Punjab Town Improvement (Utilisation of Land and Allotment of Plots) Rules, 1983 - Discretionary Allotment - Legality - Held, discretionary allotments by the Chairman of the Ludhiana Improvement Trust without adherence to the applicable rules are illegal. Allotments were made in gross contravention of the rules, with no power vested in the Chairman to make such allotments. Lower courts' judgments and decrees perpetuated illegal allotments. [Paras 1-27]

Cancellation of Discretionary Allotments - Jurisdiction and Due Process - Analysis - Held: The Chairman of the Ludhiana Improvement Trust had no authority to make discretionary allotments. The process lacked adherence to the rules requiring public advertisement and draw of lots. The plaintiffs did not fall under any of the categories eligible for such allotments. The cancellation of allotments by the State Government was justified, and the lower courts erred in reinstating the allotments. [Paras 12-27]

Decision - Appeals Allowed - Judgments and decrees of the lower courts are set aside. The suits filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed. Amounts paid towards the allotment of flats to be refunded with interest at 12% per annum from the date of receipt until realization. [Paras 26-27]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894/2013 - Sections 23(1A), 23(2), and 28 - Compulsory Acquisition - Interest and Additional Compensation - Held, in compulsory acquisition, an appreciation price at 12% per annum from the date of notification is payable. Decree holder entitled to benefits under Sections 23(1A), 23(2), and 28. [Para 11]

Arrears Paid in Installments - Interest Calculation - Analysis - Held: Decree holder entitled to adjust part payments firstly towards interest, then towards cost, and then towards the principal amount. Payments made in installments should follow this order. [Para 14]

Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 194 LA - TDS on Acquisition of Agricultural Land - Held, TDS at 10% is not deductible on compensation for the acquisition of agricultural land. Land Acquisition Collector cannot deduct TDS on awarded or enhanced amount. [Para 16]

Decision - Revision Petition Dismissed - Court upheld the order of the Additional District Judge, Mohali, awarding enhanced compensation and interest. The decree holder is entitled to appreciation price and interest as calculated by the Executing Court. No miscarriage of justice is shown. [Paras 17-18]

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 - Section 19 - Interpretation - Held, Section 19 of the MSME Act does not apply to an arbitral award unless the procedure under Section 18 of the Act is followed. The section must be read as it is without importing or deleting any words. Application requiring deposit of 75% of the awarded amount for entertaining objections to the award by an arbitrator is not mandated unless Section 18 procedure is followed. [Paras 1-9]

Interpretation of Statutes - Applicability of MSME Act to Arbitral Awards - Analysis - Held: Careful reading of Section 19 shows no reference to an award by an arbitrator. The award of the arbitrator appears to be specifically excluded. The section must be read as it is, and the court cannot import or delete words. Therefore, Section 19 is not applicable to an award of an arbitrator unless the procedure in Section 18 is followed. [Paras 8-9]

Decision - Petition Allowed - Court set aside the order directing the petitioner to deposit 75% of the awarded amount to entertain objections against the arbitral award, emphasizing that Section 19 does not apply to arbitral awards unless Section 18 procedure is followed. [Paras 8-9]

Compassionate Appointment - Mode of Recruitment - Held, compassionate appointments do not constitute a mode of recruitment but are provided as a welfare measure to help the deceased employee's family tide over financial crisis. Application for such appointment must be made within one year of attaining majority or securing educational qualification. Petitioner's claim at age 31, long after father's death, is not valid.

Compassionate Appointment - Timeliness of Application - Analysis - Held: The policy allows a dependent child to apply for compassionate appointment within one year from attaining the age of majority or educational qualification. This typically applies to the age range of 18-21 years. Petitioner's application at age 31 after securing qualification at age 30, long after the father's death, is not covered under the policy.

Decision - Petition Dismissed - Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that compassionate appointments are meant to address immediate financial crises and cannot be sought at a late stage.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13 - Divorce on Grounds of Cruelty and Desertion - Held, husband's sweeping allegations of cruelty were unsubstantiated and negated by his own witnesses. Allegations of attempted suicide by wife also not proven. Evidence showed wife willing to reconcile and husband unwilling to accept her back. Appeal dismissed.

Cruelty - Lack of Evidence - Analysis - Held: Husband's claims of cruelty by wife were broad and unsupported by any convincing evidence. Witnesses presented by husband admitted to no quarrels or misbehavior by wife in their presence, undermining husband's case.

Desertion - Lack of Merit - Analysis - Held: Husband's behavior forced wife to stay away. Wife's petition under Section 9 for restitution showed her willingness to reconcile, but husband was unwilling to accept her back. Panchayat efforts to reconcile also failed due to husband's behavior.

Decision - Appeal Dismissed - Court upheld the trial court's judgment, recognizing the lack of substantive evidence for cruelty and the husband's responsibility for the marital breakdown.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Limitation for Filing Objections - Interpretation of Section 31(5) and Section 3 - Held, limitation period for filing objections to an arbitral award begins from the date the award is received by the party at its place of business, not from the date it is put up before the competent authority within the organization.

Arbitral Award - Commencement of Limitation Period - Analysis - Held: The date of receipt of the arbitral award by the office of the Director, Food & Supplies, marks the commencement of the limitation period for filing objections under Section 34(3). Inter-departmental delays in processing the award do not extend the limitation period.

Decision - Appeal Dismissed - Court upheld the order of the Additional District Judge dismissing the objections as time-barred, emphasizing that the limitation period starts from the date the award is delivered to the party's office.

Sports Policy – Admission to MBBS – Exclusion of International Achievements – Petitioner, a sports person representing India, challenged the issuance of a Sports Gradation Certificate that excluded her international achievements – Court found the Sports Policy dated 10.12.1997 arbitrary for not considering international participation where a sports person represents the country and not a particular State – State directed to issue necessary instructions to address such situations and incorporate them into the policy [Paras 1-9].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Action of Director of Sports Punjab in excluding international achievements quashed – State directed to amend policy to account for international achievements –Petitioner's achievements to be recognized for sports quota admissions [Paras 9].

Arbitration Law - Delivery of Arbitral Award - Section 31(5) - Appellant's objections under Section 34 dismissed as time-barred - Objection based on non-receipt of the award due to incorrect address used by arbitrator - Court held that Section 31(5) mandates delivery of signed copy of the award to each party - Non-delivery constitutes non-compliance - Case remanded to District Court to decide objections on merits. [Paras 7, 8]

Limitation - Calculation for Filing Objections - Supreme Court precedent establishes that limitation period for objections begins from the date the award is delivered to the party - District Judge erred by not considering non-delivery - Appeal allowed, order of Additional District Judge set aside, case remanded for fresh decision on merits. [Para 8]

Decision - Remand for Fresh Decision - Appeal allowed - Case remanded to District Court to decide objections afresh on merits, considering the non-delivery of the award. [Para 9]

Village Common Lands – Conflict between Evacuee Property Act and Punjab Village Common Lands Act – Provisions of 1961 Act prevail over the 1950 Act – Shamilat Deh land vested in Gram Panchayat, not Custodian – 1995 Amendment protects allotments made prior to 9th July 1985 – Allotment in favor of deceased Assa Singh statutorily protected despite subsequent challenges [Paras 1-12].

Evacuee Property – Jurisdiction of Civil Courts – Bar under Section 46 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act – Civil Court found to lack jurisdiction – Appeal against lower court’s decisions dismissed [Paras 4-6].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – No justification to interfere with lower courts' decisions – Allotment made long before the amendment date remains protected under statutory provisions [Paras 11-12].