Landlord-Tenant Dispute – Additional Evidence – Petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, for ejectment of the tenant on grounds of non-payment of rent and personal necessity – Landlord sought to lead additional evidence by examining a Director of the company after initially closing its evidence – Tenant opposed, citing that this was an attempt to fill a lacuna – Rent Controller allowed the application, which was upheld by the High Court – Court ruled that additional evidence was necessary to determine the bona fide necessity of the landlord-company, and the tenant was duly compensated with costs [Paras 1-21].

Inherent Powers of the Court – Reopening of Evidence – Court emphasized that, although Order 18 Rule 17A was deleted, Section 151 CPC empowers the court to allow additional evidence in appropriate cases to ensure justice – Additional evidence was permitted as it was necessary for the effective adjudication of the landlord’s claim of personal necessity [Paras 7-13].

Legal Precedents – Cited Supreme Court rulings on the use of inherent powers under Section 151 CPC for reopening evidence, highlighting that such powers should be used sparingly and only when necessary to clarify issues or achieve justice [Paras 10-12].

Decision: Petition dismissed. The High Court upheld the order of the Rent Controller, allowing the landlord to lead additional evidence, finding no illegality in the order.
 

Jurisdiction of PCA – Orders Against Private Individuals – Legal Validity – PCA directed the registration of FIRs against appellants, who are private individuals, following civil disputes misrepresented as criminal matters. The court held that PCA's jurisdiction under the Punjab Police Act, 2007, is restricted to cases involving police personnel, and it cannot pass orders against private individuals. The PCA’s initial order dated May 25, 2012, was found to be without jurisdiction. High Court set aside the Single Judge's order that upheld the PCA’s directions. Appeals allowed, and orders of PCA quashed [Paras 19-27].

Cloak of Civil Dispute with Criminal Allegations – Abuse of Process – The dispute between the parties was fundamentally civil in nature, involving property and contractual disagreements. The Court emphasized that civil disputes should not be disguised as criminal matters to gain undue advantage in ongoing or potential civil litigation. The involvement of PCA was deemed inappropriate, and it was held that such disputes should be resolved in civil courts [Paras 30-31].

Decision:  Appeals allowed – The impugned orders of the PCA directing the registration of FIRs against the appellants, as well as the Single Judge's order affirming the same, were set aside. The court reaffirmed that PCA has no jurisdiction over private individuals in civil disputes masquerading as criminal cases [Paras 18-27].

Eviction and Recovery of Possession – Rent Arrears – Plaintiff sought a decree for eviction and recovery of vacant possession of the suit premises, along with arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 5,48,903/- from November 2018 till September 2021. Additionally, a decree for Rs. 14,40,000/- and mesne profit at Rs. 300/- per sq. ft. per month from October 1, 2021, until the handover of vacant possession, was sought. The Court allowed the application for a final judgment and decree, subject to conditions [Paras 1-33].

Notice of Termination – Validity – The notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, addressed only to defendant no.1, was contested for not being served to the firm or defendant no.2. The Court held that the notice to a partner (defendant no.1) operates as notice to the firm under Section 24 of the Partnership Act, 1932. The objections to the notice were deemed waived due to no immediate objection from the defendants upon receipt [Paras 27-33].

Procedural Issues in Suits by and Against Firms – The Court discussed the procedural requirements under Order XXX of the CPC for suing and being sued in the firm’s name. The suit filed against defendant no.1 individually, despite the firm being a partnership, was upheld due to the specific circumstances and prior knowledge of the plaintiff [Paras 30-31].

Conditions for Leave to Defend – The Court outlined the conditions under which the defendants could proceed with the suit, emphasizing the requirement to secure Rs. 11,00,000/- with the Registrar within four weeks. Failure to comply would result in eviction [Paras 32-33].

Decision:

Application (G.A. No. 1 of 2023) disposed of. Defendants permitted to proceed with the suit subject to securing the specified amount within the stipulated period, failing which they must vacate the premises.

Human Trafficking and Rape – Conviction of Accused –
The appellants, Jafar Ali and Shameer @ Saji, were convicted for human trafficking and rape of a minor. The victim, a 15-year-old girl from Bangladesh, was transported under false promises and sold for sexual exploitation. The High Court upheld the trial court’s judgment, emphasizing the reliability of the victim’s testimony and the corroborative evidence provided by other witnesses and documents. The appellants were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and fined, with directions for compensation to the victim.

Witness Testimony – Reliability and Corroboration –
The victim’s testimony was found to be consistent and reliable. Despite minor omissions, her evidence was corroborated by other prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence. The court noted that the victim’s initial statements were given under duress and mental stress, which justified the minor discrepancies. The reliability of the testimony was further supported by the consistent identification of the accused and the circumstances surrounding the crime.

Evidentiary Issues – Discovery and Procedural Aspects –
The court addressed procedural issues, including the proper recording of the victim’s statement and the admissibility of evidence. The court criticized the investigation for failing to collect certain evidence, such as CCTV footage, but held that the prosecution’s case was still strong enough to support the conviction. The testimony of the investigating officer and the consistency of the victim’s statements played a crucial role in the court’s decision.

Decision – Appeals Dismissed –
The High Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the convictions and sentences of the appellants. The court granted liberty to the appellants to seek remission of their sentences from the state government, considering mitigating factors and the time already served. The decision underscored the importance of addressing crimes against women and children with the utmost seriousness and sensitivity.
 

Criminal Law – Murder – Convictions upheld for appellants under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120B, and 302 r/w Section 149 of the IPC – Involvement in conspiracy and unlawful assembly proven – Evidence from eyewitnesses deemed credible despite minor inconsistencies – Injuries sustained by deceased correlated with witness testimony and forensic reports – Appeals dismissed, confirming convictions and sentences – Court highlighted importance of corroborative evidence and upheld procedural propriety of trial court [Paras 1-57].

Evidence – Witness Credibility – Eyewitness testimonies deemed reliable despite minor discrepancies – Court noted that minor variations in accounts do not undermine overall credibility – Presence of street lights confirmed witness capability to observe incident – Discrepancies in minor details found not to impact core facts of the case [Paras 33-38].

Injuries and Forensic Evidence – Autopsy confirmed multiple fatal injuries – Correlation between weapon marks and injuries established – Presence of human blood on weapons and clothes confirmed involvement of appellants – Procedural lapses in forensic analysis noted but deemed non-fatal to prosecution’s case [Paras 19-20].

Conspiracy and Unlawful Assembly – Conspiracy inferred from the sequence of events and coordinated actions of appellants – Formation of unlawful assembly with common intent to murder established – Non-examination of peripheral witnesses not fatal to prosecution’s case – Court emphasized the contextual understanding of common object under Section 149 IPC [Paras 39-46].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Convictions and sentences of appellants affirmed – Procedural and evidentiary aspects upheld by High Court [Para 49].
 

Land Assignment and Patta Validity – Irregularities and Fraudulent Transactions – Petitioners challenged the cancellation of their thandaper accounts by the Tahsildar, contending they purchased the land from legitimate pattadars after due diligence – High Court upheld the cancellation, citing procedural irregularities and fraudulent actions in the issuance of the original patta – Petitioners directed to seek redressal against the vendors if aggrieved [Paras 1-10].

Administrative Law – Procedural Validity and Natural Justice – Tahsildar’s decision to cancel thandaper accounts challenged for alleged extraneous considerations – High Court found no procedural faults or violations of natural justice principles – Independent findings of Tahsildar after examining relevant records justified [Paras 9-12].

Further Investigation Directed – Special Investigation Team – Given the manipulations involved, the court directed a detailed enquiry by the Special Investigation Team constituted as per previous court directions – Appropriate action to be taken against officials and others involved in fraudulent transactions [Paras 10-14].

Decision: Writ petitions dismissed – Thandaper cancellations upheld – Further probe and action ordered by the Special Investigation Team.
 

Banking Law – Classification of NPA – SBI classified Atibir Industries’ account as NPA on October 16, 2020, based on defaults in cash credit and term loan facilities. Borrower challenged this classification and subsequent sale to ARC, citing RBI guidelines and moratoriums during COVID-19. Court upheld SBI’s classification, stating cash credit account was irregular, and all credit facilities became NPA [Paras 55-67].

Transfer of Loan Exposures – Compliance with RBI Directions – SBI’s sale of financial assets to ARC on February 10, 2023, under Section 5 of SARFAESI Act was challenged by the borrower. Court confirmed compliance with RBI’s Master Direction and upheld the transfer, noting borrower’s accounts were classified as SMA or NPA as required [Paras 74-77].

Procedural Obligations under Section 13 of SARFAESI Act – Borrower’s failure to respond to notice under Section 13(2) raised a rebuttable presumption of acceptance of default. Court emphasized the borrower’s burden to prove incorrect classification, which was not discharged [Paras 91-92].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Borrower’s writ petition dismissed – Classification as NPA and subsequent sale of financial assets by SBI to ARC upheld – Court found no violation of RBI guidelines or statutory provisions.
 

Advance Ruling – Eligibility of Recipient – Petition challenging AAR order rejecting application for advance ruling on transportation exemption – AAR held that petitioner, as recipient and not supplier, could not seek advance ruling – Court found this interpretation erroneous – Sections 95, 97 allow registered persons, including those liable on reverse charge basis, to seek rulings – Definition and context of ‘applicant’ and ‘advance ruling’ under CGST Act support inclusivity – AAR directed to reconsider application [Paras 1-20].

Reverse Charge Mechanism – Scope and Application – Section 9(3) CGST Act – Government notification mandates tax payment on reverse charge basis by recipients in specified categories – Court emphasizes recipient treated as supplier for tax purposes – Application for advance ruling valid for recipients in reverse charge scenarios – Order under Section 98(2) CGST Act appealable if procedural requirements unmet [Paras 10-17].

Alternative Remedy – Appeal Process – Section 100 CGST Act – Appeal limited to orders under Section 98(4), not rejections under Section 98(2) – Court clarifies jurisdiction for writ petition due to lack of alternative remedy against preliminary rejection [Paras 18-19].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Impugned AAR order set aside – Matter remanded to AAR for fresh decision under Section 98(4) CGST Act in light of statutory interpretations and context [Paras 19-20].
 

Matrimonial Law – Permanent Alimony – Appeal and Modification – The Family Court dissolved the marriage between the appellant and the respondent, directing the appellant to pay ₹14,00,000/- as permanent alimony. On appeal (MATA No. 64 of 2018), the High Court reduced the alimony to ₹10,00,000/-, with a direction for payment within four months. Failing timely payment, the amount was to carry 6% interest from the date of filing the appeal. The appellant’s special leave petition to the Supreme Court was dismissed. Payment was made post-dismissal. The court held that pursuing legal remedies in the Supreme Court does not constitute willful default, acknowledging immediate compliance post-dismissal [Paras 1-9].

Execution and Satisfaction of Order – The High Court recorded the execution, discharge, and satisfaction of its order dated 9th February 2023, noting the appellant’s bona fide in pursuing the special leave petition and immediate payment post-dismissal. Directed the Executing Court to dispose of Civil Execution Case No. 11 of 2018 accordingly [Para 8-9].

Decision: Appeal disposed of. Execution and satisfaction of order recorded. Directions issued for disposal of Civil Execution Case No. 11 of 2018.