Civil Law - Interim Injunction – Co-sharer’s Possession – No Exclusive Possession Shown – Revision Petition Dismissed – The petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming possession over agricultural land and sought interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC to restrain defendants from raising construction – Both courts below dismissed the injunction application holding that petitioner was merely a co-sharer and did not prove exclusive possession – The High Court held that interim injunction cannot be granted to a co-sharer unless exclusive possession is shown – Mere sowing of crop is insufficient where another co-sharer shows documents of possession such as electricity and water bills – Held: No error found in the concurrent findings; revision dismissed [Paras 2-6].

Exclusive Possession – Burden of Proof on Plaintiff – Observations Reaffirmed – The Court reiterated that a co-sharer must establish exclusive possession for seeking injunction – Defendant had placed material documents indicating physical possession and construction; plaintiff failed to rebut or show any contrary proof – Held: Plaintiff’s possession claims were unsubstantiated, rightly rejected by courts below [Paras 5-6].

Limited Interference under Article 227 – Scope of Revisional Powers – The High Court emphasised that interference under Article 227 is warranted only where the orders suffer from perversity or legal infirmity – Since both courts properly appreciated facts and law, the interference was declined – Held: No jurisdictional error found, petition dismissed [Paras 5-6].

Decision– Revision petition dismissed – Orders of Trial Court dated 05.10.2023 and First Appellate Court dated 16.09.2024 upheld – Pending applications also disposed of – Clarification made that observations herein are confined to the interim stage and do not affect the merits of the main suit [Paras 6-7].

Civil Law  – Declaration and Injunction Suit – Title not established – Appeal dismissed – The plaintiff-appellant sought a declaration claiming ownership over 5 kanals of land on the basis of a sale deed executed by her husband Gurlal Singh, but the lower courts dismissed the suit holding that Gurlal Singh’s ownership was limited to 1/4th share and there was no evidence of ownership of 3/4th share as mentioned in the sale deed – The High Court upheld the concurrent findings observing that execution of a sale deed without lawful title cannot confer ownership – Held: No substantial question of law arises, second appeal dismissed [Paras 2-10].

Sale Beyond Ownership – Effect of Invalid Title – Legal Principle Reaffirmed – The Court reiterated that a vendor cannot sell more than his ownership share – Jamabandi entries recorded only 1/4th share of Gurlal Singh while the sale deed wrongly mentioned 3/4th share – Held: Execution of sale deed by a person without title does not vest ownership rights in vendee [Paras 7-9].

No Proof of Excess Sale by Defendants – Courts’ Findings Upheld – The appellant failed to prove that defendants/respondents had sold land in excess of their share – The courts below rightly relied on revenue records showing that the land sold by respondents was within their recorded share – Held: No illegality in the sale deed executed by respondents, suit rightly dismissed [Paras 9].

Concurrent Findings – No Substantial Question of Law – Appeal dismissed – The Court found no perversity or misapplication of law in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Trial and First Appellate Courts – Held: In the absence of any substantial question of law, second appeal not maintainable and liable to be dismissed [Para 10].

Decision of the Case – Appeal dismissed – The judgments and decrees of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court dismissing the plaintiff’s suit for declaration and injunction are affirmed – Pending applications also disposed of [Para 10].

Writ Petition – Maintainability – Alternate Remedy – Election Dispute – Appeal Lies under Section 38(4) – The petitioner challenged the maintainability of an election petition filed with delay, arguing that the ground of illness was fabricated – The High Court held that the proper remedy was to file an appeal before the District Judge as per Section 38(4) of the Act – Held: Writ petition not maintainable when statutory appellate remedy exists [Paras 3-6].

Statutory Interpretation – Meaning of “All Orders” under Section 38(3) – Includes Interlocutory Orders – The court interpreted the phrase “all orders” to include interlocutory orders, contrary to earlier rulings that restricted appeals to only final orders – Held: Appeal lies even against interlocutory orders under Section 38(4) [Paras 6.3-6.5].

Per Incuriam – Prior Decisions Overruled – Niranjan Sahu and Sasmita Pradhan Cases Held Not Binding – The Court held that prior decisions restricting appeal to final orders only were rendered without considering binding precedents and statutory provisions – Held: These decisions are per incuriam and not binding; correct law stated in Anirudha Jena [Paras 5.1, 6.6].

Doctrine of Precedent – Role of Legislative Intent – Contextual and Holistic Interpretation Mandated – The Court stressed that statutory interpretation must align with legislative intent and context, rejecting isolated or narrow readings of statutory phrases like “all orders” [Paras 5.6-5.10].

Final Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Liberty to File Statutory Appeal – The Court disposed of the writ petition on the ground of maintainability, granting liberty to file an appeal before the District Judge within two weeks – No decision made on merits [Paras 6.7-6.9].

Criminal Law – Dismissed In Default for Non-Prosecution – Section 256 CrPC – Acquittal of Accused – Complaint Cannot Be Restored – Magistrate Lacked Jurisdiction - Complaint under Section 138 NI Act was dismissed in default due to complainant’s absence, and the accused was present – Held: This amounted to acquittal under Section 256(1) CrPC – The Magistrate has no power to restore such complaint – Impugned restoration order dated 24.07.2019 set aside [Paras 1-2, 5-8, 11-12].

Restoration of Complaint – Only Remedy is Appeal – Section 378 CrPC – No Revisional or 482 Petition Maintainable - Once a complaint is dismissed and accused acquitted under Section 256, complainant’s only remedy is to file an appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC – Restoration by Magistrate or via revision/482 petition is impermissible in law – Relied on precedents including Atul Sood, Mohd. Sakil, and Hardev Singh [Paras 7-10].

Terminology – “Discharge” in Magistrate’s Order – Interpreted as “Acquittal” – Legal Consequence Not Affected - Though the Magistrate used the word “discharged” in order dated 24.01.2018, Court held that in substance it amounted to “acquittal” – Substance prevails over form in such interpretation [Para 8].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Order of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh dated 24.07.2019 restoring the complaint quashed – Respondent-complainant may avail alternative remedies as per law [Paras 12-13].

Family Law - Custody of Minor – Section 6, 7 and 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act - Paramountcy of Welfare – Section 17 of Guardians and Wards Act – Custody Restored to Mother – In a dispute concerning custody of a 9-year-old minor, despite the personal law favouring custody to the father after seven years, the Court applied the welfare principle under Section 17 of the Act – Considered that the minor had deep emotional attachment with the mother and expressed refusal to reside with father – Held: The best interest of the child, including mental well-being and comfort, outweighed personal law entitlement – Custody granted to the mother with limited visitation rights to father [Paras 25-31].

Personal Law vs Welfare Principle – Muslim Law on Hizanat – Personal Law Not Conclusive – While acknowledging Muslim law provisions wherein the father gets custody after the age of seven, the Court clarified that in cases where the child’s welfare is at stake, personal law cannot supersede the paramount consideration of welfare under Section 17 – Interaction with the child and evidence indicated welfare lies with the mother – Custody continued with mother despite father's legal claim under personal law [Paras 19-21, 28].

Visitation Rights – Balanced Visitation Schedule to Safeguard Father’s Rights – The Court balanced the father’s rights by granting reasonable visitation – Father entitled to spend seven days with child during long vacations and monthly visits under supervision – This ensured continued parental contact without disrupting child’s comfort zone [Paras 29-30].

Adverse Conduct of Mother – Non-Compliance with Court Orders – Contempt Proceedings Maintained Separately – Despite the mother’s defiance of interim court orders, the Court held that custody must be determined on welfare considerations, not punitive grounds – Contempt petition directed to be considered independently [Paras 4, 14, 28].

Father’s Financial and Domestic Circumstances – Lack of Proof of Better Upbringing Environment – The father failed to establish superior financial capacity or supportive domestic arrangements – Absence of female family members noted as a crucial factor in denying custody – Welfare conditions were found to be more conducive with the mother [Paras 25, 31].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Custody with Mother – Limited Visitation to Father – The impugned judgment granting custody to father was set aside – Custody retained by mother with structured visitation rights to the father – Welfare of the minor took precedence over personal law mandates [Paras 31].

Taxation Law - Bunching of Show Cause Notices – Composite Notice for Multiple Financial Years – Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act – Composite Assessment Order Quashed – The petitioner challenged the legality of a single show cause notice issued for six financial years resulting in a consolidated demand order – Held: The GST law mandates issuance of notices based on each financial year or tax period independently – Issuing a single notice for multiple years defeats statutory limitation provisions and prejudices the assessee’s rights to present year-specific defenses – The bunching of notices and orders is impermissible under the GST Act and hence liable to be quashed [Paras 5-29].

Jurisdictional Error – Violation of Sections 73(10), 74(10), and 136 of the CGST Act – Orders Void for Lack of Jurisdiction – The Court held that bunching of multiple financial years into a single notice and assessment order is in violation of statutory time limits and procedural safeguards under Sections 73(10), 74(10), and 136 – Such orders are passed without jurisdiction and are therefore void ab initio [Paras 9-27].

Independent Adjudication Mandate – Separate Notices Required for Each Financial Year – Reliance on Judicial Precedents – The Court reiterated the principle laid down in Titan Company Ltd. and Tharayil Medicals cases that each financial year is a separate unit for assessment under GST – Clubbing years through composite notices is inconsistent with the legislative scheme and judicially unsustainable [Paras 10-26].

Hardship to Assessee – Impact on Amnesty Schemes and Compounding – Separate Adjudication Mandated – The Court highlighted that bunching notices causes hardship by preventing the assessee from availing year-wise remedies like compounding under Section 138 and settling disputes under amnesty schemes – Such practices unjustifiably constrain the assessee’s statutory rights [Paras 21-24].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Composite Order Set Aside – The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order on grounds of illegality arising from bunching of financial years, and directed that if necessary, fresh proceedings be initiated separately for each financial year in accordance with law [Paras 28-29].

Criminal Law – Kidnapping of Minor – Sections 363 and 366 IPC – Conviction Affirmed – The appellant was convicted for kidnapping a minor girl aged 11-13 years under Sections 363 and 366 IPC – Evidence established the girl was taken away without parental consent under false pretext and confined unlawfully – The minor’s consistent testimony, corroborated by other witnesses and medical evidence, proved kidnapping beyond reasonable doubt – Held: Conviction under Sections 363 and 366 IPC rightly upheld [Paras 7-9, 14-15].

Attempt to Rape – Section 376/511 IPC – Proof of Attempt – Conviction Sustained – Though complete penetration was not established, repeated sexual assault attempts, forcible undressing, and physical advances were proved by the prosecutrix’s consistent and credible testimony – Medical evidence indicated broken hymen and absence of injuries due to minor age – Held: Ingredients of attempt to rape made out, conviction under Section 376/511 IPC valid [Paras 9, 19-23].

Delay in FIR – Justified and Not Fatal – Delay in reporting incident explained due to familial involvement and societal stigma – Reliance placed on Supreme Court rulings clarifying delay is normal in sexual offences especially involving relatives – Held: Delay does not weaken prosecution’s case [Paras 17-18].

Victim’s Testimony – Sole Reliable Evidence – Conviction Based – The court emphasized testimony of prosecutrix is sufficient to secure conviction if trustworthy – No material discrepancies were found in cross-examination – No plausible reason for false implication was established – Held: Conviction sustained primarily on prosecutrix’s credible evidence [Paras 24-25].

Benefit of Probation – Not Applicable in Heinous Crime – Rejected – Considering the heinous nature of the crime involving sexual assault on a minor by a relative, benefit of probation or first offender protection was denied – Held: Trial court rightly denied benefit under Probation of Offenders Act [Para 27].

Defence Evidence – Unreliable and Unconvincing – Rejected – Defence witness failed to provide credible alibi or contradict prosecution case – Allegations of false implication due to property enmity found baseless and unsupported – Held: Defence failed to create reasonable doubt [Paras 12, 28].

Appeal – No Ground for Interference – Dismissed – The court found no illegality or perversity in trial court findings, conviction based on consistent, cogent, and credible evidence – Held: Appeal devoid of merit, dismissed [Paras 29-30].

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Complaint under Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Petitioner apprehending arrest in complaint for unauthorized sale of nicotine-based e-cigarettes without valid license – Prosecution opposed maintainability citing proclamation proceedings under Section 82 CrPC – Held: Petition maintainable under Section 482 BNSS as petitioner had challenged and quashed the proclamation order in separate petition – Anticipatory bail granted subject to compliance with BNSS conditions [Paras 1, 5-7].

Drugs and Cosmetics – Unauthorized Sale of Nicotine Products – During raid, petitioner found stocking and selling products labeled as containing nicotine without valid retail/wholesale license – Petitioner failed to produce valid drug license or reveal source of procurement – Offence prima facie under Sections 18(c) and 18-A of the Act made out – Bail granted without commenting on merits [Paras 4, 7].

Bail Conditions – Aadhaar-based Surety Verification – Court noted prevalent misuse and corruption in verifying sureties through local officials like Lambardars or Sarpanch – Directed Aadhaar verification via mAadhaar app as primary method – Identification through local bodies to be resorted only if Aadhaar is unavailable – Direction to Chief Secretaries and Registries to consider implementing Aadhaar-based verification in legal documents [Paras 9-12].

Decision: Petition allowed – Anticipatory bail granted – Proclamation order already quashed – Aadhaar-based verification of sureties to be followed – All pending applications disposed of.

Taxation Law – Recovery of Tax - GST Liability – Liability of Retired Partner – Section 90 of CGST Act – Petition Dismissed - The petitioner challenged a demand of Rs. 37,84,228/- and land attachment initiated against him under GST laws, arguing he had retired from the partnership firm on 20.04.2021 and was no longer responsible – The Court held that under Section 90 of the CGST Act, a partner remains jointly and severally liable until written intimation of retirement is furnished to the Commissioner – No timely intimation was made – Petitioner's continued reflection as active partner in GST records justified proceedings against him [Paras 5, 10-14].

Alternative Remedy – Maintainability of Writ – Availability of Statutory Appeal under Section 107 of PGST Act – Writ Not Entertained – The Court observed that petitioner had an efficacious remedy under Section 107 of the PGST Act to challenge the assessment and recovery proceedings – Reiterated that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked where statutory remedies exist unless exceptional circumstances are shown – No such circumstances made out [Para 5].

Land Attachment – Validity of Red Entry – Recovery Action Under Section 79 of PGST Act – Upheld – Petitioner's claim that he learned of land attachment only later and did not consent to it was held irrelevant in light of non-compliance with statutory requirements – The Department’s actions in seeking red entry and initiating recovery under DRC-09 and related provisions were found lawful [Paras 3, 6, 8].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Liberty Granted – The writ petition was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail alternative remedies in accordance with law [Para 16].