Industrial Law – Wrongful Termination – Compliance with ID Act – The case involved the State of Punjab's challenge to the Industrial Tribunal's award, which found the termination of Kamaljit, a work-woman, to be in violation of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Tribunal had ordered her reinstatement with 50% back-wages from the date of the demand notice, citing non-compliance with Section 25-F of the ID Act [Paras 1-2].

Nature of Employment – Classification as Industry – The petitioners argued that the Forest Department was not an 'Industry' under the ID Act. The Tribunal, however, referred to precedents establishing the Forest Department as an 'Industry' and rejected this contention. The Tribunal's conclusion was based on precedents like Divisional Forest Officer vs. Jagdish and others, 2003(4) RSJ 264 [Para 4].

Inconsistent Testimony and Employment Records – The Tribunal noted inconsistencies in the management's witness statements regarding Kamaljit's employment duration, ultimately determining that she was employed from October 1998 to December 2000. This inconsistency supported the Tribunal's finding of wrongful termination [Paras 5-16].

Modification of Award – Compensation in Lieu of Reinstatement – Citing similar cases where compensation was awarded instead of reinstatement, the court modified the Tribunal’s order. Kamaljit was awarded a lump-sum compensation of ₹3.50 lakhs, considering she had attained superannuation and had rendered over two years of service before termination [Paras 6-8].

Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with a modification of the Tribunal's award. Kamaljit was awarded ₹3.50 lakhs as compensation in lieu of reinstatement, to be paid within three months, failing which interest at 6% per annum would be applicable.
 

Civil Procedure – Recovery of Possession – Appeal against the judgment of the First Appellate Court which reversed the Trial Court’s decree in favor of the plaintiff for the recovery of possession of 2 cottahs of land – First Appellate Court set aside the decree on grounds of insufficient description of the suit property and non-joinder of necessary parties – High Court examined the sufficiency of property description and the necessity of additional parties – Found the property description clear and the non-joinder of parties non-prejudicial – Judgment of the First Appellate Court set aside; decree of the Trial Court restored [Paras 1-24].

Property Description – Sufficiency – Suit property adequately described through schedules and a sketch map appended to the plaint – Property identifiable by boundaries and specific plot numbers – High Court emphasized that boundaries generally prevail over other descriptions for identification – Found that the property was sufficiently described to grant a decree [Paras 12-13].

Non-Joinder of Parties – Necessity – Appellant/plaintiff purchased a demarcated portion of land with clear boundaries – No evidence that other co-sharers needed to be impleaded – High Court determined that non-joinder of alleged co-sharers did not affect the enforceability of the decree – Reversed the First Appellate Court’s judgment on this ground [Paras 14-15].

Decision – Appeal allowed – First Appellate Court’s judgment reversed – Trial Court’s decree restored – Respondent granted time to vacate and hand over possession by 31.10.2024 – High Court affirmed the right, title, and interest of the appellant over the suit property – Emphasized adherence to procedural and substantive laws in deciding possession suits [Paras 20-22].

Criminal Law – Section 138 of the N.I. Act – Issuance of Security Cheques – Legal Enforceability:
Petitions filed to quash criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Cheques issued by petitioners as security for employment contracts – Petitioners argued no legally enforceable debt existed at the time of issuance – Respondents contended cheques were dishonored due to breach of contract terms – High Court held the relevant date for determining enforceability is the date of presentation – Cheques issued as security can attract Section 138 if liability exists at the time of presentation [Paras 1-20].

Contractual Obligations and Security Cheques – Burden of Proof:
Petitioners argued cheques were not for discharge of debt but as indemnity against future losses – Court observed that legal liability on the date of presentation suffices for Section 138 – Burden on the drawer to rebut presumption of liability under the Act – Arguments about invalid contracts and lack of enforceability to be examined during trial, not at the quashing stage [Paras 10-12, 20].
Decision: Petitions dismissed – Criminal proceedings under Section 138 N.I. Act to continue – Trial court directed to expedite proceedings given the pendency since 2017 – Petitioners allowed to present evidence and challenge the enforceability of the alleged debt during trial [Paras 21-22].
 

Minority at Time of Sale Deed – Proof of Identity – The primary issue in both appeals was whether the plaintiff, Rattan Kaur @ Paramjit Kaur, was a minor when she executed the sale deeds. The plaintiff argued that she was a minor based on her birth certificate showing her date of birth as 15.09.1968, which she claimed was issued under the name Rattan Kaur. The First Appellate Court, however, found that the plaintiff failed to prove she was known by the name Rattan Kaur and that she was indeed a minor at the time of the sale deeds [Paras 1-12].

Discrepancies in Name and Evidence – The First Appellate Court determined that the plaintiff's claim was unsubstantiated as her name in school and revenue records was listed as Paramjit Kaur, not Rattan Kaur. The court also noted that her mother and brothers, who could have corroborated her claim, were not examined as witnesses, and the testimonies of the plaintiff and her sister were deemed unreliable [Paras 10-11].

Appellate Review – No Illegality in Findings – Upon review, the High Court upheld the findings of the First Appellate Court, emphasizing that the lower court's judgment was based on a proper appreciation of the evidence. The High Court found no merit in the appeals and dismissed them, noting the absence of any substantial evidence to support the plaintiff's claims [Paras 12-13].

Decision: Both appeals were dismissed due to lack of merit. The judgments of the lower courts were upheld, confirming that the plaintiff failed to prove she was known as Rattan Kaur and that she was a minor at the time of the sale deeds.

Civil Law - Partition of Property – Appeal against the trial court’s decree for partition of properties managed by the eldest brother under familial agreement - First defendant managed the properties on behalf of his brothers, with deeds in his name - Claims of prior partition by defendants not substantiated by documentary evidence or credible witness testimony - Trial court’s decision to decree partition affirmed. [Paras 13-21]

Burden of Proof – Defendants failed to substantiate the claim of prior partition which allegedly excluded certain properties from the current suit - Lack of documentary evidence such as revenue records or credible witness accounts to support defendants' claims of earlier partition - Plaintiffs’ unchallenged testimony and factual background led to the confirmation of joint family property status. [Paras 15, 17]

Non-joinder of Parties – Contention regarding non-joinder of necessary parties dismissed - Defendants failed to prove that their relatives were put in possession under an unregistered sale agreement claimed by them - Trial court’s decision not to implead additional parties upheld due to the failure of defendants to prove the genuineness of the transaction. [Paras 19, 20]

Decision: Appeal dismissed, confirming the trial court’s judgment dated 03.08.2000 for partition of the plaint A schedule properties, with each party bearing their own costs.

Defamation and Proceedings – Revision against orders of lower courts in defamation proceedings initiated by Dr. Barnali Chattopadhyay against Dr. Sima Banerjee for alleged defamatory remarks made during a televised interview – Analyzed whether statements made fall within exceptions provided under Section 499 IPC, and whether there is intent to harm reputation as required under Section 500 IPC – High Court finds lacking in intent and applicability under specified exceptions; quashing of proceedings ordered [Paras 1-36].

Political Influence and Academic Disputes – Accusations involve complex backdrop of political influence and disputes over college administration roles, leading to legal contests impacting reputations of involved parties – High Court observes misuse of defamation laws in context of internal college politics and disputes [Paras 4-12].

Legal Assessment and Precedents – Reliance on previous judgments regarding scrutiny required at magistrate level in defamation cases, importance of safeguarding reputational rights without stifling free speech – References to Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of India (2016) and its interpretation of Sections 499 and 500 IPC [Paras 23-29].

Application of Exceptions in Defamation – High Court concludes remarks fall within the ninth exception of Section 499 IPC (statements made for protection of interest in good faith) – No intent to harm established; proceedings against petitioner not justified [Paras 32-33].

Decision: Quashing of FIR and Proceedings – FIR and consequent legal proceedings against Dr. Sima Banerjee under Sections 499/500 IPC quashed by High Court, citing absence of necessary ingredients for defamation and application of relevant exceptions under IPC [Para 34-35].

Procedural Violation in Show-Cause Notice – Appellant contested the show-cause notice issued by the WBGST Authorities on the grounds of procedural violations and denial of credit without verification from the supplier’s end – High Court found the show-cause notice and subsequent order denying Input Tax Credit (ITC) to the appellant as procedurally flawed and lacking jurisdiction– Held: Show-cause notice and subsequent orders set aside, authorities directed to first proceed against the supplier and only then consider penalizing the appellant under exceptional circumstances. Allowed.[Para 3-9]

Motor Vehicle Accident – Compensation Awarded for Death – Appeal against Tribunal’s decision by both insurer and claimants – Accident involving motorcycle and truck, leading to motorcyclist’s death - Tribunal held truck driver solely liable, awarded Rs. 20,71,630 compensation plus interest - Insurance company appealed, alleging contributory negligence and error in income assessment - Claimants appealed for higher compensation considering future prospects and actual general damages - High Court upholds truck driver’s sole liability, recalculates compensation including future prospects, adjusts for personal living expenses, and corrects income assessment error - Final compensation set at Rs. 26,04,908, with directions for balance payment with interest from date of original claim till final payment [Paras 3-16]

Property Law – Validity of Gift Deeds – Prior Execution – The case involved multiple appeals and cross-objections arising from disputes over two gift deeds executed by Raj Kishan. The first gift deed, dated 01.09.1997, favored Raj Pal, while the second, dated 14.10.1997, favored Raj Kishan's five daughters. The court held that the earlier executed gift deed took precedence under Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, rendering the subsequent gift deed subservient [Paras 13-20].

Doctrine of Feeding the Grant by Estoppel – The court invoked this doctrine, determining that after the death of Ram Kala, his five daughters, as his legal representatives, became the owners of the property. The sale deed in favor of defendant Nos. 10 to 12 was upheld based on this doctrine, ensuring the proper transfer of ownership [Para 20].

Legal Representatives and Procedural Aspects – Delay in Filing – The court condoned the delay in re-filing and filing cross-objections, recognizing the supporting affidavits and justifiable reasons presented in the applications [Paras 1-4].

Adverse Inference and Evidence – The court noted that Ram Kala's failure to appear in evidence allowed for an adverse inference against him. It emphasized the necessity of cross-examination opportunities for the defendants, which were missed due to procedural lapses [Paras 22-23].

Decision: The judgments of the lower courts were set aside due to subsequent developments. Raj Pal remained the owner of the land by virtue of the earlier gift deed, and defendant Nos. 10 to 12 were confirmed as owners through the sale deed dated 17.03.1998. Cross-objections regarding Ram Kala's mental state were deemed unnecessary to address following his death [Paras 23-25].