Tax Law - Rectification of Mistakes - Jurisdiction - The petitioner challenged the rectification order of the Tribunal which reversed its previous decision that had allowed a tax refund. The court held that the power to rectify a mistake must be exercised only when the mistake is patent and obvious, not one that requires extensive reasoning or debate. The question of whether an amendment to Rule 29(xii) was retrospective was a debatable issue and could not be rectified under Section 21A. The Tribunal's rectification order was set aside, and the earlier order was restored. [Paras 1-16]

Scope of Rectification - Held, the power to rectify mistakes applies to obvious and patent mistakes, not those requiring a long process of reasoning. An erroneous view of law or a debatable issue cannot be rectified as a mistake apparent from the record. [Paras 12-14]

Debatable Points of Law - Held, whether an amendment is retrospective or prospective is a debatable issue, thus not falling under the scope of rectifiable mistakes under Section 21A. [Para 14]

Decision - Allowance of Petition - The writ petition was allowed, setting aside the Tribunal's later order and restoring the earlier order favoring the petitioner. [Paras 15-16]

Rent Law - Bona Fide Requirement of Landlord - Judicial Review – The petitioner contested the eviction order on the basis that the landlord, who is 74 years old with health issues, lacked bona fide intent to start a business. The court held that the landlord's advanced age and health conditions cannot be grounds to question his bona fide needs. The landlord is the best judge of his needs, and the tenant cannot dictate the suitability of the accommodation. The eviction was justified based on the landlord's bona fide requirement to start a karyana shop. [Paras 1-8]

Landlord's Rights - Old Age and Health - Held, the advanced age and failing health of the landlord do not undermine his bona fide need to start a business. The landlord's requirement is evaluated from his perspective, not the tenant's. [Para 5]

Burden of Proof - Held, the tenant failed to provide evidence to substantiate the claim that the landlord had other vacant shops available. The assertion was rejected outright. [Para 4]

Decision - Dismissal of Petition - The petition was dismissed, and the eviction order upheld. The landlord's need was found bona fide, and the tenant's arguments were not substantiated. [Paras 7-8]

Family Law - Divorce - Grounds of Cruelty and Irretrievable Breakdown - Judicial Review – The husband filed for divorce alleging cruelty and desertion. The trial court granted divorce based on irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. The appellate court held that 'irretrievable breakdown of marriage' is not a statutory ground for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The trial court's judgment was set aside, and the husband's petition for divorce was dismissed. [Paras 1-23]

Definition of Cruelty - Held, under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, cruelty includes conduct that is grave and eighty enough to make it impossible for a spouse to continue living with the other. Vague allegations and normal wear and tear of marriage do not constitute cruelty. Specific instances of cruelty must be proven with substantial evidence. [Paras 13-15]

Judicial Authority - Held, courts cannot grant divorce on grounds not provided by the legislature. Only the Supreme Court can grant divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. [Paras 20-21]

Decision - Appeal Allowed - The appellate court set aside the trial court's judgment and decree granting divorce, dismissing the husband's petition for divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. [Paras 22-23]

Service Law - Selection Criteria - Validity of Appointment - Judicial Review – The appellant's appointment as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) was challenged on the ground that he did not possess the required 60% marks as per the initial advertisement's qualification criteria. The Board's resolution to keep the existing rules in abeyance did not result in the approval of new rules, thus the existing rules continued to apply. The court held that the appointment was against the qualifications prescribed by the existing rules, as the amended rules were not formally approved. The appellant's appointment was set aside, and the Institute was directed to consider the respondent’s case for appointment subject to verification of experience and other formal requirements. [Paras 1-47]

Vacuum in Law - Application of Existing Rules – Held, when rules are kept in abeyance and new rules are not approved, the existing rules continue to apply to prevent a legal vacuum. The intention of the management in keeping rules in abeyance could not have been to create a void. Till the approval of new rules, the earlier rules must be applied. [Paras 32-39]

Decision - Setting Aside of Appointment - The appellant's appointment was set aside due to non-compliance with the existing qualification criteria. The respondent's eligibility and experience were to be verified before appointment. The appointment, if confirmed, would be with effect from the date of the appellant's initial appointment but without arrears of pay and allowances. [Paras 44-47]

Criminal Law - Alternative Remedies - Judicial Review – Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus for an inquiry into alleged embezzlement of Gram Panchayat funds and land grabbing by the village Sarpanch. Held, in cases where a cognizable offence is made out, the proper course is to lodge an FIR under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. For issues regarding grabbing of Panchayat land, remedies lie under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 or the Civil Court. Courts are to discourage writ petitions when alternative statutory remedies are available. The petition was dismissed with directions for the petitioners to proceed according to statutory provisions. [Paras 1-12]

Role of Statutory Provisions - Held, where a statute confers a power to do an act and prescribes a method for exercising that power, the act must be done in that way and not otherwise. The statutory provisions must be followed for addressing the grievances. [Paras 9-10]

Decision - Dismissal of Petition - The writ petition was dismissed as the petitioners were directed to avail alternative statutory remedies for their grievances regarding embezzlement and land grabbing. [Para 12]

Land Law – Resumption of Plot – Power of Resumption – Petition against resumption of booth site due to default in installment payments – Petitioner paid 25% of auction price and three installments – Additional Rs. 1 lakh deposited between 1996-1997 – HUDA resumed booth in 2001 citing default – High Court holds power of resumption as ultimate civil sanction, to be used as last resort – Resumption order quashed due to failure to consider partial payments and determine wilfulness of default – Writ petition allowed, booth restored. [Paras 1-11]

Urban Development – Clause 8 of Allotment Letter – Section 17 HUDA Act – Resumption power must be exercised with caution – Estate Officer obligated to assess breach of terms and conditions including wilfulness of default – Failure to credit partial payments and perfunctory resumption order render action unsustainable – Court directs restoration of booth site with adjustment of amounts deposited. [Paras 5-10]

Decision – Quashing of Resumption Order – High Court quashes resumption order and related appellate and revisional orders – Orders restoration of booth site to petitioner – Allows respondents to levy interest and penalty per law, excluding extension fee for resumed period – Emphasizes procedural fairness and caution in exercising resumption powers. [Para 11]

Criminal Law – Dowry Death – Appeal against conviction under Sections 304-B, 201 IPC – Prosecution based on complaint by father of deceased (Bhateri) alleging dowry demand by husband and in-laws – Deceased died within seven years of marriage – Evidence showed continuous harassment for dowry by husband, leading to unnatural death – Appellants (mother-in-law and father-in-law) acquitted due to lack of specific evidence linking them to dowry demands or harassment – Conviction of husband upheld based on evidence of direct involvement in harassment and dowry demands – High Court emphasizes need for proximity between dowry demand and death for conviction under Section 304-B IPC. [Paras 1-28]

Evidence Law – Presumption under Section 113-B – Presumption of dowry death arises when it is shown that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry – High Court upholds presumption against husband but not against in-laws due to insufficient direct evidence – Emphasizes importance of specific and credible evidence for invoking presumption. [Paras 23, 25]

Decision – Acquittal and Conviction – High Court acquits mother-in-law and father-in-law due to lack of evidence of direct involvement – Conviction of husband for dowry death upheld based on consistent evidence of harassment and dowry demands – Case remanded for reconsideration of sentence against husband, ensuring balance between severity of crime and evidentiary support. [Para 28]

Criminal Law – Conviction and Sentencing – Appeal against conviction under Sections 323, 324, 325, 326, 307 read with Section 34 IPC – Incident involved mutual injuries between complainant and accused parties – Injured Baldev Singh hospitalized for 23 days, injuries declared grievous – High Court upholds conviction based on evidence of participation by both parties in the occurrence – Considering two decades since occurrence, sentence reduced to 1½ years RI for each appellant – Appeal partly accepted. [Paras 1-33]

Evidence Law – Mutual Injury – Presence of Both Parties – Injuries Sustained – Both parties actively involved and sustained injuries – Injured Baldev Singh's MLR confirmed grievous injuries – Medical evidence corroborated injuries on both sides – High Court emphasizes equitable treatment considering mutual harm. [Para 28]

Decision – Sentence Reduction – High Court maintains conviction but reduces sentence – Original sentences reduced from 4 and 3 years RI to 1½ years RI each – Fine maintained – Emphasizes significant time lapse and mutual injuries as factors for sentence reduction – Directs compliance and surrender within 15 days. [Paras 33-34]

Criminal Law – Harboring Offenders – Section 212 IPC – Petition against conviction for harboring terrorists and dismissal from BSF – Petitioner convicted by General Security Force Court – Alleged confessional statement denied by petitioner – High Court held that no knowledge or reason to believe the harbored persons were terrorists – Offense under Section 212 IPC not made out – Orders of conviction and dismissal set aside. [Paras 1-14]

Evidence Law – Confessional Statements – Admissibility and Reliability – Petitioner denied alleged confessional statement – No evidence of knowledge that harbored individuals committed any offense – High Court emphasizes importance of mens rea and knowledge under Section 212 IPC – Confessional statement cannot be sole basis for conviction without corroborative evidence. [Paras 11-12]

Decision – Quashing of Conviction and Dismissal – High Court quashes conviction and dismissal of petitioner – Finds serious miscarriage of justice due to lack of evidence and non-speaking orders by authorities – Orders reinstatement with all consequential benefits. [Para 18]