Ex Gratia Compensation – Interest on Delayed Payment – Appellant, a victim of the 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots, received ex gratia compensation after multiple litigations spanning decades – Appellant sought interest on the delayed payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- – High Court held that although ex gratia compensation traditionally does not attract interest, Constitutional Courts have the authority to grant reasonable interest in cases of significant delay – Given the protracted litigation and delayed compensation, the Court awarded 10% interest per annum from the date of the Rehabilitation Policy (16th January, 2006) until the actual payment on 8th April, 2016 – Emphasized that policies for victim rehabilitation must be implemented in a time-bound manner to remain meaningful [Paras 13-17].

Delay in Government Disbursements – Judicial Remedy – Courts empowered under Article 226 of the Constitution can grant relief in cases where administrative delays cause significant prejudice – Held that failure to implement policies within stipulated timelines warrants judicial intervention to ensure justice for affected parties [Paras 12-15].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Respondents directed to pay 10% interest per annum on the delayed compensation amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- from 16th January, 2006, to 8th April, 2016 – Respondents also ordered to pay Rs. 25,000/- as costs to the appellant within six weeks [Paras 17-18].

Habeas Corpus – Custody of Minor Child – The High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, the natural mother, granting her custody of the minor child. The Court held that the welfare of the child is paramount, and in this case, the mother, who is a well-educated government servant, is better suited to ensure the child's welfare compared to the grandparents who have no regular income and live in a rural area [Paras 1-12].

Natural Guardian – The Court emphasized that under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the mother is the natural guardian of a minor child, especially when the father is deceased. The Court dismissed concerns raised by the respondents about the safety and welfare of the child under the mother's care [Para 10].

Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction – The Court reiterated that habeas corpus petitions are maintainable in cases concerning the custody of minor children, particularly when the child is being unlawfully detained by persons other than the natural guardian [Para 9].

Decision:

Petition allowed. The Court directed the respondents to hand over the custody of the minor child to the petitioner-mother immediately in the court. The concerned Station House Officer (SHO) was instructed to ensure the safety of the petitioner and her child during their return to their residence.

Commercial Courts Act – Definition of Commercial Dispute – Partnership Agreement – The appellants contended that the dispute arising out of a Memorandum of Understanding for the reconstitution of a partnership firm should be classified as a "commercial dispute" under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. However, the court held that the MOU related to a future partnership agreement, not an existing one, and thus did not fall under the definition of a commercial dispute [Paras 1-18].

Specific Performance – Reconstitution of Partnership Firm – The plaintiff sought specific performance of the MOU, which involved the retirement of certain partners and the induction of new partners in the firm. The court found that the dispute did not arise out of an existing partnership agreement, as required under the Commercial Courts Act, but rather a future arrangement [Paras 19-24].

Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Rejection of Plaint – The appellants' applications for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC were dismissed, as the court found that the MOU did not fall within the ambit of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 [Paras 25-30].

Decision: Appeal dismissed. The court upheld the order of the learned Single Judge rejecting the applications under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
 

Negotiable Instruments Act – Cheque Dishonour – Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 – The petitioner was convicted for issuing a cheque, which was dishonoured for insufficient funds, towards the payment of apple packaging material purchased from the respondent. The trial court and the appellate court both found the petitioner guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner’s revision plea was dismissed as the court held that the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act, in favor of the holder, was not rebutted by the petitioner [Paras 1-20].

Rebuttal of Presumption – Lack of Defence Evidence – Despite multiple opportunities, the petitioner failed to produce evidence to rebut the statutory presumption. The court reiterated that a cheque issued as security could also be enforceable under Section 138 if the underlying liability was not fulfilled [Paras 21-30].

Limited Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – No Reappreciation of Evidence – The court emphasized the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. and refused to reappreciate the evidence already considered by the trial and appellate courts. The revision petition was found devoid of merit and dismissed [Paras 31-40].

Decision: Criminal Revision dismissed. The petitioner was directed to surrender before the trial court to serve the sentence imposed by the lower courts.

Land Allotment – Public Purpose vs. Private Development – Gram Panchayat challenged the allotment of 3128 bighas of land to a private company for a solar power project, arguing that the allotment would deprive the village of essential land for public amenities and grazing – Court recognized the need for balancing development with the rights and needs of the local community – Directed the State to exclude at least 10 bighas of land from the allotment to ensure future development and public utility for the village [Paras 89-97].

Gair Mumkin Magra – Land Classification and Allotment – The Court examined the classification of land as 'Gair Mumkin Magra' (unculturable hillock) and clarified that such land is not inherently reserved for public use and can be allotted for projects like solar power, provided it does not contravene other legal restrictions [Paras 71-79].

Panchayat Representation – State's Fiduciary Duty – The Court emphasized that the State has a fiduciary duty to consider the needs and objections of the Gram Panchayat when allotting large tracts of land, particularly for private development – Failure to consider such representations violates the Panchayat's rights and the constitutional mandate under Article 243G [Paras 48-58].

Decision: Writ petition partly allowed – State directed to modify the allotment, keeping at least 10 bighas of land out of the allotment to ensure future public needs – The District Collector to elicit a report from the Tehsildar within 15 days to identify the land to be excluded [Paras 89-97].
 

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR under Sections 354, 354A, 323, 509 of IPC – Allegations of sexual harassment by Respondent No.2 against Petitioner – FIR filed after dismissal of complaint by the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) under POSH Act – High Court quashed the FIR on grounds that the intimate and consensual relationship between the parties was established, rendering the allegations of sexual harassment improbable – FIR found to be an afterthought following the ICC’s findings and Respondent No.2’s husband learning of the relationship [Paras 1-14].

Sexual Harassment – ICC findings under POSH Act dismissing complaint – Petitioner’s consistent testimony and supporting evidence, including witness statements and audio recordings, negated the allegations – Delay of more than 90 days in lodging FIR without explanation, further weakening the credibility of the complaint – High Court applied Bhajan Lal principles for quashing of FIR where allegations were found inherently improbable [Paras 8-11].

Evidence Evaluation – High Court relied on ICC findings, WhatsApp conversations, and conduct of Respondent No.2 to establish consensual nature of relationship – Court scrutinized FIR and found no prima facie case of criminal force or unwelcome contact – FIR filed with malafide intent to harass Petitioner following discovery of relationship by respective spouses [Paras 9-14].

Decision – Petition allowed – Held – The criminal proceedings initiated against the Petitioner were quashed based on findings that allegations of sexual harassment were concocted and motivated by personal vengeance – No ingredients of cognizable offence established – Quashing upheld as per Bhajan Lal principles [Para 14].
 

Criminal Law – Bail in Rape Case – Compromise with Victim’s Family – The petitioner sought bail in a case involving the rape of an 11-year-old girl, citing a compromise with the victim's family. The court rejected the bail application, emphasizing that in cases involving minors, any compromise lacks legal validity. The State has a duty to prosecute such offenses rigorously, irrespective of any private settlements. The court held that minors are vulnerable and their families might be influenced by financial incentives, making such compromises inadmissible in law. The court also noted that the victim's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. confirmed the incident, making the petitioner's request for bail untenable [Paras 6-8].

Decision: Bail application dismissed. The court directed that the trial court should endeavor to record the statements of the victim and her parents at the earliest opportunity [Para 9].
 

Civil Law – Declaration of Ownership and Permanent Injunction – Family Settlement – Validity of Consent Decrees – Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, which set aside two consent decrees obtained by fraud and misrepresentation by the appellant. The decrees were found void as they created rights in immovable property exceeding ₹100 without registration, violating the Registration Act, 1908 and the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-11].

Evidence Law – Admissibility of Oral Family Settlement – The Court held that the oral family settlement was duly proved by the evidence on record, including admissions during cross-examination – No substantial question of law arose – Findings of lower courts affirmed [Paras 10-11].

Property Law – Adverse Possession Claim – The appellant's claim of adverse possession was dismissed as the appellant was never in possession of the property as claimed under the impugned decrees – The decrees were void and did not confer ownership rights [Paras 10-11].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – The appellant's claims were rejected due to lack of evidence and failure to establish any substantial question of law – Consent decrees declared void [Paras 11].

Criminal Law – Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Maintenance – Interim Maintenance to Wife and Minor Son – High Court upheld the Family Court’s order granting interim maintenance of ₹12,000 per month to the wife and ₹8,000 per month to the son – Challenge to the estimation of husband's income at ₹60,000 per month despite his claim of earning ₹10,000 per month – Court found the husband’s declaration of income unsubstantiated and noted suppression of actual income – No modification to the interim maintenance despite the son reaching the age of majority – Father’s responsibility to maintain the son until proper education is secured [Paras 1-8, 10, 13-16].

Evidence Evaluation – Affidavit of Income and Assets – Suppression of Income by Husband – The Court observed inconsistencies in the husband’s affidavit regarding income and expenses – Family Court’s estimation of husband’s income based on a holistic view was found to be reasonable – No substantial evidence provided by the husband to prove his lower income or wife’s independent earnings – Revision petition dismissed [Paras 8-11, 19-22].

Decision – Dismissal of Revision Petition – Held – The petition challenging interim maintenance was dismissed – The Court confirmed the Family Court’s decision, emphasizing the importance of providing financial support to the wife and child, even in the interim stage – The trial court directed to expedite the final maintenance proceedings within three months [Paras 22-23].