SARFAESI Act - Premature Challenge - Sections 13(2), 13(3A), 13(4), 17 - Borrower’s challenge to recovery notice and rejection of objections under Section 13(3A) deemed premature - SARFAESI Act specifies that borrower can appeal under Section 17 only after measures under Section 13(4) are taken - Petition dismissed as the respondent had not taken action under Section 13(4) at the time of filing the petition. [Para 10]

Legal Framework - Enforcement of Security Interest - Section 13(2) - Lender’s right to demand repayment upon default and classify debt as non-performing asset - Borrower’s objections under Section 13(3A) do not immediately allow for judicial review under Section 17 - Legal procedure requires actions under Section 13(4) to be taken first. [Paras 8, 9]

Court’s Reasoning - Statutory Compliance and Borrower Rights - The process under SARFAESI Act must be strictly followed - Borrowers’ right to appeal under Section 17 arises only after secured creditors take measures under Section 13(4) - Interim orders rejecting objections do not provide grounds for judicial review - Petitioners to seek remedies post actions under Section 13(4). [Para 10]

Decision: The writ petition is dismissed. Petitioners' objections to recovery notices under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and the challenge to the rejection of these objections are premature. Petitioners may seek remedies under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act if and when actions are taken under Section 13(4).

Property Law - Joint Hindu Family Coparcenary Property - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 34 - Plaintiff claims property as Joint Hindu Family Coparcenary Property - Plaintiff selectively identified one property as coparcenary, ignoring others - Held, selective allegations not permissible - Plaintiff must disclose all properties forming part of coparcenary - Admission of receipt of 10-12 acres of land and a residential property by the plaintiff indicated a division of property by the deceased during his lifetime - Suit dismissed. [Paras 10, 11]

Succession Law - Validity of Will - Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 63(c) - Whether a particular form of attestation of a registered will is required - Held, testator must sign before attesting witnesses, but the exact sequence is flexible - All parties present at the same time when the will was signed - No specific form of attestation mandated - Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court's reliance on Santlal v. Kamla Prasad (1951) regarding attestation sequence not applicable - Will held valid. [Paras 12, 13, 14, 17]

Court's Analysis - Examination of Evidence - Plaintiff’s claim filed after 25 years of the father's death and subsequent transfer of property by the mother questioned - Registered will executed by the father, not challenged for 25 years, upheld - Arguments on improper attestation dismissed as the procedural requirements were substantially met. [Paras 14, 15, 17]

Decision:

The regular second appeal is dismissed. The findings of the trial court and first appellate court are upheld. The will executed by the deceased and the subsequent transfer of property are valid, and the plaintiff's selective claim over one property as coparcenary without addressing others is not tenable.

Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order 6 Rule 17 CPC - Amendment in the written statement cannot be filed under the guise of responding to an amended plaint - The correct procedure requires a specific application for amendment indicating the changes to be made - Held, amendment to the written statement must follow a formal application process as stipulated by Order 6 Rule 17. [Paras 1, 7, 13]

Court’s Authority - Order 6 Rule 17 and Section 151 CPC - Proper procedure for amending pleadings must be adhered to - Respondents filed an amended written statement altering the original without a proper application - Trial court erred in dismissing the petitioners' application to reject this amended written statement - Revision petition allowed, trial court’s order set aside. [Paras 8, 9, 14]

Legal Precedents - Gurdial Singh’s Case - Supreme Court has clarified that even consequential amendments require a proper application - Observations in Mahant Kapil Dev’s case considered obiter dicta - Trial court's reliance on Mahant Kapil Dev’s case misplaced - Clear statutory provision mandates a formal application for amendments. [Paras 10, 11, 12]

Decision:

The revision petition is allowed. The impugned order of the trial court dated 25.08.2015 is set aside. The respondents are directed to move an appropriate application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for any amendments to their written statement. The trial court will consider such an application on its merits and decide expeditiously in accordance with the Supreme Court's guidance in Gurdial Singh’s case.

Cooperative Societies - Recovery of Loan from Estate of Deceased - Section 22 of Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 - Rule 17(2) of Punjab Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Rules, 1959 - Time-barred recovery - Borrower deceased on 27.12.2004 - Recovery notice issued on 17.10.2011 held time-barred - Debt recovery permissible only within two years of borrower's death - Resultant award dated 10.09.2013 declared non-est - Writ petition allowed, sale notice quashed. [Paras 1, 4, 7, 9]

Statutory Limitation - Enforcement of Debt - Award passed after the statutory period deemed unenforceable - Recovery actions initiated beyond prescribed two-year period from borrower’s death not maintainable - Reference to arbitrator and subsequent award invalidated due to delay - Quashing of sale notice affirmed. [Paras 7, 9]

Court's Reasoning - Precedent and Legal Interpretation - The Rajpura Janta Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. v. State of Punjab applied - Emphasis on statutory limitation for enforcing debt from deceased’s estate - Differentiation from Lalq Singh’s case which did not involve Section 22 of the Act - Decision guided by precedents establishing time-bar for recovery actions. [Paras 4, 7, 8]

Decision:

The writ petition is allowed. The recovery notice issued by the Bank and the resultant arbitration award are quashed. The recovery of the loan amount from the estate of the deceased borrower is time-barred, as it was not initiated within two years of the borrower's death.

Family Law - Custody of Children - Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 - Sections 8, 12, 25 - Custody granted to father despite pending FIR for abetment of wife's suicide - Acquittal from charges pivotal in deciding custody - Held, FIR under Section 306 IPC against the father cannot alone be a ground to deprive him of the custody of his children, especially when acquitted - Welfare of the children remains the paramount consideration - Appeal dismissed. [Para 6, 13, 14]

Custody Rights - Acquittal and Welfare of Minors - Father's acquittal from charges under Section 306 IPC signifies no bar on exercising natural guardianship rights - Court emphasizes children's welfare over unproven allegations - Maternal grandparents' custody rejected as children’s welfare better served with father - Preference to natural guardian upheld unless proven unfit. [Paras 11, 13]

Court's Reasoning - Presumption of Welfare with Natural Guardian - Supreme Court precedents underscore welfare of minors as primary consideration - Preferential right of natural guardian (father) upheld post-acquittal - Allegations without conviction insufficient to deny custody - Children's welfare presumed to align with natural parents’ care. [Paras 11, 13, 14]

Decision:

The appeal is dismissed. The order dated 03.12.2018 by the Guardian Judge, Ludhiana, granting custody of the children to the respondent-father is upheld. No illegality or infirmity in the trial court’s order warranting interference is found.

Partnership Law - Dissolution and Tenancy Rights - Section 48 of Partnership Act, 1932 - The issue of whether tenancy rights, post-dissolution of a partnership firm, transfer to individual partners as separate tenants or remain as joint tenancy - Held, upon dissolution, tenancy rights do not transfer to individual partners but remain as joint tenancy - The erstwhile partners become joint tenants with no individual tenancy rights in any part of the property. [Para 13]

Suit for Possession by Ex-Partners - Maintainability - Whether an ex-partner of a dissolved firm can maintain a suit for possession against the landlord after the surrender of the premises by other partners - Held, once possession of the tenanted premises is surrendered by the ex-partners, the tenancy ends - An ex-partner has no right to claim possession from the landlord and must seek remedies under the Partnership Act against other ex-partners - The suit for possession against the landlord is not maintainable. [Para 15, 18]

Court's Analysis - Tenancy Inheritance and Joint Tenancy - Upon dissolution, tenancy rights remain joint and do not confer individual tenancy rights to the former partners - Supreme Court precedent in Suresh Kumar Kohli v. Rakesh Jain applied - Tenancy rights terminate upon the surrender of possession by ex-partners - The claim for individual tenancy rights post-dissolution is invalid. [Para 13, 14, 18]

Decision:

The Regular Second Appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court are set aside, restoring the trial court's decision. The ex-partners' remedies lie under the Partnership Act, and the tenancy rights ceased upon the surrender of possession.

Service Law - Seniority - Inter-Charge Transfer - Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16 - CBDT Circular dated 14.05.1990 - Petitioners transferred on compassionate grounds claim seniority from the date of joining the parent region - Seniority determined region-wise, transfer on request results in placement at the bottom of seniority list in the new region - Petitioners' seniority correctly fixed per circular, previous service not counted in new region - Petition dismissed. [Paras 6, 7, 8, 13]

Inter-Charge Transfer - Circular Compliance - Seniority in New Region - CBDT Circular mandates that service in the old region is not considered for seniority in the new charge - Petitioners' request for inter-charge transfer granted, seniority fixed at the bottom in the new region - Tribunal's decision to uphold seniority determination as per CBDT Circular dated 14.05.1990 found correct - Transfer on compassionate grounds without promotion benefit. [Paras 7, 8, 12]

Legal Principle - Applicability of DOPT Instructions - Petitioners' reliance on Ministry of DOPT instructions dated 11.11.2010 - Instructions of the concerned department (CBDT) take precedence over general instructions of DOPT - CBDT specific instructions govern the seniority issue in inter-charge transfers - Petitioners' seniority claims based on DOPT instructions not applicable. [Paras 10, 11]

Decision:

The writ petition is dismissed. The orders dated 04.04.2018 and 04.07.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, are upheld. Petitioners' seniority in the new region is correctly fixed at the bottom of the list as per CBDT Circular dated 14.05.1990, excluding their service in the previous region. No illegality or infirmity found in the Tribunal's orders.

Criminal Law - Probation - Sections 360, 361 of Cr.P.C. - Sections 3, 12 of Probation of Offenders Act - Purpose of criminal law to reform individuals and maintain societal harmony - Petitioner convicted for forgery to obtain a loan - Sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years - Petitioner's appeal dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge - High Court holds the trial and appellate courts failed to consider probation - Petitioner ordered to be released on probation for one year. [Paras 1, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25]

Reformative Justice - Sections 360, 361 of Cr.P.C. - Sections 3, 12 of Probation of Offenders Act - Courts must consider age, character, antecedents, and circumstances of the offense before sentencing - Probation allows offenders to reform - Magistrate and appellate court must record reasons for not granting probation - Conviction upheld but sentence set aside in favor of probation. [Paras 22, 24, 25]

Court's Reasoning - Judicial Precedents and Legislative Intent - Supreme Court in Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) emphasized balance between punitive and reformative justice - Probation aimed at rehabilitation - Sections 360 and 361 Cr.P.C. mandate consideration of probation - Chandreshwar Sharma v. State of Bihar reiterated mandatory duty to consider probation. [Paras 19, 23, 24]

Decision:

The revision petition is allowed. The conviction of the petitioner under Sections 420 and 471 IPC is upheld. However, the substantive sentence of imprisonment is set aside. The petitioner is ordered to be released on probation for a period of one year, subject to executing bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned, undertaking to keep peace and be of good behavior for the said period, and to appear and receive the sentence if called upon. The petitioner is directed to pay Rs. 25,000 as costs of litigation to the State.

Civil Procedure - Registration of Decree - Section 100 of CPC - Whether a judgment and decree passed by a court acknowledging a prior family settlement with respect to a self-acquired property of a common ancestor is compulsorily registrable - Held, No - Family settlements acknowledged by court decrees do not require registration unless property is transferred through a decree - Appeal allowed, and First Appellate Court's decision reversed. [Para 11]

Civil Procedure - Nondisclosure of Previous Suit - Order 7 Rule 1(j) - Whether a judgment and decree can be set aside for nondisclosure of a previous suit in the plaint - Held, No - Absence of provision mandating dismissal of a suit for nondisclosure of previous litigation - Amendment by Punjab does not mandate dismissal - Appeal allowed on this ground as well. [Para 14]

Civil Procedure - Bar to Subsequent Suits - Order 23 Rule 1(4) - Whether bar to maintainability under Order 23 Rule 1(4) can be invoked without examining pleadings of both suits - Held, No - For proving subsequent suit is barred, pleadings of both suits must be examined - Appeal allowed on this ground. [Para 17]

Evidence Law - Proof of Will - Section 68 of Evidence Act - Whether a registered will executed by a common ancestor duly proved can be held surrounded by suspicious circumstances on basis of conjectures and surmises - Held, No - Suspicious circumstances must have solid foundation - Courts erred in finding will suspicious without concrete evidence - Appeal allowed, and will upheld. [Paras 18, 21]

Decision:

The Regular Second Appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court are set aside. The suit filed by the plaintiffs is dismissed. All pending miscellaneous applications are also disposed of.