Criminal Proceedings – Quashing of proceedings and order taking cognizance – Petitioners seeking to quash the criminal proceedings including the cognizance order dated 14.06.2013 in connection with a complaint case alleging torture – Petitioners are the complainant's relatives residing in a different city from the alleged place of occurrence – Evidence suggesting allegations against petitioners may be fabricated. [Para 2, 4, 7, 13, 14, 16]

Matrimonial Disputes – Misuse of IPC Section 498-A – Observations by the Supreme Court regarding the misuse of legal provisions intended to protect against cruelty in matrimonial relationships – Guidelines issued for arrest in matrimonial disputes – Consideration of the Supreme Court's perspective on matrimonial skirmishes involving distant relatives. [Para 8, 9, 10, 11, 12]

Judicial Scrutiny – Importance of careful examination of complaints in matrimonial disputes – Supreme Court's advice on treating such complaints as human problems seeking amicable resolution – Caution against automatic implication of relatives in matrimonial crimes without specific allegations. [Para 9, 10, 11, 14, 15]

Justice Delivery – Protection of innocent against unwarranted legal harassment – Observations on the social impact of prolonged criminal trials on matrimonial relationships – Supreme Court's stance on safeguarding the social fabric and ensuring justice. [Para 9, 10, 35, 36]

Legal Analysis – Specific allegations required for criminal proceedings – Dismissal of general and omnibus allegations without specific role attribution – Quashing of proceedings against petitioners to prevent injustice of unwarranted trial. [Para 14, 15, 16]

Decision – Criminal proceedings against petitioners quashed due to lack of specific allegations and evidence indicating potential fabrication of claims – Proceedings against other accused to continue as per law. [Para 16, 17, 18]

Selection Process – Challenge to Selection – Petitioner seeks to set aside the selection of respondents No. 2 and 3 to the post of Safai Karmchari-cum-Sub Staff pursuant to an advertisement dated 08.11.2012. The petitioner contends for consideration under the General category after availing age relaxation under the SC category. [Para 2]

Age Relaxation – Consideration under General Category – The petitioner, applying under SC category and availing age relaxation, was not selected due to marks below the cut-off for SC candidates. His request for consideration under the General category was rejected due to being overage for the General category. [Para 4-5]

Legal Precedent – Supreme Court Ruling – Reference to the Supreme Court's decision in 'Deepa E.V. Versus Union of India and others' (2017) 12 SCC 680, which held that candidates availing age relaxation under reserved categories cannot be considered under the General category. [Para 7, 10]

Decision – Dismissal of Petition – The Court dismisses the petition, deeming it inappropriate to set aside the appointment of candidates who have worked for more than 10 years and finding the petitioner's case covered by the Supreme Court judgment. [Para 11-13]

Landlord-Tenant Dispute - Quashing of Rent Authority's order striking off tenant's defense - Tenant filed an application seeking leave to defend but mistakenly filed it in the wrong petition - Rent Controller struck off tenant's defense for non-filing of reply - Subsequent application to rectify the mistake was dismissed - Petitioner claimed bonafide mistake - Court recognized the technical fault and typographical error in the previous orders - Emphasized that the petitioner should not suffer due to fault in technology - Order striking off defense set aside - Petitioner ordered to pay Rs.20,000/- as costs, with Rs.5,000/- to be deposited with the legal authority and Rs.15,000/- to be paid to the respondent-landlord - One opportunity granted to the respondent to file a written reply - Payment of costs is a condition precedent for filing the written reply - The order is subject to challenge within one month if the respondent-landlord is not satisfied. [Para 1-27]

Specific Performance – Execution of Agreement for Sale – Plaintiff alleges execution and renewal of agreements between parties for sale of property – Defendant denies execution and contends trespass and unlawful possession by the plaintiff – Trial Court and Appellate Court reject plaintiff’s claims, disbelieving execution of agreements – Courts below held plaintiff as trespasser, dismissing the suit and granting decree for recovery of possession to defendant. [Para 5-12]

Evidence – Contradictory Testimonies – Evidence of plaintiff and witness regarding place of execution of agreement found contradictory – Failure to examine other attestors to agreements – Courts below find evidence insufficient to prove execution of agreements. [Para 12]

Documentary Proof – Execution of Agreements – Courts below find plaintiff failed to prove execution of Ext.A1 and Ext.A1(a) agreements due to insufficient evidence and contradictory testimonies – Dismisses claim based on unregistered agreements citing Section 17 of the Registration Act. [Para 12]

Limitation – Renewal of Agreement – Finding of appellate court on limitation rebutted by renewal agreement Ext.A1(a) dated 05.09.2003 – Courts below erred in holding claim based on Ext.A1 or Ext.A1(a) agreements as barred by limitation. [Para 12]

Second Appeal – Substantial Question of Law – High Court finds no substantial question of law arises for admitting Second Appeal – Emphasizes mandatory formulation of substantial question of law under Section 100 read with Order XLII Rule 2 of the C.P.C. for admitting and maintaining a second appeal – Dismisses appeal finding it meritless without admitting. [Para 13-20]

Document Production – Agreement for Sale – Plaintiff sought production of an agreement for sale concerning 87 cents of land, part of the plaint schedule property, executed between the plaintiff’s father and the 1^st defendant – Application under Order 11 Rule 12 of CPC – Rejection by the learned Munsiff on the ground of the document not being essential for adjudication – Challenged under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. [Para 1]

Injunction Simplicitor – Plaintiff claims right over the plaint schedule property through intestate succession while 3^rd defendant (plaintiff’s sibling) claims under a purported Will executed by their father – Dispute over the validity and contents of the agreement for sale concerning the said property – Plaintiff seeks to restrain all defendants from creating any document, trespassing, making constructions, demarcating boundaries or putting strangers in possession of the plaint schedule property without plaintiff’s junction. [Para 7]

Co-ownership – Plaintiff asserts one-half co-ownership over the plaint schedule property, including the subject 87 cents, subject to the validity of the Will claimed by the 3^rd defendant – Seeks to understand the recitals and nature of the agreement for sale executed between his father and the 1^st defendant, asserting a potential impact on his rights. [Para 7]

Decision – Ext.P5 order set aside – Direction to 1^st defendant to produce the original agreement for sale concerning the 87 cents of land executed between the plaintiff’s father and the 1^st defendant – Original Petition allowed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing the relevance and necessity of the agreement for sale in deciding the injunction relief sought by the plaintiff. [Para 8]

Review Petition – Grounds for Review: Judgment discusses criteria under which a review petition may be entertained, specifying conditions like discovery of new evidence, errors apparent on record, or any other sufficient reason. [Para 5, 9-19]

SARFAESI Act – Agricultural Land: The review petitioner seeks the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to ascertain if the property in question is agricultural land, invoking Section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act. [Para 3-4]

Discretion of Tribunal: Directions to the Debts Recovery Tribunal to consider the applications for appointing an Advocate Commissioner and staying proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. [Para 4, 7]

Dismissal of Review Petition: The Court finds that the review petitioner has failed to meet any of the requirements for a review and dismisses the petition. [Para 6]

Stay on Proceedings: While dismissing the review, the Court allows the petitioner to seek a stay on proceedings under the SARFAESI Act till the application for the appointment of Commissioner is considered. [Para 7]

Writ Petition – Setting Aside Communication – Petitioner seeks to set aside the communication dated 26.10.2023, stopping the storage of paddy in the petitioner's premises until payment of Rs.7,28,167/- along with interest to respondents No.6-Punjab State Warehousing Corporation. [Para 1]

Custom Milling Policy – Allocation of Paddy – The State formulated a Custom Milling Policy for KMS 2023-24, under which the petitioner applied for the allocation of paddy. The respondent alleged that the petitioner filed a false affidavit regarding the status of the earlier owner of the land where the rice mill is located. [Para 3]

Land Ownership and Arbitration – The land where the petitioner's rice mill is located was previously owned by M/s Rashi Foods. A dispute regarding the delayed supply of rice was pending between the previous owner and respondent No.6. The Arbitrator rejected the claim of respondent No.6, and the matter is now pending before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. [Para 4]

Custom Milling Policy – Definition of Defaulter – As per the Custom Milling Policy, a mill is considered a defaulter if there's a pending police case/court case/arbitration case against the miller on account of embezzlement, non-delivery of rice, or non-clearance of any dues of any Procurement Agency. [Para 9]

Arbitration Award – Status of Defaulter – The Arbitrator rejected the claim of the respondent against M/s Rashi Foods. Given the absence of a stay by the Objecting Court, it's not reasonable to conclude that an arbitration case is pending between M/s Rashi Foods and respondent No.6. [Para 9-10]

Decision – The demand raised by the respondent from the petitioner regarding the afore-stated litigation is not sustainable. The writ petition is allowed. Observations made by the Court shall not be construed as an opinion regarding the pending litigation between respondent No.6 and M/s Rashi Foods. [Para 12-13]

Bail Application – NDPS Act Violation – Petitioner seeks bail under Section 439 CrPC for violations of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) as per FIR mentioned. The petitioner has been incarcerated for over three years and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause irreversible injustice to her and her family. [Para 1, 3]

Criminal History – Consideration for Bail – The petitioner's criminal history is considered, but the court observes that the criminal history must be of cases where the accused was convicted. The petitioner's custody of more than three years is deemed sufficient for bail eligibility. [Para 2, 6, 7-A]

Bail Conditions – Stringent Measures – The court considers imposing stringent conditions to ensure the petitioner does not influence the investigation or tamper with evidence. The conditions include surrendering of weapons, maintaining only one mobile number, and compliance with other specified conditions. [Para 8, 9, 14, 15]

Decision – Granting of Bail – The court decides to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the terms and conditions imposed, including furnishing a personal bond and surety, compliance with specified conditions, and surrendering of weapons. The court emphasizes that any violation of the conditions may lead to bail cancellation. [Para 11, 16, 19]

Rights of the Accused – The court acknowledges the rights of the accused and mentions that if the petitioner finds the bond amount or conditions beyond reach or violating rights, they may seek appropriate reduction or modification. [Para 17, 19]

Observations – No Merit Commentary – The court clarifies that any observation made in the order is not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. [Para 20]

Civil Revision – Amendment of Pleading – Dismissal of application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.) by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepat, for seeking amendment of pleading in the plaint by the plaintiff – Challenged by the plaintiff. [Para 1, 8-11]

Specific Performance and Declaratory Relief – Plaintiff sought specific performance of agreement to sell dated 19.10.2015 and declaratory relief against legal notices dated 09.05.2016, 01.06.2016, and 01.07.2016, and publications dated 10.06.2016 and 12.07.2016 issued by defendants through Advocate Sh. Ashwani Sharma as illegal, null, void, and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. [Para 2-4, 8]

Receipt of Earnest Money – Defendants admitted to receiving an amount of Rs.36,31,250/- as earnest money from the plaintiff at the time of executing the agreement to sell, with an amount of Rs.34,31,250/- received in cash and Rs.2,00,000/- received by way of cheques which were realized by the defendants. [Para 3]

Legal Notices and Publications – Defendants pleaded issuance of legal notices and publications in a Hindi daily newspaper “Viraat Vaibhav” urging the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract by paying the balance sale consideration, and on failure, declaring the agreement to sell as cancelled and rescinded. [Para 6-7]

Amendment Application – Plaintiff sought amendment in the prayer clause of the plaint to include challenge against additional legal notices and publications by the defendants; argued necessity of amendment for proper adjudication of the case without any malafide intention. [Para 8]

Response to Amendment Application – Defendants argued against the amendment citing it as an attempt to introduce a time-barred claim and cover up lapses and lacuna in the plaintiff’s suit, asserting that the amendment would cause prejudice to the defendants and is not maintainable as per Order VII Rule 11(d) of C.P.C. [Para 9, 16-17]

Legal Principles on Amendment – Citing precedent, counsel for the petitioner emphasized on a liberal approach towards amendment for determining the real questions in controversy, while ensuring no injustice or prejudice is caused to the other side; highlighted the exceptional circumstances of COVID-19 pandemic for consideration of delay in filing amendment application. [Para 13-15]

Judicial Interpretation – Citing precedent, counsel for the respondents argued against the amendment emphasizing on the principle that a new cause of action or a claim barred by law cannot be introduced through amendment. [Para 18]

Revision Petition – Re-hearing Due to Absence of Relevant Documents – Initial reservation of judgment on 04.09.2023 was revisited for re-hearing on 28.09.2023 due to absence of certain legal notices and publications, which were eventually presented and taken on record on 03.10.2023. [Para 21]

Legal Notices and Publications – Examination for Validity – Legal notices dated 09.05.2016, 01.06.2016, and 01.07.2016 alongside publications dated 10.06.2016 and 12.07.2016 were examined for their legality, context, and impact on the sale agreement dated 19.10.2015. [Para 22-26]

Rescindment of Agreement – Communication and Publication – Defendants communicated the decision of rescindment of the agreement to sell through legal notice dated 01.07.2016 and publicized it on 12.07.2016, which was later challenged by the plaintiff. [Para 28-29]

Amendment in Plaint – Introduction of New Challenge – The plaintiff sought to introduce a new challenge concerning the legal notice dated 01.07.2016 and its publication, which was initially deemed time-barred but was further examined for its potential impact on the case. [Para 30-32]

Judgment – Setting Aside Impugned Order and Allowing Revision – The impugned order dated 08.05.2023 was set aside, and the revision petition was allowed subject to the payment of costs of Rs.25,000/-. The amended plaint is to be filed before the learned trial Court by 20.11.2023, with a directive for expedited proceedings for a final decision. [Para 33]