Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Abetment of suicide – Quashing of FIR/ Police report -- Illicit relationship of spouse -- Feeling upset or harassed on account of the illicit relations of a spouse and thereby committing suicide, in the absence of any positive act on the part of such spouse would not constitute abetment -- Apparently, a person of ordinary prudence would not have committed suicide in similar circumstances but the deceased did due to his hypersensitive nature -- FIR and the report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C. clearly do not disclose the commission of any offence by the petitioners -- FIR, the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom stand quashed.

(Para 12-17)

Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (25 of 1987), Section  2(j), 4, 24 – Tenant -- Fair rent – Determination of -- Expiry of lease – Power of Appellate Authority -- Respondent falls within the definition of ‘tenant’ and that the Rent Controller was having the statutory right to pass order on an application filed before it either by the tenant or the landlord for determination of fair rent -- Appellate Authority was to adjudicate the appeal within the parameters of the statutory provisions of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 and there was no occasion for it to traverse this Act and fall back on the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act.

(Para 11-16)

A. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971), Section 12 -- Civil contempt -- Civil contempt is punishable with imprisonment as well as fine -- Disobedience of the Court’s order strikes at the very root of the rule of law on which the judicial system rests -- Judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law -- Dignity and authority of the Court have to be respected and protected at all costs -- Otherwise, the very cornerstone of the Constitution scheme will give way and with it will disappear the rule of law and the civilized life in the society.

(Para 21)

B. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971), Section 12 -- Contempt of court – Duty of Advocate/ Law officer -- An Advocate being a Law Officer is required to conduct himself at all times as a gentleman and this conduct assumes greater significance before any authority vested with adjudicatory powers, when he/she stands to assist that authority -- It is expected that he would stand to augment the process of justice instead of acting in a manner which tends to obstruct the functioning of the authorities and administration of justice.

(Para 23)

C. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971), Section 12 -- Contempt of court – Law officer -- Unconditional apology was not at the first instance but is rather clearly an afterthought -- Affidavit filed before the Court has factually been proved to be wrong – Apology at this stage cannot be accepted -- An apology for contempt of court must be offered at the earliest since a belated apology hardly shows the “contrition which is the essence of the purging of contempt” – Even if the apology is not belated but the court finds it to be without real contrition and remorse, and finds that it was merely tendered as a weapon of defence, the Court may refuse to accept it -- Apology is conditional, because the respondent-contemnor is still contesting his claim before the HPERC that he had informed it about the order passed by this Court -- Contemnor convicted under Article 215 of the Constitution read with Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and sentenced to civil imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-.

(Para 24-34)

Constitution of India, Article 14 -- Deemed retirement – Rule of natural justice -- Petitioner’s date of birth ordered to be changed by Corrigendum dated 23.08.2014 as (1.6.1968) instead of (1.3.1965) in the tentative seniority list – Retirement date would be 31.05.2026, whereas petitioner retired on 28.02.2023 – No show cause was issued to the petitioner and she was not called upon to state or submit her response as to why she be not retired deeming her to superannuate w.e.f. 28.02.2023 -- Impugned notification is bad as it has been passed by the department without adhering to the principles of natural justice, quashed and set aside.

(Para 2, 6)

Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (46 of 1988), Section 3 – Preventive detention – Delay in decision of representation – Non-communication of – Effect of --  Respondents took almost three months to dispose of the representation of the petitioner – Reasons for withholding the decision for almost three months is absent -- Decision taken on the representation must be communicated to the detenue – Delay in disposal of the representation of the detenue seriously affects the valuable rights of the detenue -- Detention order quashed.

(Para 7-10)

Constitution of India, Article 22(5) -- Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (46 of 1988), Section 3 – Preventive detention of accused – Non-mentioning about bail in detention order – Non-decisioning on representation -- Effect of -- Non-mention about the grant of bail in the detention is serious lapse which in turn gives rise to the inference that there is non-application of mind – Right of detenue to prefer representation on his detention is a fundamental right enshrined under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India -- Non-consideration of the representation goes to core of the case -- Detention order quashed.

(Para 7-9)

Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 19 -- Recovery suit – Time barred debt -- Extension of limitation -- Part payment after expiry of limitation -- Last delivery of the goods took place on 04.07.1988 -- Period of three years would come to an end on 04.07.1991 -- Any payment alleged to have been made beyond the said period would not restart the limitation period u/s 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

(Para 8)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 5 Rule 20 -- Substituted service – Defendant residing aboard – Publication in local newspaper – Validity of -- Publication has to be in a daily newspaper circulating in the locality in which the defendant is last known to have actually and voluntarily resided or carried on business or personally worked for gain -- In plaint the address of the defendant is of Québec in Canada -- That being so, service by way of publication in the Bathinda Edition of the Tribune cannot in any manner be held to be valid service.

(Para 6)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Insurance company’s liability – False case and a hit-and-run case as ground – Eye-witness stepped into the witness box as CW1 and deposed qua the accident – CW2 reiterated the version of CW1 – No reason forthcoming for disbelieving the statements of the two eye-witnesses – Driver and owner of the Canter did not choose to step into the witness box to deny the averments on oath or to depose that the accident had not taken place – Appeal of Insurance company dismissed.

(Para 3-6)

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 62 – Usufructuary mortgage -- Redemption of Mortgage -- Suit for declaration that plaintiff had become owner of the suit land by efflux of time as mortgage deed was dated 23.12.1959 for a consideration of Rs.500/- and since the land has not been redeemed, hence, the plaintiff had become owner of the suit land by efflux of time – Held, suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable -- It is trite that once a mortgage always a mortgage and there would be no period for redemption for the same – Suit dismissed.

(Para 2, 9, 10)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 161, 299 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 33 -- Statement of complainant u/s 161 of Cr.P.C. – Exhibited by Investigation Officer – Accused/ appellant remained absconding for a period of nearly 10 years -- Complainant left his house where he used to reside earlier -- Despite ample efforts being made by the Investigating Agency to summon and examine complainant, he could not be traced out and produced in the witness box for deposition during trial after the accused had been arrested -- Viewed in light of the provisions of Section 299 CrPC read with Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the trial Court was justified in holding that the statement of complainant recorded in these proceedings was fit to be read as a piece of substantive evidence.

(Para 23, 38, 39)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 – Murder of wife -- Circumstantial evidence – Last seen together – Circumstances leading to murder were in the exclusive knowledge of the appellant -- He has offered no explanation as to the manner in which deceased was strangled to death within the confines of the room where only he and the deceased were present -- Bald plea of denial offered by the accused by way of an explanation to this gravely incriminating circumstance is not sufficient to absolve him of the burden cast upon him by virtue of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

(Para 46)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 -- Murder -- Incriminating circumstances -- Prosecution has established the following links in the chain of incriminating circumstantial evidence: (i) Motive; (ii) Last seen together; (iii) Medical evidence establishing that the cause of death of the deceased was homicidal. (iv) Confessional note; (v) Abscondence for nearly 10 years; (vi) Wrong explanation given by the accused in his statement under Section 313 CrPC; (vii) Failure of the accused to offer explanation for the homicidal death of his wife in the night time when only the accused and deceased were present in the house leading to the interference of guilt by virtue of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 -- Conviction of appellant confirmed – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 47-51)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 403, 420, 421, 425 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Quashing of FIR – Commercial transaction – Breach of contract -- Three hypothecated trucks not produced for inspection -- Rather disclosed that they had dismantled  and disposed of the same -- Said act prima facie, makes out a case u/s 421 and 425 of IPC -- At the stage of considering the quashing of the FIR, the Court is required only to look into the allegations made in the complaint/ FIR by taking them to be at their face value -- Mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings -- Both criminal and civil law remedy can be pursued – Quashing petition dismissed.

(Para 34-38)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Injury case -- Shortening of leg – Permanent disability of 10% -- Future prospects – Claimant/ injured 40 years old was doing work of shuttering in construction of buildings – Functional disability taken as 20% -- Accident of 2005, monthly income taken as Rs.3,000/- per month – 40% future prospects given – Loss of income comes to Rs.840/- per month -- Multiplier of 15 applied, loss of income assessed as Rs.1,51,200/-.

(Para 9-15)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Author of FIR not examined – Tribunal dismissed the claim petitions -- One of the passengers in the Tata-407 in her examination stated that Tata-407 was driven in a rash and negligent manner and further that tractor was also being driven in a rash and negligent manner which was coming from the opposite direction -- Both the vehicles collided and due to the heavy impact two ladies sitting on the tractor and one travelling in the Tata-407 died on the spot and that she along with other occupants suffered injuries -- Once the eye-witness of the accident was duly examined, there was no reason for the claim petitions to have been dismissed by the Tribunal --  Impugned awards set aside, matter remanded back to the Tribunal.

(Para 4-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 120-B, 147, 149, 188, 269, 270 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Murder – Regular bail – Petitioner name come in disclosure statement – No specific attribution or any overt act is attributed to the petitioner -- None of examined prosecution witnesses named the petitioner to be amongst the assailants – Petitioner in custody for the last 02 years 09 months and 28 days, though involved in various other cases as well -- Only 09 witnesses have been examined so far out of 54 witnesses -- Conclusion of trial is likely to take long time to conclude -- Material witnesses have already been examined – Bail allowed.

(Para 8-12)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Regular bail -- Alleged occurrence, in which the three occupants of the car had given beatings to deceased and injured fled away -- None of the petitioners are named in the FIR, complainant did not disclose in the supplementary statement about the source, by which he came to know about the participation of the petitioners in the crime – Nothing in status report that whether any of the petitioners have any connection with that car -- Material witnesses have already examined --  Petitioners in custody for the last 1 year 2 months and 13 days and none of them have any other criminal case pending against them -- Trial may take time to conclude – Bail allowed.

(Para 7-10)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 39 Rule 1, 2 & 3 – Temporary injunction – Notice to opposite party – Requirement of -- It is mandatory for the Court to direct notice of the application filed under Rules 1 and 2 of Order 39 to be given to the opposite party except where it appears to the Court that object of granting injunction would be defeated by delay -- Notice mandated under Rule 3 cannot be a mere formality -- It has to be reasonable notice and the opposite party is entitled to make itself response within reasonable period.

(Para 26)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 39 Rule 1, 2 & 3 – Interim mandatory injunction – Installation of electric connection as interim relief -- Ld. trial Court hastened to pass an interim order in mandatory form which in fact is peri-materia to the prayer as made in the main suit -- Impugned order does not record any reason as to what urgency was seen by the learned trial Court in passing the impugned order on the same day on which the application was filed -- Thus, there is serious non-compliance of Rule 3, Order 39 of the CPC and the manner in which learned trial Court has conducted itself definitely is not confirming to the basis principles of judicial procedure and propriety -- Impugned order set aside with direction to the parties to maintain status quo ante as on the date of passing of the impugned order with respect to the installation of electricity connection.

(Para 10, 26, 27)

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4, 6, 11, 18 – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), Section 24 – Lapse of acquisition of land under 1894 Act -- Award u/s 11 of the Act, was passed on 23.03.2007 and the reference petition u/s 18 of the Act was decided on 25.09.2013, whereas, the New Act came into force on 01.01.2014 – Even at the time of decision of the Reference Petition, by the learned Reference Court, New Act had not come into force -- Legislature, in its wisdom, has used the term ‘award’ u/s 11 of the Act, in Section 24 of the New Act -- The arguments, qua applicability of the New Act, regarding the land acquired, do not hold water, rejected.

(Para 26-29)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 39 Rule 1 & 2 – Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 16 -- Suit for specific performance – Interim relief -- Status quo -- Plaintiff seeking specific performance of contract against defendant No.1 -- Defendant No.1 had sold parts of suit land to defendants No.2 and 3/ during pendency of the suit proceedings -- Defendant No.1 had admitted the execution of the agreement in favour of plaintiff, but his case was that sale deed can be executed only after the partition of the suit land -- Balance of convenience and prima facie case existed in plaintiff’s favour -- To preserve the suit property and to avoid multiplicity of litigations, the order for maintaining status quo qua possession, alienation or creating further third-party interest in the suit land till the disposal of the suit was just and proper.

(Para 4)

A. Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 17(ii) -- Appointment of Lambardar – Hereditary claim -- Contended that the petitioner being son of the deceased Lambardar has hereditary claim to the post – Hereditary claim is unconstitutional, argument raised is without any force, rejected.

(Para 5, 6)

B. Punjab Land Revenue Act 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Choice of Collector -- Appointment of the Lambardar is prerogative of the Collector and even if there are two views possible, then the view taken by the Collector should not be discarded -- Collector is the prime authority for deciding the most suitable candidate for the post of Lambardar and his order cannot be interfered unless the same suffers from material perversity.

(Para 6, 7)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 11 -- Order 7 Rule 11 – Second application for rejection of plaint – Res-judicata -- Earlier application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC had been filed by the petitioner which had been dismissed by the trial Court, said order has attained finality -- Now this second application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the instant suit is barred as per provisions of Order 23 Rule 1(4) CPC -- Present application filed for same relief by moulding the averments cannot be accepted.

(Para 11-13)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 -- Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (45 of 1988), Section 4 – Rejection of plaint -- Benami property – Bar to recover benami property -- On a meaningful reading of the plaint, it cannot be ascertained as to whether the matter would be covered u/s 4 of the Benami Transactions Act -- Question whether the suit is barred u/s 4 of the Benami Transactions Act would be a matter of trial – Application for rejection of plaint dismissed.

(Para 1, 7)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 41(h) -- Suit for mandatory injunction for possession and registration of lease agreement -- Plaintiff-appellant had ample opportunity to file a suit for specific performance but failed to do so – Suit as well as First Appeal dismissed in view of bar of Section 41(h) of Specific Relief Act -- A duty is cast on a plaintiff to show and satisfy the Court that the suit brought by him is property constituted and maintainable in law – No illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgments and decrees -- Appeal dismissed.

(Para 3, 8-10)

Shamilat deh – Mutation -- Land pre-consolidation was shamlat deh -- Consolidation Authority had no right to partition the land amongst the proprietors and to allot the land to the plaintiff-appellants -- Argument that since there was a mutation in favour of plaintiff, hence, he had become legal owner of the plot also deserves to be rejected.

(Para 2, 11)

Insurance policy -- Repudiation of claim -- Non-disclosure of earlier policy -- Nothing on the record which proves that the plaintiff-appellant was debarred from taking the insurance with the defendant-respondents after getting the earlier insurance policy cancelled -- Not the case that the plaintiff-appellant was trying to recover his loss from both the insurance companies -- Not a case of double insurance -- Contention that the insurer is not liable to pay the damages and the policy is void due to concealment of material facts has no merit.

(Para 9)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 10 -- Stay of second suit – Mandatory nature of Section 10 of CPC -- The use of negative expression in Section 10 of the Code i.e. “no court shall proceed with the trial of any suit” makes the provision mandatory and the court in which the subsequent suit has been filed is prohibited from proceeding with the trial of that suit if the conditions laid down in Section 10 of the Code are satisfied.

(Para 5)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Summoning of additional accused – Procedure of -- Section 319 of Cr.P.C. becomes applicable, when during the trial after the filing of the challan and framing of the charge-sheet, evidence is presented indicating the involvement of a person, who was not initially charged by the police -- If the evidence establishes the person's complicity, the court may proceed to include them in the proceedings -- To apply Section 319 CrPC, evidence led should be such that it shows more than a prima facie case as is exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction.

(Para 11)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 341, 506, 379, 379-B, 356, 201, 34 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Snatching case -- Summoning of additional accused – As per the FIR version, the attribution to the petitioner is that he had caught hold of the petitioner -- Main accused and other assailants are attributed to be armed with weapons and having caused injuries -- There is no such attribution to the petitioner -- Apart from above, the FIR has already been quashed qua the main accused -- Merely on the basis of statement of PW1 made during trial, the trial Court was at fault in holding that there was more than a prima facie case so as to summon the petitioner -- Impugned summoning order set aside.

(Para 12-15)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 386, 120-B, 406, 420, 467, 469, 471 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Cheating – Extortion -- Regular bail -- Allegations against the petitioner are based upon the disclosure statement – He is in custody for the last 5 months and 22 days -- Although, he is involved in one more case, but has already been allowed bail -- Out of 14 witnesses cited by the prosecution, not even a single witness has been examined so far and thus, trial is likely to take long time to conclude -- The case is triable by Magistrate – Bail allowed.

(Para 5, 6)

Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (10 of 1953), Section 2(5-a) -- Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (26 of 1972), Section 12(3), 16 – Surplus land – Allotment thereof – Notice to subsequent purchaser – Requirement of -- Suit land declared surplus in the hands of big landowners way back in 1965 and had vested in the State of Haryana w.e.f. 24.01.1971, whereas plaintiffs-appellants purchased the suit land in May 1980 i.e. almost 15 years later than the declaration of the suit land as surplus -- Before making the allotment, simple effecting of the munadi in the village is sufficient u/s 16 of the Act so that the eligible allottees can put forward their claim -- As plaintiffs were not recorded as owners of the suit land, so it was not essential to issue them any such notice.

(Para 8-10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 279, 304A – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 133 -- Acquittal in motor vehicle accident case -- Statement of PW5-ASI, the Investigation Officer that notice u/s 133 of the M.V. Act was sent to the owner of the offending vehicle, who endorsed that offending vehicle was being driven by the appellant/ accused -- However, prosecution failed to examine the owner of the vehicle before the trial Court concerned – Held, statement made before the Investigating Officer cannot be accepted as a gospel truth – Conviction set aside – Petitioner acquitted.

(Para 10-14)

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 54 – General Power of Attorney/ GPA – Sale – Consent decree – Legality of -- Words ‘bay’ i.e. to sell is specifically mentioned in the GPA, which means attorney was authorized to sell, but by suffering the decree he did not sell the land and rather, he transferred the suit land in favour of his sons by admitting some purported family settlement -- Said decree did not amount to sale.

(Para 11, 12)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Parole for own engagement and marriage ceremony -- Petition allowed, petitioner granted parole for a period of two weeks.

(Para 1-5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 182, 199, 201, 203, 211 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 27 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 195, 482 -- Quashing of Challan/ Charge-sheet – Petitioner/ Complainant charge-sheeted in his own FIR -- Petitioner filed private complaint in which preliminary evidence has already been recorded – Not proper for the Investigating Agency to file the challan against the petitioner to prosecute him in the FIR, which was lodged on his own complaint instead of filing the cancellation report -- By not filing the cancellation report, petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to file protest petition -- Challan and Charge-sheet quashed.

(Para 11-19)

East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 21(2) – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Re-allotment of land – Objections -- Addl. Director Consolidation remanded the lis to decide objections u/s 21(2) of the Act – Consolidation Officer passed order, yet the aggrieved estate holder challenged the order in appeal before the Settlement Officer, who dismissed the said appeal – On petition of aggrieved party, Additional Director of Consolidation reversed earlier order -- Remedy to the aggrieved from earlier order  was before High Court or before the Civil Court -- Exercising of jurisdiction twice by the same authority on similar motions tantamount to the exercising of review jurisdiction, which is impermissible – Writ allowed, preserving liberties to access the Civil Court remedies.

(Para 3-9)

Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958, Rule 9, 14(c) – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Permanent parole – Overstay in earlier parole – Effect of – Conviction for life in offence u/s 148, 342, 458, 396, 397, 398 of IPC -- Jail conduct of the petitioner is satisfactory -- Petitioner has served the actual sentence for a period of more than 15 years, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for permanent parole as per Rule 9 -- Overstaying of the petitioner after being released on parole would not fall under Rule 14(c) -- Writ petition (parole) allowed -- Respondents directed to release the petitioner on permanent parole

(Para 2, 10, 11)

A. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 14(3), 15 -- Child in conflict with law -- Preliminary assessment – Time limit -- The provision of Section 14(3) of the Act, providing for the period of three months for completion of a preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Act, is not mandatory -- The same is held to be directory -- The period can be extended, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate or, as the case may be, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.

(Para 18(i))

B. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 2(20), 19, 101 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016, Rule 10, 10A, 11, 13 – ‘Children’s Court’ -- ‘Court of Sessions’ -- The words ‘Children’s Court’ and ‘Court of Sessions’ in Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and the 2016 Rules shall be read interchangeably -- Primarily jurisdiction vests in the Children’s Court -- However, in the absence of constitution of such Children’s Court in the district, the power to be exercised under the Act is vested with the Court of Sessions.

(Para 18(ii))

C. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 15, 101 -- Child in conflict with law -- Appeal – Limitation -- Appeal, under Section 101(2) of the Act against an order of the Board passed under Section 15 of the Act, can be filed within a period of 30 days -- The appellate court can entertain the appeal after the expiry of the aforesaid period, provided sufficient cause is shown -- Endeavour has to be made to decide any such appeal filed within a period of 30 days.

(Para 18(iii))

D. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 2(20), 14, 15, 18, 19, 17, 101 – Duties of Courts, Tribunals, Boards and the Quasi-Judicial Authorities -- In all the orders passed by the Courts, Tribunals, Boards and the Quasi-Judicial Authorities the names of the Presiding Officer and/or the Members who sign the orders shall be mentioned -- In case any identification number has been given, the same can also be added -- The Presiding Officers and/or Members while passing the order shall properly record presence of the parties and/or their counsels, the purpose for which the matter is being adjourned and the party on whose behalf the adjournment has been sought and granted.

(Para 18 (vii, viii))

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Removal from service – Leave encashment – Right of -- Leave encashment is admissible only at the time of retirement and not at any time before attaining the age of superannuation -- An employee, who has been removed from service, is not entitled for the grant of leave encashment – Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 7-11)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 104 – Accused at abroad – Proclaimed person -- At the time of issuance of proclamation u/s 82 of the Cr.P.C., the trial Court was fully conscious of the fact that the petitioner has gone abroad -- Trial Court at the first instance should have proceeded u/s 105 of the Cr.P.C. for effecting service upon the petitioner through German Consulate -- Date of appearance was short of 30 days statutory period -- Still further, the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person on date, which was not fixed for appearance – Held, declaration of petitioner as proclaimed person was wholly in violation of the statutory mandate laid down u/s 82 read with Section 105 Cr.P.C thereof – Petition allowed, impugned order set aside.

(Para 8)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Fake insurance policy – Onus of proof – Third party rights -- An application filed before SHO for initiation of action, nothing coming forth, about registration of the FIR or any other action taken, on the basis thereof -- Nothing on record, about the action taken by the insurance company against the agent, on account of questioned policy -- Insurance company failed to discharge its onus – Held, for all intents and purposes, this questioned policy, ought to be taken into consideration -- Moreover, the third party is not concerned in internal dispute between the insurer and the insured -- Claim can be maintained by third party i.e. the claimants against the insurer -- Award, casting liability on the insurer and providing to the insurer a right of indemnity, was justified.

(Para 12-14)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 391 -- Additional evidence at Appellate stage -- Certified copy issued by Private Bank -- Application for bringing on record the certified copy issued by the private bank -- Certified copy issued by the private bank is not per-se admissible, rather the same is required to be proved by way of evidence -- In the absence of any prayer for proving such document, even if application is allowed, such document would not be admissible as an evidence -- Application dismissed.

(Para 6, 7)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 34 -- Interpretation of contract – Scope of objection u/s 34 of Arbitration Act -- As far as the construction of the terms of a contract is concerned, it is for the Arbitral Tribunal to adjudicate upon -- If, after considering the material on record, the Arbitral Tribunal takes a particular view on the interpretation of the contract, the Court u/s 34 does not sit in appeal over the findings of the arbitrator.

(Para 13)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 16 Rule 10, Order 16 Rule 12 -- Closing of evidence -- Trial Court issued bailable warrants against some witnesses but did not take other coercive measure like issuance of non-bailable warrant, or attachment of property, or writing to the senior administrative officer to instruct the concerned witnesses to appear, so as to bring the case to its logical end by completing the proposed evidence of the parties – Held, trial Court completely faulted in its approach while closing the evidence of petitioner, causing great prejudice to him – Ld. trial Court directed to adopt all the measures as mandated under the provisions of Order 16 CPC and other provisions of the CPC – Revision allowed.

(Para 10-17)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420, 120-B – Constitution of India, Article 142 – Cheque bounce complaint / FIR -- Compounding of offence – No consent of complainant – Quashing of criminal proceedings -- Initially, both sides agreed to compound at the appellate stage but the appellant could not pay the amount within the time – Now appellant has paid the entire amount with interest – Appellant in jail for more than 1 year before being released on bail – Now no purpose to keep the proceedings pending – Transaction between the parties was purely civil in nature which does not attract criminal law -- Even though complainant is unwilling to compound, proceedings must come to an end – While exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, criminal proceedings in FIR and criminal appeals against conviction u/s 138 of the NI Act quashed and sentence awarded by the trial court set aside.

(Para 13-15)

A. Post Office Monthly Income Account Rules, 1987 -- Post Office Savings Bank General Rules, 1981 – Nominee/ survivor of joint account holder in Post office saving schemes – Legal heir’s right -- Once plaintiffs have been declared as Class-I LRs of deceased, as such, they have locus standi and cause of action to file the suit.

(Para 18(ii))

B. Post Office Monthly Income Account Rules, 1987 -- Post Office Savings Bank General Rules, 1981 – Nominee/ survivor of joint account holder in Post office saving schemes – Legal heir’s right -- Rules showed that in case of rival claims on the death of an account-holder, the post office shall discharge its liability by giving amount to the nominee(s) -- Likewise in case of ‘Monthly Income Scheme Account’ on death of a joint account holder, account will be treated single and surviving depositor is permitted to withdraw the access amount beyond the limit prescribed for single depositor -- These Rules do not provide that legal heir(s) is/are not entitled to the amount left by the deceased – Held, a nominee is a temporary custodian appointed by owner until succeeded by legal heirs -- Rights of a nominee are subordinate to those of beneficiaries of the law -- Since, plaintiffs have been declared as class-I legal heirs of deceased, therefore, they are entitled to lay claim over the amount left by the deceased in schemes and the saving account.

(Para 18(iii))

A. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 52 -- Doctrine of lis pendens -- Object underlying the doctrine of lis pendens is for maintaining status quo that cannot be affected by an act of any party in a pending litigation -- The objective is also to prevent multiple proceedings by parties in different forums -- The principle is based on equity and good conscience.

(Para 16)

B. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 1, 52 -- Doctrine of lis pendens – Applicability of -- By virtue of Section 1 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 the provisions of the said Act are not applicable in the States of Punjab, Delhi or Bombay; subject, of course to certain exceptions -- In the case of Kanshi Ram v. Kesho Ram, AIR 1961 P&H 299 the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that since the explanation to Section 52 is based on equity and good conscience this principle can be applicable -- Even if Section 52 of T.P Act is not applicable in its strict sense then too the principles of lis pendens, which are based on justice, equity and good conscience, would certainly be applicable.

(Para 17)

C. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 52 -- Doctrine of lis pendens – Pendency of a suit shall be deemed to have commenced from the date on which the plaintiff presents the suit -- Such pendency would extend till a final decree is passed and such decree is realised.

(Para 18)

D. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 52 -- Doctrine of lis pendens – Suit for permanent injunction was filed prior to the execution of release deed -- Since the release deed is executed after the suit for temporary injunction was filed by the appellant, the alienation made would be covered by the doctrine of lis pendens.

(Para 19)

E. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 41, 52 -- Doctrine of lis pendens – Bonafide purchaser -- Once it has been held that the transactions executed by the respondents are illegal due to the doctrine of lis pendens the defence of the respondents 1-2 that they are bonafide purchasers for valuable consideration and thus, entitled to protection under Section 41 of the Act of 1882 is liable to be rejected.

(Para 21)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 -- Amendment of plaint -- Power to allow an amendment is wide and may be appropriately exercised, at any stage, in the interest of justice -- All amendments are to be allowed, which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy, provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side and that, it is essential, to enable the Court to pin-pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision.

(Para 1, 12)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 -- Amendment of plaint -- Delay in applying for amendment, alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer.

(Para 1, 12)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17, Order 1 Rule 10 – Amendment of plaint – Plaintiffs intend to add on the parties -- In the plaint the description of the land not  mentioned --  Through proposed amendment, plaintiff want to make the mention of Khasra Number to make an addition of the parties to the suit – Held, addition of the parties cannot be allowed by way of amendment of the plaint -- For this, the plaintiffs are required to file an appropriate application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC -- Introduction of the Khasra number, at this stage, will change the basis of the suit – Application dismissed by Trial Court – Revision against that order dismissed.

(Para 13-16)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 – Additional evidence -- Section 311 Cr.P.C. confers wide power, the said power is to be exercised only for strong and valid reasons with great caution and circumspection.

(Para 8)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 65, 65B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311  -- Screen shots of mobile – Secondary evidence -- Copies of the  screen shots being secondary evidence is admissible in evidence subject to requirement of certificate as per provisions of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act -- Electronic documents ordered to be admitted in evidence subject to provisions of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act with liberty to the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant -- Evidentiary value and relevancy of the said electronic documents will be adjudicated by the learned trial Court at the time of final disposal of the case.

(Para 9)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Eviction of tenant -- Arrears of rent -- Assessment of provisional rent -- Tenant filed appeal against assessment order -- Said appeal was dismissed, parties directed to appear before learned Rent Controller on 09.11.2022 for further proceedings and order of ejectment passed by Rent Controller on the ground of non-payment of provisionally assessed rent – Held, Rent Controller was required to fix a date for payment of provisional rent assessed – Eviction order set aside, parties directed to appear before the Rent Controller and to pay the arrears of provisional rent assessed.

(Para 6-8)

A. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 46, 48, 49 -- Enforcement of foreign arbitration award – Bias -- Courts must endeavor to adopt international best practices instead of domestic standards, while determining bias -- It is only in exceptional circumstances that enforcement should be refused on the ground of bias -- Refusal of enforcement of foreign award should only be in a rare case where non-adherence to International Standards is clearly demonstrable.

(Para 26, 42)

B. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 46, 48, 49 -- Arbitral appointments – Challenge to -- Bonafide challenges to arbitral appointments have to be made in a timely fashion and should not be used strategically to delay the enforcement process.

(Para 29)

C. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 46, 48, 49 -- Enforcement of foreign arbitration award – Bias -- Award-debtors failed to substantiate their allegation of bias, conflict of interest or the failure by the Presiding Arbitrator to render disclosure to the parties, as an objection to the enforcement of the award – Also failed to meet the high threshold for refusal of enforcement of a foreign award under Section 48 of the Indian Arbitration Act -- Accordingly, the decision given by the High Court for enforcement/ execution of the foreign award stands approved – Appeal dismissed.

 (Para 43)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Split multiplier -- Deceased left with about one and a half year of service as on the date of the accident – Only argument of the appellant-Insurance Company that compensation ought to have been determined after applying the split multiplier method cannot be accepted – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 5-9)