Will – Validity and Proof – Attesting Witness – Appellant claimed entitlement to compensation based on a will dated January 10, 1985, executed by her husband Balwant Singh. The will was challenged by the respondents, Balwant Singh’s sons from his first marriage, on grounds of suspicious circumstances and alleged forgery. The Court held that the will was valid and properly executed, complying with Section 63© of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and attested as required by Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. No substantial evidence supported the respondents’ claims of forgery or undue influence [Paras 5.1-5.9, 6.1-6.12].

Witness Credibility – Interested Witness – Reference Court doubted the credibility of attesting witness Ram Sarup, citing his close relationship with the appellant. However, the High Court found that mere acquaintance or relationship does not automatically disqualify a witness if their testimony is otherwise credible and substantiated by evidence [Para 5.1].

Execution of Will – Multiple Signatures – Reference Court raised suspicion over the will bearing two signatures of the testator, Balwant Singh. The High Court clarified that signing multiple times on a single-page document is not unusual and does not invalidate the will, especially when the signatures are consistent and no evidence of tampering was provided [Para 5.2].

Burden of Proof – The burden of proving the will’s invalidity rested on the respondents. The High Court emphasized that mere allegations without substantive evidence cannot suffice to nullify a duly executed and attested will. Respondents failed to provide credible evidence to support their claims of forgery or undue influence [Para 6.5].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of the Reference Court set aside – Shanta Kumari declared exclusively entitled to the compensation amount along with interest – All pending miscellaneous applications disposed of [Paras 7.1-7.4].

Pre-emption Rights – Tenancy and Co-sharer Claims – Plaintiffs sought to pre-empt a sale based on tenancy claims over the suit land – Defendants claimed superior rights as tenants in possession – Rival pre-emptors, Samey Singh and Partap, also filed suit claiming rights as co-sharers and tenants.

Tenancy Rights – Evidence and Presumptions – Trial court and first appellate court found that plaintiffs failed to prove tenancy rights – Defendants Samey Singh and Partap found to be in possession as tenants – Presumptions under Section 44 of Punjab Land Revenue Act discussed.

Co-sharer Rights – Superior Right to Pre-empt – Samey Singh and Partap established as co-sharers by virtue of a prior sale deed – Court upheld their superior right to pre-empt the sale under Section 15 of the Punjab Preemption Act, 1913 – Tenancy rights of plaintiffs not supported by evidence.

Concurrent Findings – Scope of Second Appeal – Concurrent findings of lower courts based on proper appreciation of evidence – High Court cannot interfere with such findings unless specific exceptions are met – Reference to Supreme Court judgments on the scope of second appeals.

Decision: Appeals dismissed. Lower courts' judgments affirmed. Plaintiffs' suit to pre-empt the sale dismissed. Rival pre-emptors Samey Singh and Partap's suit decreed, affirming their right to pre-empt based on co-sharer status.

Anticipatory Bail – Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Appellant sought anticipatory bail after being accused of hurling caste-based abuses and physical assault – Co-accused granted pre-arrest bail by co-ordinate bench – Appellant contended lack of public view during alleged insult and delay in witness statements.

Intent and Public View – Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act – Requirements for intention to insult and incident occurring in public view not met – Incident occurred at 1 AM, limiting public presence – Witness statement recorded after a month considered afterthought – Prima facie case under SC/ST Act not established.

Court Decision – Pre-Arrest Bail Granted – Appellant's interim bail made absolute subject to cooperation with investigation and adherence to conditions – Relying on precedents where anticipatory bail can be granted if allegations are false or prima facie case not made out.

Decision: Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside. Interim bail granted on 05.12.2023 made absolute subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C. and additional conditions including cooperation with investigation and non-repetition of similar offenses.

Criminal Law – Recall of Witness – Petition challenging the recall of a key witness (PW-2) for re-examination – Respondent sought recall to correct errors and omissions during prior cross-examination conducted by a legal aid counsel – Trial Court’s decision to allow recall upheld – No manifest error in Trial Court’s decision; re-examination deemed necessary for just decision and to avoid miscarriage of justice [Paras 1-10].

Section 311 Cr.P.C. – Scope and Application – Importance of re-examining PW-2 due to their vital role in the case – Previous counsel did not represent respondent's choice – Respondent entitled to correct bona fide errors – Court emphasizes the importance of fair trial and just decision, balancing against unnecessary delays and hardship to witness [Paras 5-9].
 

Decision – Criminal Petition Dismissed – Held – Trial Court’s order to recall PW-2 for re-examination upheld – No interference warranted as the decision aids in achieving a just trial outcome [Paras 9-10].
 

Criminal Law – Conviction and Sentence – Evidence Assessment – Witness Credibility – Fardbeyan Credibility – Conviction for murder based on conflicting witness testimonies – High Court scrutinized witness statements and police procedures – Hostile witness evidence partially relied upon – Inconsistencies in prosecution case led to benefit of doubt – Convictions and sentences set aside due to reasonable doubt [Paras 1-49].

Witness Testimony – Reliability and Hostility – Sole eyewitness testimony by Pardeep Kumar (PW3) was supported by Urmila Devi (PW5) and Kusum Devi (PW7) – PW5A (Dhuri Mahto) declared hostile, his initial statement partially corroborated prosecution case – Other witnesses’ credibility questioned due to contradictions – High Court emphasized caution in accepting testimony of witnesses related to the deceased – Discrepancies noted in the positioning of signatures on fardbeyan and witness proximity to the deceased during the incident [Paras 10-13, 18-22, 25-27].

Inquest and Post-Mortem Reports – Procedural Gaps – Issues in the recording of fardbeyan and positioning of signatures raised suspicion – Post-mortem confirmed homicidal death but raised questions about assailant’s identity and shooting distance – No blackening or charring near the wound despite claim of close-range shooting – Absence of forensic examination of seized items weakened prosecution case – The investigator’s delayed visit to the crime scene and failure to examine key neighbors further compromised the investigation [Paras 39-41].

Hostile Witness – Legal Precedents – Hostile witness evidence can be relied upon if consistent with the prosecution’s case – Reference to Supreme Court rulings on handling hostile witnesses and assessing their testimony for corroborative value – Hostile witness (Dhuri Mahto) testified signing a blank paper and hearing deceased naming a different assailant (Chhotu) – High Court referenced precedents including Khuji @ Surendra Tiwari vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others [Paras 19-23].

Benefit of Doubt – Contradictions and Lack of Evidence – Multiple contradictions in witness statements regarding presence and actions during the incident – No documentary evidence supporting land dispute motive – Lack of injury to other alleged eyewitnesses despite close proximity to the deceased – Doubts about prosecution’s narrative led to acquittal of all appellants [Paras 43-46].

Decision – Convictions Set Aside – Benefit of Doubt – High Court set aside convictions and sentences due to reasonable doubt – Appellants acquitted – Arvind Kumar @ Mathura Prasad directed to be released if not detained in any other case; Ranjit Kumar and Manjit Kumar discharged from bail liabilities [Paras 44-49].
 

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Framing of Charges – Section 306 IPC – Allegations based on suicide note – Deceased allegedly committed suicide due to non-repayment of loan by petitioner – Suicide note does not indicate instigation or intent to abet suicide by petitioner – Mere refusal to repay loan insufficient to constitute abetment – Insufficient material to frame charges under Section 306 IPC – Order framing charges set aside – Petitioner discharged [Paras 1-37].

Evidence Law – Suicide Note – Role in Framing Charges – Suicide note alleging harassment due to unpaid loan – Forensic report inconclusive on handwriting – No direct or indirect evidence of instigation or intent to abet suicide – Charge under Section 306 IPC requires clear instigation or aiding of suicide [Paras 19-30].

Legal Principles – Framing of Charges – Judicial Review – Section 227 Cr.P.C. – Court’s duty to sift and weigh evidence to determine prima facie case – Charges should not be framed on suspicion alone – Application of principles from Prafulla Kumar Samal and Kanchan Kumar cases [Paras 31-34].

Decision: Petition allowed – Order framing charges under Section 306 IPC set aside – Petitioner discharged in the criminal case arising out of FIR No. 355/2020.
 

Insolvency and Bankruptcy – Recovery Proceedings Against Personal Guarantors – Petitioners, personal guarantors of term loans and working capital facilities granted to M/s Asian Colour Coated Ispat Limited (ACCIL), challenged the recovery actions initiated by respondents post-approval of a resolution plan by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The main contention was that with the assignment of the principal borrower's debt and issuance of No Due Certificates, no liability remained against the petitioners​​.

Assignment of Debt and Personal Guarantees – Petitioners argued that the assignment of debt to M/s Hasaud Steel Limited and the issuance of No Due Certificates to the principal borrower extinguished their liability as guarantors. They contended that only the assignee of the debt could enforce the personal guarantees​​.

Excluded Rights in Resolution Plan – The resolution plan approved by the NCLT included provisions for "excluded rights" that allowed financial creditors to pursue legal remedies against personal guarantors. The NCLAT upheld the financial creditors' rights to proceed against the guarantors, stating that such rights were explicitly safeguarded in the resolution plan​​.

Supreme Court's Affirmation – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals against the NCLAT's decision, affirming the financial creditors' rights to recover from the personal guarantors despite the approval of the resolution plan and assignment of debt​​.

Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the financial creditors retained the right to pursue recovery actions against the petitioners as personal guarantors. The petitioners' claims were found to be without merit in light of the comprehensive framework of the IBC and the specific provisions of the resolution plan​​.

Income Tax – Registration of Charitable Trust – Appeal against ITAT Order – Respondent trust’s registration under Section 12AA cancelled by Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) (CIT€) due to non-commencement of activities – ITAT set aside the cancellation, holding that activities need not commence for registration eligibility – High Court upheld ITAT’s decision, referencing precedents that registration can be granted based on proposed activities aligning with charitable objectives [Paras 1-13].

Procedure for Registration under Section 12AA – Requirements – High Court held that CIT€ must assess the genuineness of trust’s objects and proposed activities – Non-commencement of activities alone not a ground for refusal – Cited cases include Ananda Social and Educational Trust vs. CIT (2020) and Director of Income Tax vs. Foundation of Ophthalmic & Optometry Research Education Centre (2013) affirming registration eligibility based on objectives [Paras 5-12].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – High Court found no merit in the revenue’s appeal, affirmed ITAT’s order – Held that the CIT€ improperly refused registration based solely on non-commencement of activities without doubting the genuineness of charitable objectives [Para 13].

SARFAESI Act – Agricultural Land Exemption – Writ Jurisdiction: Petitioner challenged the initiation of SARFAESI Act proceedings against its agricultural land, arguing that such land is exempt under Section 31(i) of the Act. The High Court reiterated that the classification of land in revenue records alone does not determine its status under SARFAESI; actual use and intention of the parties are crucial. The court emphasized that such determinations are within the jurisdiction of the appropriate tribunal and not for writ courts unless exceptional circumstances exist [Paras 1-9].

SARFAESI Act – Alternative Remedy – OTS Proposal: High Court dismissed the petition, stressing the availability of statutory remedies under SARFAESI Act. The court noted the petitioner's request for a new OTS did not warrant interference in SARFAESI proceedings. It reaffirmed the principle that borrowers do not have a vested right to an OTS, citing the Supreme Court’s precedent [Paras 10-12].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed - Petitioner directed to pursue remedies under SARFAESI Act. The court allowed for the possibility of a mutually acceptable settlement between the parties, clarifying no opinion on the merits [Paras 13-14].