Civil Law -  Mutation - Inheritance – Succession of Issueless Hindu Male – Mother as Class-I Heir – Mutation in Favour of Class-II Heirs Invalid – Upon the death of Pritam Singh, who died issueless, his mother Smt. Santo was alive and the only Class-I heir under the Hindu Succession Act – Mutation of his share in land in favour of his siblings and sister Daro was illegal – Held: The entire remaining estate of 3 kanals 3 marlas devolved solely on his mother, and not on collateral heirs [Paras 3–5].

Transfer of Property – Applicability of Section 41 TPA – Bonafide Purchaser Protection Denied – No Ostensible Ownership – Sale deeds executed by Mehma Singh and Santo in excess of Santo's inherited share were wrongly protected by the First Appellate Court under Section 41 of the TPA – Supreme Court precedent in Hardev Singh v. Gurmail Singh, (2007) 2 SCC 404, laid down mandatory conditions for invoking Section 41, including ostensible ownership and due diligence – None satisfied – Held: Section 41 not attracted and transfers to that extent invalid [Paras 6–7].

Principle of Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet – Sale by Stranger to Title – Invalid Transfer – Reiterated that no individual can transfer better title than he lawfully owns – Sale by Mehma Singh of property not inherited by him from Pritam Singh was void and ineffectual against rightful successors [Para 7].

Revenue Mutation – Erroneous Entry Caused Litigation – Revenue Authorities Directed to Rectify Records – Mutation wrongly included land already sold by Pritam Singh and did not limit inheritance to the mother – Court directed Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab, to correct mutation, restrict Santo’s title to 3 kanals 3 marlas and disregard excess sales by others – Directed compliance report within two months [Paras 9–10].

Decision: Appeal Allowed in Part – Mutation to be Rectified – Directions to Revenue Authorities – Court allowed the appeal with direction to correct revenue entries – Only 3 kanals 3 marlas devolved upon Smt. Santo and sale by her upheld to that extent – Financial Commissioner to ensure implementation and submit compliance [Paras 9–11].

Civil Law - Proof of Will – Section 63 of Succession Act and Section 68 of Evidence Act – Failure to Comply – Will Disbelieved – Trial court found that attesting witness Ram Sagar Mishra failed to establish due execution – Signatures of testator shaky, testator was 84 years old and ill – Trial court’s reasoning upheld by High Court – Registered nature of Will not sufficient to prove genuineness [Paras 1–6, 31–35].

Suspicious Circumstances – Undue Influence – Active Role of Beneficiaries – Will Set Aside – All beneficiaries present during execution; testator’s independence doubtful – Court found execution to be under influence of beneficiaries – Witnesses were associates of beneficiaries – No independent proof that testator acted of free will [Paras 18, 28–31].

Burden of Proof – Onus on Propounder – Not Discharged – Appellate Court Erred – Appellate court overlooked trial court’s well-reasoned findings – High Court held that propounder failed to dispel suspicious circumstances – Law requires not just formal compliance but genuine proof of free and voluntary execution [Paras 26–27, 35].

Decision – Second Appeal Allowed – First Appellate Court’s judgment dated 05.10.2023 set aside – Trial Court’s decree dated 26.05.2009 reinstated – Suit for cancellation of Will decreed in favour of appellants [Para 35].

Electricity Law - Electricity Tariff – Excessive Delegation – Regulation 4.4 of WBERC Tariff Regulations Struck Down – Petition Allowed in Part – Petitioners challenged Regulation 4.4 that permitted licensees to impose “restricted drawal” limits and charge double rates for exceeding them – Held: Regulation confers uncanalised and arbitrary powers on licensees to unilaterally restrict contracted load without notice, guidelines or accountability – Violates Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) – Results in sub-delegation of tariff powers beyond scope of Sections 61 and 181 of the Electricity Act – Court struck down Regulation 4.4 prospectively and directed WBERC to issue new guidelines with safeguards, timelines, expert oversight and consumer rights [Paras 31–51, 53].

Natural Justice and Tariff Law – Arbitrary Penalty without Hearing – Procedural Safeguards Missing – Violation Found – Court noted that the regulation imposed financial penalty without giving consumers opportunity to respond or contest the imposition of drawal restrictions – Held: Levy of double charge without prior notice or hearing violates natural justice – No proportionality or scientific basis for penalty quantum – Directions issued for future regulatory framework to include hearings, expert damage assessment, and protection of contracted demand [Paras 36–45, 53].

Decision – Regulation 4.4 Quashed – Prospective Operation – DVC Billing Dispute Left to Redressal Authority – Calcutta High Court struck down Regulation 4.4 as unconstitutional and violative of the Electricity Act – Ruling applied prospectively – Disputes regarding past overdrawal charges to be resolved by appropriate grievance redressal forums – DVC and other licensees directed to cease enforcement of current drawal restrictions imposed under Regulation 4.4 [Paras 52–56].

Criminal Law - Corruption Allegation – Demand and Acceptance – Sole Witness Not Wholly Reliable – Conviction Set Aside - Prosecution case hinged on solitary testimony of complainant (PW1), who had a chequered criminal history and inconsistencies in his account of bribe demands – Held: His evidence lacked corroboration, was not wholly reliable, and recovery of tainted money not from A1 – Conviction reversed [Paras 17-29].

Recovery of Tainted Money – Mere Possession by A2 Insufficient – Knowledge and Intent Not Proven - A2, a petition writer, was found with tainted notes but gave plausible explanation that money was handed over without his knowledge of its purpose – No evidence linking A2 to A1’s alleged demand – Held: No case made out under Section 12 of the Act – Acquittal justified [Paras 30-31].

Prosecution Case – Inconsistencies and Lack of Credibility – Entire Narrative Collapsed - Alleged bribe demands on festival or improbable dates contradicted by official duty registers – PW1’s inconsistent statements and prior disputes with A1 suggested motive for false implication – Court found prosecution story not proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 25-29].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Acquittal Ordered - Trial court’s conviction of both appellants under the Prevention of Corruption Act held unsustainable – Convictions and sentences set aside – Appellants acquitted and fine amounts directed to be refunded [Para 32].
 

Negotiable Instruments Act – Appeal Against Acquittal – Cheque Dishonour for Stopped Payment – Appeal Dismissed – The complainant alleged that the accused borrowed ₹10 lakhs and issued a cheque that was dishonoured due to “Payment Stopped by Drawer” – Trial Court acquitted the accused due to contradictions in complainant's evidence, lack of proof of financial capacity, and established part repayment by accused – Held: Appellate court must not interfere with acquittal unless findings are perverse – Complainant’s inconsistencies, failure to disclose loan particulars, and lack of explanation for ₹1.5 lakhs repayment undermine credibility – Judgment of acquittal upheld; appeal dismissed [Paras 5–25].*

Civil Law - Family Settlement – Coparcenary Rights – Exclusion of Major Coparcener – Injunction Justified - Plaintiff, a major coparcener in the Biswanath Ganeriwala HUF (BHUF), was excluded from the 2008 Deed of Partition and 2009 Deed of Declaration, purportedly on false representation of minority – Court held prima facie case of fraud and misrepresentation made out – Injunction restraining reliance on disputed deeds upheld [Paras 7, 22, 47, 60-61].

Territorial Jurisdiction – Suit to Invalidate Deeds – Section 20 CPC Applicable – Trial Court Empowered - Relief claimed centered on declaration and cancellation of deeds, not property rights directly – Most defendants resided within trial court’s jurisdiction – Held: Suit maintainable under Section 20 CPC; trial court had territorial jurisdiction [Paras 19-21, 30-34, 40].

Limitation – Date of Knowledge of Deed – Mixed Question of Law and Fact – Suit Not Time-Barred - Plaintiff asserted knowledge of impugned deeds in December 2023 – Court found this plausible; earlier letter misidentifying himself as signatory showed lack of actual knowledge – Suit filed in 2024 held within limitation [Paras 41-44].

Suppression – Material Fact – No Fraud or Concealment Proved – No Estoppel - Non-disclosure of prior letter immaterial – No evidence that deeds were acted upon or suppression influenced court – Held: No suppression of material facts [Paras 45-47].

Title to Property – Sale Certificate in Court Auction – Deed of Indenture Post Sale Invalid - Mumbai property was purchased by BHUF in court auction – Sale certificate conclusive of BHUF’s title – Later Indenture by Sanchaita to appellant ineffective, as transferor no longer held title – Subsequent deeds and declarations excluding plaintiff were prima facie invalid [Paras 49-57, 63-64].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Temporary Injunction Affirmed - Appellate court found no error in trial court’s decision – Injunction rightly granted based on strong prima facie case and balance of convenience – Appeal and connected application dismissed [Paras 65-69].

Service Law – Abandonment of Service vs Termination – Reinstatement Order Set Aside – Bank employee overstayed ex-India leave and thereafter absented without explanation – Labour Court ordered reinstatement citing lack of enquiry – High Court held: conduct established abandonment of service, not termination – No enquiry required – Reinstatement order contrary to law, set aside [Paras 4–7, 13–21]. 

Disciplinary Enquiry – Not Mandatory for Abandonment – Settled Law – Bank not obligated to conduct enquiry for prolonged absence – Cited Supreme Court rulings in Vijay S. Sathaye v. Indian Airlines Ltd. and State of M.P. v. B.S. Bhadoriya – Absence for extended periods deemed voluntary abandonment – Labour Court’s contrary finding held perverse [Paras 15–20]. 

Back Wages – No Relief When Reinstatement Invalid – Workman’s writ for back wages dismissed – High Court held that since reinstatement itself was unsustainable, claim for consequential benefits like back wages also fails [Paras 11, 22]. 

Intention to Abandon – Evident from Conduct – Notices Ignored – Workman received multiple notices to rejoin but failed to respond – Court concluded there was no intention to resume service – Going abroad without approval also indicative of disinterest in duties [Paras 4–6, 13–14, 20]. 

Decision – Writ by Bank Allowed – Writ by Workman Dismissed – Labour Court’s award dated 03.02.1999 set aside – Reinstatement quashed – No back wages granted – Petitioner Bank’s writ allowed; Workman’s writ dismissed [Paras 21–22]. 

Labour Law - Employment Termination – Abandonment of Job – Long Unauthorized Absence – Reinstatement Set Aside – The workman went on ex-India leave and remained absent beyond sanctioned period, followed by repeated spells of unauthorized absence despite notice by the employer – Labour Court treated it as wrongful termination due to lack of enquiry – Held: Facts disclose clear abandonment of service – No disciplinary enquiry was required in such a case – Reinstatement order was contrary to settled law and therefore quashed [Paras 4–21].

Back Wages – No Right on Reinstatement Being Illegal – Labour Court denied back wages while ordering reinstatement – Held: Since reinstatement is found invalid and contrary to law, the claim for back wages also fails – Petition by workman for back wages dismissed [Paras 22].

Labour Law – Abandonment of Service – No Enquiry Required – Reliance on Supreme Court precedents (Vijay S. Sathaye, Prem Nath, and B.S. Bhadoriya) – It was held that in case of long unauthorized absence, the relationship of employment ceases automatically without need for formal enquiry or termination order – Reinforced as a settled legal principle [Paras 15–20].

Decision: The award dated 03.02.1999 passed by the Labour Court ordering reinstatement of the workman was quashed—Petition filed by the Bank (CWP-8387-1999) allowed—Petition by the workman seeking back wages (CWP-11349-1999) dismissed—No costs.

Limitation Law - Second Appeal – Delay in Refiling – Vague Justification – Condonation Rejected – An application under Section 151 CPC seeking condonation of 800 days delay in refiling the appeal was dismissed – Held: The explanation given was vague, generic, and did not constitute sufficient cause – Delay of each day must be explained in law [Paras 1–4].

Civil Suit – Declaration of Ownership – Karewa Marriage Dispute – Appeal Dismissed – The plaintiff challenged mutation of inheritance by alleging that the defendant was not the widow of deceased Ram Bhagat – Held: Rajwanti sufficiently proved karewa marriage and cohabitation with Ram Bhagat through admissions and witness statements – Concurrent findings of fact were rightly returned by the courts below [Paras 2–12].

Customary Marriage – Admission by Witnesses – Sufficient Proof – No Need for Documentary Evidence – The plaintiff’s own witnesses admitted the cohabitation and relationship of Rajwanti with Ram Bhagat – Held: Such admission constitutes best evidence – Plea of lack of documentary proof of karewa marriage not sustainable [Paras 11–12].

Declaration Suit – Possession Not Proved – Maintainability Fails – It was admitted that the defendant was in possession of the suit property and the plaintiff had not sought possession – Held: Simplicitor declaration suit without claim for possession is not maintainable under Specific Relief Act [Para 13].

Concurrent Findings – No Interference in Second Appeal – Findings of fact based on evidence and admission – Held: No scope for interference under Section 100 CPC – Appeal dismissed both on merit and due to delay [Paras 15–18].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal dismissed on merits and also on account of delay—Concurrent findings upheld—Pending applications also disposed of—No costs awarded.