Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Application for rejection of plaint - Limitation - Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell - Plaintiffs alleged extension of time for execution of sale deed and payment of additional consideration - Defendants contended suit barred by limitation - Plaint discloses extension of time and payment of consideration - Whether suit barred by limitation is a debatable question - Merits and demerits of matter not to be gone into at this stage - Averments in plaint to be considered - Suit not barred by limitation on a bare perusal of plaint - Application for rejection of plaint dismissed. [Paras 1-9]

Decision: Revision petition challenging the order dismissing the application for rejection of plaint is devoid of merits and accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. [Para 9]

Quashing of Bye-Election Notification – Writ Petition – Challenging validity of Election Commission’s notification for bye-election in Karnal Assembly Constituency – Held: Notification valid – Court finds no infringement of Representation of People’s Act or the Constitution – Writ petition dismissed. [Paras 1-36]

Constitutionality of Bye-Election Notification – Analysis – Considering proviso (a) to Section 151A of Representation of People’s Act, 1951 and Article 164(4) of the Constitution – Court holds that Election Commission can conduct bye-elections even if the remainder of the vacancy is less than one year. [Paras 14, 24, 30]

Interpretation of Section 151A – Held: The non-obstante clause in Section 151A does not bar bye-elections for vacancies with less than a year’s tenure remaining. Bye-elections serve the democratic principle of representation despite short tenures. [Para 20, 23, 25]

Application of Article 164(4) – Constitutional Provision – Mandate for a Minister/Chief Minister to become a legislative member within six months of appointment upheld. Validity of bye-election in Karnal Constituency affirmed, facilitating adherence to Constitutional mandate. [Paras 26-29]

Allegation of Discrimination by Election Commission – Dismissed – Court finds no discrimination in EC’s decision to proceed with bye-election in Karnal, distinguishing it from the situation in Akola West Assembly Constituency. [Para 31]

Public Expenditure and Representational Democracy – Held: Concerns about expenditure and short tenure not sufficient to invalidate the election process. The essence of a representative democracy upheld. [Para 33]

Decision – Writ petition challenging the notification for bye-election in Karnal Assembly Constituency dismissed. The Election Commission’s decision found to be in compliance with statutory and constitutional provisions. [Para 35]

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 19 – Conditional Order of Stay – Appeal against the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) requiring the petitioner to deposit the entire decretal amount for a stay. High Court holds that this condition is contrary to Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which stipulates deposit of either 50% of the amount or ₹35,000, whichever is less, for entertaining an appeal. [Paras 3, 4]

Procedure and Process – Mechanical Passing of Orders – Observation of the High Court on the mechanical passing of identical orders in different matters by the NCDRC, indicating non-application of mind. High Court expresses concern over identical templated orders in varying factual contexts. [Paras 5, 9]

Judicial Review – High Court's Power under Article 227 – Remand of Case – High Court exercises its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Sets aside the NCDRC’s order demanding 100% deposit of the decretal amount and remands the matter for reconsideration in light of the parties’ submissions. [Paras 1, 11]

Stay of Execution Proceedings – High Court's direction that the respondent shall not proceed with execution proceedings until the stay application is reconsidered by the NCDRC. The petitioner is directed to approach the NCDRC within two weeks. [Para 12]

Quashing of Impugned Letters – Grant of Non-Practicing Allowance (NPA) to Professors with MBBS Qualifications – Writ Petition against Jawaharlal Nehru University’s decision to stop NPA and recover past payments – Delhi High Court holds impugned letters quashed, NPA admissible to petitioners since their induction, University directed to pay arrears of NPA from January 2017 with interest if delayed. [Paras 1-33]

Eligibility for Non-Practicing Allowance – Analysis of Essential Qualification for Appointment as Assistant Professor – MBBS Degree Requirement – Court finds petitioners eligible for NPA based on their qualifications as MBBS doctors, upholds continued payment of NPA till date of entitlement. [Paras 21-27, 31-32]

Jurisdiction of Executive Council of University – Necessity for Rescinding or Modifying Previous Decisions – University’s unilateral decision without Executive Council’s resolution found invalid – Past payments of NPA not recoverable without appropriate decision from the Executive Council. [Paras 28, 31]

Decision – Restoring NPA to Petitioners – Delhi High Court directs Jawaharlal Nehru University to pay arrears of NPA from January 2017, failure to do so within 6 weeks to attract simple interest at 6% per annum. [Para 32]

Recovery of Arrears of Maintenance – Enforcement against Deceased's Estate – Criminal Revision Petition challenging the first appellate court's decision to allow recovery of maintenance arrears from deceased's assets – Trial court dismissed maintenance enforcement against deceased – Appellate court allowed recovery from deceased’s assets, including service benefits – High Court upholds recovery right, but sets aside interest awarded on arrears. [Paras 1-19]

Enforcement of Interim Maintenance Order Against Deceased's Estate – Legal Position – Held – Interim maintenance order can be enforced against deceased’s estate – Entitlement of the widow to recover arrears of maintenance from husband's assets reaffirmed – Maintenance arrears deemed recoverable from husband’s service benefits or assets inherited from him. [Paras 13-14, 17]

Interest on Maintenance Arrears – Legal Consideration – High Court sets aside 12% interest on arrears of maintenance awarded by the appellate court – Considered the financial position and circumstances of the mother-in-law (respondent No.3), who has not received any service benefits and is at an advanced age – Interest deemed not legally sustainable. [Paras 18-19]

Final Decision – Partial Allowance of Revision Petition – High Court partially allows revision petition – Confirms entitlement of petitioner for maintenance arrears but sets aside grant of interest – Judgment and order of first appellate court modified accordingly.

Alleged Non-Disclosure and Health Issues – Appellant's contention that respondent concealed her age and health condition; trial court finds lack of substantive evidence – Inadequate proof of respondent's pre-marriage surgery and health condition; appellant's claims uncorroborated by documents – Allegations deemed as cruelty towards respondent [Paras 3, 5, 30].

Allegations of Cruelty by Respondent – Claims of mental and emotional cruelty by appellant, including respondent's dominance, refusal of sexual relations, and extra-marital affairs – Trial court's observation on the lack of specific incidents or proof to substantiate appellant's claims – High Court finds appellant's allegations amount to cruelty [Paras 22, 34, 36].

Desertion and Property Disputes – Respondent's allegations of being forced out of the matrimonial home and property disputes – Appellant's failure to bring respondent back to matrimonial home or seek restitution of conjugal rights – Court concludes that respondent was compelled to stay at her parents' due to appellant's actions [Paras 37-38, 43].

Duration of Separation – Parties living separately since April 27, 2000 – Long separation underlines irreparable breakdown of marital bond; however, this doesn’t justify dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty or desertion by the respondent [Paras 29, 42-43].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court upholds the trial court's judgment dismissing the appellant's petition for dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty and desertion [Para 44].

Bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. – Petition for grant of regular bail – Offences under Sections 21/61/85 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Petitioner found in possession of 950 intoxicating capsules – Allegation of Tramadol Hydrochloride weighing 608 grams – Petitioner contends discrepancies in signature language on notice under Section 50 NDPS Act and FIR – Respondent asserts typographical error – Court refrains from delving into veracity of notice but acknowledges signature mismatch – Petitioner's first-time offender status and concluded investigation considered – Bail granted with stringent conditions. [Paras 1-11]

Interpretation of Notice under Section 50 NDPS Act – Mismatch in language of petitioner's signature – Respondent explains typographical error by investigating officer – Court refrains from adjudicating on notice's authenticity but notes discrepancy – Signature language inconsistency observed. [Paras 4-7]

Grant of Bail – Considerations – Petitioner's incarceration period, first-time offender status, and concluded investigation weighed – Bail granted with stringent conditions to prevent misuse and ensure trial attendance – No expression of opinion on case merits. [Paras 8-11]

Arbitration Agreement - Referral to Arbitration - Interpretation of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Petitioner sought reference to arbitration pursuant to an arbitration clause in the agreement governing their relationship - Trial Court rejected the application, citing failure to produce original or duly certified copy of the agreement - Petitioner contended that a duly certified copy of the agreement, attested by a Notary Public, was provided, fulfilling the statutory requirement - Held, Trial Court's refusal to refer the dispute to arbitration was erroneous - Section 8 mandates referral to arbitration upon satisfaction of specified conditions, including existence of an arbitration agreement and timely application by a party - Once prerequisites are met, Court has no discretion but to refer the parties to arbitration - Court must not delve into detailed analysis of agreement's terms, but ensure prima facie validity of arbitration clause - Compliance with Section 8(2) satisfied, rendering Court empowered to refer the matter to arbitration - Trial Court directed to refer the matter to arbitrator within specified timeframe - Revisional application allowed.

Live-in Relationship - Protection of Life and Liberty - Article 21 of the Constitution of India - Entitlement to Protection: The petitioners, involved in a live-in relationship, seek protection of their life and liberty. The court acknowledges the right to life and liberty as enshrined in the Constitution, including the freedom to choose a partner, whether through marriage or a live-in relationship. Live-in relationships, though not universally accepted, are recognized by law and individuals involved are entitled to equal protection under the law. The court emphasizes that no citizen can take the law into their own hands. [Paras 10-11]

Protection Granted Regardless of Legal Status of Relationship: Despite the legal status of the relationship being questioned and criminal cases registered against the parties, the court emphasizes the paramount consideration of protecting life and liberty. Protection is granted by the court without delving into the legality of the relationship, ensuring that individuals fearing harm receive necessary safeguards. [Paras 12-14]

Directions to Authorities: The court directs respondent no. 2 to consider the petitioners' representation regarding threat perception and to take appropriate action in accordance with the law. However, the order does not preclude the initiation of legal proceedings against the petitioners if warranted. [Paras 15-17]