Divorce - Cruelty and Desertion - Practicing Reiki – Husband alleged cruelty and desertion by wife due to her practice of Reiki – Wife contended she learned Reiki for peace of mind – Court held that merely learning Reiki does not constitute cruelty or desertion unless it is shown that the spouse has renounced the world – Petition dismissed as no evidence established that the wife’s practice of Reiki amounted to cruelty or desertion. [Paras 10-11]

Divorce - Allegations of Cruelty - Extra-Marital Relationship – Husband accused wife of cruelty through allegations of his extra-marital affair – Court noted that such allegations in a written statement or subsequent proceedings do not amount to cruelty unless made with the ulterior motive to tarnish the husband's image – Factual establishment of adultery does not constitute cruelty – The husband’s general allegations of cruelty and desertion were insufficient to warrant a divorce. [Paras 25, 29-30]

Divorce - Adultery - Evidence of Intimacy – Wife presented evidence including letters and photographs indicating husband’s intimacy with another woman – Husband admitted to writing a letter that suggested extra-marital intimacy – Court concluded that the wife’s allegations of adultery were true and well-founded – Impleading the alleged other woman was deemed unnecessary under the Hindu Marriage Act. [Paras 29-32]

Civil Procedure - Impleadment of Third Party in Divorce – No provision in the Hindu Marriage Act requires impleadment of a third party allegedly involved in an extra-marital affair for granting divorce – Impleading such a party was considered an empty formality given the evidence presented. [Para 32]

Condonation of Cruelty - Reunion Claims – Wife’s cross-objections claimed that the husband condoned cruelty by reuniting – Evidence of reunion insufficient to establish cohabitation after filing the divorce petition – Trial Court rightly rejected the application for dismissal based on alleged condonation of cruelty. [Paras 33-34]

Decision: Appeal and cross-objections dismissed – Trial Court's dismissal of divorce petition upheld – General allegations of cruelty and desertion not substantiated – Allegations of adultery found true but did not amount to cruelty under the circumstances – Condonation claims by the wife not supported by evidence. [Paras 35-36]

Constitutional Law - Judicial Review of Tax Rules - Validity of Time Limits – Petitioner, a registered dealer under the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005, challenged Rule 20 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, which mandates a 90-day time limit for claiming back ITC for goods sent for job work – Court held that Rule 20 is not ultra vires Section 13(3) of the Act – Reason for prescribing the time limit is to ensure that goods returned by job workers are the same as those sent for processing – Time limit facilitates easier verification by the Department. [Paras 14-15]

Tax Law - Directory vs. Mandatory Provisions – Court ruled that the 90-day period prescribed in Rule 20 is directory and not mandatory – Authorities should not consider themselves bound by a rigid time-frame – The period of 90 days is not confined to the same assessment year, and reasonable time must be assessed keeping in mind the scheme and purpose of the Act. [Paras 15, 17]

Evidentiary Requirements - Return of Goods After Processing – Taxable persons must produce proper evidence such as records, challans, or memos to prove receipt of goods after processing – ITC debited at the time of dispatch to job workers must be restored if goods are returned – Delay beyond 90 days can be condoned if it does not prejudice the Department's ability to ascertain the facts. [Paras 14, 19]

Decision: Petition partly allowed – Rule 20 upheld as valid but directory in nature – Impugned order of the Tribunal set aside – Matter remanded to the Tribunal for fresh decision in accordance with the judgment – All contentions on merits kept open. [Paras 20-21]

Constitutional Law - Tender Conditions - Judicial Interference – Petitioner engaged in the healthcare sector challenged the minimum turnover requirement of ₹200 crores stipulated in a tender by PGIMER – Held, it is the prerogative of the tendering authority to set eligibility criteria – Court to interfere only if conditions are arbitrary, irrational, or illegal – Turnover requirement not found arbitrary, irrational, or illegal – Petition dismissed. [Paras 8, 9]

Tender Law - Eligibility Criteria and Experience – Turnover of ₹200 crores per annum serves as an indicator of bidder's experience and capability – Ensures that only bidders with adequate market presence and capacity to perform the contract are eligible – Such criteria help maintain quality and reliability of supplies – Party inviting tenders best placed to set conditions ensuring fulfillment of contract requirements. [Paras 9, 10]

Public Procurement Policy - Compliance with MSME Guidelines – Petitioner sought writ mandating compliance with MSME Act and Public Procurement Policy – Court noted petitioner's ineligibility based on turnover criteria – MSME guidelines not rigid, provide flexibility based on specific procurement needs – Petitioner's products and financial standing insufficient under stipulated criteria – Policy intent to secure quality and timely procurement upheld. [Paras 3, 8, 16]

Judicial Review - Market Acceptability and Performance Assurance – Criteria such as high turnover ensure bidder’s market acceptability and reliability – Turnover serves as a proxy for bidder's financial stability and operational capability – Ensures due performance even for sensitive procurements like life-saving drugs – Court upheld tender condition as rational and in public interest. [Paras 10, 11]

Decision: Petition dismissed – PGIMER's tender conditions upheld – Petitioner's plea for relaxation of turnover criteria rejected – Court affirmed the tendering authority's right to set eligibility conditions based on procurement needs. [Paras 16-18]

Family Law - Interim Maintenance - Maintenance for Children under Section 24 – Petitioner challenged the order granting interim maintenance of ₹2000 per month to the wife and ₹2500 per month each to minor children – Marriage solemnized in 2008 with two children born from wedlock – Wife left matrimonial home in 2013 and filed application under Section 24 for interim maintenance – Trial Court granted maintenance – Held, although Section 24 does not explicitly mention child maintenance, the court can award it if the children reside with the applicant and are maintained by them – Revision allowed, matter remanded for reconsideration. [Paras 1-3, 9-10]

Judicial Discretion - Determining Maintenance – Court noted that the trial court must consider the means of the parties, social status, background, and economic dependency – The trial court's decision was found lacking in detailed consideration of these factors – Remanded for fresh consideration with instructions to evaluate all relevant factors. [Paras 13, 19-20]

Judicial Precedents - Supporting Child Maintenance under Section 24 – Cited Smt. Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun to support that Section 24 includes maintenance for children when the wife is maintaining them – Referred to the obligation under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act to support minor children – Affirmed the principle that the court’s discretion should be exercised judicially and in accordance with law. [Paras 11, 17-18]

Decision: Petition allowed – Order dated 26.10.2015 set aside – Case remanded to trial court for reconsideration of interim maintenance after evaluating all relevant factors, including petitioner’s actual income and the needs of the respondent and children – Interim maintenance to be reassessed in accordance with legal principles discussed. [Paras 19-20]

Service Law - Promotion Post-Acquittal and Exoneration – Petitioner, previously reverted and placed under suspension with two disciplinary proceedings initiated, exonerated in one and punished in another – Acquitted in criminal case on 30.04.2016 – Held, cause of action for seniority, promotion, and re-fixation of pay arises from acquittal date – Respondents directed to reconsider petitioner’s grievances regarding seniority and promotion on par with immediate junior in cadre. [Paras 1, 13]

Constitutional Law - Article 226 - Writ of Mandamus – Petitioner sought writs to quash previous orders rejecting representations for promotions and other service benefits – Reliefs include treating punishment period from 29.11.1989 and treating certain periods as ‘spent on duty’ – Court found no provision under disciplinary rules for retrospective penalty imposition – Petition allowed to reconsider seniority and promotion following acquittal. [Paras 1, 9-10, 12]

Judicial Review - Seniority and Promotion Rights Post-Acquittal – Examination of service particulars of petitioner’s immediate junior for determining eligibility for promotion – Court referenced Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman regarding salary and benefits post exoneration – Directed re-examination of petitioner’s service records for promotions on par with junior – Interest on withheld gratuity ordered. [Paras 13-15]

Decision: Petition allowed in part – Orders rejecting representations quashed – Respondents directed to reconsider petitioner’s seniority and promotion with respect to immediate junior and provide service/monetary benefits if eligible – Interest on gratuity to be paid at 6% per annum from 1.12.2008 till payment, excluding reasonable period of three months from retirement. [Paras 15-18]

Constitutional Law - Pre-deposit Requirement for Appeals - Validity and Discretion – Petition challenged the requirement under Section 19 of the 2006 Act to deposit 75% of the decretal amount as a precondition for entertaining an appeal – Held, while the validity of Section 19 upheld, the pre-deposit requirement is not mandatory – Court empowered to waive, partially or completely, the requirement of pre-deposit in appropriate cases – Emphasized need for ensuring timely and smooth flow of credit to small and medium enterprises. [Paras 32, 34]

Judicial Discretion - Waiver of Pre-deposit - Guiding Principles – Court can exercise discretion to waive the pre-deposit condition to avoid frustration of the appeal – Waiver granted only in deserving cases with strong prima facie grounds – Requirement to be considered in light of minimizing sickness among small and medium enterprises – Interim protection to be granted judicially, not routinely. [Paras 33-34]

Precedents and Legislative Interpretation - Analogous Statutory Provisions – Reference to similar statutes with pre-deposit requirements upheld by courts – Cited cases from VAT Act and other fiscal statutes where pre-deposit conditions were deemed constitutional – Court’s inherent power to grant stay or interim protection recognized – Case law emphasizing statutory right to appeal as conditional, not absolute. [Paras 13, 19]

Decision: Petition allowed in part – Validity of Section 19 of the 2006 Act upheld – Pre-deposit requirement not mandatory, subject to judicial discretion for waiver in appropriate cases – Order dated 21.12.2016 quashed – Matter remitted for reconsideration of interim injunction application. [Paras 35-37]

Civil Procedure - Closure of Evidence - Court's Duty to Ensure Witness Attendance – Trial Court closed the plaintiff’s evidence despite the plaintiff depositing requisite charges for summoning two official witnesses – Held, it is the court's duty to ensure the presence of official witnesses once requisite charges are deposited – Court should have adopted coercive measures if witnesses did not appear – Impugned order quashed. [Paras 6, 8]

Judicial Discretion - Ensuring Fair Trial and Justice – Principles of procedural law meant to advance justice – Courts must grant reasonable opportunity to both parties to present their case fully – Trial Court’s failure to ensure witness attendance denied the plaintiff a fair opportunity – Order closing evidence found non-speaking and hasty – Court directed to provide two more opportunities to conclude evidence. [Paras 6, 8]

Procedural Law - Duty to Summon Witnesses – Trial Court bound to issue summons for official witnesses once charges deposited – Failure to record issuance of summons or adopt coercive methods for non-compliance by witnesses constitutes procedural error – Ensuring presence of witnesses not within the plaintiff's control. [Paras 6, 8]

Decision: Revision petition allowed – Impugned order dated 03.01.2017 set aside – Trial Court directed to grant two more effective opportunities for the plaintiff to conclude evidence, including summoning the two official witnesses – No costs imposed. [Para 10]

Rent Law - Amendment of Ejectment Petition - Procedural Fairness – Landlady sought to amend the ejectment petition by including necessary ingredients under Section 13(3)(a)(i)(b)(c) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act – Application for amendment dismissed by Rent Controller as it was filed at a late stage after cross-examination and closing of evidence – Revision allowed, holding that adjudication should be on merits and amendment necessary to avoid prejudice to the landlady’s case. [Paras 5, 7]

Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Due Diligence Requirement – Rent Controller rejected the amendment application citing belated stage and lack of due diligence – Court held amendment permissible as it is essential for the merits of the case – Emphasized that amendments should be allowed if they help in determining the real controversy between the parties – Monetary compensation for the tenant to address delay. [Paras 5, 7]

Judicial Precedents - Allowing Amendments to Minimize Litigation – Reference to Abdul Rehman v. Mohd. Ruldu emphasizing amendments to resolve real disputes – Amendments should not cause injustice or prejudice – Court allowed amendment subject to payment of costs, ensuring tenant could file an amended reply and cross-examine the landlady afresh – Ensures fair trial and justice. [Paras 6-8]

Decision: Revision petition allowed – Rent Controller’s order dated 01.02.2016 set aside – Amendment application granted subject to payment of Rs. 10,000 as costs – Tenant permitted to file amended reply and cross-examine the landlady afresh based on amended pleadings. [Para 8]

Rent Law - Bona Fide Requirement - Landlord's Right to Eviction – Eviction petition filed in 2010 for the landlord’s sons’ use upheld by Rent Controller and Appellate Authority – Tenant contended property was sold and sons’ needs not genuine due to their marriage and existing businesses – Held, sons dependent on landlord for residence and business – Sales of other properties do not negate bona fide requirement – Tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord – Eviction upheld. [Paras 3-4, 6, 8]

Judicial Review - Concurrent Findings of Lower Courts – Lower courts' findings of bona fide need for landlord's sons upheld – Tenant’s objections about sons’ independent business and property sales rejected – Landlord's right to choose how to use property respected – Supreme Court precedents affirm landlord’s bona fide requirement as sufficient for eviction. [Paras 6-8]

Landlord's Prerogative - Property Utilization and Business Choices – Supreme Court emphasized landlord's freedom to decide property use and business nature – Tenant cannot impose restrictions or alternate suggestions – Practical and realistic approach needed – Tenant’s challenge based on alternative property arrangements and sons' business rejected. [Paras 6, 10-11]

Decision: Revision petition dismissed – Eviction order by Rent Controller and Appellate Authority upheld – Landlord’s bona fide requirement for his sons recognized – Tenant’s objections about property sales and business irrelevant. [Paras 12]