Labour Law - Industrial Disputes Act – Definition of Workman – Supervisor Drawing Above Threshold Salary – Petitioner employed as Supervisor with salary above ₹10,000 – Labour Court held petitioner was not a workman under Section 2(s) – Held: Mere designation and salary do not determine status – Evidence showed petitioner had no powers of supervision, control, or discipline – Duties involved technical/manual work in maintenance – Labour Court erred in concluding petitioner not a workman – Findings perverse and unsupported by evidence [Paras 5, 5.1, 6].

Termination – Resignation – Forceful Resignation Allegation – Petitioner claimed resignation was obtained under coercion – However, resignation was handwritten by petitioner and no complaint of coercion was made contemporaneously – Held: Burden lies on petitioner to prove force or threat – Petitioner failed to examine alleged coercing officer or produce corroborative evidence – Labour Court rightly rejected plea of forced resignation [Paras 6.1, 7].

Termination – Resignation and Withdrawal – Legal Effect – Petitioner withdrew resignation after nearly 60 days of absence – No future effective date specified in resignation – Respondent accepted resignation and treated contract as terminated – Held: Resignation without effective future date and without statutory requirement of acceptance becomes operative immediately – Right to withdraw ceases once resignation becomes effective – Petitioner's withdrawal was belated and ineffective [Paras 6.2, 7].

Labour Law – Section 25(f) – Applicability – Petitioner claimed termination violated Section 25(f) for lack of retrenchment compensation – Held: If resignation was voluntary and not a case of retrenchment, Section 25(f) not attracted – Labour Court rightly rejected contention [Paras 3, 6.2].

Judicial Review – Scope under Article 227 – Finding of facts based on evidence – Labour Court considered oral and documentary evidence and gave reasoned award – No error of law or perversity found – High Court declined to interfere under Article 227 [Paras 8–9].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Labour Court's finding that resignation was voluntary and petitioner not entitled to reinstatement upheld – Petitioner not entitled to benefit of Section 25(f) – Rule discharged.

Negotiable Instruments – Section 138 Conviction – Compounding of Offence Permitted – Revision petitioner convicted for dishonour of cheque – Conviction upheld in appeal – During pendency of revision, parties entered into joint compromise – Entire amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- paid and acknowledged by complainant – Held: In view of settlement, offence compounded under Section 147 of NI Act – Conviction and sentence annulled – Petitioner acquitted [Paras 1–5, 7–10, 45–46]

Criminal Law – Compounding of Offences – Scope under NI Act vis-à-vis BNSS – Court held that Section 147 of NI Act, being a special law with non obstante clause, prevails over Section 359 of BNSS – Compounding permissible even post-conviction and at revisional stage – Inherent power of High Court under Section 442 BNSS invoked to secure ends of justice [Paras 20–24, 31–36, 41–43]

Judicial Discretion – Late Compounding of Offence – Despite conviction being affirmed in appeal, High Court permitted compounding owing to full settlement – Held: Purpose of NI Act is compensatory, not punitive – Delay in compromise not a bar when no prejudice caused and justice demands it – Cited Damodar S. Prabhu and Meters and Instruments Pvt. Ltd. cases [Paras 12–14, 29–38, 44–46]

Special Law vs General Law – Interpretational Priority – Court reiterated principle that special law (NI Act) overrides general procedural provisions (BNSS) in event of conflict – Section 147 of NI Act allows compounding at any stage, including revision – Harmonious construction supports access to justice and early dispute resolution [Paras 32–36]

Compounding in Criminal Revision – Power of High Court – Even after dismissal of appeal, High Court retains power to permit compounding of offences under NI Act if parties have settled dispute – Inherent jurisdiction exercised under Section 442 BNSS to prevent miscarriage of justice and bring quietus to litigation [Paras 23–30, 40–42]

Decision: Criminal Revision allowed – Offence under Section 138 of the NI Act compounded based on Joint Memorandum of Compromise – Conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court and affirmed in appeal annulled – Petitioner acquitted – Revision disposed of accordingly [Paras 45–46]

Bail – Sexual Assault, Extortion, and Cheating – Sections 318(4), 351(3) BNS, read with Sections 480 & 483 BNSS – Bail Granted – Petitioner accused of fraudulently collecting money, drugging, sexually assaulting complainant, extorting funds, and threatening with photographs – Delay of 14 months in lodging FIR, existence of live-in relationship, and counter-complaint lodged earlier by accused’s family considered – Court noted 68 days of custody and substantial progress of investigation – Bail granted with stringent conditions [Paras 2, 5, 7-10].

Judicial Custody – Bail Considerations – Continued detention not necessary – Custodial interrogation substantially complete – Risk of absconding mitigated by conditions – Bail ordered subject to strict compliance [Paras 8-9].

Conditions of Bail – Accused to execute ₹20,000 bond with sureties – Weekly appearance before police – Not to leave district without permission – No intimidation of witnesses – Passport to be surrendered/affidavit to be filed – Breach of conditions to invite consequences [Para 9].

Decision – Criminal Petition allowed – Petitioner enlarged on bail with conditions [Para 10].

Sections 498-A, 306, 107 of IPC - Dowry Harassment & Abetment of Suicide – Acquittal of accused upheld – Revisional jurisdiction limited; no perversity found.

Dowry Harassment & Abetment of Suicide – Sections 498A & 306 IPC – Acquittal Upheld – Petitioner/father of deceased challenged trial court’s acquittal of accused husband – Alleged cruelty, pressure to sell dowry land, and harassment leading to suicide – Trial Court found suppression of first FIR, unexplained delay of 33–36 hours in lodging complaint, non-examination of neighbours, and lack of proximate evidence of instigation – High Court held revisional interference unwarranted – Conviction under Section 306 IPC unsustainable without proof of direct or proximate acts of instigation [Paras 15-20, 23, 31-36, 39-40].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope under Sections 397 & 401 CrPC – Limited Interference – Revisional court cannot convert acquittal into conviction except in cases of manifest illegality or miscarriage of justice – High Court reiterated that acquittal cannot be overturned unless perverse or grossly illegal – No such infirmity found [Paras 12, 37-38].

Decision – Criminal Revision Case dismissed – Acquittal of accused under Sections 498-A & 306 IPC confirmed [Paras 40-41].

Delay Condonation – Article 227 – Law of Limitation – Delay of Over Three Years – Petition Dismissed – Defendants sought condonation citing Covid-19 and alleged ignorance of decree; Court found they were aware through counsel and execution proceedings; held gross negligence and indolence not excusable – Appellate Court rightly rejected delay condonation – High Court upheld refusal [Paras 8–14].

Specific Performance – Execution of Decree – Sale Deed Registered – Once execution completed, subsequent challenge barred – Defendants’ silence during execution proceedings proved lack of diligence; no ground to reopen concluded decree [Paras 4.1–4.3, 9–10].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Limits of Article 227 – Court cannot interfere merely because a second view is possible – Interference limited to jurisdictional error; appellate court order well-reasoned – Petition rejected [Para 15].

Decision – Writ Petition Rejected – Impugned Order Confirmed – Rule discharged; no order as to costs [Paras 16–18].

Suit for Damages - Lease & Damages – Wrongful Occupation – Section 108(q) Transfer of Property Act – Continuing Breach – Defendants (BPCL) failed to vacate property at Anna Salai, Chennai, after expiry of lease on 31.12.1997 – Lease deed (clause 3(iii)) imposed obligation to yield possession to landlord – Held, both statutory and contractual obligations continued till 20.06.2022 when possession was finally delivered – Applying Section 22, Limitation Act, non-vacation treated as a continuing breach – Suit filed in 2020 held within limitation despite delay of 22 years [Paras 19-29].

Cause of Action – Distinction from Ejectment Suit – Earlier ejectment suit decreed in 2010 – Defendants argued present claim for damages barred as identical cause – Held, Supreme Court already clarified ejectment and damages claims arise from distinct causes – Present action for damages therefore maintainable independently [Para 30].

Liquidated vs. Unliquidated Damages – Misdescription – Plaintiff sought ₹128.90 crores styled as “liquidated damages” – Court held lease deed did not stipulate any pre-agreed rent/damages formula – Thus, claim treated as unliquidated damages under Section 73 of the Contract Act – Court emphasised that wrong labelling does not defeat claim [Paras 31-32].

Evidence & Valuation – Plaintiff relied on Engineer’s reports (Exs.P1-P4) and Auditor’s report (Ex.P5) – Engineer’s valuation based on guideline value correlated with sale deeds accepted; Auditor’s report rejected due to internal inconsistencies and lack of basis – Defendants’ documents (Exs.D2-D7) held irrelevant as they concerned properties outside Anna Salai – Court also used Registration Department’s official guideline values for 1998–2022, applying 12% rental yield as recognised formula – Damages for wrongful occupation quantified at ₹36.57 crores for 01.01.1998–20.06.2022 [Paras 33-43].

Adjustment of Payments – Defendants had paid ₹2 crores towards arrears and ₹96 lakhs (₹6 lakhs per month for 16 months) pursuant to interim orders – Court deducted ₹2.96 crores from damages, arriving at net liability of ₹33.61 crores payable by defendants [Paras 42-43].

Interest – Compound interest claim rejected – No contract provided for compounding – Public law precedents (Renusagar; Enviro-Legal Action) inapplicable to private lease disputes – Court applied Section 34 CPC principles – Awarded simple interest at 9% p.a. on monthly damages from the 6th of following month until realisation, with credit for interim payments [Paras 44-45].

Costs – Plaintiff entitled to litigation costs – Court awarded ₹1.10 crores (₹1 crore for court fees reimbursement + ₹10 lakhs towards lawyer’s fees) [Para 46].

Final Relief – Suit decreed – Defendants directed to pay ₹33,61,79,840 as damages for loss of rental income from 01.01.1998 to 20.06.2022, with 9% simple interest from respective due dates till realisation, and ₹1.10 crores as costs [Para 47].

Eviction – Bona fide Requirement – Section 14(3), HP Urban Rent Control Act – Landlord entitled to choose premises suited to his condition – Subsequent availability of other flats did not defeat requirement – Eviction decree restored [Paras 14-18, 22-24].

Landlord’s Bona Fide Need – Petition filed in 2013 on ground of retirement and absence of accommodation at Dharamshala – Requirement established at trial; Rent Controller decreed eviction – Appellate Authority erred in doubting bona fides merely because other sets in same building became vacant during proceedings – Held, bona fide need must exist at institution and continue till final adjudication, but landlord’s age, convenience and road-level suitability of demised premises justified preference [Paras 12-14, 19-21].

Subsequent Events – Applied principle in Hasmat Rai v. Raghunath Prasad, AIR 1981 SC 1711 – Requirement must subsist till appellate stage – However, subsequent vacancies did not nullify landlord’s specific need for road-level flat suited to his old age – Tenant cannot dictate choice of premises [Paras 14-17, 21].

Supreme Court Guidance – Followed Kanhaiya Lal Arya v. Md. Ehshan, SLP(C) 21965/2022, decided 25.02.2025 – Landlord is best judge of which premises satisfies his need – Tenant cannot question landlord’s selection [Para 20].

Decision – Civil Revision Petition allowed – Judgment dated 29.05.2023 of Appellate Authority-II, Kangra set aside – Eviction order dated 22.02.2023 of Rent Controller-I, Kangra affirmed – No order as to costs [Paras 22-24].

Tenancy Law - Eviction – Bona Fide Requirement & Misuse – East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act S.13 – Basement let for storage used as shop; misuse led to resumption order; landlords required basement for storage/general store; tenant’s objections of res judicata & alternative accommodation rejected – Eviction upheld; revision dismissed [Paras 7-20].

Change of User – Basement leased exclusively for storage of crockery (clause in rent agreement) – Tenant admitted sale activity since 1981 – Misuse contrary to lease terms and without landlord’s written consent – Estate Officer passed resumption order; appeal dismissed; change of user proved – Eviction justified [Paras 8-9].

Impairment of Value/Utility – Tenant’s continued misuse led to cancellation of lease and jeopardised landlords’ title – Held: Such misuse materially impairs value and utility of premises – Eviction warranted to protect landlord’s ownership [Paras 8-10].

Bona Fide Requirement – Landlord best judge of need – Earlier petition withdrawn due to exemption notification (later quashed by SC) – Present need different (basement for storage, upper floor for small shop) – Availability of other floors irrelevant; tenant cannot dictate how landlord should adjust – Courts below rightly upheld necessity [Paras 11-18].

Res Judicata – Not applicable to petitions based on personal necessity, especially when earlier petition withdrawn owing to change of law/notification – Changed circumstances and modified need justified fresh petition [Paras 12-14].

Alternative Accommodation – Letting out of other portions during pendency does not defeat landlord’s claim – Law settled that even if landlord has other premises, tenant cannot compel him to utilise them – Tenant’s plea rejected [Paras 16-18].

Safeguard for Tenants – Court noted statutory protection under S.13(4) of the Act: if landlord after eviction does not occupy or misuses within 12 months, evicted tenant may seek restoration – Safeguard supports genuineness of need [Para 20].

Decision: Revision petition dismissed – Eviction order maintained – Tenant directed to vacate premises as per orders of Rent Controller and Appellate Authority [Para 20].

Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953 – S. 20-B – allottee-tenant’s full sale-price deposit (1973); Settlement Officer’s objections merely technical; prolonged State inaction – estoppel – Civil Court jurisdiction available – proprietary rights & injunction affirmed; RSAs 2581/4164/4193/4194 of 1999 dismissed with costs.

Declaration of ownership and injunction against dispossession - Land Tenure – Section 20-B, Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act – Vesting of Ownership Rights – Plaintiffs allotted surplus land in 1963 as tenants, deposited full sale consideration in 1973 under Tehsildar’s order – Settlement Officer raised only technical objections (uncertified girdawari, missing lease file) but no action taken for decades – Held: Proprietary rights vested upon deposit of price; officials’ negligence cannot defeat substantive rights – Plaintiffs declared owners in possession, revenue entries corrected, injunction granted [Paras 4-7].

Civil Court Jurisdiction – Bar under Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act – State contended bar of jurisdiction – Held: Where valuable civil rights are threatened due to inaction of authorities, Civil Court jurisdiction is not ousted – Plaintiffs entitled to seek declaration and injunction against State [Paras 5, 10].

Estoppel – State’s Silence – Nearly two decades of inaction after full payment – State never demanded batai nor rectified technical defects – Held: State estopped from denying ownership to plaintiffs – Conduct indicated recognition of proprietary rights [Paras 6, 10].

Appellate Practice – Concurrent Findings – Trial Court decreed declaration and injunction, First Appellate Court affirmed – High Court found no legal infirmity in concurrent findings – Regular Second Appeals dismissed with costs [Paras 8, 11].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Plaintiffs declared owners in possession; State restrained from interference; sale certificate to issue – All four appeals dismissed with costs [Paras 10-11].