Succession Law – Letters of Administration – Second Grant on basis of Forged Will – Fraud on Court – Revocation Allowed – Probate of Will dated 4th April 1993 in favour of Dr. Feroze Duggan attained finality up to Supreme Court – Respondent suppressed material facts and obtained second Letters of Administration in 2022 on alleged Will dated 6th April 1993 – Held: Law does not permit successive grants over same estate; grant obtained by fraud and suppression of heirs is void ab initio – Letters of Administration dated 03.06.2022 and Deed of Transfer dated 17.06.2022 annulled – Exemplary costs imposed; suo motu contempt and criminal proceedings directed [Paras 86–89, 112].

Fraud on Court – Effect – Any proceeding obtained by deliberate deception stands vitiated – Court reaffirmed that “fraud unravels everything” – Principle of finality cannot shield fraudulent grants – Fraudulent averments in Petition and false affidavit constitute abuse of process; Court duty-bound to set aside such grant [Paras 88, 108–110].

Caveatable Interest – Locus of Executors and Legal Heirs – Section 213 Succession Act – Petitioners as executors and Class II heirs of Dr. Feroze Duggan held to have locus to seek revocation – Even persons acquiring interest after testator’s death entitled to move revocation – Challenge to locus by Respondent and alleged wife of Dr. Feroze Duggan rejected [Paras 90–91, 99–101].

Suspicious Circumstances – Forged Will – Unnatural Conduct – Respondent relied on alleged Will dated 6th April 1993 with vague language, unidentified attesting witnesses, contradictory explanations of delay, and unproved mortgage deed – Held: Improbable that testatrix who executed valid Will on 4th April 1993 with eminent witnesses would execute contradictory Will two days later – Delay of 29 years fatal – Circumstances establish fabrication [Paras 92–97, 102–103].

Abuse of Process – Suppression of Material Facts – Misrepresentation – Respondent falsely averred absence of legal heirs despite acknowledging grandchildren – Misleading averments treated Petition as uncontested – Court condemned suppression as deliberate fraud; initiated action under Section 340 CrPC equivalent provisions of BNS/BNSn – Exemplary costs imposed to deter frivolous litigation [Paras 35–38, 110–112].

Decision:

Petition allowed – Letters of Administration dated 03.06.2022 and Deed of Transfer dated 17.06.2022 cancelled – Registrar of Sub-Assurances directed to rectify records – Respondent saddled with costs of ₹25 lakhs – Suo motu contempt notice issued for breach of court orders – Prothonotary directed to lodge complaint for offences under BNS 2023 – Compliance to be reported every three months [Paras 112–113].

Service Law - Probationary Service – Article 311(2) – Non-stigmatic termination during probation upheld – Writ petitions dismissed [Paras 25-34].

Issues for Determination – Validity of initiation of disciplinary proceedings by competent authority – Compliance with principles of natural justice – Whether termination order is stigmatic/punitive attracting Article 311(2) – Court framed three core questions and proceeded on settled law governing probationers [Para 21].

Probationer’s Status & Article 311 – Distinction between confirmed employee and probationer – Judicial review narrower for probationers – Article 311 protections invoked only if termination is punitive/stigmatic – Employer may assess suitability during probation and terminate without full-scale inquiry if order is innocuous – Followed Rajasthan High Court v Ved Priya; T.C.M. Pillai; Jaswant Singh – Applied “foundation vs motive” test [Paras 25-29].

Nature of Termination Order – Language of termination letter recorded lack of “absolute integrity and devotion to duty” as employer’s dissatisfaction during probation – No specific imputation/findings of misconduct forming the foundation – Held: not stigmatic; merely articulates what is implicit in probationary termination – Pavanendra Narayan Verma principle reiterated [Paras 31-32].

Natural Justice & Enquiry Fairness – Petitioner was served charge-sheet, replied, and initially participated – No material to substantiate inability to attend for want of TA/DA – Two committees (Internal Complaint & Internal Finance) conducted fact-finding; Enquiry Officer’s report placed before authority – For probationary assessment, “less formal” process with adequate opportunity suffices – No mala fides or serious procedural breach found [Paras 15-16, 22, 32].

Competency of Authorities – Petitioner’s challenge to AGM(HR)/CGM(Tech) competence under Schedule of Delegation rejected in effect—respondents showed delegation permitting AGM-level signatures for specified grades; in any event, outcome turned on non-stigmatic probationary termination rather than imposition of a major penalty [Paras 17-18, 23, 32].

Relief & Alternate Remedy – Plea for quashing charge-sheet/termination and reinstatement declined – Court found proceedings aimed at suitability assessment; writ not entertained on asserted technicalities in absence of prejudice or punitive foundation [Paras 30, 32-33].

Decision – Both writ petitions WPA 7478 of 2018 and WPA 25707 of 2017 dismissed – No illegality or impropriety in termination dated 08/12/2017; urgent certified copy direction issued [Paras 34-35].

Bail – NDPS Act – Recovery of 1.056 kg Charas – Section 37 NDPS – Bail Denied – The petitioner sought regular bail, contending he was merely a passenger in the car from which 1.056 kg of charas was recovered and had no knowledge of contraband – Prosecution opposed bail relying on Section 37, citing recovery of commercial quantity, petitioner’s links with co-accused through CDRs, and conscious possession – Held: Section 37 imposes twin conditions; court must be satisfied that accused is not guilty and not likely to reoffend – Recovery from vehicle, petitioner’s association with co-accused, and precedents (Madan Lal v. State of H.P., 2003) show prima facie conscious possession – No material to satisfy twin conditions – Bail refused [Paras 10–17].

Interpretation of Section 37 NDPS – “Reasonable Grounds” – Court reiterated that “reasonable grounds” means something more than prima facie grounds; requires credible, plausible grounds to believe accused is not guilty – Bail under NDPS Act not to be granted casually; societal interest in curbing drug menace overrides liberal bail principles [Paras 13–16].

Bail Jurisprudence – Supreme Court Precedents – Referred to Pinki v. State of U.P. (2025), State of Kerala v. Rajesh (2020), UOI v. Niyazuddin (2018), Mohd. Nawaz Khan (2021), and Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal (2022) – Held: liberal approach not permissible in NDPS cases involving commercial quantity; stringent satisfaction required for bail [Paras 8–16].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Bail denied – Petitioner failed to satisfy twin conditions of Section 37 NDPS Act [Para 19].

Judicial Service Recruitment – Clause 8.4 prescribing minimum 40% in each paper and 50% aggregate upheld – Administrative instructions can supplement Rules when silent – Petition dismissed [Paras 12-20].

Scope of Rules – Rules of 2007 for Punjab & Haryana provide for written test (750 marks) and viva voce (250 marks) but are silent on qualifying marks – Notifications added Clause 8.4 requiring 40% in each paper and 50% aggregate – Held: not inconsistent but supplemental to statutory scheme [Paras 10-12].

Power of High Court – Following K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala, (2006) 6 SCC 395 – High Court can prescribe benchmarks in absence of express prohibition – Ensures selection of best available talent for judiciary [Paras 13, 18].

Supreme Court Precedent – Applied Dr. Kavita Kamboj v. Punjab & Haryana High Court, (2024) 7 SCC 103 – When Rules silent, administrative instructions permissible to fill gaps – Minimum marks criteria legally sustainable [Paras 14, 17-18].

Estoppel – Petitioner had earlier challenged identical notifications in W.P. (C) 501/2024 before Supreme Court—dismissed on 18.10.2024 without liberty—thus barred from reagitating same cause [Paras 15-16].

Decision – No arbitrariness in Clause 8.4—petition dismissed—miscellaneous applications also disposed [Paras 19-21].

Criminal Procedure – Section 528 BNSS – FIR No. 281/2007 (IPC 323/341/506/34) – Police cancellation prepared in 2007/2009 but not filed – Final report filed and accepted on 22.08.2025 post-petition – Court deprecates 15-year delay; imposes ₹1,00,000 costs (₹25,000 to petitioner; ₹75,000 to Punjab SLSA-DRF); directions for departmental action, compliance affidavit by DGP within 90 days – Petition disposed as grievance redressed [Paras 3-8].

Administrative Lapse – Investigative Delay – Scope of Discretion – While no rigid statutory time-limit for filing final report, discretion must be reasonable and diligent – 15-year delay held antithetical to rule of law; non-application of mind and lack of diligence amount to abdication of statutory/constitutional duty – Court quotes classic exposition of “discretion” (Lord Halsbury) – Institutional accountability emphasized [Paras 5-7].

BNSS, 2023 – Section 528 – Maintainability and Relief – Direction sought to compel presentation of cancellation/status report regarding compromised FIR – State’s affidavit acknowledges missing file; corrective circular No. 30/2025 issued; show cause to then Dy.SP – Since final report filed and accepted on 22.08.2025, substantive grievance stood redressed – Petition disposed with costs and systemic directions [Paras 4, 7-8].

Costs and Deterrence – State Liability and Recovery – ₹1,00,000 costs imposed on State (₹25,000 to petitioner; ₹75,000 to Punjab State Legal Services Authority – Disaster Relief Fund) – Liberty to recover from salaries of delinquent officials per law – Departmental proceedings to be pursued in right earnest and concluded expeditiously; non-compliance may invite punitive consequences [Para 8].

Police Administration – Circular Compliance – DGP’s Circular No. 30 of 15.09.2025 regarding timely preparation, submission, and follow-up of cancellation/untraced reports to be implemented in letter and spirit – Not a paper directive; must be effectuated to achieve intended purpose; DGP to file compliance affidavit with Registrar General within 90 days [Paras 4, 8].

Decision – Final report in FIR accepted on 22.08.2025; petition disposed as redressed; costs of ₹1,00,000 imposed with directions on recovery, departmental action, and compliance affidavit by DGP within 90 days [Para 8].

Limitation – Condonation of Delay – Delay of 1357 days in filing Second Appeal – Applicant Panchayat challenged Appellate Court decree of 2018 only after execution proceedings were initiated in 2023 – Applicant originally exonerated by Trial Court – Appellate Court imposed monetary liability despite no appeal by plaintiff – Held: Applicant failed to offer sufficient cause for long delay – Knowledge of decree established – Delay not bona fide – Gross negligence and indolent conduct disentitles applicant from discretionary relief under Section 5 of the Limitation Act [Paras 4, 9, 14–20, 32.1–33]

Civil Procedure – Merger of Decree – Though Trial Court dismissed suit against defendant no. 1, Appellate Court held otherwise – Decree of Appellate Court prevails – Defendant No.1 cannot avoid liability on ground of original exoneration once appellate decree imposed payment obligations – Failure to appeal in time makes decree binding [Paras 16–17]

Execution – Attachment of Property – Execution application initiated due to non-compliance with money decree – Order of attachment passed against immovable property of defendant no. 1 – Stay granted conditionally by High Court in writ petition – Subsequent delay application in appeal not a valid explanation [Paras 8, 18]

Delay – State Instrumentality – No Separate Standard – Delay by Panchayat not treated more leniently – Court reiterated that State authorities must act diligently – Lethargy, negligence, or bureaucratic delay cannot be treated as sufficient cause – State machinery must fix accountability to prevent delay [Paras 12.2, 25–26, 30]

Discretionary Power – Not Absolute – High Court reiterated that condonation of delay is a discretionary power – Cannot be invoked in absence of bona fide explanation – Length of delay, conduct of parties, and public interest must be weighed – Absence of due diligence fatal even if applicant claims good case on merits [Paras 22–23, 27–29]

Precedents Cited – Supreme Court decisions including Sheo Raj Singh, Binod Pathak, Ramkumar Choudhary, Rajneesh Kumar, Basawaraj, and Shivamma examined – Held: None support condonation in facts of present case – Explanation found insufficient, fabricated, or vague – Court must not substitute merits for diligence [Paras 21–24, 27–32]

Decision: Application dismissed – Delay of 1357 days in filing Second Appeal not condoned – Registry directed to refuse registration of appeal – Rs. 10,000 cost deposited by applicant to be disbursed to plaintiff through RTGS/NEFT [Paras 33–35]

Chandigarh Housing Board Allotment – Transfer before expiry of 10 years and without conveyance deed – Invalid – Will unproved – Parties held entitled as co-heirs – Appeals partly allowed and disposed of [Paras 16–27].

Property Dispute – Allotment under Chandigarh Housing Board – Clause 12 – Transfer of house to daughter prior to completion of 10-year period or execution of conveyance deed – Transfer invalid – Relaxation under Regulation 50 requires written reasons, absent in this case – Held: Transfer in favour of respondent Pushpa Devi contrary to allotment conditions – Possession claim unsustainable [Paras 16–19].

Will – Proof and Effect – Registered Will dated 14.07.1999 relied upon by Pushpa Devi not produced in original – Beneficiary failed to depose fully or prove due execution – Earlier judgments in collateral litigation held Will unproved – Held: No benefit can accrue from unproved Will – Claim of sole ownership by Pushpa Devi rejected [Paras 20–24].

Ownership Rights – Chandigarh Housing Board – In absence of conveyance deed, allottee remains holder of allotment rights – On death of allottee Kaushalya Devi, all legal heirs including appellant and respondent entitled equally – Neither party can claim exclusive ownership – Directions issued to have property transferred in equal shares as per rules [Para 26].

Scope of Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – Substantial question of law arises where lower appellate court’s findings based on misinterpretation of allotment conditions – High Court interferes, restores trial court’s dismissal of Pushpa Devi’s suit while clarifying parties’ joint entitlement [Paras 15–19, 25–27].

Decision – RSA No.1022/2012 filed by Bhushan Sehgal allowed – Suit of Pushpa Devi for possession and mesne profits dismissed – RSA No.1583/2012 partly allowed – Bhushan Sehgal not declared sole owner, but both parties held entitled to equal shares as heirs – Appeals disposed of accordingly [Paras 25–27].

Warrant of Arrest – BNSS, 2023 – Calcutta HC upholds Magistrate’s order showing petitioner as absconder in municipal forgery case despite his compliance with Section 179 BNSS notice; revision dismissed.

Criminal Procedure – Warrant of Arrest – BNSS, 2023 – Magistrate’s Order – Petitioner shown as absconder in charge-sheet despite compliance with Section 179 BNSS notice – Held: compliance with notice does not bar Magistrate from issuing warrant if IO records non-availability during search – No ground to interfere in revisional jurisdiction – Petition dismissed [Paras 5-11].

Forgery Allegations – Building Plan Sanction – Inspection Book Records – Allegations of forged municipal inspection records to obtain 5-storied building plan where only 3 permitted – Charge-sheet filed against petitioner/developers – Whether forgery committed to be tested in trial – Revisional Court will not evaluate merits at pre-trial stage [Paras 2-3, 10].

Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – Section 442 BNSS – High Court’s power exceptional and sparing – Interference only in case of manifest illegality or miscarriage of justice – No error found in Magistrate’s order; casual handwriting lapse in prior order not sufficient for intervention [Paras 9-11].

Decision – Magistrate’s order dated 29.07.2025 issuing warrant of arrest sustained – Revision petition dismissed; trial to proceed in accordance with law [Paras 11-12].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 148 – Deposit of Minimum 20% Compensation – Discretion of Appellate Court – Applicants challenged order of First Appellate Court directing deposit of 20% of cheque amount while granting suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. – Contention: requirement not mandatory and could not be imposed after suspension of sentence – Held: As per Muskan Enterprises & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr., 2024 INSC 1046, read with Surinder Singh Deswal v. Virender Gandhi, and Jamboo Bhandari v. MP Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., appellate court has discretion to impose such condition, but ordinarily deposit of 20% is mandatory unless case is exceptional – Word “may” in Section 148(1) to be construed as “shall” in substance – Direction to deposit 20% is valid and within jurisdiction of appellate court even if imposed subsequently [Paras 6–11, 17].

Statutory Interpretation – ‘May’ and ‘Shall’ – Legislative Intent – Court held that though Section 148(1) NI Act uses both “may” and “shall”, their context indicates different purposes: “may” gives discretion to order deposit, “shall” makes the minimum quantum of deposit mandatory once discretion is exercised – Legislative intent was to ensure partial realization of compensation to complainant during pendency of appeal – Discretion must be exercised judiciously with recorded reasons where exemption from deposit is granted [Paras 8, 10–12, 17].

Criminal Procedure – Power to Impose Deposit Condition After Suspension of Sentence – Contention that deposit order could be passed only at the time of suspension of sentence rejected – Appellate court retains jurisdiction to direct deposit any time during pendency of appeal until final disposal – Purpose of Section 148 NI Act is to secure fair compensation and discourage protraction of appeals [Paras 7, 15–16].

Judicial Precedents – Harmonisation – High Court reconciled Jamboo Bhandari and Muskan Enterprises – Held: condition of 20% deposit is ordinarily mandatory; relaxation only in exceptional cases where deposit would cause grave injustice or deprive right of appeal; reasons must be recorded [Paras 6, 11–13].

Decision:

Criminal revision application dismissed – Order of First Appellate Court directing deposit of 20% compensation upheld – Rule discharged.