Writ Petition – Joining of Landlord as a Party in Tenant's Suit Against Corporation for Demolition Action – Examination of the necessity and propriety of landlord's inclusion in tenant's suit for protection against demolition. [Para 1, 28]

Civil Procedure – Impleadment of Parties under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC – Power of court to join a party as necessary for effective adjudication of the suit – Analysis of the judicial discretion involved in the inclusion of landlords in tenant's litigation against municipal demolition. [Para 6, 7, 28]

Supreme Court Precedents – Interpretation of Aliji Momonji & Co. v. Lalji Mavji and Mohamed Hussain Gulam Ali Shariffi v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay – Assessment of the Supreme Court's stance on the participation of landlords in suits initiated by tenants or licensees against municipal corporations. [Para 16, 17, 23]

Judicial Discretion – Consistent Exercise in Adding Landlord as Proper Party in Tenant's Suits – Recognition of landlord's direct interest in property subject to demolition notice and the rationale for their inclusion as proper parties in relevant lawsuits. [Para 28, 30]

Legal Principle – Landlord as a Proper Party in Tenant’s Suit Against Demolition – Affirmation that landlords can be joined as proper parties in tenant-initiated suits against municipal demolition actions, based on their direct interest in the property and potential impact on their rights. [Para 32]

Decision – Resolution of Divergent Views Amongst Single Judges of High Court – Clarification of legal position regarding the inclusion of landlords in tenant's suits against municipal corporations, aligning with Supreme Court precedents. [Para 31, 33]

FIR Registration – Denial of FIR registration and protection – Petitioner’s application for FIR registration and protection denied by the High Court – Application made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 Cr.P.C. [Para 1]

Application of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Magistrate’s discretion in directing police investigation – Magistrate not bound to direct police investigation in every case disclosing a cognizable offence. [Para 10, 16]

Revisional Jurisdiction – Limitation under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C – High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C not to be used as a substitute for second revision petition. [Para 6, 9]

Exercise of High Court’s Inherent Powers – Necessity for High Court to intervene only in cases of miscarriage of justice or abuse of process – High Court’s powers to be exercised sparingly. [Para 4, 5, 18]

Judicial Approach – Requirement for Magistrate to adopt a judicial approach in applications seeking police investigation – Magistrate not to act as a mere post office. [Para 16, 17]

Decision – Dismissal of petition by High Court – No special case made out for exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of the Constitution. [Para 18]

Taxation Law - Tax Demand – Setting Aside of Arbitrary Tax Demand: Petitioner challenged tax demand of Rs. 21,50,150/- for AY 2012-13 raised by respondent – Employer deducted tax but failed to deposit with revenue – Reliance on Section 205 of the Income Tax Act and pertinent judgments – Held, demand set aside as petitioner cannot be penalized for employer’s non-compliance. [Para 1, 4, 6, 8, 10]

Income Tax – TDS Non-Deposit by Employer: Petitioner’s tax deducted at source by employer not deposited with Central Government – Issue of whether petitioner can be held liable for employer’s failure – Referenced judgements indicating no liability on part of petitioner – Held, petitioner not liable for tax payment as per Section 205, Income Tax Act. [Para 2.4, 2.7, 3, 5, 7]

Relief to Taxpayer – Coercive Recovery of Tax Barred: Petitioner’s contention against tax recovery by revenue – Reference to Sanjay Sudan case and Section 199, Income Tax Act – Held, coercive recovery barred, petitioner not to be called upon to pay tax deducted by employer. [Para 5, 6, 9]

Decision – Tax Demand Against Petitioner Nullified: Court allowed petition, setting aside tax demand notices – Restrained revenue from recovery proceedings against petitioner for AY 2012-13 – Condition placed for deposit of any recovered tax from employer. [Para 10]

Bail Application – Money Laundering – Hawala Operations: Petitioner, Avtar Singh Kochar, accused in extensive money laundering case involving hawala transactions, seeks bail. Alleged role in facilitating transfer of crime proceeds within India and to Dubai. Linked to the Sukesh Chandra Shekhar extortion case. Case features spoofed calls, impersonating officials, and extorting Aditi Singh, leading to FIR and ED's ECIR. [Para 1-3, 10-13]

Bail Plea – Petitioner's Counsel – Health, Age, Detention: Petitioner's counsel advocates for bail – highlights petitioner's age, health issues, extended detention, and principle of 'bail, not jail'. Argues absence of direct involvement in extortion – the predicate offence. Emphasizes no criminal history and uncertain trial timeline. Contends petitioner's limited role to hawala operations without direct engagement in predicate offence. Challenges evidentiary value of post-arrest statements. [Para 4-9]

Bail Opposition – ED's Counsel – Money Laundering Severity: ED opposes bail, underscoring petitioner's crucial role in money laundering. Highlights significant involvement in transferring large sums in racket. Points to petitioner’s lack of cooperation in investigation and offence's impact on national economic stability. Notes long-standing association with co-accused Deepak Ramnani and involvement in transferring crime proceeds. [Para 10-13]

Court's Viewpoint – Balance of Rights – Bail Granted: Court notes allegation severity but stresses balance between speedy trial right and societal interest. Acknowledges petitioner's age, health, and custody duration. Recognizes necessity of solid evidence linking petitioner to predicate offence for continued detention. Imposes bail with strict conditions – bond furnishing, movement restriction, regular court and ED appearances, no witness influence, and controlled international travel. [Para 14-26]

Revision Petition in Eviction Case – Petition under Section 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 – Challenging order allowing respondent's application for leave to defend in an eviction case – Eviction sought by petitioners on grounds of personal necessity for starting a business – Respondent denied existence of landlord-tenant relationship and questioned petitioners' ownership. [Paras 1, 2, 3, 4]

Land Acquisition and Ownership Dispute – Respondent contested the ownership of petitioners, citing government acquisition of land – ARC observed petitioners concealed fact of land acquisition – Court found no physical possession taken over by government, hence petitioners retain legal rights. [Paras 5, 6, 12, 13]

Contradictions in Petition – Discrepancies in petition regarding property number and rent amount – Lack of clear averment about induction of respondent as tenant – Inconsistencies led to granting of leave to defend to respondent. [Paras 14, 16]

Personal Necessity for Eviction – Petitioners failed to elaborate on the extent of accommodation needed for their personal necessity – Court found petition prosecuted in a half-hearted manner. [Paras 16, 17]

Dismissal of Revision Petition – Court dismissed the revision petition – Directed respondent to file written statement within 30 days – Scheduled further proceedings for 12 January 2024, without prejudice to merits of the case. [Paras 18, 19, 20]

Industrial Disputes Act – Strike by workers – Entitlement to wages during the strike period – Tribunal’s award granting 50% wages during an illegal strike challenged – Principles of law regarding payment of wages during work stoppages due to strikes discussed. [Para 8]

Industrial Tribunal’s Award – Failure to consider relevant factors – Disregard of financial repercussions on management – Tribunal’s award set aside for not taking into account the impact of modernization and the need for higher production. [Para 9]

Certiorari – Writ of Certiorari issued – Industrial Tribunal’s award quashed – Writ Petition allowed. [Para 10-11]

Land Acquisition - Apportionment of Compensation - Regular First Appeal - Appellants contested Reference Court's award of 75% compensation to respondent as tenant - Held, Co-sharer can occupy more than their share as a tenant under other co-sharers - However, respondent failed to prove payment of rent - Reference Court's decision modified, respondent entitled to 1/3rd share of compensation, remaining 2/3rd to other co-sharers - Appeal disposed of accordingly [Paras 8, 9].

Proof of Tenancy - Analysis - Held, Revenue entries only presumed rate of rent, not payment - Respondent's failure to provide evidence of rent payment led to adjustment of compensation share - Lack of correction of long-standing revenue entries supported respondent's tenant status but limited to 1/3rd share [Para 8].

Decision - Modification of Reference Court's Award - Court modified the apportionment, granting respondent 1/3rd share and others 2/3rd - Recognition of long-term possession and revenue entries as supportive but not conclusive of full tenant status [Para 10].

Non-Filing of Written Statement – Striking off Defense – Order dated 06.10.2023 by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ajnala, in CS No. 94 of 2021, struck off petitioners’ defense due to non-filing of written statement within 90 days from the service date. [Para 1]

Petitioners' Ex Parte Proceedings and Subsequent Appearances – Petitioners proceeded ex parte on 21.03.2022, reappeared on 09.01.2023, and had the ex parte order set aside, subject to costs. Multiple adjournments granted for filing the written statement. [Para 2]

Analysis of Procedural Law – Application of Order 8, Rule 1 CPC. Supreme Court's interpretation in Kailash vs. Nanhku and others (2005) and subsequent cases – emphasizing the need for expeditious trials, while also acknowledging the courts' discretion for extension beyond the 90-day period in exceptional circumstances. [Paras 5-7, 9-11]

Grant of Last Opportunity to File Written Statement – Petitioners granted one last opportunity to file the written statement by 15.01.2024, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 25,000 to the plaintiff. [Para 12]

Order Modification and Notice to Respondents – Modification of the order dated 06.10.2023. Respondents may approach the court for recalling of this order if dissatisfied. [Para 13]

Decision:

Revision petition allowed; the order dated 06.10.2023 modified; petitioners granted last chance to file the written statement with a cost imposition.

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Jurisdiction of Civil Court in Matters Involving SARFAESI Act – Petition challenging rejection of plaint by lower courts under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Civil Court's jurisdiction barred under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act – Exceptions to the bar limited – Debts Recovery Tribunal as the appropriate forum for disputes related to secured assets under SARFAESI Act. [Para 1-9(ii)]

Fraud Allegation in Loan Transactions – Role of Civil Court – Petitioner's claim of forged documents in a loan transaction – Civil Court's limited jurisdiction in cases alleging fraud by secured creditors – Matters primarily for the Debts Recovery Tribunal under SARFAESI Act – Exception when the claim of fraud is patently absurd or untenable. [Para 9(ii)-9(iii)]

Dismissal of Revision Petition – Jurisdictional Bar under SARFAESI Act – Petitioner's revision petition against dismissal of suit involving loan transaction dismissed – Jurisdiction of Civil Court barred by SARFAESI Act – Debts Recovery Tribunal identified as the competent authority for such disputes. [Para 9(ii)-9(iii)]

Decision – Orders of lower courts upheld – Civil Court's jurisdiction barred under SARFAESI Act in disputes related to enforcement of security interests – Revision petition dismissed as devoid of merit. [Para 9(iii)]