Civil Law – Additional Evidence – Order 41 Rule 27 CPC – Applications Must Be Decided With Appeal – Appellate Court dismissed application for additional evidence and another under Section 151 CPC during pendency of appeal – Held: As per binding precedent of Supreme Court (State of Rajasthan v. T. Sahani and K. Venkataramiah v. Seetharama Reddy), applications under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC should be considered at the time of final hearing of appeal – Impugned order set aside on this limited ground [Paras 2–6].

Civil Procedure – Application Under Section 151 CPC – Improper Prejudgment – Application filed by defendants/petitioners for summoning death record of respondent/plaintiff decided prior to hearing of main appeal – Held: Application under Section 151 CPC also to be heard together with appeal – Impugned order set aside by consent of both parties, without going into merits [Paras 5–7].

Judicial Discretion – Fair Procedure – Coordinated Bench and Apex Court have consistently held that premature adjudication of applications under Order 41 Rule 27 and Section 151 CPC undermines the appellate process – Both applications restored and to be decided on merits at time of appeal hearing – No adjudication on merits by High Court [Paras 4–7].

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 12.10.2022 set aside – First Appellate Court directed to consider application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC (by respondent/plaintiff) and application under Section 151 CPC (by petitioners/defendants) along with main appeal – No opinion expressed on merits of either application.

Labour Law – Reinstatement – Illegal Termination – Voluntary Resignation Not Proved – Tribunal directed reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages – Employer challenged award citing alleged resignation and full and final settlement – Held: Photocopies of alleged resignation and cheque were not proved through admissible evidence – Workman denied receiving settlement beyond salary dues – Tribunal rightly rejected employer’s plea and held termination illegal for non-compliance with Section 25-F of I.D. Act [Paras 5–11].

Industrial Disputes – Back Wages – Employer’s Burden to Prove Gainful Employment – Management challenged grant of 50% back wages arguing absence of claim of unemployment by workman – Held: Burden was on employer to prove gainful employment during the period of termination – In absence of such evidence, Tribunal’s award of back wages sustainable – Relief consistent with Hindustan Tin Works and Deepali Gundu Surwase decisions of the Supreme Court [Paras 12–14].

Industrial Law – Demand Notice – Discrepancy in Date of Appointment – Tribunal found actual date of appointment as 05.09.2013 based on management’s own record – Held: Mere discrepancy in dates across multiple demand notices immaterial where employment and termination were otherwise established – Finding of Tribunal affirmed [Para 4].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Tribunal’s award of reinstatement with 50% back wages upheld – Management failed to prove resignation or settlement and failed to discharge burden of proving gainful employment – No interference warranted under Article 226.

Tender Law – Disqualification of Lowest Bidder – Abnormally Low Bid – Petitioner submitted financial bid quoting ₹1.92 for Packet-1 and ₹4.55 for Packet-2 in UIDAI tender for Aadhaar document verification services – Petitioner declared L-1 based on highest technical score and lowest combined commercial bid – Financial Evaluation Committee (FEC) disqualified bid citing price as “abnormally low” for Packet-1 – Court held: Though RFP did not expressly permit rejection on such ground, none of the other bidders agreed to match L-1 rate, frustrating the tender process – Held: Disqualification justified in larger public interest despite procedural lapses [Paras 26–43, 46–50]

Tender Evaluation – QCBS and RFP Compliance – RFP mandated equal weightage to Packet-1 and Packet-2 for financial bid evaluation under Clauses 2.4.3 and 2.4.4 – FEC considered only Packet-1 rate of ₹1.92 while disqualifying petitioner – Court held: Evaluation process flawed and not in full compliance with RFP – However, since tender required multiple vendors and other bidders refused to match rate, FEC's action was not arbitrary – Court declined to interfere [Paras 33–38, 41–43]

Public Procurement – Judicial Review in Tender Matters – Court reiterated limited scope of interference under Article 226 in contractual matters – Held: Court will not supplant expert views unless decision is perverse, arbitrary, or actuated by mala fides – FEC considered petitioner’s clarifications twice, recorded reasons in rejection report – Mere error in procedure does not warrant interference if public interest outweighs private loss – Petition dismissed [Paras 44–48]

Administrative Law – Natural Justice – Compliance – Petitioner given two opportunities to justify pricing and explain technical approach – FEC recorded detailed reasons for rejection after reviewing clarifications – Principles of natural justice held to be satisfied – No procedural illegality found [Paras 44–47]

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No interference warranted under Article 226 – Procedural lapse by FEC in not strictly following RFP clauses did not vitiate outcome – Disqualification based on inability of other bidders to match price protected larger public interest – Pending applications disposed of.

Civil Law – Decree Based on Family Settlement – Validity – Decree dated 14.01.1983 allegedly obtained by appellants Satpal and Mohinder Singh against Sukh Ram on basis of family settlement – Courts below held Sukh Ram was not related to appellants and had not suffered decree – Fingerprint expert evidence showed thumb impressions on court record did not match Sukh Ram’s – Held: Decree obtained by impersonation and fraud – Decree unregistered and not based on pre-existing right – Invalid and not binding – Findings of both courts affirmed [Paras 16–16.1].

Revenue Records – Possession – Change in Khasra Girdwari Without Notice – Appellant Lakhmi claimed possession based on revenue entries – First Appellate Court reversed Trial Court and held entries invalid as made without notice to Sukh Ram – Held: Change in revenue records without due process has no legal sanctity – Possession of Lakhmi not established – Sukh Ram rightly held to be in possession of suit land – Declaration and injunction decrees upheld [Paras 17–18].

Punjab Courts Act – No Substantial Question of Law – Second appeal under Section 41 of Punjab Courts Act does not require formulation of substantial question of law as under Section 100 CPC – Held: Findings of fact by lower courts based on cogent reasoning and evidence – Appeals dismissed on merits [Paras 15, 18.1].

Contempt of Court – Alleged Violation of Status Quo Order – Petitioners claimed respondents violated status quo order by executing sale deed and forcibly taking possession – Held: Petitioners failed to show they were in possession – Allegations vague and lacking specific dates or details – No deliberate or willful disobedience shown – Contempt petition dismissed as misconceived [Paras 18.2–19].

Decision: All four Regular Second Appeals dismissed – Findings of lower courts regarding invalidity of decree and absence of lawful possession affirmed – Contempt petition (COCP-1620-2008) dismissed as vague and lacking merit – All pending applications also disposed of – Judgment to be placed on record of all connected files.

Income Tax – Bogus Purchases – Reopening of Assessment – Information from Sales Tax Department – AO reopened assessment based solely on list of alleged hawala dealers and added entire ₹2,05,74,750 as bogus purchases – Assessee produced purchase bills, VAT auditor’s certificate, ledger, and bank payment proof – CIT(A) restricted addition to 15% of reduced purchase value based on Simit P. Sheth principle – ITAT confirmed – Held: Reopening based only on unverified external information without giving assessee opportunity to cross-examine alleged dealers violates natural justice – Addition of 100% unjustified; estimation at 15% reasonable [Paras 4–10, 13–16].

Section 147 – Reassessment – Mere information from investigation wing or Sales Tax Department cannot be sole basis for belief of escapement without independent inquiry – AO’s reliance on third-party list without supplying material to assessee renders assessment unsustainable [Paras 13–15].

Evidence – Burden of Proof – Once assessee produces purchase invoices, bank payment details, and VAT audit certificate, onus shifts to Revenue to disprove genuineness; failure to do so vitiates addition [Paras 15–16].

Natural Justice – Violation – Failure to furnish underlying material or allow cross-examination of alleged bogus suppliers renders order contrary to fairness and due process [Paras 13–14].

Factual Finding – Concurrent Findings of CIT(A) & ITAT – Both authorities found partial genuineness and applied 15% gross profit estimation following CIT v. Simit P. Sheth (356 ITR 451, Guj.) – No perversity shown – No substantial question of law arises under Section 260A [Paras 16–17].

Decision: Revenue’s appeal dismissed – Order of ITAT and CIT(A) upheld – Addition restricted to 15% of alleged hawala purchases – No substantial question of law arises [Para 17].

Property Law – Permanent Injunction – Co-sharer plea – Adverse inference – Concurrent findings – Suit land 32 marlas marked ABCD – Trial Court decreed injunction on possession; First Appellate Court affirmed – Defendant’s belated co-sharer argument inapplicable as he never pleaded joint status and instead set up exclusive claims (7 marlas with himself, 25 marlas with sister) – Non-appearance of defendant warranted adverse inference – No substantial question of law – Appeal dismissed [Paras 4, 7–13].

Pleadings and Burden – Co-sharer principle not attracted – Legal proposition that one co-sharer cannot injunct another is undisputed, but inapplicable where the defendant’s own pleadings deny jointness and assert exclusive titles in defined portions – Court declines to permit a case beyond pleadings [Paras 8–9].

Evidence – Family partition and possession – First Appellate Court recorded that partition stood admitted even by defence witnesses – Sister (alleged owner of 25 marlas) residing in another village since 1947; no possession proved – Defendant did not enter the witness box; son (DW2) lacked personal knowledge of partition or identification of the alleged 7 marlas – Defence testimony inconsistent and unreliable [Para 10].

Adverse Inference – Non-appearance of a party – Adverse inference against the defendant for not stepping into the witness box, consistent with Prem Sagar v. Darbari Lal and Sardari Lal v. Kartar Singh – Defendant failed to substantiate title or possession; plaintiff’s possession proved – Decrees sustained [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No substantial question of law arises – Concurrent injunction in favour of the plaintiff maintained [Para 13].

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Conviction Set Aside – Appellant convicted under Section 306 IPC as mother-in-law of deceased who allegedly committed suicide nine years after marriage – Trial Court convicted appellant based on vague allegations of harassment – Held: No proximate or direct act of instigation or abetment proved against appellant – Essential ingredients of Section 306 IPC read with Section 107 IPC not fulfilled – Mere allegations of harassment not sufficient to constitute abetment – Mens rea absent – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 13–20]

Evidence – Inconsistencies and Omissions – Witnesses Contradicted Their Earlier Statements – PW-4 contradicted prior statement where he had stated that deceased was under depression due to childlessness and that relations with in-laws were cordial – Medical evidence incomplete as doctor who conducted post-mortem not examined – Held: Prosecution failed to prove active role of appellant in causing suicide – No cogent or corroborative evidence led – Accused entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 17–19]

Judicial Precedents – Standard of Proof Under Section 306 IPC – Court relies on Supreme Court rulings including Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda v. State of Gujarat, Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. State of Maharashtra, Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal, S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan – Held: Proximity and direct link between accused’s conduct and suicide necessary – Conviction under Section 306 requires proof of instigation or intentional aid, mere harassment insufficient [Paras 15–16]

Abuse of Process – No Prima Facie Case – Harassment Not Proved to Be of Such Nature As to Drive Deceased to Suicide – Held: Criminal proceedings against appellant in absence of proximate cause and intent would amount to abuse of process – Acquittal warranted [Paras 20–21]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 306 IPC quashed – Appellant acquitted – Fine, if deposited, to be refunded – Bail bonds discharged – Appellant to be released forthwith if not required in any other case

Hindu Law – Inheritance – Applicability of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Married Daughter’s Right – Plaintiff sought declaration of title and partition of ancestral property inherited by her brother after their father's death – Both Courts below found that father died in 1950-51, prior to enactment of 1956 Act – Held: Succession opened under pre-1956 Mitakshara law which excluded daughters when a male heir existed – Plaintiff had no enforceable right under prevailing law at the time – Appeal dismissed [Paras 12, 19-21, 26, 30-31]

Hindu Law – Mitakshara Succession – Male Lineal Descent – Property inherited from paternal ancestors treated as coparcenary property under Mitakshara law – Sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons acquire rights by birth – Female heirs could inherit only in absence of male issue – Defendant’s succession to entire estate held valid – Plaintiff’s claim without merit [Paras 19, 26-30]

Statutory Interpretation – Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act, 1929 – Limited Scope – Act merely ranked certain female heirs in succession after paternal grandfather and before paternal uncle – Did not override Mitakshara principles or grant equal rights to daughters where male heirs existed – Plaintiff not entitled under 1929 Act either [Paras 23-25, 27-28]

Widow’s Possession – Section 14, Hindu Succession Act – No evidence led to show possession of property by widow after husband’s death – In absence of possession, limited estate could not convert into absolute right – Plaintiff failed to establish succession through mother – Mutation in favour of defendants upheld [Para 14, 30]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No right of inheritance accrued to plaintiff under Mitakshara law – Hindu Succession Act, 1956 not applicable due to ancestor’s death prior to its commencement – Property validly devolved upon male heir – No error in concurrent findings of lower courts – No costs awarded.

Criminal Law - Motor Vehicle Accident – Negligence – No Direct Evidence – Conviction Set Aside – Accused was convicted by Trial and Appellate Courts for rash and negligent driving causing injuries – Revisional Court held that prosecution failed to prove rashness or negligence – Injury location inconsistent with prosecution's version of accident – Conviction under Sections 279 and 338 IPC set aside [Paras 18–24, 29–37, 40].

Evidence – Contradictions – Prosecution version that victim was hit from behind contradicted by injury on her left leg – Witnesses’ testimony regarding “high speed” insufficient without specific elaboration – Statements of negligence by witnesses held inadmissible as opinion, not fact – Witnesses’ conclusions disregarded [Paras 19–26, 34–36].

High Speed – Not Per Se Negligent – Speed alone not determinative of rashness – No evidence of reckless driving or breach of duty – Court cited State of Karnataka v. Satish and Mohanta Lal v. State of W.B. to reaffirm that “high speed” must be contextualised – Mere speed cannot establish guilt [Paras 24–26].

Licensing – Driving Without License – Conviction Upheld – Accused admitted to not holding a valid driving license – Held: Though not evidence of negligence, driving without license validly attracts Section 181 of M.V. Act – Sentence of ₹500 fine upheld as reasonable [Paras 31–33, 38].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope – Concurrent Findings – Revisional Court reiterated that it cannot act as a second appellate court – Interference only when findings are perverse or based on no evidence – Court relied on Malkeet Singh Gill, Dilipsinh Rao, Kishan Rao and others to set out settled law on revisional powers [Paras 13–17].

Decision: Revision Petition Partly Allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 279 and 338 IPC set aside – Conviction and fine of ₹500 under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act upheld [Paras 40–42].