Promotion and Seniority Dispute – Challenge against seniority list by petitioners, who were promoted to Havildar Instructors and then to Platoon Commanders. Dispute arises due to the retrospective effect of promotions not being acknowledged in the seniority list. [Para 2-5, 10]

Administrative Orders and Rectification – Respondent authority's right to rectify promotion orders, necessity of issuing show cause notice and providing a hearing before altering granted benefits. Current promotions maintained until final order. [Para 10-12]

Judicial Direction – Direction to State to issue show cause notice, conduct a hearing, and finalize the seniority list within 6 months, maintaining status quo in promotions until the final decision. [Para 13-14]

Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal complaint No.7507 dated 13.06.2016 and subsequent proceedings – Concerns cheque dishonor under Sections 138/141/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, related to a real estate transaction [Paras 1, 9].

Dispute Over Payment Amount – Respondent paid ₹23,54,573/- as advance for flat registration – Petitioners issued a cheque of ₹36,76,234/-, which was stopped due to a purported error in the amount – Respondent alleges an agreement to pay ₹36,76,234/- considering market conditions [Paras 2-4, 7].

Payment Details and Legal Notice – Respondent's calculation sheet (Annexure R1), prepared independently, not accepted or signed by petitioners – Petitioners replied to legal notice, clarifying the intended refund amount as ₹23,54,573/- [Paras 4, 7].

Judicial Analysis and Decision – No evidence of petitioners agreeing to pay more than ₹23,54,573/- – Continuing proceedings seen as misuse of legal process – Order for quashing the complaint and all consequential proceedings issued [Paras 6, 9].

Will - Background and Decree Challenge – Regular Second Appeal filed against decrees from Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mohali, and Additional District Judge, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) – Appeal challenges decrees which favored the respondent-plaintiffs in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction concerning inheritance disputes and validity of a Will. [Paras 1, 8]

Allegation of Forged Will and Inheritance Dispute – Plaintiffs (respondents) allege Hardial Singh’s Will, dated 13.12.1973, favoring defendant-appellants, is forged and void – Hardial Singh allegedly of unsound mind before death, with no Will in revenue record – Plaintiffs claim rightful share in inherited property. [Para 2]

Defendants’ Stance on Validity of Will and Mutation – Defendants (appellants) assert Hardial Singh's Will is valid, sanctioning mutation of inheritance – Claim the Will accepted by revenue officer, and property was ancestral and coparcenary in Hardial Singh's hands. [Para 3]

Trial and Lower Appellate Court Findings – Courts found Will unproven, not supported by credible evidence – Mutation based on said Will deemed illegal – Plaintiffs’ suit decreed, upholding their inheritance claim. [Paras 7, 8, 14-16]

Appellants' Arguments on Court Errors and Legal Principles – Appellants argue misapprehension of law and facts by lower courts, delay in suit filing, and error in dismissing applications for amendment and additional evidence – Cite various legal precedents. [Para 9]

Respondents’ Counter-Arguments on Will’s Genuineness and Limitation – Respondents assert appellants failed to prove Will's genuineness – Argue no limitation issue as plaintiffs were unaware of mutation till 2007, suit filed timely. [Para 10]

Protection of Bona Fide Purchaser Rights – Argument for respondent No.7 as bona fide purchaser, contending rightful protection of his interests by lower appellate court. [Para 11]

Appellate Court's Analysis and Conclusion – Appellate Court finds no substantial legal question raised by appellants – Upholds lower courts' findings on Will's invalidity and plaintiffs' inheritance rights – Dismisses appeal. [Paras 12-24]

Regular Bail – Grant in Case Involving Multiple Offences - Petition under Section 439 of the CrPC for regular bail in a case with multiple IPC sections – FIR for offences including attempt to murder and causing grievous hurt – Bail granted considering undertrial status and non-commencement of trial. [Paras 1, 6]

Factual Background – Assault and Injuries: Incident involving the petitioner and his family assaulting two individuals, causing serious injuries – FIR registered based on severe injuries sustained by the complainants. [Para 2]

Arguments for Bail – Cross-Version and Health of Injured: Petitioner’s counsel argues for bail citing cross-version of events and satisfactory discharge of one of the injured – Emphasizes petitioner’s incarceration since the date of arrest and likely prolonged trial. [Para 3]

Opposition by State – Active Participation in Crime: State counsel opposes bail, highlighting petitioner's active role in the assault and specific injury attributed to him – Stresses established participation in the incident. [Para 4]

Reference to Supreme Court Observations – Undertrial Prisoners - Cites Supreme Court’s remarks on the condition of undertrial prisoners in India – Notes the excessive number of undertrials and the need for sparing use of arrest and detention. [Para 5]

Decision – Bail Granted - Considering the petitioner's prolonged undertrial status, completed investigation, and pending trial commencement, bail is granted – Court orders release on bail without commenting on merits to avoid trial prejudice. [Para 7]

Motor Accident Claims - Compensation - Real brothers of the deceased claim compensation - Dependency not established - Entitled to compensation under conventional heads and loss of filial consortium - Appeal allowed. [Para 6-7]

Interest - Compensation to attract interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization of the entire amount. [Para 8]

Modification of Tribunal's award - Present appeal allowed, and the award passed by the Tribunal is modified accordingly. [Para 9]

Civil Appeal – Suit for injunction – Plaintiff-respondent Masjid Committee filed suit against defendant-appellants claiming exclusive control and supervision of a Masjid property used for religious purposes – Defendant-appellants disputed ownership and locus standi of the plaintiff-respondent – Trial Court decreed the suit – Lower Appellate Court upheld the decree – Regular second appeal filed by defendant-appellants – Defendant-appellants contended ownership and challenged plaintiff-respondent's locus standi – Locus of plaintiff-respondent upheld based on registered society status and unchallenged registration – Defendant-appellants failed to provide evidence of ownership or management of the Masjid – Appeal dismissed.

Petitioner's Enrollment and Medical Condition – Petitioner enrolled as Sepoy on 10.06.1991, diagnosed with ‘Aortic Regurgitation’ within 6 months of training, and discharged on 22.01.1992 due to being placed in Low Medical Category ‘EEE’ with 60% disability – Condition deemed not attributable to Military Service [Para 2].

Initial and Subsequent Legal Actions – Petitioner's appeal against rejection of disability pension dismissed on 20.11.2006 – Filed OA/1449/2022 before AFT in July 2022 seeking disability pension, contending the condition was attributable to military service [Paras 3-5].

Respondents’ Contention – Opposed grant of disability pension based on Rule 173 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 and absence of medical documents, arguing disability neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service [Para 6].

AFT's Decision and Review – AFT dismissed the OA on grounds of delay and latches, and medical condition being congenital – Review against dismissal also rejected [Paras 7-8].

High Court’s Analysis – Petitioner's approach deemed casual, with no valid justification for the delays in legal action – Training period too short to cause condition, and medical condition not attributable to military service [Paras 13-15].

Reliance on Judicial Precedents – Referenced cases including Baljit Singh, A.V. Damodaran, and Narsingh Yadav to uphold the Medical Board’s opinion that disability was not attributable to military service [Paras 17-21].

Dismissal of Petition – Considering factual matrix and established law, High Court found no grounds to interfere with AFT’s orders – Petition dismissed [Paras 22-24].

Service Law - Ad-hoc Appointment and Age Limit – Mithlesh Tyagi appointed as Hindi Pradhyapak on ad-hoc basis in 1983, beyond the age limit under Recruitment Rules – Regular recruitment had to be done through Staff Selection Commission (SSC) [Paras 1-3].

Tribunal’s Order and Respondent’s Career – Tribunal ordered to treat respondent’s service from 1983 to 2008 as qualifying for pension – Despite respondent’s service, Tribunal noted she was over-aged at initial appointment and thus ineligible for regularisation [Paras 4-8].

Legal Arguments and Tribunal’s Decision – Petitioner argued against regularisation and pensionary benefits due to ad-hoc, non-regular appointment – Tribunal’s decision was to grant pension for service between 1983 and 2008 [Paras 9-14].

Legal Analysis and Court’s Decision – Court found Tribunal’s decision unjustified as respondent’s service was not regular – Relied on Supreme Court judgment in Director General, Doordarshan Prasar Bharti Corp. of India & Anr. V. Smt. Magi H Desai, Civil Appeal No. 1787/2023 [Paras 15-20].

Judgment – High Court set aside Tribunal’s order – Ad-hoc service not qualifying for pension benefits [Para 20].

Judicial Power and Authority – Judicial power to cancel a registered instrument, specifically a sale deed, rests with the civil courts, not the Registrar – The impugned circular by the State Government of Jharkhand, vesting the power of cancellation on the Registrar, is legally unsustainable and is set aside – Registration of an instrument entails legal consequences affecting legal rights, and such power cannot be conferred by an executive order. [Paras 25, 35, 36]

Fraudulent Registrations – The challenge in dealing with the rise in fraudulent registrations – Importance of legal mechanisms to address fraudulent registrations while respecting judicial authority and statutory provisions – The circular's intention to curb fraudulent registrations, although well-intentioned, oversteps legal boundaries and infringes upon the rights conferred by the Registration Act, 1908. [Paras 23, 24]

Executive Power and Statutory Limitations – Executive power under Article 162 of the Constitution of India does not permit the State to issue executive orders in contravention of statutory provisions – The impugned circular, which attempts to confer judicial powers to the Registrar, contradicts the Registration Act, 1908. [Para 36]

Cancellation of Registered Deeds – Cancellation of registered deeds is a substantive legal action that requires adjudication by a competent civil court – Registrar's authority is limited to pre-registration scrutiny and does not extend to post-registration cancellation of deeds. [Paras 25, 27, 35]

Multiplicity of Proceedings – The impugned circular, if implemented, could lead to multiple proceedings (civil, criminal, and administrative) based on the same set of facts, leading to judicial inefficiency and conflicting judgments – Emphasizes the need to avoid such multiplicity and uphold the principle of finality in litigation. [Paras 30, 31]

Remedy for Void Transactions – In cases of void transactions, where a person without title transfers property, the remedy lies in civil law through a declaration that the deed is invalid, not through cancellation by the Registrar – Such issues of title and ownership are to be adjudicated by civil courts. [Paras 33, 34]

Decision – The High Court of Jharkhand sets aside the impugned circular issued by the State Government, along with all cases, notices, orders passed under it, and consequent orders for institution of FIRs. Affirms that cancellation of registered deeds, particularly in cases of fraud or lack of title, must be decided by civil courts.