Benami Transactions – Exception under Section 2(9)(A) – Dismissal of Application for Rejection of Plaint – Property transferred or held by a person where consideration is paid by another person and held in a fiduciary capacity not a benami transaction – Procedure for declaring a benami transaction outlined in the Act – Mere assertion by petitioner insufficient to abort claim – Dismissal of application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC upheld [Paras 1-12].

Cause of Action – Rejection of Plaint – Evaluation of plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC requires reading averments as a whole – Plaint should not be rejected if it discloses material facts and cause of action – Defence contentions not relevant for determining application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC – Proper cause of action disclosed in the plaint warrants continuation of suit [Paras 7-15].

Registration of Property – Section 17 of the Registration Act – Plea of compulsory registration not applicable at stage of Order 7, Rule 11 CPC application – Oral understanding regarding transfer of property validly explained – Defence arguments regarding registration cannot be considered [Para 13].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Plaint sufficiently discloses cause of action – No merit in arguments for rejection under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC – Observations not to affect merits of the ongoing suit [Paras 15-16].

Promotion Criteria – Eligibility for Inspector of Police – Rule 13.14(2) of Punjab Police Rules – Petitioners challenged promotions to post of Inspector based on eligibility criteria of eight years' experience – Held, Rule 13.14(2) applies to all Sub-Inspectors regardless of direct recruitment or promotion – No discrimination in eligibility criteria – Petitioners failed to meet criteria of eight years' service – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-39].

Discrimination – Equal Opportunity – Article 16 of the Constitution – Challenge to Rule 13.14(2) on grounds of discrimination against direct recruits – Court held eligibility criteria uniform and non-discriminatory – Requirement of eight years' experience as upper subordinate not violative of Article 16 – Criteria applied equally to direct recruits and promotees [Paras 22-39].

Judicial Interpretation – Rule Application – Rule 13.14(2) interpreted to include promotion to Inspector – Court emphasizes purposive interpretation to ensure effective application of statutory rules – Consistent practice of following Rule 13.14(2) for promotions upheld [Paras 21-26].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Promotion orders upheld – Eligibility criteria under Rule 13.14(2) confirmed as valid and non-discriminatory – Petitioners not entitled to promotions as Inspectors due to lack of required experience [Paras 30-39].

Habeas Corpus – Minor Marriage – Release of Detenue – Detenue aged 17 and a half years asserted marriage with respondent and desire to live with him – No FIR registered against detenue or her husband – Marriage not void but voidable at detenue's option – Even without proof of marriage, partners entitled to live-in relationship – Prosecution not justified for irregularity/illegality in marriage certificate – Petition by father for release dismissed [Paras 1-12].

Live-in Relationship – Detenue's Right to Live with Partner – Detenue asserted majority age and willingness to live with respondent – Court emphasizes individual's right to choose living arrangements – Protection granted despite father's objections – Live-in relationship permissible even without marriage validity [Paras 7-10].

Judicial Propriety – Abuse of Process – Court finds prosecuting detenue and respondent for marriage certificate irregularity an abuse of process – Complaint and inquiry report against them quashed – Court ensures protection of life and liberty of detenue [Paras 12-14].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Detenue allowed to live with respondent – Directions issued for financial security in favor of detenue – Complaint and inquiry report quashed to prevent abuse of process and ensure justice [Paras 13-16].

Judicial Impropriety – Pendency of Petition – Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Application by Magistrate during pendency of petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before High Court – Held, absence of any such infirmity – Magistrate's power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is a statutory power – Order by Magistrate not an act of judicial impropriety [Paras 1-30].

Magistrate's Discretion – Registration of Complaint – Power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Statutory power conferred upon Magistrate – Essential for Magistrate to take appropriate decision and exercise jurisdiction – Failure to do so would amount to abdication of powers [Para 29].

Custodial Interrogation – Pre-judging Case – Magistrate's observation regarding custodial interrogation not amounting to pre-judging the case – Mere registration of FIR not prejudicial to accused – Court required to examine existence of cognizable offence and direct FIR registration if necessary ingredients are met [Para 30].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Orders by Additional Sessions Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate upheld – Directions for registration of FIR found legally sustainable and not an act of judicial impropriety [Paras 31-32].

Suspension of Sarpanch – Validity of Demarcation Report – Petitioner suspended from the post of Sarpanch due to alleged encroachment on Panchayat land based on a demarcation report – Contested the correctness of the report and suspension order – Held, the Director is the competent authority to form an opinion on the validity of the demarcation report, which is central to proceedings for removal of the Sarpanch – Writ Court cannot decide the correctness of the report when proceedings are sub judice before the Director – Appeal dismissed, petitioner directed to file objections to the show cause notice before the Director [Paras 1-6].

Jurisdiction of Writ Court – Alternative Remedies – Emphasized that writ courts should refrain from adjudicating matters pending before competent authorities unless no alternative remedy is available – The Director’s power to accept or reject the demarcation report and the appellate remedy to the State Government under Section 20(6) of the 1994 Act reaffirmed – Upheld Single Judge’s decision to allow petitioner to file objections to the show cause notice [Paras 7-8].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Writ court's jurisdiction limited in matters with pending statutory remedies – Directed petitioner to pursue objections and appeal within statutory framework [Para 8].

Removal of Sarpanch – Jurisdiction of Deputy Commissioner – Petitioner challenged his removal from the post of Sarpanch by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 51(3)(b) and 51(3)(c) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 – Held, Section 51 enables the Director or Deputy Commissioner to order removal after an inquiry on specified grounds, while Section 176 deals with the determination of election validity by a judge – Both sections operate in their own fields and do not exclude each other – Writ petition dismissed [Paras 1-11].

Harmonious Construction – Overlapping Provisions – Court emphasized the necessity of harmonious construction when provisions overlap – Section 51 allows administrative removal post-inquiry, whereas Section 176 pertains to election disputes – Both provisions must be given effect concurrently without exclusion [Para 11].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Petitioner’s removal upheld – Court supported the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner to remove a Sarpanch on grounds of disqualification and other specified reasons under Section 51(3) [Para 16].

Impleading Necessary Parties – Application to Sell Minors' Property – Petitioners, maternal grandmother and uncles, sought permission to sell minors’ property, impleading only the General Public as respondent – Trial Court ordered impleading of natural father and grandparents – Held, natural father and grandparents are necessary parties for proper adjudication – Under Order 1, Rule 10(2) CPC, court has the power to add any party at any stage if deemed necessary for complete adjudication – Emphasized that the father's and grandparents' perspectives are crucial for deciding the petition under Section 8 of the 1956 Act – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-19].

Dominus Litus Principle – Not Applicable – Court clarified that the principle of dominus litus does not apply when the case is against the General Public – Any member of the public can oppose the application – Court’s power to add necessary parties under Order 1, Rule 10(2) CPC upheld [Paras 9-10].

Court’s Duty – Comprehensive Fact Gathering – Highlighted the court’s duty to gather all relevant facts, ensuring no prejudice to minors' interests – Section 31(4) of the 1890 Act supports including all knowledgeable parties before deciding such applications – Importance of knowing natural father’s and grandparents’ sides to avoid decisions against minors' advantage [Paras 11-15].

Decision – Revision Petition Dismissed – Trial Court's orders upheld – Directed that the inclusion of natural father and grandparents is essential for a fair and just decision on the application to sell minors' property [Paras 17-18].

Tribunal Procedure – Cross-Examination Requirement – Petitioner's appeal involved procedural deficiencies where the Tribunal recorded witness statements without cross-examination – Tribunal decided based on witness statements given in examination-in-chief without cross-examination – Court held that summary procedure under Section 8 of the 2007 Act should not cause prejudice – Procedure as per Order 18, Rule 4 CPC must be followed, ensuring cross-examination for fair justice – Appellate Tribunal's order to remand the case for fresh adjudication upheld [Paras 12-16].

Civil Procedure – Recording of Evidence – Court emphasized mandatory nature of cross-examination after examination-in-chief – Statements given without cross-examination carry no weight – Tribunal must follow due procedure to avoid prejudice to any party – Proper procedure ensures no party suffers prejudice and is given equal opportunities [Paras 10-14].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Court upheld the appellate authority's decision to remand the case to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication following proper procedures, including cross-examination of witnesses [Paras 17-18].

Promotion – Posting upon Promotion – Petitioner, promoted to the post of Elementary School Head Master, objected to his posting at a new school without an NCC unit – Claimed entitlement to continue at his current school with an NCC unit – Court held that service rules mandate petitioner’s liability to serve anywhere in Haryana – Guidelines for NCC postings do not confer enforceable rights – Petitioner's conduct and insistence on staying at the same school for 15 years reflect unacceptable intentions – Rejection of objections and representation upheld [Paras 1-19].

Service Rules vs. Guidelines – Priority of Service Rules – Court clarified service rules prevail over guidelines – Petitioner must comply with administrative decisions for postings upon promotion – Guidelines do not limit administrative discretion unless supported by enforceable statutory provisions [Paras 12-16].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – No interference warranted with administrative decisions regarding petitioner’s posting – Petitioner directed to comply with the posting order to join Government Girls Middle School, Manethi, District Rewari [Para 20].