Civil Law – Amendment of Pleadings – Order 6 Rule 17 CPC – Suit filed in 1995 based on major settlement RoR – Amendment sought in 2025 to introduce consolidation plot number for plaintiffs’ land alone – High Court held that such amendment at argument stage without including defendants’ corresponding plot from consolidation records would cause prejudice – Held: Amendment not essential for adjudication and likely to complicate proceedings – Impugned order allowing amendment set aside [Paras 2–9]

Pleadings – Principles Governing Amendment – Reference to Chakreshwari Construction case – Court reiterated that amendments must not fundamentally alter the nature of the case or prejudice the opposite party – Amendment must be necessary, bona fide, and non-prejudicial – Proposed amendment failed on these counts – Suit can be adjudicated on basis of original settlement records alone [Paras 6–9]

Delay and Procedural Fairness – Suit delayed due to remand after decree – No explanation for belated amendment – Consolidation RoR came into effect during pendency but was not relied on earlier – Selective reference to new land records without matching updates for both parties held unfair – Amendment termed unnecessary and likely to trigger further procedural complexity [Paras 5–9]

Decision: Civil Miscellaneous Petition allowed – Order dated 09.10.2025 passed by Gram Nyayalaya allowing amendment set aside – Amendment application rejected

Civil Law – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Scope – Rejection of Plaint – At the stage of deciding application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only averments contained in the plaint are to be considered – Defence of the defendant or disputed questions of fact cannot be examined – Issues requiring evidence cannot be decided summarily [Paras 6–7].

Rent Control – Ejectment Petition – Alleged Prior Vacation of Premises – Tenant pleaded that premises were vacated prior to filing of ejectment petition – Landlord denied said assertion – Held: Whether tenant had vacated premises is a pure question of fact requiring evidence – Cannot be a ground for rejection of rent petition under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Paras 2, 6].

Commercial Courts Act – Section 6 – Applicability – Eviction Proceedings – Dispute arising out of landlord-tenant relationship, even relating to commercial premises, does not fall within definition of “commercial dispute” under Section 2(1)(c) of Commercial Courts Act – Eviction proceedings under Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act not barred or transferred to Commercial Courts [Paras 3, 8].

Jurisdiction – Rent Controller – Exclusive Jurisdiction – Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 is a special statute creating exclusive forum – Rent Controller has jurisdiction to entertain eviction petition irrespective of residential or commercial use of premises [Para 8].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Limited Interference – High Court will not interfere with interlocutory orders unless patent illegality or perversity shown – Application under Order VII Rule 11 found to be filed only to delay proceedings – No ground made out for interference [Paras 6, 9].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition Dismissed – Order dated 19.11.2025 dismissing application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC upheld – Rent proceedings to continue in accordance with law – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 9–10].

Criminal Law – Bail – NDPS Act – Arms Act – Wildlife Offences – Grant of Bail in Multi-offence FIR – Prolonged Custody – Petitioners Rinku Thapar and Divyam arrested in connection with FIR alleging recovery of drug money, arms, wildlife articles, and narcotics – Petitioners in custody for over one year and two months – Charges framed, but trial yet to commence – 42 witnesses cited, no prior criminal record – Held: Bail granted considering prolonged incarceration, completion of investigation, and parity with co-accused [Paras 2, 6, 7, 11]

NDPS Act – Section 21(c) – Recovery Below Commercial Quantity – Effect on Bail Consideration – From petitioner Divyam, only 381 grams of charas recovered – Less than commercial quantity of 1 kg – Bail plea considered favourably due to lesser offence severity under NDPS Act [Para 10]

Arms and Wildlife Protection Act – Recovery From Co-accused – No Independent Recovery From Petitioner – Bail Not Barred – From petitioner Rinku Thapar, arms, wildlife articles, and cash recovered – However, no recovery of narcotics – Bail granted in absence of bar under Section 37 of NDPS Act and considering lack of past criminal record [Paras 6(viii), 10]

Criminal Procedure – Delay in Trial – Bail Justified – 42 prosecution witnesses yet to be examined – Trial expected to be prolonged – Petitioners not involved in other cases – No purpose served by continued incarceration – Bail granted [Paras 7, 11]

Bail – Parity with Co-Accused – Co-Accused Already Granted Bail – Seven co-accused granted regular bail earlier by High Court – Petitioners’ case found on parity – Bail granted on equal footing [Para 6(vii)]

Decision: Regular bail granted to petitioners Rinku Thapar and Divyam – Ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing bail/surety bonds to satisfaction of Trial Court – Trial Court to proceed independently and expeditiously.

Service Law – Regularization – Daily Wage / Casual Employees – Long Continuous Service – Forest Department, Haryana – Petitioners engaged as casual labour / daily wagers since around year 2000 – Services illegally terminated – Labour Court awards directed reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages – Awards upheld by High Court and attained finality – Petitioners sought regularization under Haryana Regularization Policies dated 01.10.2003 and 10.02.2004 – Claims rejected by Department citing lack of sanctioned posts, non-compliance with recruitment rules, alleged breaks in service and withdrawal of policy – Held: Petitioners entitled to consideration and regularization [Paras 2–3, 16–42].

Labour Court Award – Continuity of Service – Legal Effect – Restitutio ad Integrum – Award of reinstatement with continuity of service is not symbolic but restores employee to uninterrupted service for all consequential benefits – Employer estopped from disputing length or nature of service after judicial affirmation – Continuity obliterates illegal termination and condones breaks not attributable to employee – State cannot indirectly nullify binding judicial determinations [Paras 17–22].

Regularization Policy dated 01.10.2003 & 10.02.2004 – Accrued and Crystallised Rights – Policy prescribed eligibility of daily wage Group-D employees completing three years’ service as on 30.09.2003 with 240 days’ work per year – Petitioners fulfilled all substantive conditions while policy was in force – Withdrawal of policy in 2007 cannot retrospectively extinguish accrued rights – Right to consideration stood crystallised once eligibility conditions were fulfilled [Paras 23–38].

Uma Devi Doctrine – Scope and Limitations – Misapplication by State – Ratio in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi aimed at preventing illegal backdoor appointments – Not intended to deny regularization to employees with long uninterrupted service under State’s knowledge – Distinction between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments emphasized – Mechanical reliance on Uma Devi to defeat parity-based and policy-based claims deprecated [Paras 39–56].

Parity and Non-Discrimination – Articles 14 & 16 – Hostile Discrimination – Petitioners demonstrated that similarly situated and even junior employees were regularized by the Department – State failed to show intelligible differentia – Selective denial of benefit held arbitrary and discriminatory – Equality clause mandates similar treatment to similarly placed employees [Paras 43–49].

Legitimate Expectation – Welfare State Obligation – Model Employer Doctrine – Long continuation of service under State creates legitimate expectation of regularization – State as model employer cannot exploit vulnerable workforce by keeping them perpetually temporary – Withdrawal of beneficial schemes cannot defeat legitimate expectation where State’s inaction caused delay [Paras 33–34, 62].

Delay and Laches – Non-Communication of Rejection Order – Impugned order dated 13.11.2020 never communicated to petitioners – Petitioners gained knowledge only during contempt proceedings – Delay attributable to State – Doctrine of laches inapplicable where impugned action not disclosed to affected party [Paras 64–65].

Creation of Posts – Judicial Restraint – Direction Limited to Policy Consideration – Court reiterated it cannot direct creation or sanction of posts – However, State bound to act fairly within existing policy framework – Direction issued to regularize petitioners under 2003–2004 Policy without compelling creation of posts [Para 65].

Decision: Writ petitions allowed – Orders rejecting regularization set aside – Respondents directed to regularize petitioners under Regularization Policy dated 01.10.2003 as amended on 10.02.2004 – Regularization to be granted within one month – Petitioners entitled to all consequential benefits including arrears with interest @ 6% per annum – Pending applications disposed of.

Taxation Law - Income-tax – Reassessment – Assessment Year 2015–2016 – Notices issued under Section 148 after 01.04.2021 invoking TOLA – Validity – Petitioner challenged notice issued under Section 148 pursuant to reassessment proceedings initiated after introduction of Section 148A – Assessing Officer relied on extension of limitation under TOLA and judgment in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal – Held: For A.Y. 2015–2016, reassessment notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 are barred by limitation in view of amended Section 149 – Revenue conceded before Supreme Court that such notices cannot survive – Notices issued during extended period under TOLA declared invalid [Paras 2–5, 9, 17].

Income-tax – Reassessment Procedure – Section 148A(b) and 148A(d) – Effect of Ashish Agarwal decision – Notices originally issued under old regime between 01.04.2021 and 30.06.2021 deemed to be notices under Section 148A(b) – Subsequent orders under Section 148A(d) and fresh notices under Section 148 issued in July 2022 – Held: Even after following procedure under Section 148A, reassessment is impermissible if limitation under Section 149 has expired – Procedural compliance cannot cure substantive bar of limitation [Paras 3, 5, 16].

Limitation – Section 149 – Interaction with TOLA – Assessment Year 2015–2016 – Three-year limitation expired on 31.03.2019 and six-year period expired on 31.03.2022 – TOLA cannot revive dead and time-barred proceedings – Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal conclusively held that reassessment for A.Y. 2015–2016 after 01.04.2021 is impermissible – Same principle reiterated in Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. – Applied and followed [Paras 8–10].

Judicial Precedent – Binding Nature of Supreme Court Concession – Revenue’s categorical concession before Supreme Court that all notices for A.Y. 2015–2016 issued on or after 01.04.2021 must be dropped – High Court bound to apply law declared and concession recorded by Apex Court – Impugned notice quashed accordingly [Paras 9–11, 17].

Decision – Petition allowed – Impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act for Assessment Year 2015–2016 quashed and set aside – Reassessment proceedings held to be invalid and time-barred – Petition disposed of.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – Public Servant – Abuse of Position – Petitioner, a former Tahsildar, accused of illegally and hastily converting forest land for industrial use without due compliance of rules and forest clearance – Allegations supported by official enquiry and statements under Section 161 CrPC – Held: No mala fide in registration of FIR – Disciplinary exoneration cannot override findings in criminal proceedings – Petition dismissed [Paras 1, 6, 13–14, 19–22]

Corruption – PC Act – Section 13(1)(d) – Dishonest Intent – Petitioner argued that he acted in good faith relying on Revenue Inspector’s report and gained no pecuniary advantage – Court held: Conversion order passed with undue haste before bifurcation of Tahasil; lack of direct pecuniary benefit irrelevant when favour is conferred without public interest – Prima facie case made out for trial – No grounds for quashing [Paras 5, 15–16, 18]

Criminal Procedure – Standard of Proof – Disciplinary Proceedings vs Criminal Prosecution – Petitioner exonerated in departmental proceedings on ground of good faith – Court held: Disciplinary findings not binding on criminal court – Proceedings based on separate legal standards – No bar on continuation of trial [Paras 6, 19, 21]

Forest Conservation Act – Section 3B – Liability of Government Officials – Petitioner as Tahsildar held liable for illegal conversion without prior forest clearance – Held: Conversion granted without due diligence and verification; allegations support culpability under FC Act – No ground to interfere under Section 482 CrPC [Paras 2–4, 18]

Inherent Powers – Abuse of Process – Delay in Trial – Petitioner claimed continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of court’s process – Court held: Long pendency alone not ground for quashing where material indicates commission of cognizable offence – Trial to proceed expeditiously [Paras 13, 22–24]

Decision: Petition under Section 482 CrPC dismissed – FIR, chargesheet and pending proceedings in Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No. 53 of 2010 (TR Case No. 08 of 2018) to continue – Trial Court directed to conclude proceedings expeditiously.

Motor Vehicles Act – Injury Compensation – Enhancement – Permanent Partial Disability – Reassessment of Income – Application of Multiplier Method – Claimant aged 23 years, final year engineering student, sustained fracture of left scapula with brachial plexus injury resulting in 25% permanent partial disability – Tribunal awarded compensation based on minimum wages – High Court held that mechanical adoption of minimum wages is impermissible where claimant is academically qualified with clear future earning potential – Monthly income reassessed at ₹20,000 – Future prospects @ 40% added – Multiplier of 18 rightly applied considering age – Loss of future earning recalculated on basis of functional disability – Award enhanced substantially [Paras 9–16, 27].

Disability – Functional Impact – Loss of Earning Capacity – Disability percentage certified by doctor cannot automatically be equated with loss of earning capacity – Court must assess functional disability having regard to nature of injuries, profession, age and prospects – Claimant’s upper limb movement compromised permanently – Tribunal erred in undervaluing impact of disability on future earning – Functional loss assessed at 15% for computation of future income loss [Paras 6, 18, 27].

Non-Pecuniary Damages – Pain and Suffering – Loss of Amenities – Human Dignity – Permanent disability not only causes physical impairment but also lifelong pain, mental agony and loss of dignity – Claimant hospitalized and suffered permanent weakness of limb not likely to improve – Tribunal awarded meagre amount – Following Supreme Court jurisprudence, pain and suffering enhanced to ₹3,00,000 – Separate compensation awarded for loss of amenities of life [Paras 16–20, 26–27].

Attendant Charges – Requirement of Assistance – Reasonable Lump Sum – Claimant suffered grievous injuries requiring assistance in daily activities – Tribunal failed to grant adequate attendant charges – Though disability not 100%, claimant entitled to reasonable attendant expenses – Attendant charges awarded as lump sum ₹30,000 keeping in view age, disability and nature of injuries [Paras 21–22].

Loss of Marriage Prospects – Young Claimant – Non-Pecuniary Loss – Claimant was 23 years old at time of accident – Tribunal failed to consider impact of permanent disability on matrimonial prospects – Loss of marriage prospects recognized as distinct head of compensation in injury cases – Award of ₹2,00,000 granted under this head as just and reasonable [Paras 23–25, 27].

Transportation, Special Diet and Future Medical Expenses – Inadequate Award by Tribunal – Tribunal awarded meagre or no amounts under these heads – High Court enhanced compensation towards transportation, special diet and future medical expenses considering prolonged treatment and continuing disability [Paras 26–27].

Interest – Rate – Exclusion of Delay Period – Enhanced compensation directed to carry interest @ 9% per annum from date of filing of claim petition till realization – Period of delay of 388 days in filing appeal excluded from interest computation as undertaken by appellant – Insurance Company directed to deposit amount within two months [Paras 28–29].

Recovery Rights – Insurer’s Liberty – Insurance Company granted right to recover enhanced compensation from owner and driver of offending vehicle in accordance with Tribunal award [Para 29].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Award dated 30.04.2024 modified – Total compensation enhanced to ₹16,67,200 – Enhanced amount payable ₹11,16,200 with interest @ 9% per annum (excluding delay period) – Directions issued for deposit, disbursement and recovery.

Matrimonial Law - Maintenance pendente lite – Section 24 HMA – Non-earning wife residing at parental home – Absence of ITRs and expense bills – Effect of Rajnesh guidelines – Prior MoU cannot override statutory right – Interim maintenance upheld – Appeal dismissed [Paras 16–25].

Maintenance – Pendente Lite – Section 24 HMA – Nature and object – Proceedings are summary in nature – Intended to provide immediate financial support to dependent spouse during pendency of matrimonial litigation – Court to take a prima facie view on available material and husband’s admitted income – Hyper-technical insistence on documents cannot defeat substantive right of maintenance [Paras 16–17, 24].

Maintenance – Guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha – Scope and applicability – Requirement of income affidavits and ITRs aimed at transparency and preventing concealment of income – Non-earning spouse or spouse with income below taxable limit not mandatorily required to file ITRs – Absence of ITRs, in such cases, corroborates claim of nil income rather than disproving it – Family Court not bound to insist on impossible compliance [Paras 16(i), 23].

Maintenance – Assessment of wife’s independent income – Bank transactions and savings – Isolated transaction and existence of mutual fund investments insufficient to infer steady or sufficient income – Financial assistance or transactions with family members natural when wife resides at parental home after separation – No proof of gainful employment or regular income placed on record – Maintenance cannot be denied on conjectures [Paras 18–20].

Maintenance – Prior settlement / MoU – Effect – Agreement entered years prior to litigation cannot override statutory right under Section 24 HMA – Maintenance pendente lite depends on present needs of wife and child and husband’s capacity to pay – Alleged MoU does not bar court from awarding interim maintenance, particularly when wife alleges coercion and circumstances have changed [Para 21].

Maintenance for child – Supervision over utilisation – Request for joint bank account – Held, issues relating to guardianship, custody or supervision fall outside scope of appeal against order granting maintenance pendente lite – Appellate court not required to introduce custodial oversight while determining quantum of interim maintenance [Para 22].

Appellate interference – Interim maintenance orders – Scope – Unless order is shown to be illegal, perverse or arbitrary, appellate court will not interfere – Family Court’s assessment based on husband’s admitted income and needs of wife and child found reasonable – No perversity or illegality established [Paras 23–25].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Interim maintenance order upheld – All interim orders vacated – Appellant directed to clear arrears within one month – Pending applications closed [Paras 25–26].

Criminal Law - NIA Act – Section 21 – Appeal against order framing charge – Maintainability – Held: order framing charge is interlocutory for purposes of appeal under NIA Act – appeals dismissed as not maintainable – remedy lies under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS [Paras 1–20].

Criminal Procedure – National Investigation Agency Act – Section 21 – Appeal – Scope – Expression “judgment, sentence or order, not being an interlocutory order” – Interpreted in light of scheme and object of NIA Act – Held: “order” refers to final orders capable of appellate scrutiny on facts and law – Not intermediate orders such as framing of charge [Paras 15–18].

Charge – Framing of – Nature of order – Though treated as “intermediate order” for purposes of revision under Section 397 CrPC, such classification not applicable while interpreting appellate provision under Section 21 NIA Act – Order framing charge does not finally determine rights and proceedings continue till conviction or acquittal – Hence interlocutory for appeal under NIA Act [Paras 11–12, 16–18].

Statutory Interpretation – Purposeful interpretation – NIA Act enacted to ensure expeditious investigation and trial of scheduled offences affecting national security – Bar on revisions and limited appellate remedy intended to avoid delay – Permitting appeals against charge-framing orders would defeat legislative intent [Paras 13–16].

Appeal vs. Revision – Distinction – Jurisprudence on “intermediate orders” developed in context of revisional jurisdiction under CrPC (Amar Nath; Madhu Limaye) – Same concept cannot be bodily imported into appellate jurisdiction providing appeal “on facts and law” – At stage of charge, factual adjudication impermissible [Paras 8–12, 16].

Remedy of Accused – Availability – Though appeal under Section 21 NIA Act not maintainable, accused not remediless – Inherent jurisdiction of High Court under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS remains available to challenge framing of charge on limited grounds of abuse of process, lack of jurisdiction or manifest injustice [Paras 16–18].

Precedent – V.C. Shukla v. State – Constitution Bench – Order framing charge held interlocutory under Special Courts Act – Principles applied while interpreting Section 21 NIA Act – Appeal against charge-framing order not envisaged [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Appeals dismissed on ground of maintainability – All pending applications disposed of [Paras 19–20].