Professional Misconduct – Advocates Act – Writ Petition allowed – The Court directed the Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to initiate appropriate disciplinary actions against the 5th respondent under the Advocates Act, 1961, for creating forged rental agreements to illegally occupy the petitioner’s property – Emphasized the need for maintaining professional standards and integrity among advocates [Paras 8-9].

Forgery and Criminal Proceedings – Court noted that the forensic examination confirmed the signatures on the rental agreements produced by the 5th respondent were forged – Directed the police to proceed with the criminal case registered against the 5th respondent under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, and 471 of the IPC [Paras 7-9].

Eviction – Writ of Mandamus – The Court directed the police to evict the 5th respondent from the petitioner’s property and hand over possession to the petitioner within 48 hours – Court stressed the urgency of upholding the petitioner’s property rights in light of the respondent's unlawful conduct [Para 9].

Decision: Writ Petition disposed of – Directions issued to the Bar Council of India and Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry for disciplinary action – Criminal proceedings to continue against the 5th respondent – Eviction of the 5th respondent from the petitioner’s property ordered [Para 10].

Customs Law – Service of Show Cause Notice (SCN) – Petitioner argued that SCN was improperly served via a non-government email service (Gmail), violating the E-mail Policy of India. High Court held that the SCN was validly served under Section 153 of the Customs Act, 1962, as there is no statutory requirement to use only government email services. The court noted that the petitioner's own email address was used and upheld the validity of service, even though it was sent through a non-NIC email platform [Paras 2-5].

Seizure of Goods – Time Limit – Under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, the SCN was issued within six months of the seizure of the gold bars. The petitioner’s challenge based on delayed service was dismissed since the court found that the SCN had been properly issued and served within the statutory period [Paras 7-12].

Digital Evidence – Admissibility of Screenshots – Petitioner's attempt to prove non-receipt of the SCN through a screenshot of her email inbox was rejected. The court ruled that the screenshot lacked credibility, especially since the Section 65-B certificate indicated that the evidence was obtained from a different device (computer instead of mobile phone) [Para 13].

Decision: Petition dismissed – The court upheld the customs authority's seizure and the timely issuance of the SCN. The petitioner was not entitled to the release of the gold bars at this stage [Paras 14-15].

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) – Suit for injunction based on agreement for sale – Applicants (Defendants) sought rejection of the suit for perpetual injunction filed by the Respondents (Plaintiffs), on the ground that the Plaintiffs had no legal title to the suit lands. The Defendants argued that without a sale deed, the plaintiffs' possession claims were untenable. However, the agreement for sale was registered, and possession was allegedly handed over as per the terms of the agreement. The Court held that the suit raised triable issues, and the rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d) was not appropriate. The Court emphasized that the plaintiffs had a prima facie case under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, allowing a prospective purchaser to maintain possession. [Paras 1-15].

Specific Relief Act – Section 41(h) – Applicability in injunction cases – Defendants' contention that the suit was barred under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act was rejected. The Court observed that, in the absence of a sale deed, the plaintiff's possession and the registered agreement for sale provided sufficient grounds to proceed with the injunction suit. [Paras 6-10].

Agreement for Sale – Legal Effect – Registered agreement for sale from 1992 between the mother of the Defendants and the original Plaintiff was sufficient to create an equity in favor of the Plaintiff under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Despite the lack of a formal sale deed, the Plaintiff’s claim to possession was sustained. [Paras 9-11].

Decision:

The Civil Revision Application was dismissed, and the impugned order rejecting the Defendants' application under Order VII Rule 11(d) was upheld. The Trial Court was directed to expedite the hearing of the suit within six months. All contentions of the parties were expressly kept open.

Service Law – Regularization of Service – The petitioner sought the antedating of his regularization as a Homeopathic Assistant either to his initial engagement date in 1992 or the date of sanction of the post in 2000. The court held that the petitioner’s service regularization was correctly dated to 06.03.2019, the date of the prior order of the High Court. The court rejected the petition, finding no legal or factual justification to support the request for earlier regularization dates [Paras 1-12].

Misrepresentation and Suppression of Facts – The court found that the petitioner had suppressed material facts regarding his temporary engagement on an ad hoc basis in 1996. This information was pivotal to the case and had been omitted in prior proceedings. The court invoked the legal principle that fraud and justice cannot coexist and rejected the petitioner’s claim on these grounds [Paras 8.1-8.4].

Decision:

Writ Petition dismissed – No legal ground was found for the antedating of the petitioner’s regularization. The court upheld the administrative decision to regularize the petitioner’s service with effect from 06.03.2019 [Paras 9-10].

Tax Law – Penalty for Undervaluation of Goods – Punjab VAT Act, 2005 – Appeals challenging the imposition of penalties under Section 51(7)(b) of the Punjab VAT Act for undervaluation of medicines imported into Chandigarh from Himachal Pradesh. The Checking Officer detained the goods, observing that the prices mentioned on the invoice were disproportionately lower than the Maximum Retail Price (MRP). The penalty was imposed on the presumption of tax evasion due to undervaluation. The Court held that mere discrepancies between the MRP and invoice prices do not conclusively prove an attempt to evade tax. VAT is payable only upon the actual sale of goods, and no sale had occurred in Chandigarh at the time of the imposition of the penalty [Paras 1-50].

Valuation of Goods – Jurisdiction of Assessing Authority – The Court ruled that the valuation of goods falls within the domain of the assessing authority and not the checking officer at the roadside. The imposition of penalties by the Checking Officer was premature, as no concealment or mens rea was demonstrated. The actual valuation should be determined by the assessing authority based on the sales transactions [Paras 45-65].

Decision:

Appeals allowed – Penalties imposed under Section 51(7)(b) quashed. The Court concluded that the action of the respondents was arbitrary and based on presumptions. The imposition of penalties without proper valuation by the assessing authority was held to be unlawful. All pending applications stand disposed of.

Wakf Law – Eviction Proceedings Under Section 52 of A.P. Wakf Act, 1995 – Legality of Corrigendum Notifications – High Court set aside the eviction orders issued under Section 52 of the A.P. Wakf Act, 1995, based on an erroneous Wakf notification dated 19.04.1962, which was corrected by a corrigendum issued in 2016. The Court held that the corrigendum notification should have been brought on record before initiating eviction proceedings. The failure to comply with procedural requirements rendered the eviction orders unsustainable. Additionally, the summary eviction under Section 52 was deemed inappropriate due to the long-standing possession and bona fide claims of the petitioners. The High Court restored possession to the petitioners. [Paras 19-49]

Title Dispute and Summary Proceedings – Court held that serious disputes regarding the title and long-standing possession raised by the petitioners could not be resolved through summary proceedings under Section 52 of the Act. The Court emphasized that such disputes should be adjudicated through regular civil suits rather than summary eviction processes. [Paras 33-44]

Erroneous Wakf Notification and Possession Rights – The High Court concluded that the Wakf Board’s reliance on the erroneous notification from 1962, without the proper corrigendum in place, could not justify eviction under Section 52. The petitioners’ long-standing possession and title claims were recognized, and the summary eviction was deemed unjustified. The Court stressed that the Wakf Board must adhere to proper procedures and respect the bona fide claims of individuals in possession. [Paras 26-32, 45-48]

Decision – The Civil Revision Petitions were allowed, and the orders of eviction passed by the Wakf Board and District Collector under Section 52 of the A.P. Wakf Act, 1995, were set aside. The possession of the scheduled lands was directed to be restored to the petitioners, with no order as to costs. [Paras 50-51]

Decision:

The Civil Revision Petitions were allowed. The impugned proceedings of the Wakf Board and the District Collector under Section 52 of the A.P. Wakf Act, 1995 were set aside. The possession of the scheduled lands was ordered to be restored to the petitioners [Paras 50-51].

Criminal Law – Murder – Acquittal Challenged – Appeal by State and Complainant – State of Punjab and complainant sought conviction under Section 302 IPC against Harbhajan Singh, Kirpal Singh, Jaswant Singh, and DSP Gursewak Singh – Trial court convicted the accused under Sections 343, 325, 324, and 323 IPC but acquitted them for murder – The prosecution argued that the accused abducted the deceased Gamdoor Singh, tortured him while in custody, and caused injuries leading to his death – Court held that the ante-mortem injuries aggravated pre-existing heart and lung conditions, resulting in death, and convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC [Paras 1-18, 25-26].

Evidence Law – Hostile Witness – Resiling from Affidavit – Estoppel under Indian Evidence Act – Key prosecution witness, Baghel Singh, initially supported the prosecution's case but later resiled, claiming he was pressured by DSP Gursewak Singh – Court rejected the witness's retraction, applying estoppel under Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act – Witness’s affidavit and earlier statements were upheld, contributing to the conviction of the accused [Paras 6-16].

Medical Evidence – Post-Mortem Report and Cause of Death – Medical evidence established that the injuries inflicted on the deceased precipitated systemic disturbances, aggravating pre-existing conditions and causing death – The court relied on the post-mortem report, which concluded that the death was a result of the injuries, contrary to the initial opinion of natural death due to heart and lung failure [Paras 11-26].

Decision:

Appeal by the State and complainant allowed – Accused Harbhajan Singh, Kirpal Singh, Jaswant Singh, and DSP Gursewak Singh convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.

Sentences for previously convicted offences (under Sections 343, 325, 324, and 323 IPC) to run concurrently.

Appellants directed to be taken into custody immediately for sentencing.

Eviction and Recovery of Possession – Frivolous Litigation – Delay Tactics – The court addressed a suit for eviction and possession that has been pending for 34 years. Despite the original plaintiff and defendant passing away, the litigation continued through legal heirs. The petitioner/defendant sought to challenge interim orders, raising issues the court found to be frivolous and aimed at delaying the proceedings. The court condemned the petitioner’s conduct and imposed exemplary costs for misuse of judicial process [Paras 1-17].

Original Documents – Property Identification – Trial Court’s Role – The petitioner’s demand for the production of original revenue records for property identification was deemed an attempt to obstruct the progress of the case. The court affirmed the trial court’s decision to dismiss the applications related to these demands, noting the lack of merit in the petitioner’s contentions and the suppression of relevant facts [Paras 12-16].

Abuse of Court Process – Dismissal with Costs – The High Court highlighted the petitioner’s deliberate attempts to mislead the court by suppressing material facts and asserting incorrect claims regarding the trial court’s orders. Due to this conduct, the petition was dismissed with exemplary costs of ₹25,000 to be paid to the legal services authority within two weeks [Paras 17-21].

Decision: Original Petition dismissed with costs of ₹25,000 imposed on the petitioner.

Contract Law – Recovery of Debt – Hypothecation Agreement – Appellant challenged the trial court’s decree for recovery of Rs. 2,88,667.50 with interest at 15.5% p.a. The High Court upheld the decree with modifications to the interest rate. It ruled that while the plaintiff bank (SBI) is entitled to recover the principal amount and simple interest, the contractual rate of interest is not applicable post-decree. Instead, the court awarded simple interest at 12% p.a. from the date of the suit until redemption and 6% p.a. thereafter until realization [Paras 20-21].

Interest Rate – Judicial Discretion – The High Court exercised its discretion to modify the interest rate from the contractual 15.5% p.a. to 12% p.a., citing precedents on excessive interest rates and the special circumstances of the case, including the appellant’s financial condition and adherence to Reserve Bank guidelines [Paras 18-20].

Decision – Partial Allowance of Appeal – Held – The appeal was allowed in part by modifying the rate of interest from 15.5% p.a. to 12% p.a. from the date of suit till redemption and 6% p.a. thereafter till realization – The judgment of the Trial Court was otherwise affirmed, and each party was directed to bear their own costs – Miscellaneous petitions related to the appeal were dismissed [Paras 20-21].