Injunction – Grant of Temporary Injunction – Section 41(h) Specific Relief Act – Equally efficacious remedy – Defendant’s petition against Appellate Court's order allowing plaintiff's appeal and ordering status quo on construction over suit property – Held, Section 41(h) bars grant of perpetual injunctions when equally efficacious remedy is available – Provision not applicable to temporary injunctions – Appellate Court justified in granting temporary injunction due to prima facie fraud in partition order [Paras 1-15].

Temporary Injunction – Prima Facie Case – Fraudulent Partition Order – Plaintiff alleged fraudulent partition and possession orders – Appellate Court found prima facie evidence of fraud, justifying status quo order – Plaintiff, as co-sharer in exclusive possession, protected from dispossession without legal partition – Appellate Court’s decision to grant temporary injunction upheld [Paras 9-15].

Procedural Aspects – Revision Petition under Article 227 – Revision petition challenging order of temporary injunction on grounds of equally efficacious remedy and non-maintainability – High Court dismissed revision petition, upholding Appellate Court’s order for status quo based on prima facie case and balance of convenience [Paras 8-15].

Decision: Revision Petition Dismissed – Appellate Court's order for status quo regarding construction over suit property upheld – High Court found no merit in petitioner’s arguments against the temporary injunction [Para 16].

Juvenile Justice – Bail – Gravity of Offence – Petitioner, a juvenile, was denied bail by the Magistrate and Additional District Judge despite one year in custody – Revision petition argued that under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, bail is the rule for juveniles except in specific contingencies – Court held that the gravity of the offence should not be considered while deciding bail applications for juveniles – Bail is mandatory unless it is likely to bring the juvenile into association with known criminals, expose them to danger, or defeat the ends of justice – Orders denying bail set aside [Paras 1-12].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Held – Petitioner to be released on bail with conditions ensuring he does not associate with known criminals or engage in further offences – Parents to monitor his movements – Observations not to affect case merits [Paras 12-14].

Change of Land Use (CLU) – Jurisdiction – Municipal Corporation's authority to grant CLU in licensed colonies transferred to it – Court held Municipal Corporation/Director General Urban Local Bodies Haryana have the power to grant CLU for sites in licensed colonies developed under the 1975 Act/approved under the 1963 Act and transferred to Municipal Corporation – Power affirmed by constitutional provisions for urban planning and regulation of land-use within municipal areas [Paras 1-18].

Regulation of Land Use – Competence of Authorities – Role of Director General Urban Local Bodies Haryana in administering controlled areas included within municipal limits – Policy instructions for conversion of land use within municipal limits validated – Municipal Corporation's decisions upheld [Paras 19-20].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Held – No arbitrariness in denial of CLU – Petitioner's application for change of land use not sustainable based on the statutory framework and facts – Orders for removal of illegal construction affirmed [Paras 21-23].

Landlord-Tenant Law – Service of Summons – Compliance with Statutory Provisions – NRI landlord filed eviction petition under Section 24(3) of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 – Tenants claimed improper service and non-receipt of eviction petition copy – Held, Rent Controller and Appellate Authority correctly found that petitioners were duly served – Process Server's report confirmed delivery of summons and petition copies – Presumption of regularity under Illustration (e) of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 applied – Petitioners’ applications were tactics to delay eviction [Paras 1-16].

Judicial Acts – Presumption of Regularity – Evidence Act – Presumption that judicial and official acts are performed regularly – No exceptional circumstances shown by petitioners to rebut this presumption – Statutory requirements for service under Sections 38(4) and 38(5) of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 met – Petitioners' argument on missing words "a copy annexed" in summons format rejected [Para 11].

Decision: Petition dismissed with costs – Orders of Rent Controller and Appellate Authority upheld – Petitioners' applications found to be misuse of process to delay eviction – Costs of Rs. 25,000 imposed on petitioners [Para 16].

Motor Accident Claims – Quantum of Compensation – Future Prospects – Deceased aged 59, near retirement – Tribunal awarded compensation based on current income, including future prospects – Appeal contended income should reduce post-retirement – Court upheld Tribunal's approach, citing consistent income assessment and future prospects as per legal precedents [Paras 1-11].

Legal Representatives – Claim Eligibility – Major Son – Appeal questioned maintainability of claim by major earning son – Court affirmed right of legal representatives, including major earning sons, to claim compensation under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act – Dependence on deceased not a restrictive criterion [Paras 10-11].

Judicial Precedents – Consistency in Compensation Awards – Referenced K.R. Madhusudan, Pranay Sethi, and Birender cases – Highlighted non-applicability of split multiplier and inclusion of future prospects in compensation calculation – Court emphasized consistency with Supreme Court rulings [Paras 6-11].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – Tribunal’s compensation determination affirmed – Deceased’s income at time of accident and future prospects correctly considered – Major son’s claim upheld as per legal representative rights – Appeal dismissed with no errors in Tribunal’s judgment [Paras 9-12].

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 6 Rule 17 - Amendment of Pleadings - Subsequent Event - Held, transfer of drug license to landlord’s son is a subsequent event. No admission by landlord that would be recalled by amendment. Amendment allowed to reflect the change and avoid filing another suit. [Paras 1-11]

Rent Petition for Eviction - Amendment of Pleadings - Analysis - Held: The Rent Controller's finding that the landlord admitted facts in cross-examination was incorrect. Subsequent events, like the transfer of the drug license, justify the amendment. As per Supreme Court's precedent, such amendments are permissible when they reflect subsequent developments affecting the case's merits. [Paras 4-8]

Decision - Revision Petition Allowed - Court allowed the amendment of pleadings, setting aside the Rent Controller’s order. Petitioner's application for amendment of pleadings to be taken on record and the eviction petition to proceed in accordance with law. [Paras 11-12]

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Section 13 - Registration Act, 1908, Sections 17(1)(d) and 49 - Non-payment of Rent - Unregistered Rent Note - Held, even an unregistered rent note can be read in evidence for collateral purposes, such as determining the purpose of tenancy and assessing provisional rent. [Para 7]

Failure to Deposit Provisionally Assessed Rent - Ejectment Order - Analysis - Held: Failure to deposit the provisionally assessed rent will result in an eviction order. Any dispute regarding the provisional assessment can only be raised subsequently, as the assessment is evidently provisional and made before the commencement of evidence. [Paras 8-9]

Decision - Petition Dismissed - Court dismissed the revision petitions, upholding the order of eviction for non-payment of rent and the admissibility of the unregistered rent note for collateral purposes. [Paras 9-10]

Constitution of India - Articles 14, 226 - Right to Equality and Non-Discrimination - Held, in the absence of a legal right to a benefit, it cannot be claimed even if granted to others. Granting such benefits would perpetuate illegality. There is no negative equality; only a person with a right can claim equality. Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-25]

Grant of Premature Increment - Non-Participation in Strike - Analysis - Held: The petitioners, who were ad-hoc employees at the time of the strike on February 8, 1978, cannot claim the benefit of one premature increment as per the Supreme Court's decision. Granting benefits to similarly situated employees without a legal right does not entitle the petitioners to the same. [Paras 15-23]

Decision - Petition Dismissed - Court dismissed the petitioners' claim for the grant of one premature increment, upholding the respondents' decision to decline the benefit based on the Supreme Court's rulings in Civil Appeals No. 3487-3492 of 2004 and SLP No. 3874 of 2009. [Paras 24-25]

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]