Limitation Law - Condonation of delay - Limitation Act 1963 - Sections 3 and 5 - Appellant seeking condonation of delay of 1029 days in filing appeal against Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award - claiming minority on the date of award and attainment of majority later as sufficient cause - Respondents offering no objection - High Court holding that court is not bound to condone delay merely due to lack of opposition and that Section 3 casts a mandatory duty to examine limitation and sufficient cause - Held - no sufficient cause made out for the inordinate delay - application for condonation of delay dismissed and appeal dismissed as barred by limitation - [Paras 1-15].

Limitation Law - Legal disability - Limitation Act 1963 - Section 6 and 7 - Minority as ground for extension of limitation - Appellant contending delay occurred due to minority during proceedings and award - Record showing claim petition was instituted and prosecuted through father as natural guardian - Held - exemption under Section 6 based on disability is confined to suits and applications for execution of a decree and does not extend to appeals - [Paras 8-11].

Limitation Law - Computation of time - Limitation Act 1963 - Section 9 - Subsequent disability - Limitation commenced from the date of the award - Subsequent plea of minority cannot arrest the running of limitation where minor was already represented by a competent natural guardian in original proceedings - Held - once time has begun to run no subsequent disability or inability can stop it - [Para 10].

Decision: I.A. No. 12178/2014 seeking condonation of delay of 1029 days dismissed – Appeal being barred by limitation also dismissed.

Criminal Law - Interception of communications - Telecommunications Act 2023 - Section 20 - Petitioner challenged telephonic interception authorisation and consequential confirmation order passed by Ministry of Home Affairs on ground of retrospective operation and lack of jurisdictional facts - High Court noted that confirmation order purportedly covered a period prior to original authorisation and held that retrospective validation was impermissible under law - Held - interception authorisation and consequential confirmation order set aside with directions to destroy intercepted material - [Paras 1-60].

Constitutional Law - Right to privacy - Constitution of India 1850 - Article 21 - Telephone tapping as serious invasion of privacy - Mandatory compliance with statutory and procedural safeguards - Held - statutory conditions authorising interception must receive strict construction and procedural safeguards are mandatory guarantees against arbitrary executive intrusion - [Paras 23-49].

Decision: Petition disposed of – Interception authorisation dated 28.06.2025 and confirmation order dated 04.07.2025 set aside – Prayer for quashing criminal proceedings declined – Trial Court directed to proceed on the basis of other legally admissible evidence.

Constitutional Law - Service Law - Dearness Allowance and Dearness Relief - Constitution of India - Articles 14, 21, 38, 39, 43, 166, 300A, 309 - Punjab Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2021 - Rule 9 - Liquidation Plan - Validity - The 6th Punjab Pay Commission recommended continuing DA/DR on the Central Government pattern based on the All India Consumer Price Index - the Department of Finance proposed acceptance, which the Council of Ministers approved on 18.06.2021 - this decision was communicated, publicly announced, and translated into the 2021 Rules (notified in the Governor's name) and subsequent policy instructions - Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) also adopted these instructions mutatis mutandis, maintaining it was bound by the State's decisions - despite this, the State indefinitely withheld DA/DR instalments beyond 42% and proposed a 'Liquidation Plan' dated 18.02.2025 to pay accumulated arrears (01.01.2016 to 31.03.2024) in staggered instalments over five financial years - the Plan differentiated pensioners by age (2 instalments for those above 85, 12 for 75-85, and 42 for below 75), without interest - the learned Single Judge quashed the Liquidation Plan as violative of Article 14 and directed payment of all arrears with interest - the State and PSPCL appealed, arguing that Pay Commission recommendations are not binding, financial constraints justify deferment, the Cabinet decision lacked formal expression under Article 166(1), PSPCL is a separate legal entity, and the Single Judge exceeded jurisdiction and limits of judicial review in fiscal policy - The Division Bench found that the State and PSPCL had demonstrably adopted the Central Government DA/DR pattern through consistent executive action, budgetary allocations, and actual payments over five years - once a standard is adopted, the State cannot renege on accrued benefits by pleading financial constraints - the Liquidation Plan was patently discriminatory and arbitrary, violating Article 14, by creating artificial age-based classifications within the homogeneous class of pensioners, deferring payments for years without interest, which effectively liquidates the value of "property" (arrears) and is expropriatory - the Plan also exceeded the temporal scope of Rule 9 for post-30.06.2021 arrears - the Cabinet decision was held to be enforceable, having been communicated, notified in the Governor's name (2021 Rules), and acted upon, thus not suffering from a defect under Article 166(1) (distinguishing Bachittar Singh) - the plea of coram non judice was rejected as the Single Judge had proper roster allocation and any procedural irregularity was cured by the appellate hearing - the in rem operation of the judgment was affirmed as a necessary consequence of quashing general policy instruments to prevent discrimination and multiplicity of litigation (relying on All Manipur Pensioners Association) - judicial review was held not to trespass into fiscal policy formulation but to enforce the State's own adopted standards against arbitrary non-performance - financial burden or comparative emoluments were held irrelevant for accrued rights, especially when the State engaged in "unproductive expenditures" - PSPCL's separate legal personality was no shield, as it consistently adopted State instructions mutatis mutandis - contempt court orders merely noted compliance inter se parties and did not adjudicate the Plan's constitutional validity, nor did another Single Bench judgment (Surinder Singh) which was held per incuriam/sub silentio as the Plan's validity was never argued or decided therein - Held - the State of Punjab and PSPCL are bound by their policy decision to grant DA/DR on the Central Government pattern and cannot indefinitely withhold or stagger payment of accrued instalments - the Liquidation Plan dated 18.02.2025 (and PSPCL's adoption) was rightly quashed for violating Article 14 - appeals dismissed - [Paras 1-123, 125-126].

Writ Law - Judicial Review - Fiscal Policy - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Enforceability of adopted pay commission recommendations - Once the State accepts and acts upon Pay Commission recommendations adopting a specific standard (like the Central Government pattern for DA/DR), it incurs a binding obligation to implement them - such implementation is an enforceable right, not a matter of discretion or bounty - judicial review ensures adherence to adopted standards and constitutional guarantees, not intrusion into policy formulation - Held - the State cannot renege on adopted standards or indefinitely postpone payment of accrued benefits under the guise of fiscal policy or financial autonomy - [Paras 95-96, 118-119, 125(iv), 125(vii)].

Constitutional Law - Equality - Constitution of India - Article 14 - Discrimination in payment of Dearness Relief arrears to pensioners - A 'Liquidation Plan' segregating pensioners into age-based categories for staggered payment of arrears (e.g., 42 instalments for those below 75 years versus 2 for above 85) without interest creates an impermissible classification within a homogenous class of pensioners - Dearness Relief is intended to neutralise inflation, which affects all pensioners equally - such differentiation lacks a rational nexus to the object of DA/DR and is arbitrary - Held - the Liquidation Plan is violative of Article 14 and cannot be sustained - [Paras 100-104, 125(v)].

Constitutional Law - Executive Action - Constitution of India - Article 166(1) - Enforceability of Cabinet decisions - A Cabinet decision, even if not formally expressed in the Governor's name initially, becomes binding and enforceable if it is communicated, publicly announced, translated into statutory rules (notified in the Governor's name), and acted upon consistently over several years through budgetary allocations and actual payments - Article 166 is directory, and non-compliance in form does not invalidate executive action if the government's intent and implementation are clear - Held - the State cannot deny the existence or enforceability of such a decision to defeat employee rights - [Paras 105-107, 125(iii)].

Service Law - Dearness Allowance/Relief - Pensionary benefits - Constitution of India - Articles 21, 300A, 38, 39, 43 - Dearness Allowance/Relief is an institutionalised component of the wage structure, intrinsically linked to the All India Consumer Price Index, intended to offset inflation and preserve the real value of pay/pension - it is not a bounty but a right, crucial for maintaining a minimum standard of living and human dignity, especially for pensioners - admitted arrears constitute 'property' under Article 300A - Held - indefinite withholding or staggered payment of DA/DR without interest is expropriatory, manifestly arbitrary, and violates constitutional guarantees - [Paras 74, 103, 121, 125(iv)].

Writ Law - Scope of relief - Constitution of India - Article 226 - In rem operation of judgment - When a policy instrument or executive action of general application is struck down as arbitrary by a High Court, the curative relief must operate in rem, benefiting the entire homogeneous class of affected employees and pensioners, not just the individual petitioners - this prevents discrimination between litigating and non-litigating members of the same class and avoids multiplicity of proceedings - Held - an in rem declaration is a necessary and salutary consequence of such quashing - [Paras 113, 125(ii)].

Judicial Discipline - Precedent - Per incuriam/Sub silentio - Contempt proceedings - An order passed in contempt proceedings which merely takes a compliance mechanism (e.g., a Liquidation Plan) on record does not adjudicate its constitutional validity, nor does it clothe the mechanism with constitutional immunity erga omnes - a co-ordinate bench judgment that did not examine the validity of a plan because it was not questioned, argued, or decided on merits is per incuriam or sub silentio on that point and does not bar a subsequent challenge - Held - such orders do not operate as precedents against a fresh challenge to the plan's validity - [Paras 114-117, 125(vi)].

Decision: Appeals dismissed - Impugned judgments of the Single Judge dated 08.04.2026 and 28.04.2026 are affirmed - State of Punjab and PSPCL are directed to grant and release all up-to-date pending instalments of DA/DR to all its employees and pensioners at the same rates as paid to All India Services officers (IAS/IPS/IFS) within a fortnight from the date of this order - In default, unpaid amounts shall carry simple interest at 6% per annum from the date of expiry of the stipulated period till actual realization - Chief Secretary to Government of Punjab is directed to ensure scrupulous compliance and file a compliance report by August 31, 2026 - State of Punjab shall not resort to any unproductive expenditures until all such dues are cleared.

Writ Law - Protection of Life and Liberty - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Criminal writ petition filed by petitioners seeking police protection against private respondents alleging harassment and threats due to their relationship - Petitioner No.1 being admittedly sixteen years eleven months and nineteen days old is a minor incompetent to contract or make independent choices regarding live-in relationships - Relying on precedent in Yash Pal and Another versus State of Haryana and others the Court held that extending protection in such cases would amount to implicit approbation of a live-in arrangement involving minors contrary to statutory frameworks and the parens patriae duty of the Court - Held - petition dismissed with directions to the Commissioner of Police to take requisite steps in accordance with law - [Paras 1-5].

Writ Law - Minor in Live-in Relationship - Guardianship and Majority - The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956 - Guardians and Wards Act 1890 - Indian Majority Act 1875 - Competency to contract - Minors are legally incompetent to contract or express freedom to enter into live-in relationships - Held - court cannot grant protection that implicitly sanctions minor involvement in such arrangements - [Paras 3-4].

Juvenile Justice - Welfare of Minor - Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act 2015 - Parens patriae jurisdiction - Court as parens patriae is required to ensure the welfare and best interests of minors rather than permitting them to be partners in live-in relationships - Held - relief denied to minor petitioner - [Paras 3-5].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Commissioner of Police District Ludhiana directed to take requisite steps in accordance with law – Registry directed to send a complete copy of the paper-book along with the order to the Commissioner of Police.

Criminal Law - Quashing of Complaint - Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 - Sections 132 and 137 - Petitioner-Director prosecuted individually for fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit by company M/s NIPL without arraigning the company as an accused - Trial Court entertained complaint against petitioner alone - Petitioner sought quashing on the ground that vicarious liability cannot be fastened without prosecuting the principal offender company relying on settled precedents under pari-materia provisions - Respondent argued that petitioner was the mastermind and beneficiary actively involved in operations - High Court held that Section 137 of CGST Act is pari-materia with Section 141 of NI Act and arraigning the company as an accused is an express condition precedent for prosecuting its directors - Held - prosecution of the petitioner without arraigning the company is not maintainable - complaint and subsequent proceedings quashed - [Paras 1-23].

Statutory Interpretation - Pari-materia provisions - Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 - Section 137 - Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 - Section 141 - Strict construction of penal statutes - Commission of offence by the company is an express condition precedent to attract vicarious liability of directors or officers - Held - principles laid down by Apex Court regarding Section 141 of NI Act apply squarely to Section 137 of CGST Act - [Paras 9-19].

Decision: Petition allowed - Complaint bearing COMA-86-2021 dated 05.02.2021 and all subsequent proceedings quashed - Respondents granted liberty to proceed in accordance with law - Copy of judgment forwarded to Additional Director General, DGGI, Zonal Unit, Gurugram.

Writ Law - Real Estate Regulation - Orissa Real Estate Regulation and Development Act 2017 - Sections 3, 4, 5, 43 and 44 - Petitioner company developed a housing project and applied for registration before the Odisha Real Estate Regulatory Authority - Authority kept the application pending for deficiencies and ultimately rejected it after more than three years - Petitioner contended deemed registration under Section 5(2) and challenged rejection - Authority argued non-maintainability due to alternative remedy and inapplicability of deemed registration to deficient applications - High Court held writ petition maintainable despite alternative remedy as case involved a question of law regarding statutory interpretation - Held - incomplete or deficient applications cannot claim the benefit of deemed registration under Section 5(2) - however keeping the application pending beyond the mandatory thirty-day period and rejecting it arbitrarily while approval remained pending before the District Urban Development Agency was unjustified - writ petition disposed of with directions - [Paras 1-20].

Statutory Interpretation - Mandatory Time Limit - Orissa Real Estate Regulation and Development Act 2017 - Section 5 - Authority failed to decide registration application within the thirty-day statutory period and kept it pending for years - Held - the provision is mandatory and the authority cannot suo motu extend the time stipulated in the statute - [Paras 15-17].

Administrative Law - Deemed Registration - Orissa Real Estate Regulation and Development Act 2017 - Section 5(2) - Petitioner argued automatic registration due to lack of decision within thirty days - Held - deeming provision applies only to a valid and complete application and not to a defective application containing deficiencies - [Paras 14-16].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of – Direction issued to the District Urban Development Agency to take a decision on the petitioner's application within seven days – Petitioner granted liberty to apply afresh before the Odisha Real Estate Regulatory Authority upon grant of approval.

Civil Law - Execution Proceedings - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order I Rule 10, Order XXII Rule 10A, Order XXI Rule 16 and Section 146 - Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 - Judgment debtors challenged multiple orders of the Executing Court dismissing delay condonation petitions for setting aside ex parte orders and allowing transferrees to come on record as decree holders based on registered transfer deeds - High Court held that transferees are entitled to subrogate recovery rights under Order XXI Rule 16 CPC without requiring express permission - service of notice was sufficient by way of paper publication due to evasion - judgment debtors successfully delayed execution for 24 years - revision petitions dismissed - [Paras 1-21].

Civil Law - Execution - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XXI Rule 16 - Transferee of decree - Right to execute - Transferee of decree is entitled to get the decree executed and for such execution no express permission from the execution court is required - notice to transferor and judgment debtor is required for raising objections - Held - Executing Court rightly permitted transferees to come on record - [Paras 11-18].

Civil Law - Limitation - Limitation Act 1963 - Section 5 - Condonation of delay - Petitioners sought condonation of delay ranging from 113 to 179 days to set aside ex parte orders - Executing Court found no sufficient cause shown and noted intentional evasion of notice through substituted service - Held - in the absence of sufficient cause and clear avoidance of proceedings, dismissal of delay petitions was proper - [Paras 16-18].

Decision: Civil revision petitions dismissed – Executing Court directed to complete the execution proceedings expeditiously pursuant to Apex Court directions and administrative circular instructions – Miscellaneous pending petitions closed.

Criminal Law - Bail and Organized Crime - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 - Sections 109(1), 111(1), 115(2) and 3(5) - Applicant sought regular bail in a case involving firearm injury where co-accused allegedly fired a shot - First bail application was dismissed as withdrawn - Subsequent to withdrawal the primary complainant was examined as PW-1 and turned hostile not supporting the prosecution case - Co-accused already enlarged on bail - Section 111 BNS invoked mechanically by the Superintendent of Police based solely on past criminal antecedents without establishing continuing unlawful activity or an organized crime syndicate - Held - mere criminal antecedents do not attract Section 111 BNS without satisfying statutory ingredients of organized crime - addition of Section 111 BNS wholly unwarranted - applicant in custody since 15 12 2025 and trial likely to take considerable time - bail granted - [Paras 1-23].

Criminal Law - Organized Crime and Continuing Unlawful Activity - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 - Section 111 - Statutory interpretation - Scope of organized crime syndicate and continuing unlawful activity pari materia with MCOCA and GCTOCA - Prosecution must prima facie establish that an activity prohibited by law punishable with three years or more imprisonment has been undertaken as a member of a syndicate with more than one charge-sheet filed in preceding ten years and cognizance taken by competent court - Held - mechanical invocation of Section 111 based on office orders and isolated criminal antecedents without fulfilling foundational elements is illegal - [Paras 6-19].

Decision: Application allowed – Applicant Tanmay directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs 50 000 with one solvent surety subject to conditions under Section 480(3) BNSS.

Matrimonial Law - Custody - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 - Section 21 - Interim Custody Order - Revisionist challenged appellate court's judgment dated 16.07.2025 dismissing his appeal against trial court's order dated 06.03.2025 directing him to handover custody of his son to the wife (Opposite Party No.2) under the Domestic Violence Act - revisionist argued Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to decide child custody under DV Act, claiming it was exclusive to Family Court under Family Courts Act 1984 - relied on Rajasthan High Court's Smt. Payal Agarwal decision holding Section 21 DV Act provided only temporary custody, not creating independent forum for permanent custody and Supreme Court's Poonam Wadhwa decision emphasising child's welfare and liberty to approach Family Court - Opposite parties contended Section 21 DV Act expressly empowered Magistrate with non-obstante clause - High Court held Supreme Court's Poonam Wadhwa did not discuss Section 21 DV Act - rejected Rajasthan High Court's Smt. Payal Agarwal decision as not binding and incorrect, noting Section 21 DV Act's non-obstante clause gives it overriding effect over Section 7 Family Courts Act 1984 - clarified that the trial court's order was explicitly an interim order for custody under Section 21 and Section 23 DV Act - Held - Magistrate is competent to pass interim custody orders under Section 21 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 - no jurisdictional error in the impugned orders - revision dismissed - [Paras 4-24].

Criminal Law - Jurisdiction - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 - Section 21 - Family Courts Act 1984 - Section 7 - Overriding Effect - Whether Magistrate under Section 21 of DV Act has jurisdiction to pass custody orders despite Family Courts Act - Section 21 DV Act contains a non-obstante clause ("Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force") - this clause grants overriding effect to Section 21 DV Act over Section 7 Family Courts Act 1984 to the extent of its applicability - Held - Section 21 DV Act prevails over Section 7 Family Courts Act regarding interim custody orders - [Paras 19-20].

Criminal Law - Custody - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 - Section 21 - Interim vs. Final Order - Nature of order passed by Magistrate under Section 21 DV Act - Revisionist conceded Magistrate can pass interim custody order under Section 21 DV Act - Trial court's order was explicitly interim ("अंतिरम प्राथनर् ा पत्र स्वीकार िकया जाता ह।ै") - Held - Magistrate is empowered to pass interim custody orders for children, not final orders, under Section 21 DV Act - [Paras 16, 22-23].

Decision: Criminal revision dismissed – Impugned judgment and order of the appellate court affirmed.