Family Law – Guardianship and Custody – Territorial Jurisdiction – Application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC – Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 – Section 9:

Family Law – Guardianship and Custody of Minor – Application for Return of Petition for Lack of Jurisdiction – High Court of Karnataka allows writ petition and sets aside Family Court’s order rejecting application for return of plaint – Petitioners, grandparents of the minor child, sought return of the custody petition to the court of appropriate jurisdiction where the minor resides – Family Court's rejection of application based on Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act and Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure found contrary to law – High Court determined jurisdiction lies where the minor ordinarily resides, not where other relatives reside – Petition allowed and matter directed to be filed in appropriate court within jurisdiction of the minor's residence [Paras 1-13].

Jurisdiction – Guardians and Wards Act, Section 9 – Interpretation of "Ordinary Residence" of Minor – High Court aligns with Supreme Court’s interpretation in Ruchi Majoo v. Sanjeev Majoo – High Court emphasized that “ordinary residence” determines jurisdiction in guardianship cases – Clarified that defendant can file application under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC for return of plaint – Overriding effect of Family Courts Act over general provisions of CPC upheld – High Court asserts importance of child's ordinary residence in deciding jurisdiction [Paras 7-12].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Order of Family Court Quashed – High Court directs return of plaint to be filed in appropriate jurisdiction – Family Court's order rejecting return of petition quashed – Application under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC allowed – Case to be filed in the court of appropriate jurisdiction where the minor child ordinarily resides [Para 13].

Filing of Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226 – Petitioners seeking directions for protection against threats to their life and liberty – Relationship between the major petitioner No. 1 and minor petitioner No. 2 (17 years & 9 months) is a matter of their personal choice and stated to be consensual [Para 1, 2].

Notice and Representation – Initial hearing and acceptance of notice by the Additional Advocate General for the respondents – Submission of a prior representation to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur, concerning threats from private individuals which had not been acted upon by the police [Para 3, 5].

Precedent and Protection under Law – Reliance on analogous High Court decisions protecting individuals in live-in relationships akin to married couples seeking protection against familial threats – Cites constitutional protection of life and liberty applicable regardless of societal acceptance of the relationship [Para 6].

Court’s Order and Directions – Direction issued to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur, to assess the threat perception based on petitioners' representation and take necessary action – No comment on the legitimacy of the relationship but emphasis on ensuring safety [Para 7].

Disposition – Without delving into the legality of the relationship, the petition is disposed of with specific directions to police for assessment and action regarding the threat perception to petitioners [Para 8].

Service Law - Promotion and Seniority Dispute - Appellant, Ram Mehar Singh, contests the promotion of a junior (Paras Ram) to the post of Operator, claiming seniority and alleging irregularities in the promotion process - Appeal challenges the judgment and decree dated 06.10.1997 of the Additional District Judge, Rohtak, which favored the respondent by reversing an earlier favorable judgment for the appellant [Paras 1, 2, 5, 15].

Issue of Limitation - Key contention regarding the timeliness of the suit, with the appellant asserting that the action was initiated after becoming aware of the junior’s promotion - The respondent and courts assert the claim is time-barred, referencing Article 113 of the Limitation Act prescribing a three-year limitation period for seeking such declarations [Paras 8, 10-14].

Qualifications for Promotion - Dispute over the appellant’s qualifications for the Operator position - Evidence suggests the promotion was based on suitability and recommendations, noting the specific experience of the promoted individual, which the appellant lacked [Paras 3, 15].

Court’s Rationale and Decision - The High Court upheld the decision of the lower appellate court, agreeing that the promotion was based on merit and recommendations and that the appellant’s claim was barred by limitation - No substantial question of law raised for consideration [Paras 16, 17].

Employment Law – Challenge of Promotion Order – Regular Second Appeal against judgment of the lower appellate court reversing trial court’s decree favoring appellant’s promotion claim – Appellant, a T-mate, claims seniority and rightful promotion over co-worker promoted by respondent – Lower appellate court found no Irregularity in the promotion process, emphasizing promotion based on recommendations and specific qualifications which appellant lacked – Appeal dismissed as no substantial question of law arose. [Paras 1-17]

Promotion Criteria and Seniority – Consideration of qualifications and recommendations – Appellant contends wrongful promotion of junior based on seniority list – Respondents argue promotions made on basis of work, conduct, and specific qualifications necessary for position, not maintained by seniority – Appellant’s lack of experience in required role pivotal in upholding promotion of junior. [Paras 5, 15]

Limitation and Jurisdiction – Suit for declaration regarding promotion barred by limitation – Appellant’s suit filed significantly beyond three years as prescribed under Indian Limitation Act, making it time-barred and outside the purview of judicial relief – Court underscores strict adherence to statutory limitation periods in employment disputes. [Paras 10-14]

Decision: Dismissal of Appeal – High Court finds no substantial question of law, upholding lower appellate court’s decision based on facts and established legal principles concerning employment promotions and statutory limitations. [Para 17]

Bail Application – NDPS Act – Second bail application filed after chargesheet submission – First bail application dismissed with liberty to reapply post chargesheet – Alleged false implication and fabrication of evidence by police – CCTV footage and purchase bills not considered by Investigating Officer – Fair investigation not conducted – Bail granted with conditions – Further investigation directed due to defective investigation [Paras 1-19].

Fair Investigation – Constitutional Rights – Emphasis on fair and transparent investigation as part of constitutional rights under Articles 20 and 21 – Investigation must ascertain truth without bias – Reference to Vinay Tyagi vs. Irshad Ali and Babubayi vs. State of Gujarat [Paras 13-16].

Defective Investigation – Further Investigation Ordered – Investigation by original officer found to be biased and incomplete – New investigation directed to competent officer not below the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police – Instructions for expeditious completion within three months [Paras 17-18].

Decision: Second bail application allowed – Petitioner to be released on bail upon furnishing bonds – Further investigation ordered due to defective initial investigation – Proceedings before the trial court to be stayed until completion of further investigation** [Paras 10-19].

Criminal Procedure – Reinvestigation Authority – Magistrate directed reinvestigation of a road accident case after closure report was accepted – Petition contended lack of jurisdiction under J&K Cr.P.C. to order reinvestigation – High Court held Magistrate can only direct further investigation, not reinvestigation – Orders directing reinvestigation set aside [Paras 8-12, 28].

Victim’s Rights – Protest Petition – Whether victim or close relative can lodge protest petition when closure report is filed – High Court noted only informant entitled to notice and heard before closure report accepted – Victim can appear and lodge protest petition, but no obligation on Magistrate to issue notice unless victim is informant [Paras 22-26, 32].

Further Investigation – Procedural Compliance – Revisional Court’s direction to consider protest petition by father of deceased required treating it as a fresh complaint if closure report accepted – High Court emphasized need to proceed under Chapter XVI Cr.P.C. if protest petition treated as complaint [Paras 30, 33-34].

Decision: Petition allowed – Orders by Magistrate and Revisional Court directing reinvestigation set aside – Further investigation, if carried out, quashed – Respondent No. 3 permitted to file fresh complaint – Magistrate directed to consider complaint on merits and in accordance with law [Paras 34-35].

Specific Performance of Agreement of Sale – First Appeal No: 3790/2003 – Decision against High Court of Andhra Pradesh – Plaintiffs sought specific performance of agreement of sale for land containing mango, casuarina, blackberry, and palmyrah trees, executed on 24-10-1990, involving defendants as joint family members with one acting as family manager. High Court held that the agreement was not enforceable against defendants who did not sign or were minors at the time of agreement, thus unable to confer rights for specific performance to plaintiffs. Directed refund of advance amount with interest. [Paras 1-36]

Role of Defendants in Sale Agreement – Analysis of Defendants’ Role and Validity of Agreement – Defendants 1 and 3, with limited authority and no absolute rights, improperly entered agreement, impacting the enforceability of the agreement against non-signatory co-owners. Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate readiness and willingness to fulfill their obligations under the terms of the agreement by the stipulated time. [Paras 14, 34]

Judicial Determination on Specific Performance – Held – High Court concluded that the plaintiffs were not entitled to specific performance due to the defective nature of the agreement of sale, lack of consent from all co-owners, and plaintiffs' failure in procedural compliance. However, plaintiffs entitled to a refund of the advance payment with interest due to partial performance acknowledged by defendants 1 and 3. [Paras 33-36]

Decision – Partial Allowance of Appeal – High Court modifies trial court’s decision by denying specific performance but granting plaintiffs alternative relief of refund of advance payments with interest. Each party to bear their own costs. [Para 36]

Promissory Note Validation and Dispute – Plaintiff claimed that the defendant borrowed Rs.13,00,000 for business purposes, repaying only Rs.25,000 - Defendant argued the amount was for a joint real estate venture, claiming fraud by the plaintiff - Trial court sided with plaintiff, leading to this appeal. [Paras 3-5, 7, 9, 11]

Trial Court Findings Affirmed – High Court agreed with trial court's decision, noting the consistent evidence from plaintiff's witnesses (P.W.1 and P.W.2) and the acknowledged execution of the promissory note by defendant - Discrepancies and improbabilities in defendant's narrative undermined his defence. [Paras 11-15]

Repayment Terms – On appeal, High Court dismissed the appeal but permitted the defendant to repay the remaining amount in three installments by 31.07.2024, considering prior partial payments acknowledged by the court. [Paras 16-18]

Decision: The appeal is dismissed with costs - Defendant is allowed to clear the remaining decreetal amount in three installments by 31.07.2024. Failure to comply will allow the plaintiff to execute the decree for the remaining amount. [Para 19]

Civil Law – Permanent Injunction – Appeals against First Appellate Court's decision granting injunction restraining recovery of Rs.24,000 and attachment of property – Respondent appointed as Sarbrah Lambardar and claimed regular deposits of irrigation dues – Trial Court dismissed the suit, citing dues of Rs.82,559.84 as per Khatauni Mal – First Appellate Court reversed, finding no evidence proving respondent collected and failed to deposit the dues – High Court upheld, emphasizing lack of substantial evidence from the appellants [Paras 1-10].

Evidentiary Standards – Khatauni Mal – Reliance solely on Khatauni Mal figures insufficient to establish dues – No corroborative evidence showing respondent's failure to deposit collected dues – Appellants failed to provide adequate oral or documentary proof [Paras 8-9].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – First Appellate Court's decree upheld – No merit in arguments presented, and no substantial evidence proving respondent's liability for dues [Para 10].