Criminal Law – Perjury – Sections 191, 193 IPC – Section 340 Cr.P.C. – Application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Concealment of employment and income – Wife joined as Assistant Professor before filing application – Held: Duty to disclose financial status to court – Concealment intentional and deliberate to obtain maintenance – High probability of conviction – Inquiry ordered under Sections 191, 193 IPC upheld – Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-14]

Duty of Disclosure – Maintenance Application – Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Applicant must disclose actual financial status – Failure to inform court about employment during proceedings – Interim maintenance granted based on false information – Explanation for non-disclosure found fallacious – Possibility of conviction high due to deliberate concealment. [Paras 9-11]

Judicial Precedent – Administration of Justice – Section 340 Cr.P.C. – Proceedings initiated for administration of justice – Importance of truthful disclosure in judicial process – False assertions undermine court's dignity and sanctity – Encouraging honesty in matrimonial litigation. [Paras 8, 12]

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Family Court’s order directing inquiry under Sections 191, 193 IPC upheld – Petitioner's explanation for non-disclosure rejected – Importance of honest disclosure emphasized – Petition dismissed with appreciation for counsel's arguments. [Paras 13-14]

Industrial Disputes - Retrenchment Permission – Writ Petition – Company sought permission to retrench 37 workers due to reduced demand during COVID-19 – Labour Commissioner failed to communicate decision within 60 days – Deemed permission granted under Section 25-N(4) – Court finds no infirmity in the deemed permission – Petition dismissed, legality of grounds for retrenchment not examined. [Paras 1-50]

Deemed Permission Provision – Analysis – Held – Supreme Court precedents affirm that if decision on retrenchment application not communicated within statutory period, permission is deemed granted – Deeming provisions unqualified, no exception for pending enquiry – Ensures constitutional validity of restrictions on retrenchment. [Paras 39-45]

Decision – Dismissal of Petition – Court upholds deemed permission for retrenchment due to non-communication within 60 days – Order dated 01.03.2021 stands – Petition dismissed, workers' remedy lies in raising industrial dispute for adjudication of merits. [Paras 45-48]

Appeal - Limitation – Letters Patent Appeal filed after 1496 days against the order of the writ court – Delay in filing not justified – Second appeal filed on the same judgment after the first appeal was dismissed due to non-removal of objections within the prescribed period – Filing a second appeal on the same cause of action is not permissible – LPA dismissed. [Paras 1-10]

Condonation of Delay – Application for condonation of delay – Insufficient explanation for delay of over 3 years and 5 months in filing the appeal – Failure to remove objections within the prescribed period of 40 days – No bona fide effort shown by the applicant – Negligent conduct disqualifies for indulgence – Application dismissed. [Paras 3-6, 9]

Rules of Court – Adherence to procedural rules – Rule 9, Chapter 1, Part-A, Volume V of Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules and Orders mandates removal of objections within 40 days – Failure to comply leads to dismissal of the appeal – Strict compliance required to avoid misuse and delay in litigation. [Para 4]

Merits of the Case – Challenge to the pay scale fixed at the time of initial appointment after 4 years of retirement – Writ petition filed with inordinate delay – Writ court dismissed the petition on merits due to lack of grounds – Appeal lacks merit both on procedural and substantive grounds. [Paras 8-10]

Decision – Dismissal of LPA – Both application for condonation of delay and main appeal dismissed – No interference with the impugned judgment of the writ court. [Para 10]

Land Acquisition - Amendment of Pleadings – Appeal against rejection of application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC – Amendment sought to challenge 1971 notification and 1979 award after 38 years – Held, such amendment at a belated stage impermissible – Original prayer clause inconsistent with new relief sought – Amendment application and writ petition dismissed. [Paras 1-21]

Provisions of Land Acquisition Acts – Analysis – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 inapplicable for proceedings concluded in 1979 – Land acquired for Amritsar Town's development – Amendment seeking compensation as per 2013 Act unjustified. [Paras 2, 12, 19]

Judicial Principles – Consideration of due diligence – Proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC mandates demonstration of due diligence for amendments post-trial commencement – Petitioners failed to show why challenge to acquisition not raised earlier – Application deemed misleading and misdirected. [Paras 13-17]

Doctrine of Delay and Laches – Emphasis on discouraging misuse of legal process – Amendments post significant delay without valid justification undermine legal certainty – Petitioners’ actions seen as abuse of legal process. [Para 18]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – No merit in applying 2013 Act provisions – Original acquisition process and subsequent award upheld – Amendment application rightly rejected by Single Judge – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 20-21]

Criminal Law – Discharge of Accused – Sections 6, 14(1-A), 14-A Employees' Provident Funds Act – Societies Registration Act – Section 245 Cr.P.C. – Accused alleged to have failed in paying employer’s contribution to Pension Fund – Burden on complainant to establish accused's responsibility for management and control of juristic entity – No evidence proving accused as office bearers or controlling affairs of the establishment – Held: Complainant must establish prima facie that accused were responsible for conduct of business – Accused discharged due to lack of evidence – No illegality in discharge order. [Paras 1-16]

Liability of Office Bearers – Juristic Entity – Establishing Control – Employers within meaning of Provident Funds Act – Principal of school identified as responsible authority, not included as accused – Owner of premises not deemed employer unless controlling establishment’s affairs – Burden primarily on complainant to show control by accused – Absence of such evidence leads to proper discharge under Section 245 Cr.P.C. [Paras 3-16]

Decision – Discharge Upheld – Petition dismissed – Trial Court’s order discharging accused upheld due to complainant's failure to prove accused’s responsibility over school’s affairs – No evidence to shift burden to accused. [Paras 15-16]

VAT Law - Input Tax Credit on Evaporation Loss – Appeals – Haryana Tax Tribunal allowed ITC on evaporation losses of petrol and HSD – State appealed citing Entry 5 of Schedule E – Tribunal's decision upheld – Full Bench finds petroleum products’ evaporation losses allowable under prescribed limits – ITC not to be reversed on such losses – Circumstances against Entry 5 inapplicable to petroleum products and natural gas – State’s appeals dismissed. [Paras 1-22]

ITC Entitlement – Analysis – Held – Petroleum Ministry allows 0.6% evaporation for motor spirit, 0.2% for HSD – Handling losses within limits not considered contravention – ITC available on tax paid to State on sold goods – Entry 1 of Schedule E not limited by Entry 5 conditions – Evaporation losses not disposal ‘otherwise than by sale’. [Paras 11-19]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeals – Appeals by State dismissed, confirming ITC entitlement on evaporation losses for petroleum dealers – No additional conditions imposed on Entry 1 goods – Statutory language and intent upheld. [Paras 20-22]

GST Law - Detention of Goods – Writ Petition – Alleged tax evasion due to minor discrepancy in quantity of copper goods in transit – Invoice and e-way bill showed 10430.7 kg, actual weight 10520 kg – Discrepancy less than 1% – Tax already paid Rs.12,76,717.68 – Claimed evasion Rs.11,000 – Petitioner offered to pay additional tax and penalty – Court finds no intent to evade tax – Discrepancy not contravention of GST Act – Writ petition allowed, proceedings under Section 129 quashed, refund ordered. [Paras 1-10]

Tax Evasion Intent – Analysis – Held – Minor weight discrepancy of less than 1% in consignment does not imply intent to evade tax – Significant tax amount already paid – Minor alleged evasion insufficient to justify detention and penalty under Section 129 – Fair stand by petitioner to pay even minor tax and penalty considered – Proceedings deemed inappropriate under circumstances. [Paras 8-9]

Decision – Quashing of Proceedings – Court quashes GST proceedings under Section 129 against petitioner – Orders refund of fine and penalty deposited by petitioner within 15 days – Goods already released, no further orders required. [Para 10]

Consolidation of Holdings - Correction of Errors – Petition under Article 226 challenging the order under Section 43-A of the 1948 Act – Consolidation Officer corrected a clerical error without notice to affected parties – Held, power to correct clerical errors does not exempt the requirement of notice to adversely affected parties – Audi alteram partem principle violated – Order set aside, fresh order to be passed after issuing notice and hearing all concerned parties – Petition allowed. [Paras 1-7]

Principle of Natural Justice – Analysis – Section 43-A allows correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes arising from accidental slip or omission – Correction adversely affecting a party cannot be made without notice – Adverse impact requires adherence to principles of natural justice, including the right to be heard. [Paras 4-6]

Judicial Precedents – Emphasis on ensuring natural justice even in statutory corrections – Orders affecting rights must consider audi alteram partem – Corrections not to be made unilaterally if they harm any party. [Para 6]

Decision – Petition Allowed – Order dated 06.11.2019 by Consolidation Officer set aside – Direction to issue notice and provide hearing before passing a fresh speaking order – Compliance with principles of natural justice mandated. [Para 7]

Criminal Law - Appeal Against Acquittal – Sections 392, 379-B IPC – Appeal by State challenging acquittal – Complainant's motorcycle and cash robbed at gunpoint – Complainant failed to identify accused, declared hostile – Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Trial Court’s judgment of acquittal affirmed – No substantial and compelling reasons to interfere – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-11]

Legal Principles for Appeal Against Acquittal – Analysis – High Court’s powers equally wide for appeals against conviction or acquittal – Presumption of innocence strengthened on acquittal – Appellate Court slow to disturb Trial Court’s factual findings based on oral evidence – Interference justified only for substantial and compelling reasons. [Paras 9, 10]

Evidence and Identification – Failure of complainant and witness to identify accused – No identification of currency notes or specific recovery linking accused to crime – Recovery of motorcycle insufficient to prove guilt without proper identification – Benefit of doubt rightly extended to accused. [Paras 4-6]

Judicial Precedents – Reference to Supreme Court guidelines on cautious approach in appeals against acquittal – Emphasis on non-interference unless Trial Court’s findings are perverse or grossly misappreciate evidence – Acquittal supported by failure to identify accused and lack of substantive evidence. [Paras 9, 10]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – No illegality, impropriety, or perversity in Trial Court’s judgment – Acquittal upheld – State’s appeal dismissed. [Paras 10, 11]