Civil Law – Specific Performance – Proof of Agreement – Plaintiff claimed agreement for sale dated 14/12/1990 and power of attorney dated 04/12/1990 executed by defendant – Court held that agreement for sale not required to be attested under Section 68 of Evidence Act – However, execution not proved as per Section 67 – Admitted absence of signatures of executant and attorney holder – Held: Plaintiff failed to prove execution of agreement; First Appellate Court right in holding trial court erred in accepting unproven document [Paras 10.3–10.10].

Remand – Power under Order XLI Rule 23A CPC – First Appellate Court remanded suit for de novo trial framing additional issues of fraud and sham transaction – Plaintiff argued no plea of fraud or prayer for additional evidence existed – Held: Defendant had specifically pleaded forgery and fabrication; trial court failed to frame necessary issues or decide counterclaim and key issues – Twin conditions for remand under Order XLI Rule 23A satisfied – No infirmity in remand [Paras 11.3–11.14].

Counterclaim – Non-Filing of Written Statement – Defendant sought declaration of forgery and eviction of plaintiff through counterclaim – Plaintiff failed to file written statement against counterclaim – Trial Court failed to decide counterclaim issues properly – First Appellate Court held remand justified – Held: Pleadings of fraud were not vague; trial court’s failure to adjudicate essential issues warranted open remand [Paras 13.1–13.6, 14.5–14.6].

Evidence – Admissibility – Power of attorney holder of defendant gave evidence (DW1) – Objection raised that she had no authority to depose on behalf of original defendant – Court held issue not examined as remand justified – Observed that admissibility to be considered by trial court afresh [Para 11.17].

Limitation – Article 54, Limitation Act – Plaintiff failed to show continuous cause of action or legal notice in 1990 – Held: Court refrained from expressing views, as First Appellate Court did not conclusively decide maintainability on this ground [Para 12.2].

Fraud – Order VI Rule 4 CPC – Whether counterclaim pleadings on fraud lacked particulars – Held: Defendant’s counterclaim specifically alleged forgery and fabrication – Adequate to put plaintiff on notice – Pleading not defective in law [Para 14.4–14.6].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 29/02/2024 of First Appellate Court affirmed – Suit remanded to Trial Court for fresh consideration on all framed and additional issues – No order as to costs – Interim orders vacated.

Motor Accident – Compensation Claim – Minor Child – Negligent Driving – Tribunal dismissed claim citing lack of evidence of rash driving by respondent – High Court finds findings perverse and based on misappreciation of evidence – Testimony of eye-witness mother (PW-2) consistent and unimpeached – Another eye-witness (PW-3) corroborated material facts – FIR was delayed due to police inaction and social constraints, but registered with Human Rights Commission's intervention – Held: Delay not fatal, claimants’ evidence established rash and negligent act of respondent No.1 – Dismissal by Tribunal erroneous [Paras 10–13, 20].

Motor Accident – Effect of Criminal Acquittal – Acquittal of driver in criminal case not binding on MACT – Standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities – Tribunal erred in relying on criminal acquittal and inferring collusion between claimants and driver – Held: Findings of collusion were speculative and not proved by insurer – Tribunal misapplied legal principles [Paras 14–17].

Motor Accident – Minor Victim – Determination of Income – Future Prospects – Compensation – Minor aged 11 years treated as skilled worker – Notional income taken as ₹4,375 per month as per minimum wages – Future prospects @ 40% applied – Deduction of 50% for personal expenses – Multiplier of 18 applied – Held: Just and fair compensation includes future potential and not limited to current earnings of child [Paras 26–29].

Compensation – Filial Consortium – Parents' Right – Compensation of ₹48,400 each awarded to both parents under head of parental consortium – Loss of estate and funeral expenses also awarded with 10% escalation as per Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance principles – Interest @ 9% p.a. awarded from date of claim petition till realization [Paras 24, 30–32].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Tribunal’s dismissal of claim set aside – Appellants awarded compensation of ₹7,94,492 with 9% interest per annum from date of claim petition till realization – Respondent No.4-Insurance Company directed to deposit amount within 2 months for disbursal by Tribunal [Paras 30–32].

Motor Vehicles Act – Fatal Accident – Multiple Claims from Same Accident – Common Judgment – Appeals arising out of a single accident dated 24.09.2021 involving collision between TATA Ace (mini truck) and Maruti Swift car – Deaths of Kuldeep Kaur, Surinder Singh and Chhinder Kaur – Separate claim petitions decided by MACT – All connected appeals disposed of by common judgment [Paras 1–7].

Assessment of Income – No Documentary Proof – Minimum Wages as Guiding Factor – Tribunal assessed income at Rs.15,000/- per month on assumption of daily wages – High Court held that in absence of documentary evidence, minimum wages notified under Minimum Wages Act constitute primary guiding factor – Minimum wages for unskilled workers in Punjab as on 01.09.2021 fixed at Rs.9,400/- per month – Income reassessed accordingly for all deceased persons [Paras 13–18, 28–30, 41–43].

Future Prospects – Self-Employed / Daily Wage Earners – Tribunal erred in denying future prospects – Following National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi – Addition of future prospects mandatory even for self-employed or fixed salary persons – 10% addition where age between 50–60 years and 25% where age between 40–50 years – Applied uniformly in all three cases [Paras 19–20, 32–33, 44–45].

Multiplier – Correct Application – Multiplier applied by Tribunal based on age of deceased upheld – No interference warranted on this aspect [Paras 21, 34, 46].

Conventional Heads – Consortium, Funeral Expenses, Loss of Estate – Standardisation – Compensation under conventional heads revised in line with Pranay Sethi, Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and N. Jayasree v. Cholamandalam MS – Consortium enhanced to Rs.48,000/- per claimant – Funeral expenses and loss of estate fixed at Rs.18,000/- each [Paras 21–22, 34–35, 46–47].

Kuldeep Kaur (Age 60) – Reassessment of Compensation – Income reassessed at Rs.9,400/- per month – Future prospects @10% added – Deduction of 50% – Multiplier of 9 applied – Total compensation recalculated at Rs.6,42,360/- with interest @7.5% per annum – Tribunal award reduced [Paras 8–22].

Surinder Singh (Age 40) – Reassessment of Compensation – Income reassessed at Rs.9,400/- per month – Future prospects @25% added – Deduction of 1/4th – Multiplier of 15 applied – Consortium granted to four dependents – Total compensation recalculated at Rs.18,14,250/- with interest @7.5% per annum – Tribunal award reduced [Paras 23–35].

Chhinder Kaur (Age 60) – Reassessment of Compensation – Income reassessed at Rs.9,400/- per month – Future prospects @10% added – Deduction of 1/3rd – Multiplier of 9 applied – Consortium granted to three children – Total compensation recalculated at Rs.9,24,480/- with interest @7.5% per annum – Tribunal award reduced [Paras 36–47].

Decision: Appeals filed by Insurance Company (FAO Nos.2791, 2794 & 2797 of 2025) partly allowed – Appeals filed by claimants (FAO Nos.593, 733 & 644 of 2025) dismissed – Impugned awards dated 29.10.2024 modified to the extent of recalculation of compensation – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 48–49].

Arbitration Law – Section 34 – Scope of Interference – Limited Judicial Review – Petition seeking setting aside of arbitral award directing borrower and guarantor to jointly and severally pay amounts exceeding Rs.43 crores with interest – Court reiterated that Section 34 does not permit reappreciation of evidence or appellate review – Award to be interfered with only if grounds under Section 34 are strictly made out [Paras 20, 39–40].

Arbitration Law – Proof of Debt – Alleged Dispensation with Burden of Proof – Challenge based on arbitral finding that borrower had “almost admitted” the claim – Court held that award must be read holistically – Statement of Defence of borrower admitted sanction of facilities, execution of guarantee and liability to repay – Use of expression “almost admitted” not perverse – Debt duly established on record – No patent illegality found [Paras 21–23].

Arbitration Law – Delay in Pronouncement of Award – Effect on Validity – Award challenged on ground of inordinate delay between conclusion of arguments and pronouncement – Court relying on Lancor Holdings Ltd. v. Prem Kumar Menon held that mere delay is not a standalone ground under Section 34 – Delay must be unexplained and must adversely reflect on findings – Petitioner himself contributed to delay by filing multiple applications – No prejudice demonstrated – Award not vitiated [Paras 24–33].

Arbitration Law – Guarantee – Novation / Variation of Contract – Plea that enhancement of credit limits discharged guarantor rejected – Arbitral Tribunal found that petitioner, as Director, himself signed applications for enhancement – Deed of Guarantee expressly covered enhanced limits and was unconditional, continuing and irrevocable – No novation or material alteration without consent established – Findings neither perverse nor contrary to law [Paras 34–38].

Arbitration Law – Reasoned Award – Adequacy of Reasons – Contention that arbitral tribunal adopted a casual and cavalier approach rejected – Court held that adequacy or elaborateness of reasons cannot be examined under Section 34 – As long as reasons are discernible and conclusions are intelligible, award cannot be set aside – Arbitral Tribunal is not required to write a judgment like a court [Paras 39–43].

Arbitration Law – Interim Applications – Non-decision – Natural Justice – Allegation that several interim applications were not decided rejected – Court found that applications related to belated and inconsistent plea of forgery after admission of guarantee – Applications either expressly dealt with in the award or implicitly rejected – Petitioner responsible for procedural delays – No violation of natural justice made out [Paras 44–53].

Arbitration Law – Conduct of Party – Abuse of Process – Court noted repeated attempts by petitioner to delay proceedings and evade liability after actively invoking arbitration – Filing of Section 34 petition held to be another attempt to avoid repayment of admitted dues [Paras 30, 52–54].

Decision: Arbitration Petition dismissed – Arbitral Award dated 4 April 2024 upheld – No further costs imposed considering award of arbitral costs and interest already granted – Petition dismissed accordingly [Paras 54–56].

Contempt of Courts – Appeal against discharge of contempt rule – Though no appeal lies under Section 19 of Contempt of Courts Act, Letters Patent Appeal maintainable where Single Judge travels beyond contempt jurisdiction, adversely affects substantive rights and reopens parent order – Impugned order set aside – Contempt rule revived [Paras 20–22, 96–101].

Contempt Jurisdiction – Appealability – Section 19, Contempt of Courts Act – Appeal under Section 19 lies only against an order punishing for contempt – No statutory appeal against discharge of contempt rule – However, where Single Judge, while discharging rule, travels beyond contempt jurisdiction and passes directions or observations affecting substantive rights, such order qualifies as a “judgment” appealable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent – Preliminary objection to maintainability rejected [Paras 1–8, 20–23].

Letters Patent Appeal – Scope – Order Affecting Rights – Impugned order not confined to discharge of contempt rule but imposed penal costs, recorded findings of contumacious conduct against petitioner, and effectively modified earlier writ orders relating to remuneration – Such adjudication beyond contempt jurisdiction directly affected valuable civil rights of appellant – Held: LPA maintainable [Paras 18–22].

Limits of Contempt Jurisdiction – Reopening Parent Order – In contempt proceedings, court cannot sit in appeal over or reopen merits of parent order – Learned Single Judge, while hearing contempt, reconsidered remuneration payable, relied on documents produced on the day of hearing, and held that petitioner could not claim more than Rs.11,890/- contrary to final writ orders granting Rs.19,000/- – Such exercise held wholly without jurisdiction [Paras 79–83, 96–99].

Natural Justice – Penal Costs and Contumacious Conduct – Finding of contumacious conduct against petitioner recorded without issuing rule or affording opportunity of hearing – Penal costs imposed on premise of such finding – Held: Procedure de hors law and contrary to settled principles governing contempt proceedings – Stigmatic and penal consequences cannot follow without due process [Paras 84–89, 96–98].

Contradictory Findings – Suppression of Facts – Single Judge recorded that writ petition itself disclosed petitioner’s engagement as volunteer since 2015, yet concluded that petitioner misled court by suppressing such fact – Held: Findings mutually contradictory and unsustainable on record [Paras 69–75, 94–95].

Finality of Parent Orders – Contempt Court Bound – Earlier writ orders dated 07/03/2024 and modification dated 03/05/2024 were not challenged and had attained finality – Contempt court could not indirectly nullify or modify them while discharging contempt rule [Paras 34–35, 77–83].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order dated 26/07/2024 passed in WPCRC 112 of 2024 set aside – Contempt Rule revived – Learned Single Judge directed to hear contempt proceedings afresh from the stage prior to impugned order – Observations in appellate judgment not to prejudice merits – Operation of judgment stayed for three months – No order as to costs [Paras 100–107].

Election Law – Panchayat Elections – Corrupt Practice – Disqualification – Declaration of Returned Candidate as Void – Declaration of Another Candidate as Elected – Non-disclosure of criminal antecedents by returned candidate amounts to corrupt practice and election liable to be declared void – However, declaration of an unelected candidate as elected can be made only if statutory conditions are fulfilled – In absence of allegation or finding that but for corrupt votes the election petitioner would have secured majority of valid votes, declaration of another candidate as elected is impermissible – Tribunal erred in law in declaring respondent No.4 as elected [Paras 11–13].

Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 – Sections 89 and 90 – Distinction Between Disqualification and Corrupt Practice – Section 89(1)(a) relates to disqualification existing on date of election – Section 89(1)(b) concerns corrupt practices affecting election – In cases of disqualification, votes polled by disqualified candidate cannot automatically be treated as “thrown away” – Law does not permit presumption as to voting pattern had the disqualified candidate not contested – Ratio reiterated from Supreme Court precedents [Paras 10–12].

Election Tribunal – Procedural Lapses – Mandatory Duty to Follow CPC Procedure – Election petition decided without framing issues, without calling for written response and without recording evidence – Tribunal devised its own procedure ignoring mandatory statutory framework – Election petitions are akin to civil trials and strict adherence to procedure under CPC is mandatory – Failure to frame issues and conduct trial vitiates entire proceedings [Paras 14–15].

Framing of Issues – Importance – Democratic Rights at Stake – Settlement of issues is foundational stage of election trial – Issues determine scope of evidence and adjudication – Tribunal’s casual approach in deciding election petition without issues reflects non-application of mind – Election disputes affect fate of constituency and democratic process, hence require strict procedural compliance [Paras 14–15].

Supervisory and Appellate Interference – Election Matters – High Court justified in setting aside Tribunal’s order where it suffers from patent illegality and procedural impropriety – Tribunal’s order held unsustainable both in law and procedure – Matter remanded for fresh adjudication in accordance with law [Paras 15–16].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order dated 06.03.2025 passed by Election Tribunal, Sri Muktsar Sahib set aside – Matter remanded to Tribunal for fresh decision after framing issues and recording evidence – Tribunal directed to decide election petition expeditiously, preferably on or before 30.06.2026.

Real Estate – RERA Registration – Ongoing vs. Completed Project – Completion Certificate Issued Pre-RERA – Appellant’s project had received a valid completion certificate on 17 March 2015 – Tribunal wrongly held project as ongoing due to absence of fire safety certificate – Held: Under Regulation 67 of BDA Regulations, fire NOC suffices at completion stage – Completion certificate valid – Project not registrable under RERA [Paras 10–19]

Statutory Interpretation – Completion Certificate vs. Occupancy Certificate – Occupancy certificate (Sec. 2(zf)) and completion certificate (Sec. 2(q)) have distinct legal purposes – RERA registration depends on completion certificate – Absence of occupancy certificate does not render a project ongoing under the Act [Paras 12–13]

Fire Safety – Compliance Requirements – Regulation 67 of BDA Regulations requires fire NOC, not fire safety certificate, for completion – Fire safety certificate required only at occupancy stage – Tribunal’s reliance on fire safety certificate to invalidate completion certificate is legally incorrect – Project completed before Fire Safety Rules came into force [Paras 14–19]

Binding Effect of BDA Determination – BDA’s 2022 order confirming no need for fresh completion certificate after revised plan was final – Not challenged – Tribunal erred in disregarding binding decision of competent authority under Section 2(p) RERA – Project to be treated as complete [Paras 18–19]

Applicability of RERA – Retroactivity – Supreme Court in Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. clarified that RERA applies only to ongoing and future projects – Project completed before 1 May 2017 falls outside the purview of the Act – Tribunal misapplied settled law [Paras 10, 14, 20]

Decision: Appeals allowed – Orders of the OREAT dated 27 September 2024 in Appeal Nos. 96 and 97 of 2023 and review orders dated 13 November 2024 in Review Petition Nos. 15 and 16 of 2024 are set aside – Project held to be completed prior to commencement of RERA – Complaints held non-maintainable – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Compromise after Conviction – Non-Compoundable Offences – Sections 324, 148, 149 IPC – Accused convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment up to two years – During pendency of appeal parties entered into voluntary compromise – Trial Court verified compromise and reported it to be genuine and without coercion – Held: High Court can quash proceedings and set aside conviction in exercise of inherent powers to secure ends of justice even in non-compoundable offences [Paras 4–8, 14–17].

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 CrPC – Scope – Distinction between Compounding and Quashing – Though offences are not compoundable under Section 320 CrPC, inherent jurisdiction of High Court not barred – Power under Section 482 can be exercised to prevent abuse of process and to promote peace and harmony where dispute is predominantly private in nature [Paras 8–12].

Offences against Society – Test of Public Interest – FIR involved offences under Sections 307 and 326 IPC but appellants already acquitted of those charges – Remaining offences under Sections 324/148/149 IPC arose from village dispute – Held: Incident did not affect public peace, moral turpitude or public policy – Continuation of proceedings would serve no fruitful purpose [Paras 7–8, 16].

Settlement – Post-Conviction Stage – Pendency of Appeals – Compromise permissible even after conviction where offence is non-heinous and private in nature – Object of criminal jurisprudence is reformatory and to restore peace – Rejection of compromise may perpetuate hostility [Paras 7, 14–16].

Effect of Death of Accused – Abatement – One appellant (Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi) expired during pendency of appeals – Appeal abated qua deceased accused – Remaining appellants entitled to benefit of compromise [Para 5, 18].

Decision: Appeals by accused allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant-convicts acquitted – Appeal filed by State dismissed in view of compromise – Proceedings abated qua deceased accused – Bail bonds discharged – All pending applications closed [Paras 17–18].

Arbitration – Jurisdiction – Statutory Arbitration – National Highways Act – Section 3-G(5), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 42 – Petitioner NHAI contended that Section 34 petition filed by landowners challenging award of arbitrator should lie before District Judge, Mandi, as arbitrator was Divisional Commissioner, Mandi – Held: Notification under Section 3-G(5) merely specifies territorial jurisdiction of arbitrator and does not designate “seat” of arbitration – Office location or venue of hearings at Mandi does not ipso facto constitute seat of arbitration – Neither parties nor arbitrator fixed seat – In absence of designated seat, court where first application under Part I was filed (Bilaspur) would have exclusive jurisdiction under Section 42 – District Judge Bilaspur rightly retained jurisdiction [Paras 11–16, 22–23].

Arbitration – Seat vs Venue – Interpretation of “Place” under Section 20 – Juridical Seat – Mandi not fixed as seat – Mere fact that arbitrator holds office or conducts hearings in Mandi does not confer status of “seat” – Reference made to Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium and BGS SGS SOMA JV v. NHPC – Held: Seat of arbitration is the legal anchor of arbitration, and once chosen, confers exclusive jurisdiction – In present case, no agreement or determination regarding seat made – Thus, “Mandi” was only the venue and not the seat of arbitration [Paras 12–16].

Arbitration – Section 42 – First Application Rule – Exclusive Jurisdiction – Where Section 34 petition filed first – Respondents (landowners) filed Section 34 petitions before District Judge, Bilaspur prior in time to petitions filed by NHAI before District Judge, Mandi – As per Section 42, once an application is made in a “court” under Part I of the Act, that court alone has jurisdiction for all subsequent applications – Held: Bilaspur court has exclusive jurisdiction – Petitions by NHAI seeking transfer to Mandi court are devoid of merit [Paras 17–23].

Arbitration – Court under Section 2(1)(e) – Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction – Applicability of Section 42 – District Judge, Bilaspur is a “court” under Section 2(1)(e) – Once Section 34 application was validly filed there, no subsequent application could be filed before Mandi court – Petitioner’s Section 34 application before Mandi filed after respondents’ application in Bilaspur – Held: District Judge Bilaspur had valid and exclusive jurisdiction [Paras 21–23].

National Highways Act – Section 3-G Arbitration – Applicability of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 3-G(6) expressly applies Arbitration Act, 1996 to arbitrations under National Highways Act – Section 2(4) of Arbitration Act also deems statutory arbitrations under any enactment, including National Highways Act, to be governed by Part I of the Arbitration Act – Hence, Section 34 and Section 42 apply in full to such statutory arbitrations [Paras 2–7].

Decision: All petitions dismissed – Impugned order dated 28.06.2025 passed by District Judge, Bilaspur upheld – District Judge, Bilaspur has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain and decide all applications arising out of the arbitral proceedings – Mandi court has no jurisdiction in view of first application rule under Section 42 – Miscellaneous applications also dismissed. [Para 24]