Land Law - Partition Proceedings – Challenge under Article 226 to partition proceedings under Section 118 of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 – Petitioner and another company 100% subsidiaries of Emaar-MGF Limited – Petition for consolidation of partition applications rejected as entities are separate corporate bodies – Argument of inequity and lack of contiguity dismissed – Consolidated chunk provided, adequate access available – Orders of Revenue Authorities upheld – Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-9]

Corporate Entities in Partition – Analysis – Separate partition applications cannot be consolidated if parties are distinct entities – Petitioner's argument for consolidation based on corporate relationship rejected – Legal principle that each corporate body is a separate entity upheld. [Paras 7]

Implementation of Mode of Partition – Held – Mode of partition required consolidated chunk for parties with other land – Petitioner's interpretation for contiguity rejected – Consolidated chunk provided as per mode – Access issue dismissed, site plan shows adequate road connectivity. [Paras 8]

Judicial Precedents – Reference to judgments affirming that non-identical parties' partition applications cannot be consolidated – Partition mode compliance and provision of access validated by site plan. [Paras 7-8]

Decision – Dismissal of Petition – Challenge to partition proceedings and final partition rejected – Orders of Revenue Authorities upheld – Petition lacks merit, dismissed. [Paras 9]

SARFAESI Act - Transfer of Property - Writ Petition for NOC – Property mortgaged to bank and sold under SARFAESI Act – Sale certificate issued and registered by Sub Registrar – Chandigarh Housing Board’s refusal to issue NOC and record the transfer held untenable – No statutory provision allowing refusal – Sale complete upon registration – Petition allowed, Housing Board directed to issue NOC and record transfer within 4 weeks. [Paras 1-36]

Sale Certificate and Property Transfer – Analysis – Held – Property sold under SARFAESI Act and sale certificate issued free from all encumbrances – Registration by Sub Registrar completes sale – Third party decree for recovery of money cannot impede transfer process – No statutory basis for Housing Board’s refusal to issue NOC. [Paras 25-34]

Decision – Issuance of NOC and Recording of Transfer – High Court finds Housing Board’s refusal arbitrary and illegal – Writ of Mandamus issued to grant NOC and record property transfer in petitioner’s name – Petition allowed, transfer to be completed within 4 weeks. [Paras 35-36]

Negotiable Instruments – Dishonour of Cheque – Section 139 NI Act – Section 4 Indian Evidence Act – Presumption of Legally Enforceable Debt – Whether absolute – Held: Presumption under Section 139 NI Act is rebuttable – Complainant must prove pre-existing liability and legally enforceable debt – Failure to produce cogent evidence by complainant – Burden of proof not discharged – Acquittal upheld as complainant failed to establish debt or liability beyond reasonable doubt. [Paras 1-16]

Rebuttable Presumption – Burden of Proof – Sections 118, 139 NI Act – Evidence Act Section 4 – Presumption under Section 139 NI Act requires credible evidence by complainant – Accused can rebut presumption by showing probable defence – Absence of evidence of financial capacity to lend amount in question – Acquittal justified due to complainant's failure to substantiate claims. [Paras 4-11]

Decision – Acquittal Upheld – Appeal dismissed – No cogent and convincing evidence by complainant to establish enforceable debt – Judgment of acquittal by trial court upheld due to lack of substantive proof from complainant – No illegality or perversity in trial court's judgment. [Para 16]

Criminal Law – Dishonor of Cheque – Sections 138, 139 NI Act – Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. – Legally enforceable debt – Presumption in favor of holder – Failure to reply to legal notice – Accused's failure to respond to legal notice does not automatically assume acceptance of liability – Held: Presumption under Section 139 is rebuttable – Accused successfully rebutted presumption by raising doubt about financial capacity and existence of debt – Conviction and sentence set aside. [Paras 1-27]

Financial Capacity and Burden of Proof – Legal Notice – Section 138, 139 NI Act – Failure of complainant to prove financial capacity to lend amount in question – Burden shifts to complainant to show transaction and enforceable debt – Discrepancies in complainant's evidence regarding capacity and absence of proof of income – Accused's denial and plausible explanation sufficient to rebut statutory presumption. [Paras 4-25]

Decision – Acquittal – Conviction and sentence under Sections 138, 139 NI Act set aside – Accused acquitted – Complainant failed to establish pre-existing liability and financial capacity – Burden of proof not discharged by complainant. [Paras 26-28]

Criminal Law – Unnatural Offence and Aggravated Sexual Assault – Sections 377 IPC and 10 POCSO Act – Conviction based on minor victim’s testimony – Section 377 attracted where penetration occurs on any part of the body, predominant intent must be sexual – Absence of external injury marks on the victim’s body not sufficient to disprove the offence – Victim’s young age and inability to resist due to overpowering by older boys considered – Held: Conviction upheld as the absence of injury does not negate the offence – Testimony of the child reliable and credible. [Paras 1-27, 30-32]

Child Testimony – Credibility – Assessment – Section 377 IPC and 10 POCSO Act – Victim’s testimony considered credible despite absence of corroborative medical evidence – Courts emphasize the reliability and trustworthiness of the child’s account – Judicial precedence supports reliance on child testimony if it is convincing and consistent – Prosecution not required to establish violent resistance for offence under these sections. [Paras 13, 19-20, 27-29]

Decision – Conviction and Sentence Upheld – Petition dismissed – Courts below rightly convicted the petitioners for offences under Sections 377 IPC and 10 POCSO Act – The judgment found valid, legal, and in accordance with the law without any perversity. [Paras 33, 37]

Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint – Civil Revision against Trial Court's Order dismissing application for rejection of suit under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC – Suit challenging decree dated 20.05.1986 alleging fraud and claiming coparcenary rights under amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act – High Court holds no existing coparcenary post-severance of shares in 1986 decree – Ingredients of fraud not specifically pleaded – Held, the suit is barred as the cause of action is illusory and vexatious – Trial Court's order set aside, application under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC allowed, plaint rejected. [Paras 1-7]

Hindu Succession Act - Coparcenary Rights – Analysis – Held – Amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act confers coparcenary rights to daughters from 25.12.2004 – Decree of 1986 resulted in severance of coparcenary status – No coparcenary existed post-1986 for the plaintiff to claim rights – Claims of fraud unsubstantiated as per Order VI, Rule 4 CPC. [Para 4-5]

Decision – Rejection of Suit – Court finds the trial court's dismissal of the application under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC unsustainable – Suit dismissed as it does not disclose a cause of action – Petition allowed, plaint rejected. [Para 7]

Criminal Law – Abetment to Suicide – Sections 34, 306 IPC – Petition to Quash FIR – Alleged abetment by threats in February 2019, suicide in May 2019 – Necessity of proximate and live link between threats and suicide – No evidence of contact or threats post-February 2019 – FIR quashed as no direct or indirect act of instigation proven. [Paras 1-27]

Abetment Requirements – Legal Standards – Section 306 IPC – Section 107 IPC – Abetment requires intention and direct act to instigate or aid suicide – Mere mention in suicide note insufficient without evidence of instigation – Precedents emphasize mens rea and proximate cause – Petition allowed, FIR quashed. [Paras 12-26]

Decision – Quashing of FIR and Subsequent Proceedings – Petition allowed – FIR No. 62 dated 16.05.2019 under Sections 306 and 34 IPC quashed along with subsequent proceedings including the report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. – Absence of live link between alleged threats and suicide, no mens rea or direct instigation established. [Paras 26-27]

Constitutional Law – Premature Release of Convict – Articles 14, 226 – IPC Sections 302, 452, 34 – Cr.P.C. Sections 432, 433 – Conviction post-policy change – Determination of applicable policy for premature release – Policy at the time of conviction to be applied – Policy dated 13.08.2008 applicable for conviction in 2009, superseding earlier policy dated 12.04.2002 – Held: Policy prevalent at the time of conviction governs premature release – Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-14]

Statutory Interpretation – Policy Supersession – Premature Release – Policy dated 13.08.2008 supersedes policy dated 12.04.2002 – Policy issued under statutory provisions of Cr.P.C. has statutory force – Supreme Court precedent affirms applicability of policy at time of conviction – Petitioner's argument for application of earlier policy without merit. [Paras 4-13]

Decision – Premature Release Denied – Petition dismissed – Impugned orders upheld as they correctly applied the policy in force at the time of conviction – Policy dated 13.08.2008 considered appropriate for cases post-2008. [Paras 12-14]

Partition Law – Mode of Partition – Civil Revision Petition against the trial court's order rejecting the Local Commissioner’s report and appointing a new Local Commissioner – Trial court’s action of reopening the determination of ownership shares and inviting evidence on the same issue – Held, improper and contrary to established legal principles – Trial court directed to proceed with the Local Commissioner’s report and finalize the decree without disturbing the possession of any other co-sharer unless they have made a specific request for partition – Fresh suit for partition suggested for respondents desiring separate possession. [Paras 1-10]

Determination of Ownership Shares – Analysis – Trial court's error in reopening the determination of ownership shares and possession for respondent No. 1 – Held – Preliminary decree already determined petitioner’s share – No other co-sharer, including respondent No. 1, made any claim for separation of their shares – Partition proceedings to be limited to granting possession to the petitioner without reopening ownership issues. [Paras 5-10]

Final Decree Proceedings – Process and Limitations – Held – Final decree preparation is a ministerial act focused on implementing the preliminary decree – Judicial adjudication is limited to ancillary issues – Court below’s action in reframing issues for ownership and possession at this stage is improper – Reliance on Supreme Court judgment in Shub Karan Bubna vs. Sita Saran Bubna emphasized. [Para 8]

Decision – Order of Trial Court Set Aside – Revision petition allowed – Direction to proceed with Local Commissioner’s report for preparation of final decree – Possession to be handed over to the petitioner as per his entitlement. [Para 10]