Criminal Law – Attempt to Murder and Robbery – Conviction Modified and Sentence Reduced – Appellant convicted in 2002 for stabbing complainant Raj Kumar and robbing ₹9,200/- with accomplices – Trial court imposed 7 years RI under Sections 307/34 and 392/397/34 IPC – On appeal, High Court upheld conviction under Section 307 IPC, but altered conviction from 392/397 IPC to 379 IPC as prosecution failed to prove use of force “for the purpose of committing theft” – Sentence reduced to 5 years RI under Section 307/34 IPC and 6 months RI under Section 379/34 IPC, with both running concurrently and benefit of Section 428 CrPC granted [Paras 2-4, 11-17].

Attempt to Murder – Injured Witness Testimony – Conviction Upheld – Injured PW-3 Raj Kumar’s testimony consistent, corroborated by medical evidence (MLC showing multiple stab wounds) – Minor contradictions immaterial – Injured witness testimony carries special evidentiary weight – Conviction under Section 307/34 IPC affirmed [Paras 8-11].

Robbery vs. Theft – Distinction Applied – Assault Not for Purpose of Theft – Though complainant was attacked and money taken, evidence showed motive was personal enmity, not theft – Absence of proof that violence was caused “in order to commit theft” under Section 390 IPC – Conviction under Section 392/397 IPC modified to Section 379/34 IPC [Paras 12-14].

Sentence – Modification Based on Passage of Time and Mitigating Circumstances – Incident occurred in 2000, trial concluded in 2002, appeal decided after 23 years – Appellant now 51 years old with dependent family – Court reduced sentence from 7 years to 5 years under Section 307 IPC and 6 months under Section 379 IPC – Directed surrender within 3 days [Paras 16-18].

Final Decision – Conviction under Section 307 IPC upheld – Conviction under Sections 392/397 IPC modified to Section 379 IPC – Sentence reduced – Appeal disposed of with directions to surrender and serve modified term [Paras 15-20].

Arms Act, 1959 – S. 25 – licensed Punjab weapon carried ~100 yards into Chandigarh bus route while petitioner asleep – no conscious possession, mens rea, or proof of territorial breach – conviction set aside, acquittal ordered.

Arms Act – Section 25 – Licensed Weapon Carried Beyond Jurisdiction – Acquittal – Petitioner held valid Punjab license for .32 bore revolver and 16 live cartridges – boarded bus from Jalandhar to Mohali with ticket purchased for Phase 6 Mohali – fell asleep and bus entered ~100 yards into U.T. Chandigarh – Held: No conscious possession or intent to violate law; prosecution failed to prove wilful disobedience or territorial transgression; conviction unsustainable [Paras 11-16, 20-23].

Criminal Law – Mens Rea – Conscious Possession – Requirement – Courts emphasized that ‘possession’ under Section 25 Arms Act must be conscious and intentional – absence of mens rea or unlawful objective negates offence – Delhi High Court precedents (Sonam Chaudhary; Mohd Tarique Rehman) applied [Paras 17, 20-22].

Evidence – Failure of Prosecution – No Proof of Prior Information or Location – Alleged wireless tip-off not substantiated; no record or official notification showing naka was beyond Punjab boundary – Prosecution failed to establish essential elements of offence [Paras 13-15, 23].

Decision – Criminal Revision Allowed – Judgments of Trial Court and Appellate Court set aside – Petitioner acquitted of all charges [Para 24].

Arms Act, 1959 – S. 25 – licensed Punjab weapon carried ~100 yards into Chandigarh bus route while petitioner asleep – no conscious possession, mens rea, or proof of territorial breach – conviction set aside, acquittal ordered

Quick Capsule – Pension Scheme – LIC v. HIMUDA retirees – Contract concluded in 2008 with Trust Deed and disbursement of pension – Master Policy of 2010 cannot override agreed terms – LIC estopped from altering obligations – Appeals dismissed, widows’ petitions allowed, pension/family pension to be released [Paras 23–33].

Pension Scheme – Contractual finality – Scheme of Group Superannuation (DA linked) approved by State Govt. on 10.11.2008 – Trust Deed executed and over ₹21 crores deposited with LIC – LIC began disbursing pension – Held: contract concluded in 2008; Master Policy of 2010 was only supplementary, not to supplant agreed terms [Paras 8–11, 26–28].

LIC – Estoppel – Having accepted funds and commenced disbursement, LIC estopped from relying on later Master Policy clauses inconsistent with original Scheme – Plea of HIMUDA/employees being estopped rejected – Estoppel applied against LIC [Paras 24–25].

Master Policy v. Scheme – Even if Master Policy considered final, its terms cannot conflict with prior agreed Scheme – Doctrine of “blue pencil” applied – Clauses in conflict with Pension Scheme treated as void/non-existent – Consistent with SC precedents on adhesion contracts and insurer’s duty of good faith [Paras 27–29].

Maintainability – Locus standi – Employees and HIMUDA held competent to challenge LIC’s actions – LIC’s contention that only Trust had locus rejected – HIMUDA and retirees direct beneficiaries of scheme; writ maintainable [Paras 23–24].

Public law remedy – Disputed questions of fact – Court held issue was purely contractual interpretation based on admitted documents (Scheme, Trust Deed, deposits) – No oral evidence required – Writ petitions maintainable under Article 226 [Para 30].

Insurance contracts – Duty of disclosure & fairness – LIC bound to disclose exclusion clauses; cannot introduce unilateral terms post-contract – Court relied on Texco Marketing v. Tata AIG (2023) 1 SCC 428; Bharat Watch Co. v. National Insurance Co. (2019) 6 SCC 212 – Applied doctrine of uberrimae fidei [Paras 18–22].

Disposition – Appeals (LPA 45–48/2019) dismissed – Writ petitions (CWP 2776/2022 & CWPOA 6554/2020) allowed – LIC directed to pay pension/family pension strictly as per 2008 Pension Scheme and Trust Deed – No new demands permissible – Pending applications disposed [Paras 33–34].

Civil Law - Execution Appeal – Interpretation of Decree – Section 34 CPC – Appeal Dismissed – The Decree Holder filed an execution appeal challenging the Executing Court’s orders restricting pendente lite and future interest to the principal sum of Rs.10,50,000/- instead of the full decretal amount of Rs.14,28,000/- which included Rs.3,78,000/- as pre-suit interest – Held: Interest awarded under Section 34 CPC can only be on the principal sum adjudged, and not on pre-suit interest – The Executing Court rightly interpreted the decree to prevent compound interest – No error or modification of decree was made by the Executing Court [Paras 9-13].

Interest upon Interest – Not Permissible in Execution – Clarified – Citing Supreme Court ruling in Canara Bank v. M. Amarender Reddy (2017) 4 SCC 735 – The Court reiterated that unless permitted by statute or contract, awarding interest on pre-suit interest is impermissible – Executing Court correctly limited the execution to lawful interest on the principal insured value [Paras 10-12].

Final Judgment – Appeal Dismissed – The High Court affirmed the orders of the Executing Court dated 12.07.2024 and 06.08.2024 – Clarified that interest shall be confined to Rs.10,50,000/- and not the aggregate of Rs.14,28,000/- – Execution confined within legal boundaries and decree properly interpreted – No interference warranted [Paras 13-15].

Commercial Suits – Additional Documents – Order XI Rule 1 CPC – Petition by defendant to produce documents after completion of plaintiff’s and defendant’s examination rejected – Court reiterated statutory proscription on piecemeal disclosure in commercial suits – “Reasonable cause” must be shown for non-disclosure at appropriate stage – Mere negligence or inadvertence insufficient [Paras 3-4, 8-9].

Reasonable Cause – Interpretation – SC in Sudhir Kumar v. Vinay Kumar (2021) 13 SCC 71 held reasonable cause exists only when documents were not in power/possession at time of pleadings – Delhi, Punjab & Haryana, and Madras HCs consistently held negligence or oversight cannot qualify – Karnataka HC followed same line; affidavit of petitioner bereft of particulars and dates; documents of 2017-18 clearly in possession at WS stage – No reasonable cause established [Paras 8.1-8.4, 9].

Commercial Courts Act – Legislative Intent – Expeditious disposal – Permitting piecemeal documents at late stages would defeat object of Act – Indulgence permissible in ordinary suits not applicable in commercial suits – Timelines under Act are mandatory and must be strictly adhered to [Paras 10-13].

Distinguishing Precedents – Reliance on Sugandhi v. Rajkumar (2020) 10 SCC 706 and M. Gouthamchand v. Sanjay Kumar (2024 SCC OnLine Kar 7203) rejected – Both cases concerned non-commercial disputes or peculiar facts – Not applicable to commercial suits where strict discipline required [Para 12].

Decision – Impugned order rejecting I.A. under Order XI Rule 1 CPC sustained – Petition devoid of merit – Writ petition dismissed [Paras 14-15].

Land Acquisition – Agreement Holders’ Claim to Compensation – Rejection Upheld – Petitioners, claiming under agreements to sell and pending specific performance suits, challenged the LARR Authority’s order directing compensation exclusively to recorded tenure-holders and refund of earnest money – Held: Agreement to sell does not create any right, title, or interest in immovable property under Section 54 TPA – Agreement-holders are not “persons interested” under Section 76 of the U.P. RFCTLARR Act, 2013 – Relief of damages or alternate compensation must be sought in pending civil suits – Interim injunctions/status quo orders do not bind acquisition authorities – Prayer to freeze compensation refused – Writ Petition Dismissed [Paras 6–37].

Agreement to Sell – No Transfer of Interest – Section 54 TPA – “Person Interested” Claim Rejected – Petitioners (agreement-holders) asserted entitlement to compensation/apportionment due to pending specific performance suits and interim orders – Held: An agreement to sell does not create any right, title, interest, or charge in immovable property; it only creates an enforceable personal right – Agreement-holders are not “persons interested” in compensation vis-à-vis recorded tenure-holders – Authority’s rejection of claim sustained [Paras 7–20, 34, 36–37].

Scope of Section 76, U.P. RFCTLARR Act – Apportionment Based on Existing, Not Contingent, Rights – Reference Authority cannot decide hypothetical or future rights dependent on outcome of civil suits – Apportionment must mirror subsisting interests at acquisition; prospective rights under unadjudicated agreements are in personam and insufficient – Hence, agreement-holders’ claims cannot displace recorded tenure-holders at the disbursement stage [Paras 28–30, 34].

Specific Relief – Section 21, Specific Relief Act – Alternate Compensation (in lieu of Specific Performance) – Available Only in the Suit for Specific Performance – Petitioners relied on Jagdish Singh; Urmila Devi; Sukhbir to seek compensation tied to acquisition – Held: Such relief is moulded by the civil court upon findings of breach and readiness/willingness; it cannot be granted in Section 76 apportionment proceedings – Petitioners must pursue remedies in their pending suits; Reference Authority/certiorari court will not pre-empt civil findings [Paras 21–27, 28].

Interim Injunctions in Civil Suits – No Fetters on Statutory Acquisition/Disbursement – Pendency of suits or orders restraining alienation/status quo do not bind the State in compulsory acquisition nor convert agreement-holders into compensation claimants – Interim orders, therefore, do not assist petitioners’ apportionment claim [Para 6].

Prayer to Withhold/Freeze Compensation – Refused – Deposit in Fixed Deposit till conclusion of suits declined – If petitioners ultimately secure a money decree for damages, it will be executable; meanwhile, withholding prejudices recorded owners – No irreparable injury to petitioners shown [Para 35].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Order of LARR Authority upholding compensation to recorded tenure-holders and directing refund of earnest money (with interest) sustained [Paras 36–37].

Education Law - Foreign Medical Graduates – Internship Requirement – Covid-19 and Ukraine War – NMC Circulars Valid – Petitioners (FMGs from Bukovinian University) sought one-year CRMI citing physical classes and Ext. P1 NMC notice dated 19.06.2024 – Respondent Council insisted on two-year CRMI per later NMC notices dated 07.06.2024 and 09.05.2023 – Held: Petitioners admittedly had online classes during course period – NMC directed all such FMGs to undergo two/three-year CRMI – Council bound to follow – Writ dismissed [Paras 2-6, 10-15].

Certificates from Foreign Universities – Evidentiary Value – Rejected by NMC – NMC found certificates issued by medical universities abroad claiming “compensated offline classes” to be indiscriminate and unreliable – Directed that such certificates cannot be accepted – Petitioners’ reliance on compensation letters from Bukovinian University rejected [Paras 8-9, 13-14].

Internship Condition – Acceptance by Petitioners – Estoppel – Petitioners accepted provisional registration certificates issued by Kerala State Medical Council specifying two-year internship – Attempt to later challenge condition not sustainable – Petition dismissed [Para 15].

Public Interest – NMC Decision Binding – Extension of internship duration upheld as a measure to ensure competence of FMGs who missed full physical training due to Covid-19/Ukraine War – High Court cannot dilute national policy framed by statutory regulator in public interest [Paras 14-15].

Final Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Petitioners required to complete two-year CRMI as per NMC directives – No merit in challenge [Para 15].

Compulsory Retirement – Judicial Officer – Adverse ACR in Final Year – Retirement Order Quashed – Held: Sudden integrity doubt based on unverified remarks without inquiry, despite 30 years of good service, arbitrary and vitiated by legal mala fides [Paras 1–4].

Service Law – Compulsory Retirement – Public Interest – Order Set Aside – Petitioner, a judicial officer, was compulsorily retired at age 58 on the basis of one adverse ACR for five months in 2010-11 citing doubtful integrity – Held: Entire service record was otherwise good or very good for 30 years; adverse remarks were unsubstantiated and based on unverified complaints – Action taken without proper inquiry and based on irrelevant considerations – Compulsory retirement order quashed as arbitrary and violative of Wednesbury principle [Paras 1-4].

Administrative Law – Wednesbury Principle – Mala Fide in Law – Compulsory retirement based solely on short, unproven adverse entry termed disproportionate and unreasonable – Held: Authority failed to discard irrelevant material and ignored that adverse entries were recorded without inquiry or complaint verification – Decision vitiated by legal mala fides [Paras 3-4].

Judicial Review – ACR and Integrity Assessment – Principles Reiterated – Sudden drop in ACR rating from 'Very Good' to 'C – Integrity Doubtful' without supporting material held impermissible – Court emphasized the need for consistent, fair, and evidence-based appraisal, particularly when retirement is at stake [Paras 2-4].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Compulsory retirement order dated 05.09.2011 quashed – Petitioner entitled to all consequential benefits including notional seniority, pay fixation, pension fixation, and arrears of pension, but not salary for period out of service [Para 4].

Civil Law – Order 8 Rule 1 CPC - Delay in Filing Written Statement – No Exceptional Circumstance Shown – Petition Dismissed – Petitioner served with summons on 19.12.2024 but failed to file written statement within 30 days or extended period of 90 days – Right to file written statement closed on 01.04.2025 – Application for recall and condonation dismissed by trial court – High Court held: obtaining certified copies of documents in another litigation not an exceptional circumstance – Petitioner could have inspected documents instead of delaying – Delay beyond 90 days unjustified – Revision dismissed [Paras 3-7].

Res Judicata – Interlocutory Orders – Review Not Maintainable – Petitioner attempted to reopen trial court’s order dated 01.04.2025 by way of recall plea – Court held: no error apparent on record or discovery of new facts despite diligence – Review jurisdiction cannot be invoked to circumvent finality of procedural orders [Para 8].

Strict Application of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC – Leniency Rejected – High Court rejected plea for liberal approach in condoning delay – Emphasized that post-2002 CPC amendment, strict timelines must be adhered to – Lenient view would render provision otiose and defeat purpose of expeditious trial [Para 9].

Final Decision – No infirmity in trial court’s order – Petition and connected applications dismissed – Closure of right to file written statement upheld [Paras 9-10].