheating -- Charge-sheet u/s 420 of IPC cannot be framed simultaneously along with offence u/s 406 of IPC.

(Para 7)

Constitution of India, Article 21, 226 -- Medical reimbursement -- Unapproved hospital -- Partial reimbursement at PGI rates – Son of the petitioner is handicapped, also a mentally challenged person suffering from severe abdominal pain/ emergency condition, shifted to the unapproved hospital and on the date of admission, he was operated upon and was discharged on the next day – Held, it would be inhuman to say employee should keep on searching the list of approved hospitals and should first go to an approved hospital or a government hospital by ignoring the developing pain and at the risk of life -- It would be not only perverse but it will also be violative of Right to Life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Writ petition allowed -- Respondents directed to pay full medical reimbursement.

(Para 8-10)

A. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 25FF – Transfer of Undertaking/ Company – Retrenchment compensation – Requirement of -- In case service of the workman is not interrupted by such transfer and terms and conditions of service applicable after such transfer are not in any way less favourable to the workman and new employer is legally liable to pay to the workman, in the event of his retrenchment compensation on the basis his service has been continuous, there shall be no requirement of notice u/s 25-FF of the Act nor any compensation in lieu of retrenchment  -- Three conditions specified in the proviso are to be satisfied -- Employees can claim compensation against the transfer, if the three conditions remain unsatisfied.

(Para 16-20)

B. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 2(k) – Industrial dispute – Transfer of Undertaking -- Petitioner-company while making its worker apprised of the factum with regard to proposed transfer/sale, specifically assured workmen of the petitioner-company that upon transfer they would become workmen/employees of HFL-transferee company with continuity of service on the conditions which in aggregate would be similar and in any case would not be less favourable to the existing conditions on which they are employed with the petitioner -- No dispute exist interse petitioner and its workers – Merely by submitting demand notice, respondent-union cannot be permitted to claim that “industrial dispute” exist interse petitioner and workmen.

(Para 25-28)

C. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 2(k), 10(1) -- Industrial dispute -- Demand Notice – Reference – Duty of Authority -- Appropriate Government, while considering/ making reference in terms of Section 10(1) of the Act, requires to apply its mind to ascertain whether industrial dispute, if any, exists or not – Firstly, authority needs to form an opinion that industrial dispute exist, only thereafter, it can proceed to make reference -- Authority cannot delve into the merits of the dispute, but before arriving at a conclusion that industrial dispute exist, if any, in the parties, authority needs to form an opinion on the basis of material adduced on record by the parties.

(Para 29-38)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Writ – Delay and laches – Seniority list challenged after 13 years – Petitioner is seeking entitlement to agitate his belated claim on the strength of directions issued by the Court in other case -- Assertion of petitioner that he has a fresh cause of action for filing the instant petition after judgment cannot be sustained -- Unexplained delay and laches in invoking Article 226 jurisdiction has repeatedly been held to be a serious impediment for grant of relief -- Claim of the petitioner suffers from delay and laches and cannot be entertained – Writ dismissed.

(Para 11-23)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 20, 29 – NDPS -- Acquittal – Recovery of 1.25 kg of Charas in random check – As per Logbook entry, the police party was traveling during the relevant point of time towards a different destination -- This is also the evidence of DW-1 and 2 -- DW-1 is the SHO and DW-2 was the driver of the official vehicle -- All the witnesses belonged to the police department -- No independent witnesses to support the case of the prosecution -- Even the undisputed document marked and the statement given by the two police witnesses do not support the case of the prosecution -- Conviction set aside and the appellants acquitted.

(Para 5-9)

East Punjab Evacuee’s (Administration of Property) Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 4, 6 -- East Punjab Displaced Persons Land Re-settlement Act, 1949 (Act 36 of 1949), Section 9 – Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (31 of 1950), Section 12 – Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (XVI of 1887), Section 5(1)(a) -- Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 (8 of 1953), Section 2(f), 3 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Lease by Muslims before independence of India – Occupancy rights – Jurisdiction of civil court -- Plaintiffs were already in possession of the suit property much prior to the 1947 Act -- It is not case of State/ defendants-appellants that they ever took possession of the property in dispute by following the procedure as laid down in Section 6 of the Act -- As possession was never taken from the plaintiffs by following the procedure as laid down in Section 6 of the 1947 Act, therefore, said possession cannot be held to have become unauthorised.

-- Nothing on record to suggest that lease in favour of the plaintiffs was ever terminated by the custodian, in whom the property had been vested by virtue of Section 4 of the 1947 Act, by following the procedure laid down in Section 9 (2) of the 1949 Act -- It is not the case of the defendants-appellants that the present case fails under any of the categories mentioned at (a), (b) and (c) of Section 12 of the 1950 Act and as such, it is held that Section 12 of the Central Act of 1950 or Section 9 of the 1949 East Punjab Act did not affect the rights of the plaintiffs/ respondents as tenants on the suit land.

-- Plaintiffs being in possession of the suit land at least since 1914-15, without paying any rent to the owners and paying only the land revenue and cesses and the entry in the revenue record being “Bashra Malkan Bewajah Derina Kast”, therefore, there can be no doubt in holding that plaintiffs had acquired the occupancy rights.

-- Plaintiffs having acquired the occupancy rights in the suit land vested with the ownership rights in view of the provisions of Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietory Rights) Act, 1952.

-- It is only the Civil Court alone, which would have jurisdiction over the issue as to whether a person had acquired occupancy rights or not, and consequent to the acquiring of the occupancy rights, whether the ownership rights had vested in him or not.

(Para 13-27)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 16 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Schedule - Article 54 -- Specific performance of contract – Limitation -- In the agreement dated 17.12.1989, it is specifically mentioned that the sale deed would be executed within one month from the date of the said agreement -- One month would expire on 16.01.1990, limitation period would be three years from the said date, which would expire on 16.01.1993 – Suit filed  in September, 1993 -- Suit liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation alone – Advance of Rs. 80,000/- ordered to be returned to the plaintiffs along with 12% simple interest.

(Para 9-12)

Constitution of India, Article 14, 16 -- Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1992, Rule 11 – Unequal promotion Quota – Principle of Intelligible defferentia -- Impugned Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Deputy Director provide for 60% quota to the Principals promoted from the cadre of Headmasters and 40% to the Principals promoted from the cadre of Lecturers for being placed as Deputy Directors – No reasonable classification to the extent of providing unequal quota to the Principals promoted from the cadre of lecturers and Principals promoted from the cadre of Headmasters is in clear violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution -- Rule 11 as amended in 2005 quashed to that extent.

(Para 12, 17-20)