Land Dispossession and Compensation – Unlawful Dispossession from Portion No. 2 – Petitioner, owner of land in Village Bharthal, unlawfully dispossessed by Delhi Development Authority (DDA) without acquisition for construction of road and footpath. DDA admits mistake and readiness to compensate as per new Act of 2013. Petitioner seeks alternate land allotment. [Paras 2, 3.1-3.4]

Petitioner’s Arguments – Entitlement to Alternate Land Allotment – Petitioner argues for entitlement to an alternate piece of land based on past instances of DDA allotting land under similar circumstances. Rejects compensation offer, citing delay in acquisition process and demands alternate land in Sector-23, Dwarka. [Paras 4.1-4.10]

Respondent’s (DDA) Arguments – Compensation Instead of Land Allotment – DDA argues for compensation to Petitioner for utilized land (portion no. 2) and inability to allot alternate land due to regulatory constraints under Nazul Rules, 1981. Emphasizes mistake in utilizing Petitioner’s land for road construction and adherence to compensation norms. [Paras 5.1-5.12]

Court’s Analysis and Findings – Expedited Acquisition and Compensation – The Court recognizes the need for expedited acquisition proceedings, referencing Supreme Court judgments emphasizing compensation for illegal dispossession. Directions issued for quick completion of acquisition process under the new Act of 2013 and payment of compensation, including interim compensation. [Paras 6-16.2]

Denial of Alternate Land Allotment Request – The Court denies Petitioner’s request for alternate land allotment, citing lack of statutory right under prevailing laws and DDA’s commitment to constructing a Sports Complex on available land. Acknowledges Petitioner’s right to seek compensation for illegal dispossession. [Paras 17-18.8]

Final Disposition and Directions to DDA and GNCTD – Petition disposed with directions for time-bound compliance to GNCTD and DDA for expedited acquisition and compensation. Separate civil contempt petition registered due to previous inaction by DDA. [Paras 19-22]

Insurance Law - Breach of Terms and Conditions - Writ Petition under Article 226 - The petitioner, Oriental Insurance Company, challenged the Permanent Lok Adalat's award granting 50% of the insurance claim to the claimant despite the vehicle being used for commercial purposes, which was a breach of the insurance policy terms. The Court held that compensation on a non-standard basis is applicable only for technical breaches, not material breaches. The impugned award was set aside, and the Insurance Company's petition was allowed, while the claimant's petition was dismissed. [Paras 1-36]

Breach of Contract - Analysis - The Court emphasized that an insurance contract is based on utmost good faith, requiring full disclosure of material facts by the insured. The Permanent Lok Adalat's award, which allowed the claim despite a recognized breach of terms, was deemed improper. The Court noted that a breach involving the vehicle's use as a taxi, contrary to the insurance policy, was significant and excluded from coverage. [Para 13]

Decision - Setting Aside Permanent Lok Adalat's Award - The Court quashed the Permanent Lok Adalat's award that allowed 50% of the claimant's insurance claim. The Insurance Company's petition was allowed, and the claimant's petition was dismissed due to a clear breach of policy terms by using the insured vehicle for commercial purposes. [Paras 36]

Recovery Suit - Financial Dispute – Dispute over payment for diesel supplied by Respondent (fuel supplier) to Appellant (construction company) for a construction project – Appellants challenge the judgment and decree mandating them to pay Rs. 4,08,715/- with 12% interest per annum. [Para 1]

Evidence and Burden of Proof – Discrepancies in evidence presented by both parties – Appellants argue payments were made and recorded, while Respondent fails to produce books of account or detailed evidence of outstanding invoices – Trial Court's decision questioned due to reliance on incomplete evidence. [Paras 2-4, 6, 12-15, 17-18]

Legal Principles and Findings – Importance of substantiation in financial disputes – The need for clear, convincing evidence in claims based on financial transactions – Trial Court's decision set aside due to insufficient evidence from Respondent. [Paras 15, 17-18]

Decision – High Court allows appeal, setting aside the impugned judgment and decree – Directs release of deposited amount with interest to Appellants – Emphasizes on the importance of credible evidence in financial claims. [Paras 19-21]

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Acquittal of drawer for dishonor of cheque – Appellant’s failure to prove service of legal demand notice crucial for the appeal against acquittal – Requirements under Section 138 NI Act not fulfilled – Appeal dismissed. [Para 1, 5, 20, 26]

Cheque Dishonor – Legal Demand Notice – Importance of proving service of legal demand notice for cheque dishonor cases – Failure to establish service of notice leads to acquittal – Photocopies of service proofs insufficient without originals or valid explanation for their absence. [Para 18, 19]

Appeal Against Acquittal – Principles guiding appellate court in appeals against acquittal – Presumption of innocence reinforced by trial court’s acquittal – Interference by appellate court only on finding of perversity or legal error in trial court’s judgment. [Para 21, 22, 24, 25]

Evidence – Burden of Proof – Complainant’s burden to prove service of legal demand notice in cheque bounce cases – Photocopies of service proofs require validation under Indian Evidence Act for admissibility – Original documents’ absence without explanation weakens case. [Para 18, 19, 20]

Postal Service – Presumption of Notice Delivery – General Clauses Act and Indian Evidence Act provide for presumption of notice delivery through postal service – Applicability of presumption depends on proving foundational facts of notice dispatch. [Para 17, 19]

Judicial Reasoning – Appellate court’s approach in analyzing trial court’s judgment – Evaluation based on legal correctness and factual accuracy without reappreciation of evidence unless necessary. [Para 21, 22, 24, 25]

Bail Application – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Regular Bail Denied – Petitioner Somdutt Singh seeking regular bail for offenses under NDPS Act, involved in commercial quantity psychotropic substance trafficking – Bail denied due to substantial evidence against the petitioner including recoveries at his instance and WhatsApp chats linking him to the crime. [Para 1, 2, 7-8, 20]

Evidence and Compliance with NDPS Act Procedures – Compliance with Sections 42 and 52-A of NDPS Act discussed – Recovery of substances at petitioner’s instance admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act – Sampling in presence of Magistrate – Delay in compliance with Section 52-A not a ground for bail. [Para 7, 9, 13-17]

Comparison with Co-Accused's Bail – Petitioner's plea for parity in bail with co-accused Arun Kumar @ Varun dismissed – Different roles and circumstances noted, with no recovery from Arun Kumar @ Varun, leading to his bail on different grounds. [Para 10]

Decision – Considering the commercial quantity of substances recovered and the involvement of the petitioner in trafficking, the bail application is dismissed – Observations made solely for deciding bail and not an expression on the merits of the case. [Para 20-23]

Context of Bail Applications – Bail sought in Case No. VIII/13,13A/DZU/2020 under NDPS Act for possession of psychotropic substances – Applications of Kashmir @ Mausam and Somdutt Singh @ Shivam heard together due to common FIR. [Para 1]

Case History and Arrest Details – Kashmir @ Mausam in custody since October 30, 2020, and Somdutt Singh @ Shivam since April 15, 2021 – Arrests followed seizure of psychotropic substances from a courier service and an apartment. [Para 2]

Prosecution’s Case – Seizure of Alprazolam, Lorazepam, Tramadol tablets from courier parcels – Recovery of additional tablets and incriminating materials from Kingsbury Apartment – Accused connected through mobile records and admissions under Section 67 of NDPS Act. [Paras 3.1-3.8]

Defence Submissions – Kashmir @ Mausam claimed to be an employee, not a partner in the alleged drug operation – Somdutt Singh denied involvement, no direct recovery from him – Emphasis on inadmissibility of co-accused statements under NDPS Act. [Paras 4-5]

Prosecution's Counterarguments – Commercial quantities of drugs recovered implicating both applicants – Rigours of Section 37 of NDPS Act highlighted due to commercial quantities involved – Emphasis on involvement in psychotropic substance business. [Para 6]

Court’s Analysis and Decision – Differentiated roles of applicants assessed – Lack of direct evidence against Somdutt Singh noted – Reliance on Supreme Court judgment regarding inadmissibility of confession under NDPS Act – Principles of parity with co-accused considered. [Paras 7-12]

Bail Granted with Conditions – Bail granted to both applicants subject to several conditions, including personal bond, appearance before court, cooperation with investigation, and non-tampering with evidence. [Paras 13-14]

Disclaimer on Merits of Case – Observations made solely for bail consideration, not reflecting on the merits of the case. [Para 15]

Pension Benefits – Family Pension – Eligibility of a widowed daughter of a deceased teacher of a Non-Government College – Dispute regarding the entitlement to family pension – Petitioner’s mother, a lecturer in a Non-Government College, received pension until her demise – After the petitioner’s husband’s death, she sought family pension – Director of Public Instruction denied the claim, citing specific guidelines – Petitioner challenged the denial through a writ petition. [Para 1-8]

Constitutional Validity – Classification between teachers of Government and Non-Government Colleges for pension benefits – Previous court rulings emphasized parity between the two groups – Exclusion of a widowed daughter from the definition of ‘family’ for family pension – Constitutional validity of the classification questioned – Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution invoked – Court finds the classification arbitrary and violative of constitutional provisions – Orders the release of family pension if the petitioner fulfills the dependency criterion and suggests framing rules to include widowed daughters in the definition of ‘family’ for family pension purposes. [Para 20-28]

Final Disposition – The Director of Public Instruction’s order denying family pension set aside – Direction to release family pension if the petitioner qualifies – Suggests rule framing for inclusion of widowed daughters in family pension eligibility – Writ petition disposed of. [Para 28-35]

Maninder Sharma Vs. State Tax Officer, State, Mobile Wing, Jalandhar, Punjab, CRM-M-24033-2021(O&M) Decided on 31.08.2022

Representing Advocates:

Mr. R.S. Rai, Sr. Advocate, with Ms. Eknoor Kaur Sara, Advocate, and Mr. Nimish Chib, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Ramta K Chaudhary, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. A.P.S. Deol, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. S.S. Deol, Advocate, for the complainant.

Anticipatory Bail – Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in a case involving alleged misappropriation and cheating in a government contract – Petitioners accused of not delivering the agreed quantity of rice, leading to financial loss to the department. [Para 1, 2]

Arbitration Clause – Reliance on an arbitration clause in the contract by petitioners – Clause not applicable in cases of fraud, theft, or misappropriation, as per the agreement terms – Petitioners' failure to invoke arbitration for disputed claims within the specified period. [Para 6, 7]

Criminal Proceedings – Argument by State counsel on non-applicability of arbitration in cases of fraud, theft, or misappropriation – Petitioners' non-delivery of required rice amount prima facie constituting misappropriation. [Para 4, 8]

Arrest and Custodial Interrogation – Consideration of necessity for arrest or custodial interrogation under Sections 41 and 41A Cr.P.C. – Factors such as existing cooperation with the investigation, partial recovery of claimed amount, and attached property for remaining recovery. [Para 9, 14]

Grant of Anticipatory Bail – Application allowed based on circumstances including deposit of a significant amount post-FIR, no prior service of Section 41A notice, and attachment of land for recovery – Conditions for bail and continued cooperation with the investigation stipulated. [Para 16]