Arbitration Law - Delivery of Arbitral Award - Section 31(5) - Appellant's objections under Section 34 dismissed as time-barred - Objection based on non-receipt of the award due to incorrect address used by arbitrator - Court held that Section 31(5) mandates delivery of signed copy of the award to each party - Non-delivery constitutes non-compliance - Case remanded to District Court to decide objections on merits. [Paras 7, 8]

Limitation - Calculation for Filing Objections - Supreme Court precedent establishes that limitation period for objections begins from the date the award is delivered to the party - District Judge erred by not considering non-delivery - Appeal allowed, order of Additional District Judge set aside, case remanded for fresh decision on merits. [Para 8]

Decision - Remand for Fresh Decision - Appeal allowed - Case remanded to District Court to decide objections afresh on merits, considering the non-delivery of the award. [Para 9]

Village Common Lands – Conflict between Evacuee Property Act and Punjab Village Common Lands Act – Provisions of 1961 Act prevail over the 1950 Act – Shamilat Deh land vested in Gram Panchayat, not Custodian – 1995 Amendment protects allotments made prior to 9th July 1985 – Allotment in favor of deceased Assa Singh statutorily protected despite subsequent challenges [Paras 1-12].

Evacuee Property – Jurisdiction of Civil Courts – Bar under Section 46 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act – Civil Court found to lack jurisdiction – Appeal against lower court’s decisions dismissed [Paras 4-6].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – No justification to interfere with lower courts' decisions – Allotment made long before the amendment date remains protected under statutory provisions [Paras 11-12].

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Interpretation of 'building' and 'basic amenity' - Revision against interim direction to open locked bathroom - Held, bathroom/toilet considered as basic amenity essential for tenant's use notwithstanding its omission from the rent deed.

Basic Amenities - Tenant's Right to Use Bathroom - Analysis - Held: Notwithstanding the omission of the bathroom from the rent deed and the tenant's initial averments, the Rent Controller rightly considered the bathroom as a basic amenity integral to the tenancy. Legal provisions and settled law support the view that essential services like bathroom and toilet cannot be withheld from the tenant by the landlord, even if physically separated from the demised premises.

Decision - Revision Petition Dismissed - Court upheld the Rent Controller's order directing the landlord to open the lock of the bathroom on the 4th floor for the tenant's use, emphasizing the landlord's obligation to provide basic amenities.

Constitutional Law - Protection of Life and Liberty - Petitioners sought protection of their life and liberty due to threats from private respondents after their marriage - Boy not of marriageable age under Section 5(iii) of Hindu Marriage Act - Court held that the primary issue is the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21, which must be protected regardless of the validity of the marriage - State directed to provide necessary protection​​.

Family Law - Validity of Marriage - Court refrained from expressing an opinion on the validity of the marriage, focusing instead on the protection of fundamental rights - Noted that under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, a marriage in contravention of Section 5(iii) is not void but voidable​​.

Decision - Protection Granted - The court directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, SAS Nagar, Mohali, to verify the contents of the petition and the threat perception of the petitioners, and to provide necessary protection if required - Petition disposed of without commenting on the marriage's validity​​.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13 - Divorce on Grounds of Cruelty - Held, husband's allegations of cruelty by wife unsubstantiated as no specific incidents or dates provided. Evidence showed husband pressured wife for money and subjected her to physical and mental cruelty. Allegations of desertion by wife meritless as she was forced to leave due to husband's adverse conduct. Divorce decree set aside.

Mental Cruelty - Lack of Substantiation - Analysis - Held: Husband's claims of being subjected to mental cruelty by wife were mere unsubstantiated averments. No specific incidents or dates were mentioned. Evidence revealed husband's financial demands from wife's parents and subsequent harassment upon her inability to meet these demands.

Desertion - Lack of Merit - Analysis - Held: Husband's continuous neglect and hostile behavior towards wife led her to take refuge in her parental home. He created adverse circumstances, leaving her no option but to leave with her children. Husband cannot take advantage of his own wrongs to seek dissolution of marriage.

Decision - Divorce Decree Set Aside - Court set aside the impugned judgment and decree of divorce, recognizing the unsubstantiated nature of the husband's allegations and the husband's own culpability in creating the adverse circumstances.

Criminal Law - Cause of Death - Hanging vs. Strangulation - Forensic evidence and medical jurisprudence distinguish hanging from strangulation - Strangulation characterized by horizontal ligature marks, injuries to neck muscles, and ruptured carotid arteries - Post-mortem showed injuries consistent with strangulation, not hanging - Appellant's claim of suicide rejected - Conviction upheld. [Paras 24, 25]

Forensic Evidence - Medical Jurisprudence - Detailed examination necessary to distinguish causes of death - Differences between hanging and strangulation explained - Modi's Medical Jurisprudence cited - Strangulation indicated by protruding tongue, ecchymosis, and lacerated neck tissues - Death classified as homicide. [Paras 24, 25]

Decision - Conviction and Sentence Upheld - Prosecution proved case beyond reasonable doubt - Appellant's defense of suicide contradicted by forensic evidence - Appeal dismissed - Life imprisonment sentence confirmed. [Para 26]

Criminal Law - Plea of Insanity - Section 302 IPC - Appellant convicted for murder - Defense under Section 84 IPC claiming schizophrenia - Evidence showed appellant's behavior did not support claim of unsoundness of mind at the time of the crime - Legal insanity not established - Appeal dismissed. [Paras 26, 37]

Insanity Defense - Legal vs. Medical Insanity - Distinction between legal and medical insanity emphasized - Appellant failed to provide evidence of schizophrenia during the commission of the offense - Behavior before and after crime indicated awareness of actions - Legal standards under Section 84 IPC not met. [Paras 26, 37]

Burden of Proof - Section 105 of Indian Evidence Act - Onus on the appellant to prove insanity at the time of the offense - Appellant did not produce sufficient evidence - Presumption of sanity upheld - Conviction sustained. [Para 26]

Decision: Appeal dismissed. Conviction and sentence by the Sessions Judge, Amritsar upheld. Appellant to surrender for the remaining part of the sentence. [Paras 26, 37, 38]

Family Law - Divorce - Cruelty - Appeal against divorce decree granted on grounds of cruelty - Wife's contradictory statements and unbecoming behavior - Evidence showed wife used derogatory language, insulted husband and his parents, and made false allegations - Such behavior considered mental cruelty - Appeal dismissed​​.

Family Law - Evidence and Credibility - Contradictions in wife’s deposition and written statements - Failure to provide supporting witnesses to her allegations - Court found wife's conduct amounted to mental cruelty and upheld the divorce​​.

Decision - Dismissal of Appeal - Divorce decree upheld as wife's conduct met the criteria for mental cruelty - Appeal dismissed and Trial Court's decree confirmed​​.

Service Law - Recruitment Qualification Requirements - The prescribed educational qualification for the post of Intelligence Assistant included a graduate degree with an 'O' Level certificate of Information Technology from DOEACC/NIELIT or equivalent - Appellants possessing B.Sc. degrees with computer subjects were rejected - Held, 'O' Level certificate is a specialized course, not equivalent to general computer science subjects - Department's prescription of specific qualifications upheld - Appeal dismissed​​.

Equivalence of Educational Qualifications - Departmental Discretion - Equivalence claims based on self-conceived parameters not valid - Department's discretion in setting and recognizing qualifications affirmed - Reliance on Full Bench judgment in Manjit Singh case misplaced as it pertains to higher qualifications in the same line and discipline - Appellants' qualifications not equivalent to 'O' Level certificate, thus ineligible​​.

Decision - Dismissal of Appeal - Appellants' claim of higher qualifications not accepted as equivalent to the prescribed 'O' Level certificate - Department's recruitment criteria upheld - Appeal dismissed​​.