Domestic Violence Act - Limitation – Application under Section 12 DV Act – Not Barred by Limitation – Application Maintainable - Petitioner sought quashing of complaint filed under Section 12 DV Act on the ground that the incident of domestic violence dated back to July 2019 and complaint was filed in February 2022, allegedly beyond the period of limitation under Section 468 CrPC – Held: Section 468 CrPC applies only to penal proceedings under Section 31 of DV Act and not to civil reliefs under Section 12 – Complaint is not time-barred and is maintainable [Paras 6, 14-15, 17].

Nature of Proceedings under DV Act – Civil in Nature – Proceedings under Section 12 Distinguished from Criminal Complaints - Court reiterated that application under Section 12 of DV Act is civil in nature and not a "complaint" under Section 2(d) of CrPC – Cognizance procedures under Section 190 and Chapter XV CrPC do not apply to Section 12 applications – Section 28 allows the court to lay its own procedure for such applications [Paras 10-12].

Quashing under Section 482 CrPC – Exercise of Inherent Powers – Interference Warranted Only in Exceptional Cases - Though petition under Section 482 CrPC is maintainable, court held that such power should be exercised sparingly and only in cases of gross injustice – No illegality or abuse of process found in the present complaint to warrant quashing [Paras 16, 18].

Relief – Petition Dismissed – Complaint under Section 12 and Application under Section 23 of DV Act to Proceed - Since limitation bar under Section 468 CrPC does not apply and allegations raised triable issues under the DV Act, the petition was dismissed as misconceived and devoid of merit [Paras 17-18].

Civil Law - Land Acquisition – Minority Educational Institution – Article 30(1A) of the Constitution – Colourable Exercise of Power – Acquisition Set Aside – The State, being constitutionally barred from directly acquiring the land of a linguistic minority school without a special law under Article 30(1A), entered into a compromise to acquire adjacent landowners’ property instead, to compensate the school – Held: Such acquisition, based on a private arrangement, does not qualify as a “public purpose” under Section 3(f) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – The proceedings amounted to a dubious method to circumvent constitutional restrictions – Entire acquisition proceedings including notification under Section 4(1) set aside [Paras 6, 10–11].

Public Purpose – Scope under Section 3(f) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Limited to schemes by Government or statutory authorities – Acquisition for a private school cannot be deemed as public purpose – Reliance on compromise to acquire adjacent private land invalid – Distinction drawn with cases where public purpose was accepted for religious or community needs [Paras 7–9].

Compensation – Applicability of 2013 Act – Though acquisition is invalid, possession already taken and land handed to school – Appellants entitled to compensation in accordance with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – State directed to calculate and pay compensation, upon which appellants to execute conveyance deed at State’s expense [Paras 11–12].

Decision – Writ Appeal allowed – Land Acquisition proceedings and award in OP(C) No. 1802 of 2011 set aside – Compensation to be paid under 2013 Act [Para 12].

Advocates Act, 1961 - Professional Misconduct – No Advocate-Client Relationship – Complaint Dismissed – The appellant alleged professional misconduct against advocates representing opposing parties in an NI Act case – Bar Council of Delhi dismissed the complaint for lack of fiduciary relationship – The BCI affirmed that no professional misconduct is made out as the advocates acted per their client's instructions and no duty exists to verify client claims – Dismissal upheld [Paras 1.1–1.2, 6].

Advocate’s Duty – Representation Based on Client Instructions – No Obligation to Investigate Case Merits – The Court reiterated that an advocate cannot be faulted for representing a client without independently verifying the client’s version – Held: The duty of truth verification lies with the Court, not the advocate – No misconduct for representing a client whose case may later be held untrue [Paras 1.2–1.3, 7].

Rule 4, BCI Rules – Not a Bar on Representation – Rule Misinterpreted – The appellant argued that Rule 4 prohibits being a ‘mere mouthpiece’ – Court clarified that this rule does not mandate preliminary inquiry into a client's claims – No violation of ethical standards found [Para 1.3].

Fiduciary Duty – Opposing Counsel Not Bound – The Court held that lawyers representing adverse parties owe no fiduciary duty to the appellant – No professional breach arises without a lawyer-client relationship – Complaint under Section 35 of Advocates Act found untenable [Paras 4, 6].

Alleged Perjury – Independent Criminal Remedy Available – Allegations of fabricated evidence already subject to proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. – Held: Such issues are for determination by the concerned court, not through disciplinary action against opposing counsel [Para 5].

Decision – Intra-Court Appeal Dismissed – No Interference Warranted – The High Court found no illegality in the Single Judge’s order rejecting writ petition against Bar Council orders – Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs [Paras 8–9].

Service Law – Examination – Judicial Review of Answer Key – Manifest Error in Law – Interference Warranted - Petitioners challenged the official answer key for Question No. 28 in Set 'K', concerning a Magistrate’s power under Cr.P.C. – Court found that the correct answer was both cognizable and non-cognizable offences, whereas HSSC had opted only for cognizable – Held: Where the answer is manifestly wrong and statutory provision (Section 155(2) Cr.P.C.) clearly provides otherwise, Court can interfere even in academic matters – Answer key to that extent is incorrect [Paras 7-12].

Answer Key – Expert Committee Report – Limited Interference – No Roving Inquiry by Court - While answer to Question No. 28 was found to be clearly erroneous in law, Court refused to interfere with answers to other questions like Question No. 94 where dispute was based on comparison between different sets – Held: Court is not an expert body and will not conduct roving inquiry unless manifest illegality is shown [Paras 13-14].

Recruitment Process – Consistency Across Multiple Sets – Responsibility of Examining Body - Court noted concern that differing answers across question paper sets for identical questions leads to confusion and litigation – Suggested that recruitment bodies must ensure internal consistency across all versions of papers [Para 16].

Decision – Petition Partly Allowed – Answer Key Rectified for Question No. 28 – Matter Remitted - Court held that HSSC’s answer to Question No. 28 in Set 'K' was legally incorrect – Directed Commission to re-evaluate the performance of petitioners in light of the correct answer and take further action as per rules – No interference made with other disputed questions [Paras 15-16].

Civil Law  – Challenge to ex parte specific performance decree of 1976 – Fraud and guardian’s gross negligence alleged – Dismissal Affirmed – Suit O.S. No.165/1985 sought to avoid O.S. No.296/1975 decree on grounds of fraud/misrepresentation and guardian’s negligence, with consequential possession – Held: Appellant failed to prove fraud or gross negligence – Trial Court’s dismissal upheld – Appeal dismissed [Paras 3, 17, 34–36].

Minors – Guardian’s alleged gross negligence – Appointment under O.32 R.3 CPC – No specific, cogent proof – Pleas Bald – Negligence Not Established – Record showed father was appointed guardian; defendants engaged counsel; one brother was major; no objections by parents at the time; appellant’s own evidence acknowledged father’s role and support – Held: Gross negligence not proved – Point No.1 answered against appellant [Paras 18–21, 27, 33–34].

Fraud/Misrepresentation – Burden of Proof – Ex parte decree preceded by notices and counsel representation – No independent evidence of fraud – Finding: No Fraud – Grandfather admitted agreement and delivery of possession in reply notice; defendants’ counsel filed vakalat; ex parte decree followed defendants’ absence – Held: Fraud/misrepresentation not proved – Points 2–4 against appellant [Paras 21–23, 35].

Specific Performance – Deposit of Balance Consideration – Set‑off via Memo – Compliance Sufficient – Executing Court order upheld in C.R.P. No.1070/1989 – Appellant precluded from re‑agitating – Plaintiff in O.S. 296/1975 filed memo within one month to set‑off Rs.2,648.25 against costs – Held: Treated as sufficient compliance; revision dismissed – Appellant cannot contend non‑deposit [Paras 24, 29].

Part Performance – Section 53‑A TPA – Possession under Agreement – Alienees’ Protection – Trial framed issue on Sec.53‑A; on facts, plaintiff not entitled to declaration/possession – Appellate Court found no basis to disturb Trial Court view – Outcome: No interference [Issues & final findings; Paras “Issues”, 35–36].

Maintainability – Separate Suit to Avoid Decree where Party to Earlier Suit – Proper Remedy is before same court or superior forum – Principle reiterated with reference to ALT authorities – Outcome: Appellant’s challenge untenable in collateral suit posture [Para 32].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – No interference warranted with Trial Court’s dismissal of suit – Parties to bear own costs – Miscellaneous petitions closed [Paras 35–36].

Adverse Possession – Elements and Burden of Proof – Plaintiff claimed ownership of agricultural land through adverse possession spanning over 35 years – First Appellate Court held that the possession was open, continuous and hostile and thus ripened into ownership – High Court held that initial possession was recorded as mortgagee and not hostile – Rejected mortgage mutation does not automatically convert permissive possession into adverse – No pleading or proof of hostile assertion of title from a specific date – Plaintiff consistently claimed ancestral ownership and never acknowledged original owners – Held: Plea of adverse possession not proved in absence of specific pleading, denial of title, and hostile assertion [Paras 15-20]

Revenue Records – Legal Character of Possession – Plaintiff recorded as mortgagee in revenue entries – Mutation based on oral mortgage was rejected – Plaintiff and defendants both denied existence of any mortgage – No rent paid or relationship of tenancy established – High Court held that entries and rejection of mutation merely showed permissive possession, not adverse – Plaintiff failed to prove conversion to adverse possession with knowledge of real owners [Paras 16-18]

Second Appeal – Scope – Second appeals under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act do not require framing of substantial question of law unlike under Section 100 CPC – However, findings of appellate court can be interfered with if based on misapplication of legal principles – High Court found that first appellate court had misapplied law on adverse possession and ignored material deficiencies in pleadings and proof [Para 14]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree dated 05.05.1990 passed by the first Appellate Court set aside – Judgment and decree dated 05.08.1989 passed by the Sub Judge, 1st Class, Gurgaon restored [Paras 21-22]

Criminal Trial – Conviction for Grievous Hurt – Bite Mark Not Proved – Acquittal Granted – Petitioners were convicted under Sections 341, 323, 326, and 506 IPC for allegedly assaulting the complainant and biting off part of his ear – Trial Court and Sessions Court upheld conviction – Held: Medical evidence showed sharp, clean-cut wounds rather than abrasions typical of human bite – No bite pattern was observed – Medical testimony did not corroborate complainant’s version – Accused acquitted [Paras 17-21, 28].

Witness Credibility – Key Eyewitness Hostile – Corroboration Lacking – Prosecution relied on Amar Dass and Binda Ram as eyewitnesses – Binda Ram turned hostile and denied seeing the incident – Amar Dass’s testimony contradicted official records regarding location of FIR and hospital accompaniment – Held: His presence at the scene doubtful – Conviction cannot be based on uncorroborated testimony of related witness alone [Paras 22-24, 27].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Concurrent Findings Interfered – Errors in Appreciation of Evidence – Though the revisional scope is limited, the Court found perverse appreciation of evidence – Medical and ocular evidence failed to align – Non-examination of Investigating Officer and lack of forensic proof further weakened prosecution – Held: Findings of lower courts were unsustainable – Revision allowed [Paras 12-16, 29-33].

*Decision – Revision Allowed – Conviction Set Aside – Accused Acquitted – The High Court found the prosecution's case to suffer from material inconsistencies between medical and ocular evidence, absence of forensic confirmation, and unreliable witness testimony – Held: Courts below erred in convicting the accused – Their findings were perverse and unsupported by the record – Accused Shammi Kapoor and Rajinder Kumar acquitted of all charges [Paras 32-34].

Civil Appeal – Dispute Over Sale Agreement – Presumption under Section 118 of NI Act Rebutted – Appeal Allowed - Plaintiff alleged payment of ₹52,40,120/- under an oral agreement for return of sale consideration, supported by three cheques allegedly issued as acknowledgment – Trial court presumed consideration under Section 118 of the NI Act and decreed suit – Held: Plaintiff's version of payment lacked credibility, cheques not issued in discharge of liability, and no independent proof of payments made – Presumption rebutted – Suit dismissed [Paras 9-21].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Burden of Proof – Section 118(a) – Presumption Not Available Where Consideration Disproved - Plaintiff pleaded a specific form of consideration that was not reflected in the cheques and failed to prove it – Once plaintiff alleges a consideration different from that mentioned in the instrument, presumption under Section 118(a) ceases to apply – Citing K.P.O. Moideenkutty Hajee v. Pappu Manjooran – Held: Plaintiff must prove liability independent of presumption – Failed to discharge burden [Paras 19-21].

Appellate Review – Evaluation of Evidence – Improbable Transactions and Witness Unreliable – Trial Court Judgment Set Aside - Evidence including testimony of a daily-wage employee was unreliable – No source of funds shown by plaintiff – Failure to explain why seller would issue cheques for amounts received – Trial court findings held perverse – Decree set aside and suit dismissed [Paras 17-22].

Civil Writ – Land Acquisition - Industrial Land Allotment – Original Sanction for Petitioner – Acquisition Under Section 28 of KIAD Act – Petitioner’s Rights Recognized - Petitioner was sanctioned land by KIADB in 2001 for setting up a Software Park and had made partial payment; however, due to landowner litigations and writ appeals, final handover was delayed – Despite pendency, KIADB reassigned the same lands to private respondents without notice or cancellation of petitioner’s allotment – Held: No cancellation of petitioner’s allotment was formally communicated, making subsequent allotments improper [Paras 2–6, 13].

Failure of Authority – Lack of Due Process – Violation of Fairness – Notice Not Issued - Respondents failed to issue prior notice to the petitioner regarding cancellation or reassignment – No material placed showing demand for balance payment – Such action held to be procedurally unfair and violative of petitioner’s rights [Paras 13–14].

Irreversibility of Transactions – Compensation Already Paid – Realistic Relief Granted – Equity Considered - Private respondents deposited ₹42.9 crores as compensation and acquired consent from landowners – Court held that reversal would create irreparable consequences – Hence, directed identification and allotment of alternative 20 acres to petitioner at 2003–04 rates [Paras 14

Civil Writ – Land Acquisition - Industrial Land Allotment – Original Sanction for Petitioner – Acquisition Under Section 28 of KIAD Act – Petitioner’s Rights Recognized - Petitioner was sanctioned land by KIADB in 2001 for setting up a Software Park and had made partial payment; however, due to landowner litigations and writ appeals, final handover was delayed – Despite pendency, KIADB reassigned the same lands to private respondents without notice or cancellation of petitioner’s allotment – Held: No cancellation of petitioner’s allotment was formally communicated, making subsequent allotments improper [Paras 2–6, 13].

Failure of Authority – Lack of Due Process – Violation of Fairness – Notice Not Issued - Respondents failed to issue prior notice to the petitioner regarding cancellation or reassignment – No material placed showing demand for balance payment – Such action held to be procedurally unfair and violative of petitioner’s rights [Paras 13–14].

Irreversibility of Transactions – Compensation Already Paid – Realistic Relief Granted – Equity Considered - Private respondents deposited ₹42.9 crores as compensation and acquired consent from landowners – Court held that reversal would create irreparable consequences – Hence, directed identification and allotment of alternative 20 acres to petitioner at 2003–04 rates [Paras 14–17].

Decision – Writ Petition Partly Allowed – Allotment in Favour of Private Respondents Not Quashed – Direction Issued for Alternative Allotment to Petitioner - Court directed the authorities to allot 20 acres of land in a nearby industrial area within six months at historical rates – Relief balanced between petitioner’s entitlement and irreversible developments [Para 17].

–17].

Decision – Writ Petition Partly Allowed – Allotment in Favour of Private Respondents Not Quashed – Direction Issued for Alternative Allotment to Petitioner - Court directed the authorities to allot 20 acres of land in a nearby industrial area within six months at historical rates – Relief balanced between petitioner’s entitlement and irreversible developments [Para 17].