Civil Procedure - Injunction - Onus of Proof - Permanent injunction sought by plaintiffs to restrain defendant from interfering with possession of suit land - Onus to prove possession on date of suit and alleged dispossession during suit lies on plaintiffs - Plaintiffs failed to establish possession and took contradictory stands - Appeal partly allowed, suit dismissed concerning constructed portion, injunction granted for remaining land. Held, possession at suit's institution date must be proved by plaintiffs, which they disproved through contradictory pleadings - Remedy lay in seeking possession suit, not injunction. [Paras 26-35]

Civil Procedure - Appellate Court Findings - Whether first appellate court misread evidence and failed to comply with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC - Appellate court misread evidence and did not comply with mandatory requirements of Rule 31 - Trial court's dismissal of suit upheld for constructed portion of land. Held, appellate court misread evidence, trial court's findings on possession upheld - Decree for mandatory and prohibitory injunctions set aside for constructed portion. [Paras 37-39]

Role of Statutory Presumption - Revenue records showed plaintiffs as owners in possession - Presumption of correctness attached to revenue records unless rebutted by equal evidence - Contradictory stands by plaintiffs rebutted presumption. Held, statutory presumption under Section 44 of Punjab Land Revenue Act attaches correctness to revenue records, but rebutted by plaintiffs' contradictions. [Para 33]

Decision - Partly allowing appeal, appellate court's decree set aside, trial court's dismissal of suit concerning constructed portion upheld - Appellant restrained from interfering with plaintiffs' possession over remaining suit land. [Paras 40-41]

Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - Rash and Negligent Driving - Preponderance of Probabilities

Compensation for Fatal Accident - Preponderance of Probabilities – Deceased suffered fatal injuries in an accident involving a school bus, remained under treatment for five months, and eventually died – Tribunal awarded Rs. 37,400/- but did not link death to accident injuries due to lack of post-mortem – Held, in claim petitions, preponderance of probabilities is sufficient, not proof beyond reasonable doubt – Death linked to injuries from the accident – Tribunal's observation on absence of post-mortem not a valid ground to reject claim – Award enhanced to Rs. 11,62,369/- including future prospects, loss of estate, consortium, and funeral expenses. [Paras 29-30, 32]

Practical and Humane Approach in Compensation Awards – Tribunals should adopt a practical and humane approach while adjudicating compensation claims – Technicalities should not overshadow the beneficial legislation meant to provide relief to victims and their families – Emphasis on sensitivity towards victims' circumstances. [Para 30]

Decision: Appeal allowed, compensation enhanced to Rs. 11,62,369/-. Respondents to pay the remaining balance within six weeks, with adjustments for any amount already paid. [Paras 32-33]

Stamp Duty - Deficiency - Time Limit for Action by Sub-Registrar

Deficiency in Stamp Duty - Reference by Sub-Registrar – Petitioners exchanged their land in Jodhpur for land in Sonepat – Transfer deed registered without objection, mutation sanctioned – Sub-Registrar raised objection and made reference for recovery of deficient stamp duty and registration fee more than 7 months after registration – Held, Sub-Registrar becomes functus officio after registration and handing over of documents – Action taken after substantial delay not permissible – Reference and orders for recovery set aside. [Paras 5-7]

Judicial Precedent - Applicability of Section 47-A – Reference made to the case of Zile Singh v. Commissioner, Hisar Divn., Hisar – Court reiterated that reference under Section 47-A(1) must be made immediately upon registration if value affixed for stamp duty is less than market value – Delayed reference not valid. [Paras 6-7]

Decision: Petition allowed. Reference dated 24.6.2014/7.8.2014 and orders dated 22.3.2016 and 20.5.2016 set aside. [Para 7]

Family Law - Divorce by Mutual Consent - Extension of Statutory Period

Extension of Period Under Section 13-B(2) of Hindu Marriage Act – Joint petition for divorce by mutual consent filed – Appellant-wife received Rs. 7 lakhs out of agreed Rs. 15 lakhs at first motion – Respondent-husband failed to pay remaining Rs. 8 lakhs within statutory period due to financial constraints – Trial Court dismissed petition as infructuous after 18 months expired – High Court held that the period under Section 13-B(2) is directory, not mandatory – Order of Trial Court set aside – Case remanded for recording second motion statements if parties are willing – Appeal allowed. [Paras 8-11]

Judicial Discretion in Extending Statutory Period – Both parties reiterated intention to live separately and confirmed receipt of entire settlement amount – Mutual consent for divorce remained despite delay – Circumstances justified extension of statutory period for recording second motion statements – Court's discretion to extend period upheld in light of Supreme Court's interpretation in Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur. [Paras 8-10]

Decision: Appeal allowed, Trial Court's order set aside. Both parties to appear before the lower court on 15.09.2018 for recording second motion statements. [Para 11]

Civil Procedure - Amendment of Plaint - Determining Real Question in Controversy

Amendment of Plaint for Inadvertent Omission – Petitioner sought to amend plaint to include details of an additional piece of land omitted inadvertently – Trial Court dismissed the application due to a delay of over three years and lack of explanation – Held, although petitioner was not diligent, amendments to determine real questions in controversy should be allowed – Amendment necessary for full and complete justice – Amendment allowed with costs of Rs. 25,000/-. [Paras 12-15]

Judicial Discretion and Amendment in Pleadings – Court emphasized the principles of allowing amendments necessary to determine the real question in controversy – Amendment should not be refused due to inadvertence or negligence – Reference made to the Supreme Court's decision in Abdul Rehman v. Mohd. Ruldu for guiding principles. [Para 13]

Decision: Revision petition allowed. Trial Court's order set aside. Petitioner permitted to amend the plaint. [Paras 14-15]

Service Law - Post-Retiral Dues - Interest on Delayed Payment Interest on Delayed Post-Retiral Dues – Petitioner claimed interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits – Held, delay caused due to petitioner’s failure to complete formalities – No intentional or willfuldelay by respondents – Petitioner not entitled to interest on delayed payments – Tribunal's finding upheld. [Paras 8, 12]

Service Law - Pensionary Benefits - Counting of Ad Hoc Service

Counting of Ad Hoc Service for Pension – Petitioner served ad hoc in Punjab Engineering College before regular service in Chandigarh Administration – Resigned with permission to take new appointment – Rule 3.17-A(5) of Punjab Civil Services Rules applicable – Service in Engineering College to be counted towards pension – Tribunal’s judgment on this issue found erroneous and quashed. [Paras 15, 19, 21]

Decision: Writ petition allowed in part. Tribunal's judgment quashed insofar as it denied counting of service in Engineering College towards pension. Respondents directed to recalculate pension and disburse arrears within three months. [Paras 23-24]

Property Law - NRI Landlord - Eviction under Section 13B- Owner Definition under Section 13B – Petitioners challenged respondent's status as the owner, claiming absence of a conveyance deed – Held, ownership as per transfer letter from Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority suffices – Ownership for over five years established – Tenant estopped from challenging landlord's title under Section 116 of the Evidence Act – Petitioners' argument devoid of substance. [Paras 13, 13(a)]

Bona Fide Requirement of NRI Landlord – Respondent-landlord did not appear personally but was represented by brother via General Power of Attorney – Brother cross-examined, answered all relevant questions – No adverse inference drawn from respondent's non-appearance – Landlord entitled to choose to start business from main premises rather than basement – Tenant cannot substitute their opinion for landlord's bona fide requirement. [Paras 14-17]

Decision: Revision petition dismissed, eviction order upheld. [Paras 18-19]

Mining Law - Surrender of Mining Contract - Refund of Security - Surrender of Mining Contract Due to Infeasibility – Petitioner awarded mining contract through e-auction, deposited security amount, and granted LoI – Survey revealed 50% of the mining area was unsuitable due to afforestation, commercial establishments, cultivation, tube wells, and cremation grounds – Petitioner sought to surrender contract – State refused, ordered forfeiture of security – Held, State must ensure land offered for mining is feasible and conforms to area measurements – Ambiguity in land identification leads to disputes – Surrender justified as 50% of area incapable of mining – Petition allowed. [Paras 3-5, 21-25]

Obligations of State in Mining Contracts – State required to identify and survey land offered for mining, ensuring it is suitable for intended purpose – Failure to do so, particularly involving private land with significant obstructions, is unjustifiable – Reference to Supreme Court ruling in M/s Planet Steel Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana emphasizing State's responsibility to ensure accuracy in area measurement for mining contracts. [Paras 14-15, 20-24]

Decision: Petition allowed. Impugned order set aside. Petitioner’s request for surrendering the mining contract accepted. Respondents directed to refund the security amount to the petitioner. [Paras 25-27]

Criminal Law - Corporate Criminal Liability - Vicarious Liability - Vicarious Liability and Role of Bank in Criminal Complaint – Complaint filed against petitioner, Recovery Manager of HDFC Bank, alleging misappropriation and damage of a machine taken into possession by the bank – Bank not arrayed as accused – Held, vicarious liability, if any, is of the bank, which is not accused – Petitioner, as bank employee, signed settlement on behalf of the bank – No specific allegations against petitioner regarding entrustment or dominion over the machine – Complaint against petitioner not maintainable. [Paras 14(a), 14(b), 14(g)]

Civil Nature of Dispute - Ingredients of Criminal Breach of Trust Not Made Out – Complainant filed civil suit for mandatory injunction for return of the machine in good condition – Civil suit dismissed – Dispute predominantly civil in nature – No allegations that petitioner dishonestly misappropriated or converted property for his use – Bank repossessed machine due to loan default – Offense under Section 406 IPC not made out. [Paras 14(c), 14(d)]

Decision: Petition allowed, criminal complaint and summoning order quashed. [Para 15]