Matrimonial Law – Divorce – Cruelty and Desertion – Appeal against dissolution of marriage by Family Court, Tiruchirappalli on grounds of cruelty and irretrievable breakdown of marriage – Appellant (wife) challenging the decree, arguing irretrievable breakdown not a ground under Hindu Marriage Act and contesting allegations of cruelty and desertion. [Paras 1-3, 6]

Evidence and Pleadings – Analysis of oral and documentary evidence by trial court – Husband's allegations of cruelty based on wife's accusations of illicit relationships – Trial court's decision based on allegations of mental cruelty and living separately for 12 years. [Paras 4-5]

Husband's Claims – Allegations of cruelty and desertion by husband – Reliance on wife's living separately and accusations of illicit relationships – Consideration of husband's cross-examination admissions. [Paras 6, 11-12, 16]

Wife's Defence – Counterclaims by wife for restitution of conjugal rights – Refutation of husband's allegations, emphasizing willingness to live with husband and denial of desertion or cruelty. [Paras 10, 13, 17]

Court's Findings – Rejection of husband's claims of cruelty and desertion – Recognition of wife's willingness to live with husband and challenges faced due to husband's actions – Husband's failure to prove cruelty or desertion in the manner required by law. [Paras 14-15, 17-18]

Judicial Error – Trial court's erroneous approach in handling wife's defense and pleadings – Misinterpretation of wife's statements as cruelty – Incorrect application of law by trial court. [Paras 14-15, 20]

Final Decision – Overturning Family Court's order of dissolution of marriage – Lack of substantiated evidence for claims of cruelty and desertion – Civil Miscellaneous Appeal allowed, setting aside the decree of dissolution of marriage. [Para 21]

Constitution of India – Articles 14, 15, 16, 19, 31, 35(a) – Equality and Non-Discrimination – Right to Freedom of Profession – The Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act, 2020 mandating 75% job reservation for local candidates in private sector is unconstitutional. The Act violates fundamental rights under Articles 14, 16, and 19, fostering discrimination based on place of birth or residence and unjustifiably restricting freedom of trade and profession. [Paras 33, 34, 40, 41, 70, 73, 74]

Discrimination – Place of Birth and Residence – The Act discriminates against citizens from other parts of India, violating Articles 14 (equality before the law) and 16 (equality of opportunity in public employment) of the Constitution. The concept of domicile or resident status for employment in private sector is against the constitutional mandate. [Paras 33, 34, 41, 43]

Freedom of Trade, Occupation, Profession, and Business – Article 19(1)(g) – The Act excessively restricts the freedom of private employers in engaging employees, infringing on the rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g). The imposition of reservation in private employment limits the choice of employers. [Paras 70, 73]

Doctrine of Basic Structure – The Act violates the basic structure of the Constitution by infringing on fundamental rights of equality and freedom of profession. It leads to fragmentation of national unity and integrity, against the vision of the Constitution. [Para 69]

Reasonable Restrictions – Articles 19(5) and 19(6) – The restrictions imposed by the Act are not reasonable in the context of the public interest or protection of Scheduled Tribes, as envisaged under Articles 19(5) and 19(6). The Act imposes undue constraints on private employers and employees, not justified under the Constitution. [Paras 67, 71, 72, 74]

National Integration – Laws fostering regionalism and provincialism, like the Act in question, are detrimental to the concept of national unity and integrity, and hence unconstitutional. [Para 65]

U.S. Constitution – Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments – Reference to U.S. constitutional principles on discrimination and due process to underline the universality of constitutional morality against discriminatory state actions. [Paras 60, 61, 62]

Held – The Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act, 2020 is declared unconstitutional and invalid, being violative of Part III of the Constitution of India. [Para 76]

Historical Land Acquisition Case – Incomplete Proceedings – Original land acquisition proceedings (case no. LD-5 of 1949-50) for 329.43 acres in Mouzas Natagarh, Sodepur, and Ghola under the Act of 1948, with the declared intent of resettling migrants, remained incomplete without award declaration. Petitioners, inheritors of the land, sought reassessment of compensation under the Act of 2013. [Paras 2-6]

Prolonged Litigation and Administrative Responses – Multiple writ petitions, appeals, and contempt petitions filed by the petitioners due to non-payment of compensation and failure to complete proceedings. Notably, W.P. no. 24050(W) of 2012 and subsequent appeals and contempt proceedings highlight the administrative inertia and non-compliance with court orders regarding compensation. [Paras 7-14]

Respondents’ Defense – Legislation by Incorporation Argument – State contends that the Act of 1948 is a legislation by incorporation, not reference, implying that subsequent amendments to Act-I of 1894 (including Section 11A) do not apply to the Act of 1948. Asserts that proceedings have not lapsed and compensation was assessed correctly under Act of 1948. [Paras 15-23]

Court’s Observation and Ruling – Lapse of Acquisition Proceedings – Court finds that the acquisition proceedings under the Act of 1948 have lapsed, aligning with the Supreme Court’s decision in State of West Bengal & Ors. vs Aziman Bibi & Ors., which applied Section 11A of Act-I of 1894 to such cases. The court determines that no award was declared within the stipulated time, rendering the proceedings void. [Paras 30-41]

Order – Fresh Acquisition and Compensation Assessment – Directs the respondent to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings and determine compensation under the Act of 2013. Invalidates previous compensation assessments and orders expeditious compensation payment within eight months. [Paras 42-44]

Petitioner’s Challenge to Trial Court Order – CM(M) 2024/2023 – Petition under Article 227 challenging the order to amend plaint for inclusion of relief of declaration, possession, and consequential relief of injunction in a civil suit concerning property E-135/5, Pul Prahladpur, New Delhi [Para 1].

Constructive Possession and Illegal Dispossession – Petitioner alleges constructive possession through tenants and illegal dispossession by Respondents post status quo order by Trial Court on 08.03.2022 – Application under Section 151 CPC filed for restoration of possession [Paras 2-2.4].

Reliance on Prior Judgment – Citation of ‘Veena Devi & Anr. V. Praveen Kumar Gupta & Ors.’, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 2862 for potential entitlement to restitution if illegal dispossession proven [Para 2.5].

Interim Relief Granted – High Court keeps operation of Trial Court’s order in abeyance pending adjudication of Section 151 CPC application – Directions to amend plaint contingent on outcome of application [Paras 6-7].

Timelines for Adjudication and Compliance – Trial Court directed to decide Section 151 CPC application within two months from 12.12.2023 – Petitioner to amend plaint within four weeks if application dismissed [Paras 7-8].

Final Disposition – Petition and pending applications disposed of with directions – Digitally signed copy of order deemed certified [Para 9].

Income Tax Appeal – Assessment under Section 153A – Validity of initiating proceedings under Section 153A – Appellant challenges the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal – Questions raised regarding the scope of assessment under Section 153A and applicability of CIT Vs Kabul Chawla and Dr. A.V. Sreekumar judgments – Appellant did not press question No. 2.1 – Focus on question No. 2.2 – Statement of valuer recorded in post-search proceedings used as the basis for disallowance – Examination of the legal position – Supreme Court upholds Delhi High Court’s view in Kabul Chawla case – No addition in the absence of incriminating material – Dr. A.V. Sreekumar case distinguishable – Assessment for the relevant year already finalized before search – No incriminating material found during the search against the respondent/assessee – Proposed question No. 2.2 not admitted as a substantial question of law – Appeal dismissed. [Para 1-10]

Land Dispossession and Compensation – Unlawful Dispossession from Portion No. 2 – Petitioner, owner of land in Village Bharthal, unlawfully dispossessed by Delhi Development Authority (DDA) without acquisition for construction of road and footpath. DDA admits mistake and readiness to compensate as per new Act of 2013. Petitioner seeks alternate land allotment. [Paras 2, 3.1-3.4]

Petitioner’s Arguments – Entitlement to Alternate Land Allotment – Petitioner argues for entitlement to an alternate piece of land based on past instances of DDA allotting land under similar circumstances. Rejects compensation offer, citing delay in acquisition process and demands alternate land in Sector-23, Dwarka. [Paras 4.1-4.10]

Respondent’s (DDA) Arguments – Compensation Instead of Land Allotment – DDA argues for compensation to Petitioner for utilized land (portion no. 2) and inability to allot alternate land due to regulatory constraints under Nazul Rules, 1981. Emphasizes mistake in utilizing Petitioner’s land for road construction and adherence to compensation norms. [Paras 5.1-5.12]

Court’s Analysis and Findings – Expedited Acquisition and Compensation – The Court recognizes the need for expedited acquisition proceedings, referencing Supreme Court judgments emphasizing compensation for illegal dispossession. Directions issued for quick completion of acquisition process under the new Act of 2013 and payment of compensation, including interim compensation. [Paras 6-16.2]

Denial of Alternate Land Allotment Request – The Court denies Petitioner’s request for alternate land allotment, citing lack of statutory right under prevailing laws and DDA’s commitment to constructing a Sports Complex on available land. Acknowledges Petitioner’s right to seek compensation for illegal dispossession. [Paras 17-18.8]

Final Disposition and Directions to DDA and GNCTD – Petition disposed with directions for time-bound compliance to GNCTD and DDA for expedited acquisition and compensation. Separate civil contempt petition registered due to previous inaction by DDA. [Paras 19-22]

Insurance Law - Breach of Terms and Conditions - Writ Petition under Article 226 - The petitioner, Oriental Insurance Company, challenged the Permanent Lok Adalat's award granting 50% of the insurance claim to the claimant despite the vehicle being used for commercial purposes, which was a breach of the insurance policy terms. The Court held that compensation on a non-standard basis is applicable only for technical breaches, not material breaches. The impugned award was set aside, and the Insurance Company's petition was allowed, while the claimant's petition was dismissed. [Paras 1-36]

Breach of Contract - Analysis - The Court emphasized that an insurance contract is based on utmost good faith, requiring full disclosure of material facts by the insured. The Permanent Lok Adalat's award, which allowed the claim despite a recognized breach of terms, was deemed improper. The Court noted that a breach involving the vehicle's use as a taxi, contrary to the insurance policy, was significant and excluded from coverage. [Para 13]

Decision - Setting Aside Permanent Lok Adalat's Award - The Court quashed the Permanent Lok Adalat's award that allowed 50% of the claimant's insurance claim. The Insurance Company's petition was allowed, and the claimant's petition was dismissed due to a clear breach of policy terms by using the insured vehicle for commercial purposes. [Paras 36]

Recovery Suit - Financial Dispute – Dispute over payment for diesel supplied by Respondent (fuel supplier) to Appellant (construction company) for a construction project – Appellants challenge the judgment and decree mandating them to pay Rs. 4,08,715/- with 12% interest per annum. [Para 1]

Evidence and Burden of Proof – Discrepancies in evidence presented by both parties – Appellants argue payments were made and recorded, while Respondent fails to produce books of account or detailed evidence of outstanding invoices – Trial Court's decision questioned due to reliance on incomplete evidence. [Paras 2-4, 6, 12-15, 17-18]

Legal Principles and Findings – Importance of substantiation in financial disputes – The need for clear, convincing evidence in claims based on financial transactions – Trial Court's decision set aside due to insufficient evidence from Respondent. [Paras 15, 17-18]

Decision – High Court allows appeal, setting aside the impugned judgment and decree – Directs release of deposited amount with interest to Appellants – Emphasizes on the importance of credible evidence in financial claims. [Paras 19-21]

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Acquittal of drawer for dishonor of cheque – Appellant’s failure to prove service of legal demand notice crucial for the appeal against acquittal – Requirements under Section 138 NI Act not fulfilled – Appeal dismissed. [Para 1, 5, 20, 26]

Cheque Dishonor – Legal Demand Notice – Importance of proving service of legal demand notice for cheque dishonor cases – Failure to establish service of notice leads to acquittal – Photocopies of service proofs insufficient without originals or valid explanation for their absence. [Para 18, 19]

Appeal Against Acquittal – Principles guiding appellate court in appeals against acquittal – Presumption of innocence reinforced by trial court’s acquittal – Interference by appellate court only on finding of perversity or legal error in trial court’s judgment. [Para 21, 22, 24, 25]

Evidence – Burden of Proof – Complainant’s burden to prove service of legal demand notice in cheque bounce cases – Photocopies of service proofs require validation under Indian Evidence Act for admissibility – Original documents’ absence without explanation weakens case. [Para 18, 19, 20]

Postal Service – Presumption of Notice Delivery – General Clauses Act and Indian Evidence Act provide for presumption of notice delivery through postal service – Applicability of presumption depends on proving foundational facts of notice dispatch. [Para 17, 19]

Judicial Reasoning – Appellate court’s approach in analyzing trial court’s judgment – Evaluation based on legal correctness and factual accuracy without reappreciation of evidence unless necessary. [Para 21, 22, 24, 25]