Recruitment Process – Eligibility Criteria – Determination of Cut-off Date – The Union Public Service Commission (‘UPSC’) had advertised for recruitment to the post of Principal under the Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi. The advertisement was initially issued on April 24, 2021, with a closing date of May 13, 2021, but was reissued on July 10, 2021, due to the Covid-19 pandemic, with a new closing date of July 29, 2021. The eligibility criteria, however, were to be considered as on May 13, 2021. Respondents contended that eligibility should be determined as of July 29, 2021, in line with the reissued advertisement. [Para 1-5]

Central Administrative Tribunal – Interpretation of Advertisement – The Tribunal, through its order dated May 15, 2023, directed the UPSC to allow the respondents to participate in the selection process, considering the eligibility as of July 29, 2021, based on a clause in the advertisement. The Tribunal found the advertisement self-contradictory regarding the closing date of eligibility criteria. [Para 6-9]

High Court – Review of Tribunal’s Order – The High Court reviewed the Tribunal’s order and the clauses of the advertisement in detail. The Court noted that due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the initial advertisement could not be taken forward, and thus it was reissued with only the closing date for receipt of applications changed to July 29, 2021, while other conditions remained unchanged from the initial advertisement dated April 24, 2021. [Para 15-19]

Intent of UPSC – Protection of Eligibility – The Court observed that the intent of the UPSC was to protect the eligibility of candidates as of May 13, 2021, given that some candidates who were eligible on May 13, 2021, might become ineligible by July 29, 2021, due to age or other factors. The Court upheld the UPSC’s determination that eligibility should be considered as of May 13, 2021, and not July 29, 2021. [Para 17-19]

Decision – Setting Aside Tribunal’s Order – The High Court set aside the common order of the Tribunal dated May 15, 2023, thereby upholding the UPSC’s stance of considering eligibility as of May 13, 2021. The Court found that the Tribunal had erred in its interpretation of the advertisement clauses. [Para 20-26]

Appeal Against Premature Retirement and Pension Denial – Appeal lodged by Punjab National Bank challenging the order of learned Single Judge, allowing the writ petition of the Respondent for release of pension post premature retirement – Dispute surrounds the interpretation and application of Punjab National Bank (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 and Punjab National Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995, alongside a Joint Note/Bipartite Settlement signed at industry level allowing a second option to join the pension scheme. [Para 1-3]

Eligibility for Pension upon Premature Retirement – Respondent, prematurely retired in 2004, sought to exercise the 2nd option for pension following a Circular in 2018 – Appellant Bank's refusal based on distinction between "premature retirement" and "compulsory retirement" under Pension Regulations, claiming the Subject Circular for 2nd pension option applicable only to compulsorily retired employees. [Para 4-9]

Joint Note/Bipartite Settlement Interpretation – No distinction made in Joint Note between premature and compulsory retirement regarding eligibility for 2nd pension option – Subject Circular and IBA Circular not to be read restrictively, extending benefits of Joint Note to all qualifying employees regardless of retirement type. [Para 17-19]

Judicial Endorsement of Pension Eligibility – Court holds Respondent met criteria set in Joint Note for 2nd pension option, rejecting Appellant’s restrictive interpretation – Recognizes the Respondent's right to pension benefits, thereby upholding Single Judge's directive for release of retiral benefits to the Respondent. – Appeal Dismissed.[Para 20-23]

Second Appeal – Civil Property Dispute – Hiba (Gift) - Appellants challenge the decision of the 2nd Additional District Judge, Shajapur, in RCA No.20A/2014 which upheld the lower court's judgment in RCS No.32A/2013. The suit was initiated for a declaration of title and permanent injunction concerning a property purportedly gifted ('Hiba') by Sugrabai to the plaintiffs. [Para 1-3]

Validity of 'Hiba' – Oral Gift – Plaintiffs' Witnesses - Appellants claim that Sugrabai's oral 'Hiba' to them fulfills all legal requisites. Citing testimonies of witnesses PW-4 and PW-5 and Apex Court precedent in Hafeeza Bibi and others Vs. Shaikh Farid, they contend that the courts below failed to properly assess evidence supporting the 'Hiba'. [Para 4]

Respondents' Counterclaim – No Prior Claim on 'Hiba' - Respondents argue that the appellants never claimed the property based on the 'Hiba' in any prior proceedings. Contend that the 'Hiba' claim is an afterthought and thus both lower courts rightly dismissed the appellants' suit and appeal. [Para 6]

High Court's Scope of Interference – Concurrent Findings of Facts - High Court questions when it may interfere with concurrent findings of facts by the lower courts. Cites Apex Court decisions detailing circumstances under which High Court may overturn lower courts' findings. [Para 9]

Jurisdictional Limitations – Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC - Apex Court's clarification that a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC is permissible only when it involves a 'substantial question of law'. Draws attention to the High Court's limited jurisdiction in re-examining facts under this section. Appeal Dismissed. [Para 10]

Debts Recovery Tribunal Jurisdiction - Interpretation of Section 13(10) of the SARFAESI Act - Whether the Debts Recovery Tribunal constituted under the RDB Act exercises original jurisdiction for the recovery of debts under the SARFAESI Act - Examination of the legislative intent - Applicability of pecuniary jurisdiction under the RDB Act to applications made under Section 13(10) of the SARFAESI Act - Legislative amendments and their impact - Right of borrowers and creditors to file appeals and counterclaims under the RDB Act - Interplay between the SARFAESI Act and the RDB Act - Consideration of jurisdiction in light of threshold limits - The role of Debts Recovery Tribunals in original and appellate proceedings - Clarity on the applicability of the RDB Act in cases involving the SARFAESI Act. [Para 18-25]

Interpretation of Section 1(4) of the RDB Act - Applicability of pecuniary limits to the jurisdiction of Debts Recovery Tribunals - Amendment to Section 1(4) and its impact - Examination of the legislative framework - Jurisdictional implications of Section 13(10) of the SARFAESI Act - The need for a comprehensive reading of relevant provisions - Ensuring access to remedy for debtors - Distinction between original and appellate jurisdiction of Debts Recovery Tribunals - Clarification on the scope of the RDB Act in cases involving the SARFAESI Act. [Para 26-36]

Impact of legislative amendments on the jurisdiction of Debts Recovery Tribunals - Analysis of Section 249 of the IBC - Amendments to the RDB Act - Introduction of the phrase "save as otherwise provided" - Implications for the jurisdiction of Debts Recovery Tribunals - Examination of Sections 3 and 17 of the RDB Act in light of amendments - The role of Debts Recovery Tribunals as Adjudicating Authorities - Determination of jurisdiction in cases involving insolvency of individuals and firms - Clarity on the extent of jurisdiction conferred on Debts Recovery Tribunals. [Para 30-36]

Role of Debts Recovery Tribunals in adjudicating claims under the SARFAESI Act - Provisions governing the procedure for recovery of shortfall of secured debt - Analysis of Rule 11 of the SIE Rules - Debts Recovery Tribunal's jurisdiction in relation to applications under Section 13(10) of the SARFAESI Act - Consideration of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction - Need for clarity in specifying the relevant Debts Recovery Tribunal - Implications for the rights of creditors and borrowers - Ensuring access to justice and the right to appeal - Distinction between actions under the RDB Act and the SARFAESI Act - Legislative intent and its impact on jurisdiction. [Para 37-48]

Impact of jurisdictional limits on debtor's remedies - Comparison with provisions under the RDB Act - Analysis of Section 19(5)(1) of the RDB Act regarding set off and counterclaims - Need to harmonize remedies for debtors under different statutes - Ensuring equitable treatment of secured and unsecured creditors - Importance of addressing lacunae in legislation - Implications for debtor's access to justice and remedies - Role of Debts Recovery Tribunals in issuing recovery certificates - Contrast with SARFAESI Act provisions - Clarification on the availability of remedies and appeals. [Para 49-52]

Decision – Jurisdiction of Debts Recovery Tribunal under SARFAESI Act clarified – Debts Recovery Tribunal's jurisdiction extends to cases under Section 13(10) of the SARFAESI Act – Pecuniary jurisdiction under the RDB Act not applicable to SARFAESI Act claims – Borrower's right to file counterclaims recognized – Appeal against Debts Recovery Tribunal's orders available – SARFAESI Act provides for remedies and procedure for debt recovery – Debts Recovery Tribunal empowered to issue recovery certificate – RDB Act's pecuniary limits do not restrict SARFAESI Act claims – Borrowers have a remedy under SARFAESI Act for amounts less than ₹10,00,000 – Judgment upholds jurisdiction of Debts Recovery Tribunal for original SARFAESI Act claims and appeals.

Appointment of Local Commissioner – Inspection and Verification of Infringement Claims – Plaintiffs sought appointment of a local commissioner to inspect Defendants' premises concerning alleged infringement of Plaintiffs' patent IN '145 by Defendants' Preconditioned Air Units (PCAs). [Para 1]

Scope of Appointment – The application aimed at confirming alleged infringement through physical assessment, relying on various provisions including Order XXVI Rule 10A of CPC, and DHC Patent Rules to substantiate the Court's authority for such appointment. [Para 8]

applicability of Order XXVI Rule 10A of the CPC - plaintiff's request for appointment of a local commission for inspection of defendant's products to confirm alleged patent infringement - three essential ingredients for invoking Order XXVI Rule 10A - a question involving scientific investigation, the infeasibility of conducting such investigation before the court - necessity or expediency in the interests of justice for issuance of the commission. [Para 27-30]

Insufficiency of Justification for Commission - plaintiffs, by their own submission, had sufficient proof of the alleged infringement and sought the commission to obtain what they termed as "best evidence." - intention was deemed inconsistent with the purpose of Order XXVI Rule 10A, which is not to assist parties in obtaining better evidence, but to aid the court when scientific investigation is necessary for issue determination. [Para 36-37]

Inapplicability of Other Provisions - Court found that other provisions cited by the plaintiffs like Order XI Rule 3(2), Order XI Rule 5(4) of the CPC, and Rule 5(i) and (iii) of the DHC Patent Rules were not applicable in the present scenario as they do not cater to the specific kind of relief sought by the plaintiffs in their application. [Para 59-64]

Civil Procedure Code (CPC) Provisions – Utilization of provisions in the CPC by either party to a lawsuit for obtaining information or evidence – Right to seek interrogatories from defendants acknowledged – Court's limitation on stepping outside the legitimate boundaries of the CPC to act as an agent for evidence gathering emphasized. [Para 66]

Local Commissioner Appointment – Court's authority under Order XXVI Rule 10A of the CPC to appoint a local commissioner for conducting scientific investigation, where necessary to resolve issues in a suit – Stipulation that such appointment is not for securing evidence to support either party’s case – Criteria for an application under Order XXVI Rule 10A outlined including necessity of scientific investigation, inability to conduct such investigation before the Court, and necessity or expediency of such appointment in the interests of justice. [Para 66, 68]

Application Dismissal – Lack of justification for the prayers in the application under any legal provisions of the CPC or precedent – Dismissal of the application as misconceived. [Para 67, 70, 71]

Delay in Issuing Charge Sheet - Challenge to the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal quashing a charge sheet issued after a significant delay - Petitioners argue that the delay is not a valid ground for quashing the charge sheet - Emphasis on the need to allow disciplinary proceedings to proceed - Reliance on documentary evidence and statutory rules - CVC advised initiation of departmental action - Respondent's retirement and age considered - Plea of undue delay and its impact on the respondent's retiral benefits - Tribunal's reliance on precedents concerning delay in disciplinary matters - Request for dismissal of the writ petition. [Para 1-13]

Disciplinary Proceedings - Delay in Initiating Proceedings - Prejudice caused by delay - Explanation for delay - Bifurcation of Department and transfer of records - Complaint received in 1998, charge sheet issued in 2005 - Delay of 7 to 9 years in initiating proceedings - Lack of earnestness in taking the complaint to its logical end - Prejudice caused to government servant - Supreme Court's judgment in M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India referred to - Proceedings stayed but not initiated by the petitioners - Respondent retired during the delay - Delayed initiation of proceedings after 25-29 years from the alleged incidents - Prejudice to the respondent - Court declines to revive the charge sheet and directs proceedings - Petition dismissed. [Para 14-31]

HUF Property – Agreement to Sell by Karta – Suit property, acquired from compensation for ancestral property in Pakistan, held to be HUF property since 1947 – Karta (Defendant No.1) lacked authority to sell HUF property individually – Agreement to Sell void to the extent of shares of coparceners except Karta’s share. [Para 68-99, 188]

Specific Performance – Readiness and Willingness – Plaintiff (Defendant No.2) failed to demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform part of the Agreement to Sell – Lacked continuous financial capacity – Suit for specific performance dismissed, but entitled to refund of advance payment with interest. [Para 150-189]

Undue Influence – Agreement to Sell – No undue influence by Plaintiff (Defendant No.2) on Karta (Defendant No.1) established – Agreement not void on grounds of undue influence. [Para 130-144]

Permanent Injunction – HUF Property Management – Karta (Defendant No.1) retains right to manage HUF property, including alienation rights – No permanent injunction granted against Karta for dealing with HUF property. [Para 188]

Refund and Damages – Agreement to Sell – Plaintiff (Defendant No.2) granted refund of advance amount with interest – Claim for damages unsubstantiated and dismissed. [Para 185-186, 189]

Land Dispute - Petitioners seek relief against the change in the nature and purpose of a road - Allegation of arbitrary and illegal encroachment for the extension of Outer Ring Road - Violation of constitutional rights and legal provisions - Petitioners claim to be residents of a residential complex - Building Rules prescribe a minimum abutting road width for high-rise buildings - Approval for road widening from 36 meters to 45 meters granted, but petitioners argue against converting the road into an extension of the Outer Ring Road - Allegation of non-compliance with legal procedures for modification of the Master Plan - Respondents argue that the construction is in accordance with the norms and required for traffic flow and future development - Dispute over the width and purpose of the road - Contentions regarding procedural violations, land acquisition, and building rules - Counter-affidavit submitted by the respondents - Legal arguments presented by both sides. [Para 2-5]

Administrative Law - Infrastructure Development - Challenge to the construction of an expressway extension and flyover - Petitioners alleging violation of rules and procedures in road widening and construction - Review of the earlier dismissal of similar petitions - Public interest vs. individual interests - Balancing environmental concerns and road development - Court's jurisdiction limited in the absence of legal infirmities and mala fide action by the respondents. [Para 6-10]

Environmental Concerns - Balancing environmental sensitivity with the need for infrastructure development - Consideration of viability of road alignments in ecologically sensitive zones - Public interest outweighing individual landowners' interests - Preservation of water bodies in the area. [Para 10]

Legal Precedent - Reference to Jayabheri Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh - Balancing public interest, private landowners' interests, and environmental preservation in infrastructure projects - Application of principles to the present case. [Para 10]

Decision - Dismissal of the writ petition on the grounds that the petitioners' legal rights have not been affected, and the Court's earlier dismissal of similar petitions has attained finality - Lack of merits in the present case. [Para 11]

Civil Writ Petition – Unlawful Arrest and Detention – Challenge to legality of petitioner's arrest and subsequent remand by Enforcement Directorate under PMLA – Petitioner's arrest deemed illegal due to non-compliance with Section 19 of PMLA – Written grounds of arrest were not furnished as mandated – Subsequent remand orders also set aside – Directed release of petitioner unless required in another case. [Paras 1, 22-34, 35]

Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 – Interpretation of Section 19 – Requirement for written grounds of arrest to be furnished to the accused – Enforcement Directorate's failure to provide written grounds of arrest to petitioner invalidates arrest and all subsequent actions including remand orders. [Paras 22-34]

Judicial Precedents – Applicability and Interpretation – Supreme Court's clarification on the retrospective application of the mandate for written grounds of arrest under PMLA – Observations on judgments that did not follow the correct law regarding communication of grounds of arrest. [Paras 18-20, 25-27, 29, 34]

Constitutional Law – Right to be Informed of Grounds of Arrest – Article 22(1) of the Constitution and its compliance – ED's practice of not furnishing the written grounds of arrest contravenes constitutional and statutory mandates. [Paras 29, 38-39]

Decision – Illegal Arrest and Remand - sets aside the petitioner's arrest order and subsequent remand orders, directing the release of the petitioner forthwith, subject to his custody not being required in any other matter, adhering to the law laid down by the Supreme Court. [Para 34, 35]