Eviction Petition - Bona fide requirement of landlord - Challenge by tenant under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act - Tenant assails order dismissing application for leave to contest proceedings - Grounds raised by tenant include landlord's alleged abundant alternate accommodation, age, and health status - High Court examines legality of impugned order under proviso to Section 25B(8) of the Act - Court's duty to strike balance between landlord's need and tenant's right to defend - Legislative intent of expeditious remedy emphasized. [Paras 1-12]

Summary Procedure under Chapter IIIA of the Act - Nature of High Court's scrutiny - Scope of revisional power under proviso to Section 25B(8) - High Court's limited role in examining process adopted by Rent Controller - Parameters of appellate scrutiny distinguished from revisional power - Reference to Shiv Sarup Gupta vs Mahesh Chand Gupta (1999) 3 SCR 1260. [Paras 6-6.5]

Factual Matrix - Examination of site plan - Disputed portions of the premises - Yellow portion occupied by another tenant - Inadmissibility of subsequent events post-impugned order - Contentious utility of green shaded halls for commercial use - Surrendered Bawana plot - Court's analysis of landlord's requirement and capability. [Paras 7-11]

Bona fide requirement of landlord - Evaluation of age and health of landlord - Presumption of incapacity to carry out business rebutted - Right to livelihood and dignity emphasized - No infirmity found in impugned order - Petition dismissed. [Paras 11-12]

Execution of Decree – First Appeal Against Execution Court Order – Appeal challenging the order of the execution court setting aside property sale under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC. The sale involved property charged to realize a decree amount, where the execution court found irregularities in property description and the judgment debtor's lack of absolute saleable interest. The appellant (decree holder) argued that the property description could not be altered during execution and the respondents (judgment debtors) failed to object at the time of sale proclamation. [Paras 1-8]

Material Irregularity in Property Sale – Held, the execution court correctly identified material irregularity in the sale process. Noted discrepancies in property description and the presence of a multi-storied apartment complex on the property. The rights of third-party apartment purchasers were affected. The decree holder's awareness of these facts and failure to disclose them constituted a material irregularity, despite the judgment debtors' silence during the execution proceedings. [Paras 9-10]

Application of Order XXI Rule 90(3) CPC – Court observed that the rule may not apply in cases of material irregularity where mandatory requirements of the rule are violated. Emphasized the importance of accurate property descriptions and consideration of third-party rights in execution sales. [Paras 10-11]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – Upheld the execution court's order setting aside the property sale. Acknowledged the decree holder's right to pursue legal avenues for executing the decree. [Para 13]

Compensation for Property Damage - Compensation for Land Diminution due to Power Lines – Civil Revision Petition – Landowner's Claim for Enhanced Compensation – 400 KV Lines Drawn by Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Across Claimant's Property – Original Compensation Deemed Insufficient – Analysis of Land Value and Loss – Court Modifies Compensation. [Paras 1-9]

Claim for Enhanced Compensation – Justification – Landowner's Property Affected by High Tension Power Lines – Initial Compensation for Trees Cut but not for Land Value Diminution – Court Finds Justified Enhancement after Careful Scrutiny – 40% Land Value for Central Corridor, 20% for Outer Corridors, 5% for Remaining Property – Factors Considered Include Land's Nature, Cultivation, Commercial Importance, and Effect of Power Lines. [Paras 5, 7-8]

Revision Petition by Power Grid Corporation – Contention of Exorbitant Compensation – Court Dismisses Corporation's Petition – Upholds Enhanced Compensation as Just and Proper – Court Corrects Order to Exclude Deduction of Initially Paid Compensation from Enhanced Amount. [Paras 6, 9]

Decision – Enhanced Compensation for Landowner – Directions for Payment – Correction of Initial Order Misinterpretation – Immediate Release of Deposited Amount to Claimant – Dismissal of Corporation's Revision Petition. [Para 9]

Property Inheritance Dispute – Plaintiff and Defendant, brothers, in dispute over right of way to their respective inherited properties – Claim of a family settlement involving exchange of land parcels for pathway access – Trial court and appellate court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, denying existence of a valid family arrangement and emphasizing the need for registration under T.P. Act and Registration Act [Paras 4-22].

Oral Family Settlement – Defendant's contention of an oral family settlement for exchange of property (plaint E schedule for plaint C schedule pathway) – Reliance on judicial precedents favoring oral family settlements – Trial court and appellate court found lack of convincing evidence for such a settlement [Paras 9-11, 18-24].

Essentials of Family Arrangement – Held – A family arrangement made orally does not require registration, but must be proved with cogent and convincing evidence – In the present case, defendant’s claim of family arrangement for exchange of properties not satisfactorily established – Pathway through plaintiff’s property found to be legitimate. [Para 23-24]

Decision – Dismissal of Regular Second Appeal – The Court finds that the family arrangement or settlement is not established, and the formation of the pathway as contended by the plaintiff is substantiated – Regular Second Appeal dismissed, upholding the decisions of the trial court and first appellate court. [Para 25-26]

Appointment of Vice-Chancellors – Challenge through writ petitions seeking quo warranto – Allegation of violation of UGC Regulations 2018 – Interim orders restraining removal pending Chancellor’s decision – Chancellor subsequently declared appointments void ab initio – Vice Chancellor of Calicut University filed WP challenging Chancellor’s decision – Interim stay granted – Vice Chancellor of Sree Sankaracharya University not granted stay – Subsequent developments render WP challenging appointment of Vice Chancellor of Sree Sankaracharya University infructuous – Maintainability of writ petition – Writ of quo warranto not considered in light of Chancellor’s decision – Issue regarding public interest litigation and applicability of High Court Rules left open – Writ petitions closed.

Arbitration Proceedings - Non-filing of Written Statement of Defence - Dismissal of Application under Section 151 CPC for Placing Documents on Record - High Court dismisses application under Section 151 CPC for placing documents on record, as the appellant failed to file a written statement of defence before the Arbitrator during arbitration proceedings. No cogent reason provided for the belated submission of documents. Application dismissed. [Paras 1-2]

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 Petition - Challenge to Arbitral Award - Failure to Contest Claim - Dismissal of Petition - Appellants fail to submit a written statement of defence during arbitration proceedings, only making verbal submissions. Arbitral award passed in favor of respondent. High Court dismisses petition under Section 34 of the 1996 Act, stating no fault could be found with the award due to appellants' failure to participate effectively. [Paras 2(ii)-11]

Grounds for Interference with Arbitral Award - Limited Scope - Court's Role - Court does not sit in appeal over arbitral award but may interfere on limited grounds, including violation of public policy or patent illegality. No independent assessment of merits of the award permitted. [Paras 7-13]

Decision: Dismissal of Application under Section 151 CPC - High Court dismisses the application for placing documents on record, citing failure to file a written statement of defence during arbitration proceedings. [Para 2]

Dismissal of Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - High Court upholds the dismissal of the petition challenging the arbitral award, noting appellants' failure to effectively contest the claim during arbitration proceedings. No violation of principles of natural justice found. Appeal deemed devoid of merit and dismissed. [Paras 10-11]

Arbitration Award Challenge – Appellants did not file written statement of defence or lead evidence in arbitration proceedings initiated by respondent-HAFED for recovery of Rs. 26.01 lakhs – Arbitration award passed in favour of respondent, accepting the claim in toto – Appellant’s challenge to award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 dismissed by Additional District Judge, Kaithal – Present appeal filed against said dismissal. [Para 1-2(iii)]

Non-Participation in Arbitration Proceedings – Appellants’ failure to submit written response or evidence during arbitration – Respondent proved claim through evidence – Arbitrator’s decision to award claim to respondent on this basis – No written defence or evidence led by appellants in support of their case. [Para 9]

Legal Principles for Interference with Arbitral Award – Court’s interference with arbitral award limited to grounds under Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Interference only if award is against public policy of India, includes violation of fundamental policy of Indian law, interest of India, conflict with justice or morality, patent illegality – No review of merits of dispute in interference, limited to cases where findings are arbitrary, perverse, or where illegality goes to the root of the matter. [Para 7]

Rejection of Application under Section 151 CPC – Appellants' application for placing additional documents on record as Annexures A-2 to A-6 under Section 151 CPC rejected – No cogent reason given for non-production of documents during arbitration proceedings – Appellants did not file written statement of defence before Arbitrator.

Decision – High Court finds no merit in appeal – Appeal dismissed, upholding decision of Additional District Judge and the arbitral award. [Para 11]

Quashing of Complaint and Related Proceedings under Section 482 CrPC - Petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of complaint No. COMA/736/2017 pending in the Court of ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, under Section 276CC of Income Tax Act, 1961, along with summoning order and framing of charges - Petitioner contends that matter has been settled by the Settlement Commission granting immunity from prosecution - Respondent failed to contest the petition.

Settlement Commission Proceedings and Immunity - Petitioner had moved an application for settlement before the Settlement Commission which granted immunity from prosecution vide order dated 21.06.2018 - Despite immunity granted, respondent continued prosecution against petitioner.

Precedents and Legal Analysis - Court refers to relevant legal precedents where proceedings were quashed upon grant of immunity by Settlement Commission before institution of prosecution proceedings - Court emphasizes gross misuse of process of law in continuing complaint despite grant of immunity.

Decision - Court quashes complaint, summoning order, and framing of charges against petitioner - Proceedings deemed misuse of process of law in light of immunity granted by Settlement Commission.

Regular Bail - Section 306 IPC - Suicide - Allegations against the petitioners of abetment to suicide - Prayer for regular bail - Compromise between petitioners and complainant - Suicide note recovered but veracity yet to be established by handwriting expert - Petitioners behind bars since February 7, 2024 - Trial yet to commence - Likelihood of complainant not supporting prosecution due to compromise - Court's discretion to grant bail balancing presumption of innocence and gravity of offense - Bail not to be withheld as punishment - Precedents emphasizing liberty, justice, and public safety - Court deems it fit and appropriate to grant bail to petitioners - Bail granted on furnishing bail and surety bond to satisfaction of concerned magistrate - Future indulgence in similar offenses may lead to cancellation of bail - Observations for deciding present petition only, without affecting trial merits.