Family Law - Divorce on Grounds of Cruelty and Desertion – Appeal – Family Court dismissed husband's petition for nullity and divorce – Husband alleged cruelty and desertion – Court finds marriage irretrievably broken – Parties living separately for over 10 years – Continuous separation presumed as broken marriage – Appellant's petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act allowed ex parte – Counter FIR by wife against husband and family members – Cruelty inferred from wife's unfounded allegations and actions affecting husband's career – Appeal allowed, divorce granted. [Paras 1-27]

Marriage Breakdown – Analysis – Held – Once parties have separated for a sufficient length of time, irreparable breakdown is presumed – Court should endeavor to reconcile, but if breakdown is irreparable, divorce should not be withheld – Preservation of unworkable marriage causes greater misery – In cases of cruelty, divorce should be granted to end mental and emotional agony. [Paras 11-26]

Decision – Decree of Divorce Granted – High Court sets aside Family Court’s decision – Marriage declared irretrievably broken – Parties’ separation for over a decade and continuous legal battles indicate no possibility of reconciliation – Decree of divorce granted. [Paras 27]

Compassionate Appointment - Maintenance of In-Laws – Petition under Article 226 challenging order to pay 25% of gross salary as maintenance – Petitioner granted compassionate appointment as Lady Constable upon undertaking to maintain her deceased husband's parents – Petitioner remarried and contested maintenance obligation citing personal financial responsibilities – Held, compassionate appointment obtained on condition of maintaining in-laws – Re-marriage and personal responsibilities irrelevant – Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-12]

Legal Obligation from Undertaking – Analysis – Petitioner bound by undertaking to maintain deceased husband's parents as part of compassionate appointment terms – Employment and benefits obtained due to death of her husband, imposing moral and legal duty to maintain in-laws – Rejection of arguments citing personal financial needs and other sources of income for in-laws – Obligation upheld despite in-laws’ possession of property or other sons. [Paras 6-9]

Judicial Precedents – Emphasis on the importance of adhering to undertakings given for compassionate appointments – Reference to principles of justice and equity ensuring in-laws’ maintenance at a standard reflecting the petitioner’s salary level – Provision for future enhancement of maintenance based on increased salary. [Paras 8-11]

Decision – Dismissal of Petition – Petition found devoid of merit, dismissed – Official respondents directed to review maintenance amount after five years for potential increase based on petitioner's salary – Petitioner's obligation to maintain in-laws reaffirmed. [Paras 10-12]

Service Law - Cut-off Date for Eligibility - Appeals – Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) – Eligibility determined based on 01.11.2018 as cut-off date – Single Bench's interpretation extending cut-off date to 12.07.2019 found incorrect – Rule 9(1)(a)(iii) clearly specifies eligibility based on age and service requirements as of 01.11.2018 – Decision upheld, list of 16 candidates sent on 12.07.2019 not valid – Appeals against Single Bench judgment dismissed except for one where decision to charge-sheet was post cut-off date. [Paras 1-45]

Interpretation of Rules – Eligibility Criteria – Analysis – Held – Plain reading of Rule 9(1)(a)(iii) indicates age and service to be assessed as of 1st November preceding the submission date – Rule cannot be interpreted to allow for changing cut-off dates post facto – Any deviation from set rules would be contrary to statutory provisions. [Paras 34-45]

Decision – Validity of Cut-off Date – Appeals dismissed, confirming 01.11.2018 as the cut-off date for eligibility under Rule 9(1)(a)(iii) – Any consideration post this date, including disciplinary actions contemplated after 01.11.2018, invalidates the nomination – Appeals regarding these criteria found without merit, except for one instance where charge-sheet contemplation was post cut-off date. [Paras 46-47]

Motor Vehicles Act - Liability in Road Accidents – Appeal challenging the apportionment of liability by the Tribunal – Accident involving an Innova car and a tanker – Tribunal held insurer of the Innova car fully liable – Held, liability should be apportioned between insurers of both vehicles – Rule of strict liability applied – Compensation split with 70% to the tanker’s insurer and 30% to the Innova car’s insurer – Tribunal's order modified accordingly. [Paras 1-27]

Strict Liability Under Motor Vehicles Act – Analysis – Tortious liability for accidents traditionally based on driver negligence – Indian Motor Vehicles Act shifts from negligence to strict liability based on vehicle default – Liability is attached to the vehicle's use, independent of driver negligence – Claimants only need to prove the vehicle’s default, not driver’s fault. [Paras 9-13]

Apportionment of Liability – Evidence Consideration – Negligence of the tanker driver established by eyewitness testimony – Absence of contributory negligence by Innova driver – Innova’s insurer still shares liability due to vehicle’s default – Apportionment at 70% for tanker’s insurer and 30% for Innova’s insurer justified. [Paras 17, 23]

Judicial Precedents – Reference to Supreme Court and High Court judgments supporting liability without proof of negligence – Tribunal's reliance on outdated principles corrected – Modern statutory interpretation of Motor Vehicles Act applied. [Paras 9, 11]

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Tribunal’s award modified – 70% liability to the tanker’s insurer and 30% to the Innova car’s insurer – Cross objections by claimants withdrawn – Apportionment modification without impact on awarded compensation. [Paras 23, 27]

Land Acquisition - Assessment of Market Value - Enhancement - Landowners entitled to highest market value - State of Haryana produced several sale deeds for acquired land - Court found sale deed No. 11511 (dated 10.01.2006) reflecting highest price - Developers purchasing land for residential colonies - Market value increased by 9% per annum - Landowners entitled to enhanced compensation. [Paras 7.9, 8.1]

Market Value Determination - Use of Sale Exemplars - Analysis - Court focused on highest price sale exemplar, rejecting average or lower-value sales - Sale deed No. 11511 used for assessing market value - Reflects developers' interest and higher land value trends - Market value of Rs. 42,51,000/- per acre determined after considering price escalation. [Paras 6.2.3, 7.4, 8.1]

Errors in Reference Court's Assessment - Held - Reference Court's use of average sale price and development deductions found incorrect - Highest sale price should determine market value - Development deductions not justified for undeveloped land sale instances. [Paras 6.2.2, 6.2.4]

Decision - Enhanced Compensation Awarded - Appeals allowed - Market value reassessed at Rs. 42,51,000/- per acre - Landowners entitled to enhanced amount with statutory benefits under amended Land Acquisition Act, 1894. [Para 8.2]

Family Law - Divorce on Grounds of Cruelty – Appeal – Family Court granted divorce to the husband on grounds of cruelty – Wife appealed, challenging the admissibility of electronic evidence and findings of cruelty – High Court upheld Family Court's decision – Held, Family Courts have wide discretion under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, to admit evidence deemed necessary for resolving disputes – Certificate under Section 65B was filed – Electronic evidence taken on record correctly – Wife’s behavior of publicizing husband as a womanizer and drunkard, and her intrusive calls to his workplace amounted to cruelty – Divorce upheld – Husband directed to pay Rs. 50 lakhs as permanent alimony. [Paras 1-31]

Admissibility of Electronic Evidence – Analysis – Held – Section 14 of Family Courts Act grants Family Courts discretion to admit any evidence necessary to resolve disputes, even if not admissible under the Indian Evidence Act – Electronic evidence accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B is admissible – High Court found no procedural fault in the admission of CD, transcripts, and text messages. [Paras 18-23]

Decision – Evidence Supporting Cruelty – Family Court's findings of cruelty supported by evidence including testimony of the husband, his colleague, and his son – Wife’s actions had a significant impact on husband's reputation and professional life – High Court affirmed the divorce decree – Husband ordered to pay permanent alimony. [Paras 24-30]

Land Law - Partition Proceedings – Challenge under Article 226 to partition proceedings under Section 118 of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 – Petitioner and another company 100% subsidiaries of Emaar-MGF Limited – Petition for consolidation of partition applications rejected as entities are separate corporate bodies – Argument of inequity and lack of contiguity dismissed – Consolidated chunk provided, adequate access available – Orders of Revenue Authorities upheld – Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-9]

Corporate Entities in Partition – Analysis – Separate partition applications cannot be consolidated if parties are distinct entities – Petitioner's argument for consolidation based on corporate relationship rejected – Legal principle that each corporate body is a separate entity upheld. [Paras 7]

Implementation of Mode of Partition – Held – Mode of partition required consolidated chunk for parties with other land – Petitioner's interpretation for contiguity rejected – Consolidated chunk provided as per mode – Access issue dismissed, site plan shows adequate road connectivity. [Paras 8]

Judicial Precedents – Reference to judgments affirming that non-identical parties' partition applications cannot be consolidated – Partition mode compliance and provision of access validated by site plan. [Paras 7-8]

Decision – Dismissal of Petition – Challenge to partition proceedings and final partition rejected – Orders of Revenue Authorities upheld – Petition lacks merit, dismissed. [Paras 9]

SARFAESI Act - Transfer of Property - Writ Petition for NOC – Property mortgaged to bank and sold under SARFAESI Act – Sale certificate issued and registered by Sub Registrar – Chandigarh Housing Board’s refusal to issue NOC and record the transfer held untenable – No statutory provision allowing refusal – Sale complete upon registration – Petition allowed, Housing Board directed to issue NOC and record transfer within 4 weeks. [Paras 1-36]

Sale Certificate and Property Transfer – Analysis – Held – Property sold under SARFAESI Act and sale certificate issued free from all encumbrances – Registration by Sub Registrar completes sale – Third party decree for recovery of money cannot impede transfer process – No statutory basis for Housing Board’s refusal to issue NOC. [Paras 25-34]

Decision – Issuance of NOC and Recording of Transfer – High Court finds Housing Board’s refusal arbitrary and illegal – Writ of Mandamus issued to grant NOC and record property transfer in petitioner’s name – Petition allowed, transfer to be completed within 4 weeks. [Paras 35-36]

Negotiable Instruments – Dishonour of Cheque – Section 139 NI Act – Section 4 Indian Evidence Act – Presumption of Legally Enforceable Debt – Whether absolute – Held: Presumption under Section 139 NI Act is rebuttable – Complainant must prove pre-existing liability and legally enforceable debt – Failure to produce cogent evidence by complainant – Burden of proof not discharged – Acquittal upheld as complainant failed to establish debt or liability beyond reasonable doubt. [Paras 1-16]

Rebuttable Presumption – Burden of Proof – Sections 118, 139 NI Act – Evidence Act Section 4 – Presumption under Section 139 NI Act requires credible evidence by complainant – Accused can rebut presumption by showing probable defence – Absence of evidence of financial capacity to lend amount in question – Acquittal justified due to complainant's failure to substantiate claims. [Paras 4-11]

Decision – Acquittal Upheld – Appeal dismissed – No cogent and convincing evidence by complainant to establish enforceable debt – Judgment of acquittal by trial court upheld due to lack of substantive proof from complainant – No illegality or perversity in trial court's judgment. [Para 16]