Consolidation of Holdings - Correction of Errors – Petition under Article 226 challenging the order under Section 43-A of the 1948 Act – Consolidation Officer corrected a clerical error without notice to affected parties – Held, power to correct clerical errors does not exempt the requirement of notice to adversely affected parties – Audi alteram partem principle violated – Order set aside, fresh order to be passed after issuing notice and hearing all concerned parties – Petition allowed. [Paras 1-7]

Principle of Natural Justice – Analysis – Section 43-A allows correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes arising from accidental slip or omission – Correction adversely affecting a party cannot be made without notice – Adverse impact requires adherence to principles of natural justice, including the right to be heard. [Paras 4-6]

Judicial Precedents – Emphasis on ensuring natural justice even in statutory corrections – Orders affecting rights must consider audi alteram partem – Corrections not to be made unilaterally if they harm any party. [Para 6]

Decision – Petition Allowed – Order dated 06.11.2019 by Consolidation Officer set aside – Direction to issue notice and provide hearing before passing a fresh speaking order – Compliance with principles of natural justice mandated. [Para 7]

Criminal Law - Appeal Against Acquittal – Sections 392, 379-B IPC – Appeal by State challenging acquittal – Complainant's motorcycle and cash robbed at gunpoint – Complainant failed to identify accused, declared hostile – Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Trial Court’s judgment of acquittal affirmed – No substantial and compelling reasons to interfere – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-11]

Legal Principles for Appeal Against Acquittal – Analysis – High Court’s powers equally wide for appeals against conviction or acquittal – Presumption of innocence strengthened on acquittal – Appellate Court slow to disturb Trial Court’s factual findings based on oral evidence – Interference justified only for substantial and compelling reasons. [Paras 9, 10]

Evidence and Identification – Failure of complainant and witness to identify accused – No identification of currency notes or specific recovery linking accused to crime – Recovery of motorcycle insufficient to prove guilt without proper identification – Benefit of doubt rightly extended to accused. [Paras 4-6]

Judicial Precedents – Reference to Supreme Court guidelines on cautious approach in appeals against acquittal – Emphasis on non-interference unless Trial Court’s findings are perverse or grossly misappreciate evidence – Acquittal supported by failure to identify accused and lack of substantive evidence. [Paras 9, 10]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – No illegality, impropriety, or perversity in Trial Court’s judgment – Acquittal upheld – State’s appeal dismissed. [Paras 10, 11]

Criminal Law – Bail – Suppression of Material Facts – Article 21 Constitution of India – Sections 379-B(2), 34 IPC – Section 439 Cr.P.C. – Bail application before Sessions Court during pendency in High Court – Suppression of material facts regarding pending bail application – Held: Suppression not material for determination of bail, right to liberty under Article 21 prioritized – Bail granted on merits by Sessions Court upheld – Petitioners burdened with costs for misconduct instead of cancellation of bail – Guidelines issued to prevent similar occurrences. [Paras 1-44]

Guidelines to Prevent Misuse – Legal Safeguards – Verification by Sessions Judges from official High Court website for pending bail applications – Mandatory disclosure in bail applications regarding similar pending applications – Director Prosecution to instruct Public Prosecutors to provide necessary information – Compliance with High Court instructions emphasized. [Paras 1-45]

Decision – Dismissal with Costs – Bail applications granted by Sessions Court upheld – Present petitions dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/- each on petitioners for suppression of facts – Costs to be deposited with the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned within two months, to be directed to the Punjab Legal Services Authority – Directions issued for systemic safeguards. [Paras 42-44]

Hindu Succession Act - Interpretation of Will – Regular Second Appeal – Will construction requires complete reading to understand testator’s intent – No explicit restriction in will on wife’s right to alienate property during her lifetime – Contingent provision for property succession after wife's death without intestate succession becomes redundant if wife executes her own will – Appeal for declaration of ownership rights based on limited estate claim dismissed – Full ownership conferred to wife by testator. [Paras 1-18]

Will Construction – Analysis – Held – Normal rule of will construction mandates reading entire will to discern testator’s intent – Specific recital for limited estate/life interest and alienation restriction absent in the will – Wife’s right to alienate property not restricted, full ownership inferred – Harmonious construction of will clauses necessary – Contingent provisions post wife's intestate death irrelevant if wife wills the property during her lifetime. [Paras 12-14]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – Appeal dismissed confirming wife’s full ownership as per will – Contingent provisions on succession after wife's death do not imply limited estate if testator did not restrict alienation – All pending applications disposed. [Paras 16-19]

Financial Law – One Time Settlement (OTS) – Extension of Time – Section 13(2) SARFAESI Act – Article 226 Constitution of India – Petitioner sought extension for payment of balance OTS amount – Respondent-Bank refused extension citing non-discretionary nature of OTS scheme – Held: High Court has jurisdiction to extend OTS period in equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 – Guidelines from previous cases considered – Extension granted to petitioner. [Paras 1-95]

OTS Agreement and Payment – Non-payment within Time – Petitioner paid 80% of OTS amount by stipulated date, sought extension for remaining 20% – Bank's refusal on non-discretionary scheme grounds – Court noted substantial payment made and petitioner's bona fide efforts – Extension justified to avoid undue hardship. [Paras 20-50]

Legal Precedent – Actus Curiae NeminemGravabit – Court cited maxim that court delays should not prejudice any party – Consideration of petitioner's compliance with substantial payment and effects of COVID-19 pandemic on financial situation – Extension granted to complete payment. [Paras 70-83]

Decision – Extension of Time Granted – Petition allowed – Bank's rejection letter set aside – Petitioner given 6 weeks to pay balance with interest – Respondent-Bank directed to intimate interest amount payable – Non-payment within extended time leads to dismissal of petition. [Paras 93-95]

Family Law - Divorce on Grounds of Cruelty and Desertion – Appeal – Family Court dismissed husband's petition for nullity and divorce – Husband alleged cruelty and desertion – Court finds marriage irretrievably broken – Parties living separately for over 10 years – Continuous separation presumed as broken marriage – Appellant's petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act allowed ex parte – Counter FIR by wife against husband and family members – Cruelty inferred from wife's unfounded allegations and actions affecting husband's career – Appeal allowed, divorce granted. [Paras 1-27]

Marriage Breakdown – Analysis – Held – Once parties have separated for a sufficient length of time, irreparable breakdown is presumed – Court should endeavor to reconcile, but if breakdown is irreparable, divorce should not be withheld – Preservation of unworkable marriage causes greater misery – In cases of cruelty, divorce should be granted to end mental and emotional agony. [Paras 11-26]

Decision – Decree of Divorce Granted – High Court sets aside Family Court’s decision – Marriage declared irretrievably broken – Parties’ separation for over a decade and continuous legal battles indicate no possibility of reconciliation – Decree of divorce granted. [Paras 27]

Compassionate Appointment - Maintenance of In-Laws – Petition under Article 226 challenging order to pay 25% of gross salary as maintenance – Petitioner granted compassionate appointment as Lady Constable upon undertaking to maintain her deceased husband's parents – Petitioner remarried and contested maintenance obligation citing personal financial responsibilities – Held, compassionate appointment obtained on condition of maintaining in-laws – Re-marriage and personal responsibilities irrelevant – Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-12]

Legal Obligation from Undertaking – Analysis – Petitioner bound by undertaking to maintain deceased husband's parents as part of compassionate appointment terms – Employment and benefits obtained due to death of her husband, imposing moral and legal duty to maintain in-laws – Rejection of arguments citing personal financial needs and other sources of income for in-laws – Obligation upheld despite in-laws’ possession of property or other sons. [Paras 6-9]

Judicial Precedents – Emphasis on the importance of adhering to undertakings given for compassionate appointments – Reference to principles of justice and equity ensuring in-laws’ maintenance at a standard reflecting the petitioner’s salary level – Provision for future enhancement of maintenance based on increased salary. [Paras 8-11]

Decision – Dismissal of Petition – Petition found devoid of merit, dismissed – Official respondents directed to review maintenance amount after five years for potential increase based on petitioner's salary – Petitioner's obligation to maintain in-laws reaffirmed. [Paras 10-12]

Service Law - Cut-off Date for Eligibility - Appeals – Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) – Eligibility determined based on 01.11.2018 as cut-off date – Single Bench's interpretation extending cut-off date to 12.07.2019 found incorrect – Rule 9(1)(a)(iii) clearly specifies eligibility based on age and service requirements as of 01.11.2018 – Decision upheld, list of 16 candidates sent on 12.07.2019 not valid – Appeals against Single Bench judgment dismissed except for one where decision to charge-sheet was post cut-off date. [Paras 1-45]

Interpretation of Rules – Eligibility Criteria – Analysis – Held – Plain reading of Rule 9(1)(a)(iii) indicates age and service to be assessed as of 1st November preceding the submission date – Rule cannot be interpreted to allow for changing cut-off dates post facto – Any deviation from set rules would be contrary to statutory provisions. [Paras 34-45]

Decision – Validity of Cut-off Date – Appeals dismissed, confirming 01.11.2018 as the cut-off date for eligibility under Rule 9(1)(a)(iii) – Any consideration post this date, including disciplinary actions contemplated after 01.11.2018, invalidates the nomination – Appeals regarding these criteria found without merit, except for one instance where charge-sheet contemplation was post cut-off date. [Paras 46-47]

Motor Vehicles Act - Liability in Road Accidents – Appeal challenging the apportionment of liability by the Tribunal – Accident involving an Innova car and a tanker – Tribunal held insurer of the Innova car fully liable – Held, liability should be apportioned between insurers of both vehicles – Rule of strict liability applied – Compensation split with 70% to the tanker’s insurer and 30% to the Innova car’s insurer – Tribunal's order modified accordingly. [Paras 1-27]

Strict Liability Under Motor Vehicles Act – Analysis – Tortious liability for accidents traditionally based on driver negligence – Indian Motor Vehicles Act shifts from negligence to strict liability based on vehicle default – Liability is attached to the vehicle's use, independent of driver negligence – Claimants only need to prove the vehicle’s default, not driver’s fault. [Paras 9-13]

Apportionment of Liability – Evidence Consideration – Negligence of the tanker driver established by eyewitness testimony – Absence of contributory negligence by Innova driver – Innova’s insurer still shares liability due to vehicle’s default – Apportionment at 70% for tanker’s insurer and 30% for Innova’s insurer justified. [Paras 17, 23]

Judicial Precedents – Reference to Supreme Court and High Court judgments supporting liability without proof of negligence – Tribunal's reliance on outdated principles corrected – Modern statutory interpretation of Motor Vehicles Act applied. [Paras 9, 11]

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Tribunal’s award modified – 70% liability to the tanker’s insurer and 30% to the Innova car’s insurer – Cross objections by claimants withdrawn – Apportionment modification without impact on awarded compensation. [Paras 23, 27]