Civil Procedure - Jurisdiction - Section 20, Order 37, Rule 1 of CPC - Amending Act of 1976 - Suit filed at Bathinda based on dishonored cheque - Defendants filed for dismissal due to lack of jurisdiction, arguing summary suits should be tried only in District Courts of Amritsar per Rule 81 - Court at Bathinda has jurisdiction as cheque was dishonored there - Rule 81 inconsistent with amended Order 37, Rule 1 - Inconsistent provisions repealed by Section 97(1) of Amending Act of 1976 - Revision petition dismissed. [Paras 6, 7, 8, 13, 16]

Procedural Law - Summary Suit Jurisdiction - Amending Act Effect - High Court's earlier amendments inconsistent with the CPC amendments brought by Amending Act of 1976 are repealed - Rule 81 restricted jurisdiction to certain courts, while amended Order 37 expanded it - Section 97(1) ensures uniform procedural law across jurisdictions post-amendment. [Paras 10, 11, 13, 17]

Court's Reasoning - Legal Precedents - Decisions in Ganpat Giri v. Second Additional District Judge, Ballia and Pankajakshi (dead) through LRs v. Chandrika clarify repealing effect of Section 97(1) on inconsistent provisions - Principle of maintaining uniformity in procedural law upheld - Bathinda court’s jurisdiction affirmed based on cause of action arising there. [Paras 14, 15]

Decision:

The revision petition is dismissed. The order dated 16.10.2019, rejecting the application for dismissal of the summary suit on the grounds of jurisdiction, is upheld. Rule 81, Chapter 21, Volume I of High Court Rules and Orders is inconsistent with the provisions of the CPC as amended by the Amending Act of 1976 and stands repealed.

Partnership Law - Entitlement of Legal Heirs - Sections 37 and 48 of Partnership Act, 1932 - Legal heirs of a deceased partner entitled to share in profits or 6% per annum interest on the share of the deceased partner from the date of death till payment - Immovable properties, including machines and stock, to be either physically divided or valued and paid accordingly - Legal heirs cannot insist on physical division if remaining partners opt to continue the partnership - Modified judgment of first appellate court. [Paras 15, 16, 24]

Rights of Deceased Partner’s Estate - Outgoing Partner - Section 37 deals with rights to share subsequent profits or interest - Section 48 provides for settlement of accounts post-dissolution - Legal heirs entitled to value of deceased partner’s share on market value at actual distribution, not at the date of death - First appellate court erred in limiting entitlements to Section 37 alone. [Paras 15, 16, 18, 20]

Court’s Reasoning - Increased Value of Assets - Surviving partners delaying distribution should not deprive legal heirs of increased value - Proportionate distribution based on market value at actual distribution - First appellate court overlooked the provisions of Section 48. [Paras 19, 20]

Decision:

• The appeal is allowed. The judgment of the first appellate court is modified:
• Plaintiffs/heirs entitled to rendition of accounts and share in profits or 6% interest per annum on the deceased partner’s share from the date of death till payment.
• Immovable properties and assets to be physically divided or valued, with 25% paid to plaintiffs/legal heirs. Physical division not mandatory if remaining partners continue the partnership as per Clause 10 of the partnership deed.
• Injunction against remaining partners from alienating or creating charge on the firm’s property to the extent of the deceased partner’s share until actual distribution.

Compassionate Appointment - Judicial Review - Clause X of Letters Patent - Article 226 of Constitution of India - Respondent applied for compassionate appointment beyond six-month limit stipulated by policy circular dated 02.02.1977 - Supreme Court precedent holds that High Court cannot rewrite terms of policy in judicial review - Appeal allowed, Single Judge's order set aside. [Paras 8, 10]

Employment Law - Time Limit for Application - Policy Circular dated 02.02.1977 - Application for compassionate appointment must be submitted within six months from the date of death of the employee - Respondent’s application submitted after the stipulated period - High Court's direction for compassionate appointment despite delay found erroneous - Supreme Court ruling in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Parkash Chand applied. [Paras 6, 7, 8]

Court’s Reasoning - Consistency with Policy Terms - Compassionate appointment governed strictly by policy terms - Judicial review cannot alter policy stipulations - Respondent failed to substantiate claim of timely application - Compassionate appointment denied as per policy’s six-month application window. [Paras 6, 7, 8, 9]

Decision: The appeal is allowed. The order dated 14.9.2015 passed by the Single Judge is set aside. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the respondent stands dismissed. All pending applications are also disposed of.

Constitutional Law - Exemption from Municipal Laws - Articles 226 and 227 - Section 17 of Punjab New Mandi Townships (Development & Regulation) Act, 1960 - Notification by State Government exempting certain areas from the application of Punjab Municipal Act - Godowns in exempted area - Held, godowns constructed on specified land exempt from house tax - Municipal Council’s imposition of house tax quashed. [Paras 7, 8]

Municipal Law - House Tax Exemption - Applicability of Notification - Notification dated 20.11.1980 exempts certain areas from the application of specified provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 - Godowns constructed in exempted khasra numbers not liable for house tax - Appellant’s godowns located in exempted area hence not subject to house tax. [Paras 7, 8]

Court’s Reasoning - Interpretation of Notification - The notification under Section 17 clearly applies to the specified khasra numbers - All properties within these numbers are exempt from house tax - Municipal Council lacks jurisdiction to impose tax in these areas - Single Judge’s ruling overturned due to incorrect interpretation of the notification's applicability. [Para 9]

Decision:

The appeal is allowed. The order dated 28.9.2015 passed by the Single Judge is set aside. Consequently, the order dated 20.12.2013 passed by respondent No. 2, which was impugned in the writ petition, is also set aside. The appellant’s godowns in khasra No. 12 min are exempt from house tax as per the notification.

Constitutional Law - Articles 226 and 227 - Qualifying Service for Pension - Petition for counting service rendered in Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation as qualifying service for pensionary benefits - Corporation in the process of winding up when petitioner joined new assignment - Service to be counted despite petitioner joining new assignment before actual winding up - Relief granted. [Paras 7, 9]

Pensionary Benefits - Government Undertaking - Service Transition - Petitioner joined District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum through proper channel during the winding up of the Corporation - Managing Director’s approval for relieving - Service rendered in the Corporation to be considered for pension benefits - Instruction dated 18.04.2016 from the Government of Punjab applicable. [Paras 3, 4, 7, 8]

Court’s Reasoning - Previous Judgments - Similar circumstances where service in corporations was counted for pensionary benefits despite transition before winding up - Reliance on earlier cases (CWP No. 25876 of 2012 and CWP No. 10008 of 2006) where relief was granted for counting service in corporations for pension - Respondents' objections dismissed. [Paras 8, 10, 12, 13]

Decision:

The writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to count the service rendered by the petitioner in the Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation from 01.11.1975 till 04.01.2001 as qualifying service for pensionary benefits. The computation and payment of the pensionary benefits, including arrears with 9% interest per annum from the date it became due, must be completed within three months. Petitioner is required to refund any amounts received at the time of leaving the Corporation with interest as per procedure.

Constitution of India - Articles 226/227 - Pensionary Benefits - Financial Crisis Not a Valid Reason - Held, financial crisis is not a justifiable reason to withhold pensionary benefits. Interest granted on delayed payments at 9% per annum from the date it became due till release.

Pensionary Benefits - Delayed Payments - Analysis - Held: Withholding of pensionary benefits without valid justification, such as mere financial difficulties, is not acceptable. Petitioners entitled to interest on delayed pensionary payments as per established legal principles.

Decision - Interest Granted on Delayed Pensionary Payments - Court directed the respondent-Corporation to calculate interest at 9% per annum on delayed payments and release the amount to the petitioners within specified time frames.

Constitutional Law - Land Acquisition - Articles 226 and 227 - Sections 3(d) and 30 of Land Acquisition Act - Dispute on Apportionment of Compensation - Collector must refer disputes to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction - Collector’s order adjudicating compensation entitlement quashed - Collector directed to refer the application to District Judge for detailed decision. [Paras 11, 12]

Land Acquisition - Jurisdiction of Collector - Section 30 of Land Acquisition Act - Dispute over compensation for 'Nazool' land acquired for public purposes - Collector transgressed jurisdiction by deciding entitlement - Proper authority is the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction - Collector’s decision found without jurisdiction. [Paras 7, 8, 11]

Court's Reasoning - Legal Precedents and Jurisdiction - Section 30 mandates disputes on compensation to be referred to the Court - Collector’s decision lacks jurisdiction as per Supreme Court precedents - Reference to the Court ensures fair adjudication on entitlement issues. [Para 8]

Decision:

The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 29.04.2016 by the Land Acquisition Collector is quashed. The Collector is directed to refer the application dated 09.06.2016 to the District Judge, Patiala for detailed adjudication within four weeks. The Reference Court shall protect the interests of the petitioner-Society regarding the compensation payment during the pendency of the reference.

Specific Relief Act - Termination of Insurance Contract - Sections 14 and 34 - Maintainability of Suit for Declaration - On revocation of insurance contract, the plaintiff is entitled to file a suit for damages for wrongful termination, not for a declaration - Suit for declaration held not maintainable - Plaintiff must seek damages as per Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act. [Para 17]

Contract Law - General Insurance - Section 124 of Indian Contract Act - Termination before Expiry - Contracts of indemnity can be terminated before expiry of the term - Insurance companies or owners can walk out of such contracts by providing sufficient notice - Insurance contracts are terminable before the end of the term as per the contract's terms. [Para 18]

Court's Reasoning - Analysis of First Appellate Court’s Findings - The First Appellate Court erred in its judgment by overlooking the rights of the insurer under the insurance contract - The insurance company exercised its contractual right to terminate the policy by giving sufficient notice - The public interest argument and the compulsory nature of third-party insurance do not override the contractual terms allowing termination. [Paras 11-15]

Decision:

The regular second appeal is allowed. The judgment of the First Appellate Court is set aside, and the judgment of the trial court dismissing the suit for declaration is restored. The plaintiff's remedy lies in filing a suit for damages for wrongful termination of the insurance contract.

Constitutional Law - Judicial Review - Articles 21, 226 - Scope of Commission of Inquiry - Expeditious Investigation - Principles of Natural Justice - Government of Punjab set up Commissions to investigate incidents of sacrilege and related violence - Reports of Zora Singh and Ranjit Singh Commissions challenged - Commissions' recommendations are advisory, not binding - Judicial review permissible but no fault found in Vidhan Sabha's resolution to withdraw investigation from CBI - Commissions recommended actions, State Government responsible for implementation. [Paras 22, 23, 32, 33]

Police Investigation - Withdrawal of Consent to CBI - Section 6 DSPE Act - Investigation of specific FIRs initially transferred to CBI - Vidhan Sabha resolution and subsequent State Government notifications withdrew consent - Investigation reverted to State authorities - Court upheld State's decision - CBI's investigation had made little progress, State entitled to withdraw consent. [Paras 25, 31, 33]

Procedural Fairness - Right to Cross-Examination - Sections 8-B, 8-C of Inquiry Act - Commission proceedings not equivalent to a trial - Petitioners argued lack of opportunity for defense - Court noted Commission's role is fact-finding, not adjudicatory - Petitioners had opportunities to present their case - No violation of natural justice found. [Paras 41, 44]

Public Interest - Effective Investigation - Need for prompt and transparent investigation highlighted - Successive Commissions not a substitute for professional inquiry by investigating agencies - Investigations should focus on uncovering the truth using forensic methods - Commissions serve to inform government policy, not execute judicial functions. [Paras 36, 47]

Decision:

The petitions are dismissed. The court finds no merit in the challenge to the reports of the Zora Singh and Ranjit Singh Commissions or the withdrawal of consent for CBI investigation. The Special Investigation Team (SIT) is expected to conduct a fair, impartial, and expeditious investigation, free from external pressure.