Protection of Life and Liberty – Minor’s Right to Choose – Petition filed under Article 226 by a minor girl seeking protection from family coercion after refusing arranged marriage – Father (Respondent no. 4) evicted minor from home, used physical violence – Representation to police ignored – High Court directs police to consider threat perception and provide protection if needed – Child Welfare Committee to ensure minor’s safety – Court acting as parens patriae emphasized necessity of protecting minor’s interests and legal compliance [Paras 1-13].

Procedure under Juvenile Justice Act – Child Welfare Committee’s role – Directed to report compliance and protect minor – Emphasized importance of procedural adherence to safeguard minor’s rights [Paras 9-12].

Decision- Petition disposed of with directions to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar, to consider the representation and provide protection if threat is perceived – Minor to be produced before Child Welfare Committee if necessary – Compliance report required within two months [Paras 8-14].

Civil Procedure – Addition of Parties – Petitioners challenged the order of the Appellate Court allowing the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 CPC for addition of parties – Contention that the Appellate Court did not properly consider the facts and circumstances – Petitioners argued the order was passed mechanically without due inquiry – High Court referred to the distinction between jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 as laid out in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, highlighting that judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 – High Court directed petitioners to convert the writ petition into a Civil Miscellaneous Petition [Paras 1-5].

Jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 – Judicial Orders of Civil Courts – High Court reiterated the principles from Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, emphasizing that judicial orders of civil courts are not subject to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 – Clarified the scope of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 – Referred to amendments in the Rules of the High Court at Patna post Radhey Shyam judgment – High Court allowed two weeks for conversion of the writ petition into a Civil Miscellaneous Petition [Paras 3-5].

Decision – Writ Petition Conversion – Held – Petitioners granted time to convert writ petition into Civil Miscellaneous Petition – Registry directed to assist in expediting the process – Case to be listed on priority after conversion [Para 5].

Surplus Land – Permissible Area – Non-utilization – The Court held that the land declared as surplus cannot be utilized by the State until the permissible area and surplus area of the plaintiff have been separated and distinctively identified as per Section 14(1) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. The proceedings under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, must first be completed before declaring any land as surplus under the 1972 Act [Paras 14-17].

Pending Proceedings – Separation of Shares – The Court noted that the holding of the plaintiff, her father, and other co-sharers is still joint, and the permissible area and surplus area have not been separated. The State is directed to complete the proceedings under the 1953 Act regarding the declaration of land as surplus and then proceed under the 1972 Act by considering the plaintiff as an independent unit due to her marriage [Paras 14-17].

Civil Court Jurisdiction – The Court confirmed that the civil court has jurisdiction in this matter, as per the precedent set by the Five Judge Bench judgment in State of Haryana and others vs. Vinod Kumar and others, 1986 (1) PLR 222 [Para 10].

Injunction Against Dispossession – An injunction is issued restraining the State from dispossessing the plaintiff from the land transferred to her by her father until the proper legal proceedings are completed and specific surplus land is identified [Paras 16-17].

Decision: The appeal is allowed, and the decree of the first appellate court is set aside. The trial court's decree is restored, directing the State to complete the proceedings under the 1953 Act and then under the 1972 Act. The State is restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff until these proceedings are completed.

Narcotics – Discharge of Accused – Trial Court Order Set Aside – Trial court discharged the respondent based on the inadequacy of evidence aside from co-accused statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act – High Court emphasized admissibility of CDRs and additional evidence – Statements under Section 67 inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act alone but CDRs and frequent jail visits establish prima facie involvement – Trial court’s discharge order set aside, charge to be framed [Paras 1-19].

Evidence – Admissibility of CDRs – CDR details of accused, showing mobile location in Central Jail, and evidence of meetings between accused justify trial examination – Statements under Section 67 coupled with CDRs provide sufficient material for presumption of offence – Trial court to reassess based on combined evidence [Paras 9-10, 17-18].

Legal Precedents – Applicability – Referred cases highlight the insufficiency of Section 67 statements alone but endorse CDR evidence – CDR details of accused to be considered at trial, ensuring comprehensive examination – Reiterates need for corroborative evidence alongside statements under Section 67 for conviction [Paras 10-16].

Decision – Petition allowed – Order discharging respondent set aside – Trial court directed to frame charges and proceed in accordance with law – Proper assessment of CDRs and other collected evidence mandated [Paras 18-19].

Civil Procedure – Non-filing of Written Statement – Defendants failed to file written statement despite court orders – Case proceeded as undefended suit due to non-compliance [Paras 1-2].

Property Ownership and Tenancy – Plaintiff established ownership of multiple properties constituting “Karnani Mansion” – Plaintiff’s right to issue car parking stickers and collect rent from tenants recognized [Paras 3-6].

Circulars Challenged – Plaintiff contested two circulars issued by defendants concerning collection of rent and maintenance – Defendants lacked authority under court orders to issue such circulars post payment of municipal dues by plaintiff [Paras 10-13, 28-31].

Court Orders and Compliance – Historical orders reviewed including Division Bench orders from 2002, 2006, and 2011 – Compliance by plaintiff in paying dues, resulting in No Outstanding Certificate from Kolkata Municipal Corporation – Defendants misinterpreted and misrepresented court orders to collect charges [Paras 7-9, 27-31].

Fraud and Misrepresentation – Defendants accused of misleading tenants and misrepresenting their authority based on outdated court orders – Plaintiff successfully proved payment of dues and compliance with municipal requirements [Paras 13-15, 30].

Special Officer Appointment – Special Officer appointed to collect rent and maintenance charges due to disputes – Court directed Special Officer to report collections and expenditure, eventually to handover accounts to plaintiff [Paras 32-34, 37].

Final Relief – Circulars issued by defendants declared null and void – Defendants restrained from collecting rent or charges and from issuing parking stickers – Defendants directed to provide accounts of collected rents to plaintiff [Paras 36-38].

Decision – Suit decreed in favor of plaintiff – Defendants’ circulars declared null and void – Directions issued for proper handover of accounts and discharge of Special Officer [Para 38].

Civil Procedure – Eviction of Tenant – Bona Fide Need – Landlord sought eviction of tenant based on personal necessity – Tenant contested need and claimed sufficient accommodation existed – Appellate Authority reversed Rent Controller’s decision, upheld bona fide requirement – Long duration of proceedings, landlord’s death, and transfer of rights to legal heirs did not negate original need – Tenant cannot dictate landlord’s requirement [Paras 27-39].

Customary Law – Right of Pre-emption – Tenant’s Claim – Plaintiff sought to pre-empt sale based on alleged tenancy and custom of pre-emption in Narnaul – Trial and appellate courts found no custom proved – Concurrent findings dismissed claim – State notification abolished pre-emption rights post-filing suit – Tenant’s claims of continuous custom unsupported by substantial evidence [Paras 7-25].

Limitation – Cross Objections – Significant Delay – Defendant’s cross objections filed after over 30 years – Plea for condonation of delay dismissed – Original trial court and first appellate court decisions on transaction nature and market value upheld without fresh evidence [Paras 11-14].

Decision – Appeals and Cross Objections Dismissed – Both RSA No. 3244 of 1987 and RSA No. 953 of 1988 dismissed – CM No. 7671-C of 2019 and XOBJS No. 15 of 2019 dismissed for limitation – Eviction ordered on grounds of bona fide necessity upheld – Plaintiff’s pre-emption claims and tenancy status rejected [Para 39].

Criminal Law – Discharge of Accused – Trial Court discharged respondent for lack of material evidence beyond co-accused statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act – Revision petition filed by Union of India challenging this discharge – High Court emphasized the need for sufficient material to form a prima facie case [Paras 1-14].

Evidence – Call Detail Records (CDRs) – CDRs of mobile phones showing contact between co-accused and respondent, while in jail, considered significant – High Court highlighted CDRs and physical meetings as material evidence that must be examined during trial – Reaffirmed by Supreme Court’s stance in State by (NCB) Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr.; CDR details admissible and should be scrutinized at trial [Paras 9-10, 12].

Confessional Statements – Section 67 of NDPS Act – Statements made to NCB officers are inadmissible as per Section 25 of Evidence Act and Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu – Additional material evidence required to support such statements for charges to sustain [Paras 8, 14-15].

Decision – Revision Allowed – Held – Order of trial court set aside – Directed to frame charges against respondent and proceed with trial – Importance of CDRs and other corroborative evidence underlined for establishing prima facie case [Para 18].

Rape and Criminal Intimidation – Conviction of Grandson for Raping Grandmother – Appellant challenged conviction for rape and criminal intimidation – Prosecution provided consistent evidence from the victim and corroboration from her daughter and neighbors – Appellant’s history of substance abuse considered – Delay in filing FIR deemed justified due to familial relationships and threats – Conviction and sentence upheld [Paras 1-10].

Victim Testimony – Reliability and Corroboration – Court upheld victim’s testimony despite delay in reporting and absence of immediate medical evidence – Family dynamics and threats explained delay – Victim’s statement supported by daughter’s corroboration and neighbor’s testimony [Paras 4-7].

Evidence – Delay in FIR and Non-seizure of Victim’s Clothes – Court accepted delay in FIR citing Supreme Court precedents on rape case reporting delays – Non-seizure of clothes not detrimental due to victim’s immediate bathing – Medical report indicated possibility of sexual assault [Paras 6-7].

Mental Health of Accused – Request for Psychiatric Evaluation – Appellant’s habitual substance abuse and past behavior cited – Court found no necessity for psychiatric evaluation given the evidence and nature of offenses [Para 2].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and sentences for life imprisonment under Section 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(n), and two years under Section 506, IPC upheld – Sentences to run concurrently with fines imposed [Para 8-9].

Property Tax – Limitation for Recovery – Assessment of Escaped Tax – Writ petitions filed by ATC Telecom Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Against the demand notices issued by various municipalities for the recovery of property tax on telecom towers – Petitioner contended that demands were made beyond the limitation period specified in the Kerala Municipality Act – High Court held that demands made beyond the limitation period were not enforceable – Impugned demand notices set aside and matters remitted to respective municipalities for reassessment in accordance with the law, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner [Paras 1-9].

Sections 282 and 539 of Kerala Municipality Act – Assessment and Recovery of Tax – Section 282 allows assessment of escaped tax within four years from the date the person should have been assessed – Section 539 bars recovery of tax beyond three years from the date of assessment – High Court emphasized the necessity of adhering to these statutory time frames for valid tax assessment and recovery [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Writ petitions disposed of – Municipalities directed to issue fresh notices for property tax assessment for the last four years from the date of impugned notices – Opportunity for hearing to be provided to the petitioner – All other issues raised in the writ petitions left open [Para 9].