Criminal Procedure – Cognizance and Limitation – Advocate's Liability – Appeal against acquittal of advocate accused of submitting false TDS certificates for a client's income tax return – Trial court acquitted advocate citing lack of direct involvement and limitation period under Section 468 Cr.P.C. – Held, advocate submitted return based on documents provided by main assessee – No criminal liability on advocate for client-provided documents – Cognizance barred by limitation – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-19]

Role of Advocate and Limitation – Analysis – Held – Respondent, as an advocate, submitted the income tax return based on TDS certificates provided by the main assessee – Main assessee not prosecuted – Advocate not liable for criminal acts of client without evidence of complicity – Section 468 Cr.P.C. bars cognizance beyond one year for offences with maximum six-month imprisonment – Cognizance in this case barred by limitation, affirming acquittal. [Paras 14-16]

Scope of Appeal Against Acquittal – Analysis – Held – High Court’s jurisdiction to interfere with acquittal limited to cases of patent illegality or perversity – Trial court’s findings based on evidence and legal principles – No compelling reasons to overturn acquittal – Appeals against acquittal require substantial and compelling reasons for interference, which were absent in this case. [Paras 11-13]

Decision – Dismissing Appeal – Court finds no merit in appeal against acquittal – No direct evidence against advocate and prosecution barred by limitation – Appeals dismissed, upholding acquittal with valid reasons. [Paras 17-19]

Civil Procedure – Withdrawal and Fresh Suit – Formal Defect – Petitioner's application to withdraw suit with liberty to file afresh on the same cause of action was dismissed by the lower court – Suit inherently flawed with incurable defects – Held, court can permit withdrawal with liberty to file afresh if suit likely to fail due to formal defect – Plaintiff should not suffer for counsel’s lapse – Petition allowed, liberty granted to withdraw suit and file afresh on same cause of action. [Paras 1-23]

Formal Defect and Plaintiff's Rights – Analysis – Held – Defects in suit that cannot be cured by amendment necessitate withdrawal and fresh filing – Courts must prioritize substantive rights over technicalities – Mistakes by counsel should not penalize the party – Fresh suit allowed to address formal defects and present complete case. [Paras 19-23]

Decision – Allowing Petition – Court sets aside the impugned order, allowing withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file afresh on the same cause of action – Petitioner's application granted under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC – Costs of ₹20,000 imposed on petitioner, payable to opposite side as condition precedent. [Para 25]

Civil Procedure – Second Appeal – Evidence Act – General Power of Attorney – Trial Court upheld the validity of the GPA and sale deed executed by GPA holder Rajinder Pal Singh, dismissing the suit – First Appellate Court reversed the decision, interpreting GPA as limited to management purposes only – Held, First Appellate Court's finding contrary to evidence on record and Section 92 of Evidence Act – GPA explicitly authorized sale and mortgage of land – First Appellate Court's interpretation impermissible under Section 92, which prohibits varying written contract terms through oral evidence – Second Appeal allowed, Trial Court's decision restored. [Paras 1-14]

Execution and Validity of GPA – Analysis – Held – Evidence shows GPA executed by Balbir Singh and others validly authorized Rajinder Pal Singh to sell and mortgage land – GPA registered and admitted by plaintiff without fraud or coercion – First Appellate Court’s limitation of GPA scope to management unsupported by evidence and Section 92 of Evidence Act – Sale deed executed under GPA valid and binding. [Paras 12-13]

Decision – Allowing Second Appeal – Court sets aside First Appellate Court's judgment, restoring Trial Court's judgment – GPA and subsequent sale deed upheld as valid – No order as to costs. [Paras 14-15]

Civil Procedure – Second Appeal – Temporary Injunction – Land Grabbing – Appellants alleged possession over property acquired by Improvement Trust – Suit filed 17 years ago seeking injunction based on manipulated records – Held, discretionary relief of injunction rightly declined due to manipulation and illegal possession – Trust allowed to remove appellants using force if necessary. [Paras 1-34]

Misuse of Court Process – Analysis – Held – Evidence shows appellants manipulated records to claim possession during the suit – Appellants’ case inconsistent and based on false documentation – No legitimate basis for injunction as property is part of a larger scheme by Improvement Trust – Appellants’ conduct amounts to land grabbing. [Paras 25-27]

Evidence and Possession – Held – Site plans and records from Improvement Trust indicate appellants' encroachment – Appellants failed to prove legitimate possession – Plaintiff’s claim contradicted by own witness statements – Documentation supporting appellants’ claim created post-suit, indicating manipulation. [Paras 13-23]

Decision – Dismissing Second Appeal – Court upholds trial and appellate court decisions refusing injunction – Directs removal of appellants from disputed property – Orders expeditious trial of Improvement Trust’s suit for recovery of mesne profits. [Paras 34-36]

Excise Law – Allotment of Liquor Vend – Interpretation of ‘Near’ – Petitioners were allotted an L-2 vend near CTU Workshop as per Excise Policy 2014-15 – Vend opened approximately 900 meters from CTU Workshop – Respondent claimed vend should be within 50 meters – Excise and Taxation Commissioner ordered closure of petitioner’s vend at existing location – Held, term ‘near’ in Excise Policy was not clearly defined – No specific distance was prescribed – Petitioner’s location choice reasonable and did not violate policy – Impugned order quashed – Administration directed to provide clear and unambiguous terms in future Excise Policies. [Paras 1-23]

Excise Policy – Distance Requirement – Analysis – Held – Excise Policy did not specify exact distance defining ‘near’ – Difference between terms ‘near’ and ‘nearest’ significant – Petitioners’ chosen location 900 meters from CTU Workshop deemed reasonable – Closure order based on undefined term unjustified. [Paras 14-18]

Decision – Allowing Writ Petition – Court sets aside order closing petitioner’s vend – Administration directed to ensure clarity in future Excise Policies to avoid litigation – Specific distances and unambiguous terms to be included in policy documents. [Para 23]

Employees’ Compensation – Pay and Recover Principle – Breach of Policy Terms – Various insurance companies appealed against orders by Commissioners under the Employees’ Compensation Act awarding compensation to claimants despite breaches of policy terms by employers – Held, insurance companies not liable under breached policies must pay claimants first and then recover from employers – Pay and recover principle, established in motor vehicle accident claims, extended to employee compensation cases – Ensures timely compensation to victims while allowing insurers to recover from liable employers. [Paras 1-9]

Equitable Compensation and Legal Framework – Analysis – Held – Supreme Court’s pay and recover mechanism in motor accident cases applied to ensure timely relief in employee compensation cases – Firm findings required by Commissioner on policy breaches – Public interest and justice served by prompt compensation to injured or deceased employees’ dependents – Reduces litigation burden on victims, placing recovery on insurers and employers. [Paras 7-9]

Decision – Allowing Appeals – Court extends pay and recover principle to employee compensation cases – Orders setting aside applications for recovery from employers quashed – Matters remanded for adjudication by Commissioners on merits – Principle to apply uniformly across similar appeals for equitable resolution. [Para 9]

Hindu Marriage Act – Divorce – Cruelty and Desertion – Petition for dissolution of marriage filed by husband alleging wife left matrimonial home leaving three minor children and filed false criminal charges against him – Trial Court dismissed petition – Held, wife's allegations under Sections 498-A, 406, and 506 IPC found baseless – False criminal charges and threats constituted cruelty – Evidence showed wife deserted husband with no intention to return – Decree of divorce granted to husband. [Paras 1-34]

Cruelty and False Allegations – Analysis – Held – Filing false criminal charges and making unsubstantiated allegations of dowry demands and molestation against husband and his family amounts to extreme cruelty – Acquittal of husband and lack of evidence supports husband's claims of false accusations – Wife’s actions causing husband's imprisonment and humiliation constitute severe mental cruelty. [Paras 20-25]

Desertion and Intent – Analysis – Held – Wife left matrimonial home without justifiable reason, abandoning three minor children – No efforts made by wife to return or seek custody of children – Justifications provided by wife for leaving could not be substantiated – Continuous absence and lack of intention to return confirm desertion. [Paras 27-32]

Decision – Allowing Appeal – Court reverses Trial Court's findings – Grants decree of divorce to husband on grounds of cruelty and desertion by wife – Impugned judgment and decree set aside – Divorce decree issued accordingly. [Paras 33-34]

Education Law – Admission – Online Application Submission – Petitioner participated in entrance examination for MBBS, securing rank 41 – Unable to submit online application by deadline due to internet connectivity issues – University rejected her application – Held, petitioner faced genuine difficulty in online submission – No deliberate laches on her part – University established to foster education and should accommodate genuine issues – Denial of admission to meritorious candidate amounts to betrayal – Impugned order quashed, University directed to admit petitioner. [Paras 1-9]

Equitable Treatment in Admissions – Analysis – Held – University must exercise reasonableness and accommodate genuine difficulties faced by students – Petitioner’s case demonstrated sincere effort to comply with deadlines – Internet connectivity issues beyond her control – University’s rigid adherence to deadline unwarranted when seats remained vacant – Courts should ensure meritorious candidates are not unjustly denied admission. [Paras 6-8]

Decision – Allowing Writ Petition – Court quashes University’s rejection of petitioner’s application – Directs University to admit petitioner in existing vacancy – Orders University to pay costs of ₹10,000 for lack of reasonable accommodation. [Paras 8-9]

Motor Vehicles Act – Amendment of Claim Petition – Enhancement of Compensation – Passenger killed in accident where driver drove car into a tree – Original claim under Section 163-A of MV Act – Application to amend claim under Section 166 filed after 12 years – Insurer objected to delay – Held, Section 163-A allows claims on strict liability basis without proof of negligence – Delay does not bar amendment in welfare legislation cases – Insurance Company liable to pay under terms of policy – Amendment allowed – Compensation enhanced considering proof of negligence under Section 166. [Paras 1-5]

Strict Liability and Welfare Legislation – Analysis – Held – Section 163-A enables claims without proving negligence, aimed at economically weaker sections – Claim amendment to Section 166 permitted, with requirement to prove negligence – Insurance Company must pay claims under policy terms – Application of res ipsa loquitur principle indicates driver’s negligence – Vehicle owner and insurer liable – Conversion of claim justified despite delay. [Paras 1-4]

Decision – Allowing Amendment and Enhancing Compensation – Court permits amendment from Section 163-A to Section 166 – Insurance Company’s objection on delay dismissed – Enhanced compensation awarded based on income, prospects, and other heads under judicial guidelines – Total compensation of Rs. 12,14,535 awarded to claimants, distributed equally among widow and children – Liability on Insurance Company. [Paras 5-6]