Civil Law – Right of Way – Agreement to Create Easement – Unregistered Document – Appellant sought injunction against obstruction of a passage allegedly created through an agreement dated 13.03.1988 – Trial court and first appellate court dismissed suit holding the agreement inadmissible for want of registration – High Court upheld that agreement created and extinguished rights in immovable property with specific valuation (Rs. 20,000/- damages clause), thus attracting Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act – Held: Since document was unregistered and valuation threshold crossed, it could not be read into evidence – Rights under agreement not enforceable [Paras 20-22].

Registration Act – Section 17(1)(b) – Test of Valuation – High Court applied twin conditions for compulsory registration: whether rights in immovable property were created/limited/extinguished, and whether the value exceeded ₹100 – Held: Agreement created reciprocal rights of passage and imposed a ₹20,000 compensation clause for breach – Thus, value of rights created was determinable and above threshold – Registration was mandatory – Ex.P1 inadmissible [Paras 14-22].

Limitation – Mandatory Injunction – Suit Not Barred – Trial court had dismissed suit as barred by limitation – High Court reversed this finding – Held: Suit for mandatory injunction, though not governed by specific article, falls within residuary Article 113 of the Limitation Act – Limitation is 3 years from accrual of cause – Since alleged encroachment occurred in 2001 and suit filed within months, suit was within limitation [Paras 23-25].

Evidence – Revenue Records – Presumption of Truth – Appellant relied on jamabandis and khasra girdawaris showing ‘rasta’ entries – Court noted revenue entries do carry presumption of correctness – However, presumption rebutted by absence of action to enforce rights, conflicting witness depositions, and lack of other corroborative evidence – Held: Concurrent findings that agreement was not acted upon not interfered with – Conduct of plaintiff (e.g., inaction against co-party Iqbal Singh who blocked path) weighed against claim [Paras 26-30].

Second Appeal – Scope under Punjab Courts Act – High Court reiterated that second appeals in Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh are governed by Section 41 of Punjab Courts Act, allowing reappreciation of evidence where lower courts’ findings are perverse or based on misreading – However, findings in this case found to be reasonable and supported by record [Para 26].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Agreement held compulsorily registrable and inadmissible – Suit not barred by limitation, but failed on merits – Concurrent findings upheld – Pending applications also disposed of.

Bail – Financial Fraud – International Transactions – Allegation of misappropriation of USD 1,25,000/- by petitioner while working as Finance and Admin Manager of informant company – FIR alleging opening of fraudulent company in Zambia, diversion of company funds, illegal withdrawals, and transfer of money to Indian bank accounts – Charge-sheet submitted and petitioner in custody since 15.05.2025 – Trial commenced but stayed – Held: Considering length of custody, nature of offences triable by Magistrate, recovery of incriminating articles, and no further custodial interrogation required, petitioner entitled to bail [Paras 1–4, 8].

Territorial Jurisdiction – Offences Committed Outside India – Section 208 BNSS – Indian citizen alleged to have committed offences partly in Zambia – Legal position reiterated that offences committed outside India by an Indian citizen can be tried in India as if committed within India, subject to prior sanction of Central Government – Court refrains from conclusively deciding jurisdiction at bail stage but notes prima facie commission of offences within India [Paras 4–5].

Sanction of Central Government – Mandatory Requirement – Proviso to Section 208 BNSS – Trial in respect of acts committed outside India cannot proceed without prior sanction of Central Government – Magistrate can proceed only in respect of offences allegedly committed within India until such sanction is obtained – Principle applied relying upon Supreme Court precedent [Paras 4, 7–8].

Double Jeopardy – Parallel Proceedings in Foreign Jurisdiction – FIR and arrest warrant issued in Zambia for theft by servant – Mere registration of criminal case abroad does not attract bar of double jeopardy – Protection under Article 20(2) of Constitution and Section 337 BNSS applicable only after conviction or acquittal by a competent court – Held: No bar to prosecution in India at present stage [Paras 5–6].

Continuing Offence – Transactions in Multiple Jurisdictions – Alleged acts partly in Zambia and partly in India including deposit of funds in Indian bank accounts and possession of stolen company assets – Held: In case of continuing offences, Indian courts have jurisdiction to proceed for acts committed in India, subject to statutory limitations regarding acts outside India [Paras 5, 7].

Bail Conditions – Safeguards – High bail bond imposed – Monthly police reporting – Restriction on committing similar offences – Obligation to inform residence and contact details – Condition imposed to secure presence of petitioner in view of arrest warrant issued by Zambian court – Bail allowed without expressing opinion on merits [Paras 8–9].

Decision: Bail application allowed – Petitioner released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.5,00,000/- with two solvent sureties – Subject to stringent conditions including monthly police attendance and compliance with legal process in Zambia – Bail application disposed of.

Maintenance – Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Interim Maintenance – Assessment of Income – Dependents – Voluntary Financial Obligations – Professional Qualification of Wife – Modification of Quantum.

Matrimonial Law – Interim Maintenance – Quantum Assessment – Deductions and Dependents – The petitioner-husband challenged the Family Court's order awarding ₹15,000/- each to the respondent-wife and minor child as interim maintenance - The petitioner argued that the wife is an MBA and capable of earning, and that he has liabilities towards his aged parents, divorced sister, and loan EMIs - The High Court upheld the maintenance to the wife but modified the child's maintenance - The Court held that the wife's educational qualification does not absolve the husband of his statutory duty if she has no current independent income - It was further held that the petitioner's father (a pensioner) and divorced sister (having independent legal recourse) are not "dependents" for the purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C. calculations - Personal loan EMIs were ruled as voluntary obligations not deductible from income - Applying the Anurita Vohra formula to the husband's income of approx. ₹60,000/-, the Court found the wife's share reasonable but reduced the child's share to ₹10,000/- considering her tender age of 3.5 years - Paras 1-16.

Employability of Wife – Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Professional Degree – Held: Mere possession of a professional degree (MBA) cannot substitute for actual employment or income - While qualification is a relevant factor, the primary consideration is whether the wife presently has an independent and sufficient source of income to maintain herself with dignity - The wife's responsibility towards a minor child and her health issues were rightly considered by the Family Court to negate the argument of potential employability - Paras 8, 15.

Definition of Dependents – Moral vs. Statutory Duty – Parents and Siblings – Held: A father receiving a regular pension (₹17,000/- p.m.) cannot be treated as financially dependent on the son for Section 125 Cr.P.C. calculations - Similarly, a divorced sister has legal remedies to claim maintenance from her former husband; assistance to her falls within the realm of moral duty, not legal dependency enforceable under Section 125 Cr.P.C. - Such voluntary/moral obligations cannot dilute the statutory duty towards the wife and child - Paras 10-11.

Deductibility of EMIs – Computation of Income – Held: Monthly installments (EMIs) paid towards personal loans are voluntary financial obligations and cannot be considered mandatory statutory deductions - Maintenance rights of the wife and child cannot be defeated on the account of EMIs paid by the husband towards property or personal loans - Paras 14.

Apportionment of Income – Family Resource Cake – Held: Relying on Anurita Vohra, the income of the earning member is a 'family resource cake' to be distributed equitably - With an income of approx. ₹60,000/-, dividing into four shares (two for husband, one each for dependents) yields approx. ₹15,000/- per share - This calculation was found consistent with law, though the child's share was marginally reduced due to age-specific needs - Paras 12-13.

Decision: Appeal allowed in part - The interim maintenance for the minor child (Respondent No. 2) is reduced from ₹15,000/- to ₹10,000/- per month - The maintenance of ₹15,000/- awarded to the wife (Respondent No. 1) is upheld - Paras 16-17.

Motor Accident Compensation – Death of Minor Child – Enhancement of Compensation – Tribunal assessed notional income at Rs.30,000 per annum and awarded lump sum compensation – High Court held that a deceased minor cannot be equated with a non-earning person merely due to absence of gainful employment – Minimum wages of skilled workman applicable – Income reassessed at Rs.10,000 per month – Award enhanced substantially [Paras 1, 9–10, 14].

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Assessment of Income – Minimum Wages – Reliance placed on recent Supreme Court pronouncement holding that minimum wages of skilled workman must be adopted for deceased minor – Tribunal committed manifest error in adopting arbitrary notional income – Corrected by High Court [Paras 9–10].

Future Prospects – Minor Deceased – Addition Mandatory – Considering age of deceased (15 years), future prospects @ 40% added in terms of Pranay Sethi – Tribunal erred in not granting any amount under this head – Rectified in appeal [Paras 11, 14].

Personal and Living Expenses – Deduction – Minor Victim – Deduction of 1/2 towards personal expenditure applicable – Tribunal erred in not making any deduction – Corrected in accordance with Sarla Verma principles [Paras 12, 14].

Multiplier – Selection – Age of Deceased – Tribunal wrongly applied multiplier of 15 – Correct multiplier for age group of 15 years held to be 18 – Compensation recalculated accordingly [Paras 13–14].

Conventional Heads – Loss of Estate – Funeral Expenses – Consortium – Tribunal failed to grant loss of estate and awarded meagre amounts under funeral expenses and consortium – High Court awarded amounts as per Pranay Sethi with applicable escalation – Filial consortium awarded to both parents [Paras 13–14].

Interest on Enhanced Compensation – Rate of Interest – In view of Supreme Court judgments, interest on enhanced compensation awarded @ 9% per annum from date of filing of claim petition till realization – Insurance Company directed to deposit enhanced amount within stipulated time [Paras 15–16].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Award dated 30.03.2017 modified – Total compensation enhanced to Rs.16,45,100/- – Enhanced amount of Rs.11,45,100/- awarded with interest @ 9% per annum – Insurance Company directed to deposit amount within two months – Tribunal to disburse amount to claimants as per ratio fixed earlier [Paras 14–17].

Service Law – Gratuity – Conflict between Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Service Rules – CMD of Government Company – Applicability of MSTC CDA Rules – Appellant-company challenged Single Judge judgment upholding entitlement of respondent (former CMD) to gratuity under the 1972 Act – Held: Where service conditions are governed by CDA Rules permitting continuation of disciplinary proceedings and recovery of pecuniary loss from gratuity, such Rules prevail – Single Judge erred in applying the Payment of Gratuity Act in exclusion of the Rules [Paras 27–38].

Service Jurisprudence – Disciplinary Proceedings after Superannuation – Legal Fiction of Continuation in Service – Rule 30A of MSTC CDA Rules – Disciplinary proceedings initiated prior to retirement and concluded thereafter – Punishment of recovery from gratuity imposed – Held: Rule 30A(i) creates a legal fiction of deemed continuation in service – Authority competent to impose punishment including recovery from gratuity even after superannuation [Paras 28–35].

Gratuity – Forfeiture / Recovery – Section 4(6), Payment of Gratuity Act – Interpretation – Respondent contended forfeiture impermissible absent termination – Court held that Rule 30A(ii) of CDA Rules operates disjunctively – Recovery permissible either for misconduct under Section 4(6) of the Act or for negligence causing pecuniary loss proved in disciplinary proceedings – Compliance with Section 4(6) not mandatory in every case of recovery under CDA Rules [Paras 31, 35–37].

Service Rules – Primacy over Gratuity Act – Effect of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. Rabindranath Choubey – Supreme Court held that Payment of Gratuity Act does not fetter power of employer to continue disciplinary proceedings or impose punishment under applicable service rules – Single Judge relied on overruled decision in Jaswant Singh Gill – Held: Impugned judgment contrary to settled law and unsustainable [Paras 7–8, 32–38].

Judicial Review – Limits – Gratuity Proceedings – Controlling and Appellate Authorities under Gratuity Act cannot examine legality or propriety of disciplinary proceedings – Single Judge erred in traversing into disciplinary findings while adjudicating gratuity claim – Held: Such exercise beyond permissible scope [Paras 38].

Service Law – Finality of Disciplinary Punishment – Respondent did not challenge punishment order dated 30/04/2013 imposing recovery from gratuity – Accepted and allowed to attain finality – Held: Subsequent gratuity claim cannot indirectly unsettle final disciplinary order [Paras 36–37].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of Single Judge dated 25/03/2025 in WPA No. 15908 of 2019 set aside – Order of Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act dated 30/04/2019 set aside – Order of Controlling Authority dated 20/02/2018 upheld – Respondent not entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

Criminal Law – Murder – Common Intention – Evidence of Eye-witnesses – Conviction Upheld – Appellants convicted under Sections 302/34, 324/34, and 325/34 IPC for murdering a 13-year-old boy and grievously injuring his father and other family members – Trial Court convicted 3 out of 8 accused – High Court found that all three convicted accused acted with common intention and came armed to assault the deceased and others – Medical and ocular evidence corroborated each other – Minor inconsistencies in testimonies did not affect core of prosecution’s case – Held: Conviction justified and supported by credible eye-witnesses including injured witnesses [Paras 3, 39-41, 48-49]

Criminal Law – Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC – Not Attracted – Sudden Fight – Premeditation – Defense Plea Rejected – Appellants argued that the incident occurred due to a sudden quarrel arising from a dispute over cattle – Held: Evidence revealed prior threats, premeditated attack, and targeted killing – Deceased was chased, dragged from hiding, and fatally attacked – Injured witnesses consistently testified to intent and brutality – Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC not applicable – Conviction under Section 302 IPC upheld [Paras 42-47]

Witness Testimony – Family Members as Eye-Witnesses – Credibility – PW.1 (mother), PW.4 & PW.8 (sisters), and PW.11 (father) were injured eye-witnesses – Testimonies corroborated and supported by VDP Secretary (PW.3) and others – Held: Relationship with the deceased does not discredit testimony if otherwise credible and consistent – No reason to disbelieve their statements [Paras 36, 39-41]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302/34, 324/34, and 325/34 IPC confirmed – No grounds for interference.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Conviction and Sentence – Trial court convicted petitioner for dishonour of cheque and imposed sentence of one year simple imprisonment with compensation of Rs.18,00,000/- – Appellate court suspended sentence subject to deposit of 20% of compensation – Legality of such conditional suspension examined [Paras 1–3].

Criminal Procedure – Suspension of Sentence – Section 389 CrPC read with Section 148 NI Act – Appellate court imposed condition of 20% deposit mechanically – Held: Though Section 148 empowers appellate court to impose such condition, it is not mandatory in every case – Appellate court must examine whether case falls within exception warranting waiver [Paras 4–5].

Natural Justice – Opportunity of Hearing – Exceptional Circumstances – Appellate court failed to afford opportunity to petitioner to make submissions regarding financial hardship or exceptional circumstances before imposing condition – Held: Imposition of deposit without granting such opportunity is unsustainable in law [Paras 6–7].

Precedent – Binding Effect – Reliance on Supreme Court Judgment – Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., 2023(4) RCR (Criminal) 296 – Held: Appellate court must record reasons if it chooses to waive or relax deposit of 20% compensation – Failure to follow settled law vitiates the impugned order [Paras 4–5, 9].

Decision: Criminal revision allowed – Condition directing deposit of 20% of compensation amount set aside – Matter remanded to lower appellate court to reconsider the issue afresh after granting opportunity to petitioner – Order of suspension of sentence to remain undisturbed – Petition disposed of accordingly [Paras 7–10].

Succession Law – Probate – Will proved genuine but probate denied – Xerox copy of Will dated 22.01.1996 propounded by husband of testatrix – Allegation that original Will was stolen by appellant – Trial court accepted genuineness of Will based on attesting witness testimony and consistent evidence – However, probate dismissed due to concealment of fact that property had already been sold by original petitioner – Substituted petitioner did not challenge dismissal – Held: Execution of Will proved, but no interference warranted with dismissal of probate due to suppression of material facts [Paras 1, 8, 13–18]

Evidence Act – Secondary Evidence – Section 65(c) – Requirements for admissibility of copy of lost Will – Petitioner alleged original Will was stolen by son – No direct proof of theft produced, but complaint filed and consistent narrative maintained – Held: Case fell under Section 65(c) – Copy admissible – Attesting witness testimony credible and unshaken – Trial court justified in treating Will as genuine despite absence of original [Paras 15–17]

Indian Succession Act – Section 237 – Probate of Copy of Lost Will – Court reiterated that probate of copy is permissible where original lost or destroyed by accident or other unintentional means – Allegation of theft by son, along with prior consistent complaint, sufficient in circumstances – Will admitted to be in existence through conduct of objector, who attested subsequent Will referencing it – Held: Pre-conditions under Section 237 satisfied – Genuineness of Will established [Paras 13, 17]

Conduct of Objector – Estoppel by Conduct – Objector and his wife attested subsequent Will executed by father in 2004 acknowledging title through 1996 Will – Later challenged genuineness of 1996 Will only after cancellation of 2004 Will – Court held such conduct undermines credibility of objection – Testimony of attesting witness (PW-1) found reliable – Objector’s shifting position discredited [Paras 10, 17]

Procedural Law – Suppression of Material Facts – Dismissal of Probate Petition – Original petitioner sold property during pendency of probate proceedings without disclosure to court – Trial court rightly dismissed petition for suppression – Substituted petitioner failed to challenge such dismissal – Held: No interference warranted with trial court’s decision to deny probate despite Will being held genuine [Paras 8, 18]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Execution and genuineness of Will upheld – Dismissal of probate petition due to suppression of material facts by original petitioner sustained – No interference warranted – Pending applications also dismissed.

Contract Law – Rescission of Railway Contract – Forfeiture of Security Deposit – Petitioner awarded contract for re-spacing of SC sleepers under N.F. Railway – Work halted due to technical variation – Petitioner submitted multiple representations seeking approval of variation and extension of time – Railway issued show-cause notices under Clause 62 of General Conditions of Contract without specifying exact default – Contract rescinded and guarantee forfeited immediately after petitioner informed about readiness to resume work – Held: Authorities acted arbitrarily and failed to consider representations – Principles of natural justice violated – Termination notice and forfeiture orders set aside – Respondents directed to refund security deposit and performance guarantee [Paras 5-7, 16-18].

Natural Justice – Hearing Before Termination – Petitioner’s letters dated 22.11.2021, 29.11.2021 and 19.01.2022 were not responded to – No speaking order passed showing consideration of replies – Held: Decision to rescind contract without addressing representations amounts to violation of natural justice [Paras 16-18].

Alternative Remedy – Arbitration Clause – Clause 64 of Railway Contract provides arbitration except for matters under Clause 62 – Held: Termination under Clause 62 is an “excepted matter” – Court has jurisdiction to entertain writ – Further, violation of natural justice justifies invoking Article 226 despite alternate remedy [Paras 14-16].

Administrative Law – Arbitrary Action – Failure of Railway to consider contractor’s request for variation approval and intent to complete work – No finding recorded on replies – Decision to terminate appears predetermined and one-sided – Held arbitrary and unsustainable in law [Paras 16-18].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Termination notices dated 16.11.2021, 25.11.2021 and rescission order dated 20.01.2022 set aside – Respondents directed to refund the security deposit and performance guarantee within two months [Para 18-19].