Mortgage – Redemption – Registered Mortgage Deed – Validity – Signature of Mortgagee – Section 59, Transfer of Property Act – Registered mortgage deed dated 11.11.1971 executed by mortgagors was discarded by courts below solely on ground that it was not signed by mortgagee – Held, Section 59 mandates signature only of mortgagor and attestation by two witnesses – No requirement in law for mortgagee’s signature – Registered mortgage deed carries statutory presumption of validity – Findings of courts below held contrary to law and perverse [Paras 29–31, 36–39].

Property Law – Mortgage and Redemption – Concurrent findings reversed in Second Appeal – Suit for possession by way of redemption initially dismissed by both Trial and First Appellate Courts – Courts below held that Mortgage Deed (Ex. P-1) was not proved as it was not signed by the mortgagee Karam Chand – Further held that defendant no.2 was inducted as tenant by Ishwar Dayal (mortgagor), not by mortgagee – Held: Findings of Courts below based on misreading of law and evidence – Mortgage Deed is valid under Section 59 of Transfer of Property Act even without mortgagee's signature – Execution proved by mortgagors and attesting witnesses – Rent Note (Ex. P-2) signed by tenant Ram Chander and proved by attesting witness – Defendant no.2 admitted tenancy under mortgagee in earlier proceedings – Courts below ignored presumption of truth attached to registered documents under Sections 68 and 90 of Evidence Act – Appeal allowed – Plaintiffs entitled to possession upon redemption [Paras 6, 26-27, 28-31, 32-39, 40-42, 43-46, 47, 49-51, 52-56, 60].

Documentary Evidence – Mortgage Deed – Validity of Unilateral Execution – Mortgage Deed Ex. P-1 disbelieved by Courts below for lacking mortgagee’s signature – Held: Under Section 59 of Transfer of Property Act, signature of mortgagee not required – Deed was registered, signed by mortgagors, attested by two witnesses – Legal presumption attached to registered documents – Also supported by Supreme Court judgments in Tarachand v. Sagarbai, Rattan Singh v. Nirmal Gill, Ishwar Dass Jain v. Sohan Lal – Courts below erred in law in discarding the Mortgage Deed [Paras 28-31, 32-34].

Documentary Evidence – Rent Note – Proof and Admissibility – Rent Note (Ex. P-2) rejected by Courts below based on handwriting expert report – Held: Defendant no.2 did not specifically deny signature in written statement, rather admitted signing “not consciously” – Attesting witness and scribe proved execution – Plaintiffs’ application to summon their own expert wrongly rejected – Rent note over 30 years old – Legal presumption under Section 90 of Evidence Act attracted – Rejection of document by lower courts unjustified [Paras 40-42, 43, 56].

Admissions – Statement before Rent Controller – Defendant no.2 tendered rent to mortgagee Mahender Kumar in earlier Rent Act proceedings – Held: This amounts to clear admission of tenancy under mortgagee – No protest or denial of relationship recorded at that time – Courts below ignored binding admission – Reliance placed on Thimmappa Rai v. Ramanna Rai, where earlier admission held relevant and binding [Paras 44-46, 47].

Tenancy – Creation by Mortgagee – Legal Effect Upon Redemption – Defendant no.2 claimed continued tenancy after redemption – Held: Tenancy created by mortgagee comes to end upon redemption unless expressly agreed otherwise – No such clause in mortgage deed – Reliance placed on Thakar Singh v. Mula Singh (2015) 5 SCC 209 – Further supported by All India Film Corporation Ltd. v. Raja Gyan Nath and Jadavji Purshottam v. Dhami Navnitbhai – Courts below erred in holding tenancy survived redemption – Proper remedy, if any, lies under Rent Act but not applicable here [Paras 57-59].

Presumption – Registered and Old Documents – Mortgage Deed and Rent Note were registered and over 30 years old at time of tendering – Held: Section 90 of Evidence Act presumes authenticity of documents 30 years old – Section 68 also presumes due execution of registered document unless specifically denied – Courts below failed to apply these legal presumptions properly – Findings reversed [Paras 36-39].

Witness Credibility – Testimony of DW3 and DW4 – Courts below relied on deposition of neighbours to hold that defendant no.2 was inducted by Ishwar Dayal – Held: DW3 and DW4 gave vague, inconclusive statements – Neither witnessed induction nor offered reliable timeline – Courts misread depositions to arrive at erroneous conclusion – Findings based on misappreciation of evidence [Paras 53-55].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgments and decrees of Trial Court and First Appellate Court set aside – Suit of plaintiffs decreed – Plaintiffs entitled to possession of suit shop on redemption upon payment of Rs. 2,000/- to defendant no.1 – Pending applications disposed of [Para 60].

Public Contracts – Delay in Submission of Security – Blacklisting – Proportionality – Contractor failed to submit APS and ISD by 22.07.2024 due to illness and deposited on 24.07.2024 – Explained delay with medical certificate – Tender cancelled, portal registration blocked, and contractor blacklisted for three years – Held: Delay of two days was due to bona fide and uncontrollable cause – No show-cause issued prior to blacklisting – Action disproportionate and contrary to Clause 23 of OPWD Code – Orders of blocking portal and blacklisting quashed – Authorities directed to restore portal access and bidding rights [Paras 10–12].

Natural Justice – Requirement of Show Cause and Reasons – Decision to blacklist contractor taken without clear show-cause notice or reasoning – Mere participation in tender implies acceptance of conditions, but penal consequences must follow due process – Action held arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice [Paras 10.6, 12.2–12.4].

Judicial Review – Scope under Article 226 – Court reaffirms limits of administrative discretion in blacklisting – Interference warranted when procedure violated and proportionality not maintained – Actions affecting livelihood attract higher scrutiny [Paras 11–12].

Decision:

Writ petition allowed – Orders of blocking portal registration and blacklisting for three years quashed – Authorities directed to restore petitioner’s eligibility to participate in future tenders.

Election Law – Panchayat Elections – Corrupt Practice – Disqualification – Declaration of Returned Candidate as Void – Declaration of Another Candidate as Elected – Non-disclosure of criminal antecedents by returned candidate amounts to corrupt practice and election liable to be declared void – However, declaration of an unelected candidate as elected can be made only if statutory conditions are fulfilled – In absence of allegation or finding that but for corrupt votes the election petitioner would have secured majority of valid votes, declaration of another candidate as elected is impermissible – Tribunal erred in law in declaring respondent No.4 as elected [Paras 11–13].

Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 – Sections 89 and 90 – Distinction Between Disqualification and Corrupt Practice – Section 89(1)(a) relates to disqualification existing on date of election – Section 89(1)(b) concerns corrupt practices affecting election – In cases of disqualification, votes polled by disqualified candidate cannot automatically be treated as “thrown away” – Law does not permit presumption as to voting pattern had the disqualified candidate not contested – Ratio reiterated from Supreme Court precedents [Paras 10–12].

Election Tribunal – Procedural Lapses – Mandatory Duty to Follow CPC Procedure – Election petition decided without framing issues, without calling for written response and without recording evidence – Tribunal devised its own procedure ignoring mandatory statutory framework – Election petitions are akin to civil trials and strict adherence to procedure under CPC is mandatory – Failure to frame issues and conduct trial vitiates entire proceedings [Paras 14–15].

Framing of Issues – Importance – Democratic Rights at Stake – Settlement of issues is foundational stage of election trial – Issues determine scope of evidence and adjudication – Tribunal’s casual approach in deciding election petition without issues reflects non-application of mind – Election disputes affect fate of constituency and democratic process, hence require strict procedural compliance [Paras 14–15].

Supervisory and Appellate Interference – Election Matters – High Court justified in setting aside Tribunal’s order where it suffers from patent illegality and procedural impropriety – Tribunal’s order held unsustainable both in law and procedure – Matter remanded for fresh adjudication in accordance with law [Paras 15–16].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order dated 06.03.2025 passed by Election Tribunal, Sri Muktsar Sahib set aside – Matter remanded to Tribunal for fresh decision after framing issues and recording evidence – Tribunal directed to decide election petition expeditiously, preferably on or before 30.06.2026.

Criminal Law – Bail – Cancellation – Anticipatory bail granted by Sessions Judge and confirmed by ACJM in serious offence of abduction and murder – Opposite party, a WBCS officer, allegedly masterminded the act using official vehicle and position – High Court held that anticipatory bail was granted without considering gravity of offence and role of accused – Bail cancelled [Paras 12-17]

Criminal Procedure – Section 438 CrPC and Section 483 BNSS – Jurisdiction of Court – Objection raised by accused that the matter was not listed before the correct Bench – Held: Issue of cancellation of bail rightly referred to Court exercising powers under Section 439 CrPC, as anticipatory bail stands exhausted once the accused surrenders and is granted bail – Court competent to adjudicate [Paras 15-16]

Evidentiary Material – Ocular and Electronic Evidence – Case diary revealed multiple eyewitnesses identifying accused in act of abduction, assault, and concealment of body – CCTV footage and post-mortem report corroborate – Affidavit by injured eyewitness recorded under Section 164 CrPC – Role of accused held to be principal and premeditated [Paras 11-13]

Judicial Discretion – Exercise of Bail Jurisdiction – Sessions Court granted anticipatory bail solely on the ground that accused is a government officer – ACJM mechanically followed Sessions order without independent reasoning – Held: Bail orders passed without application of mind and in ignorance of relevant facts are perverse and liable to be set aside [Paras 14, 17]

Court Procedure – Affidavit Irregularity – Affidavit submitted by State was blank in material parts and still affirmed by Commissioner – Court imposed cost of ₹10,000 on Oath Commissioner for gross negligence – Registrar directed to recover the same [Para 18]

Decision: Impugned orders dated 26.11.2025 (Sessions Court) and 29.11.2025 (ACJM) set aside – Bail cancelled – Accused directed to surrender within 72 hours – Cost imposed on Oath Commissioner.

Writ Jurisdiction – Direction for Registration of FIR – Housing Project Dispute – Petitioners sought directions under Article 226 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for investigation by CVC/CBI and registration of FIR against NBCC and its joint venture partner for alleged violations of statutory directions, poor construction, misappropriation of funds and cheating – Held: High Court in writ jurisdiction does not ordinarily direct registration of FIR, particularly where allegations arise out of contractual and commercial disputes requiring factual adjudication [Paras 1, 31–33].

Criminal Law – Distinction between Civil Disputes and Criminal Offences – Allegations primarily related to delay in construction, quality of construction, lack of amenities, maintenance issues, non-formation of RWA and unilateral levy of charges – Such issues held to be essentially civil in nature arising from contractual obligations between builder and allottees – Criminal colour cannot be imparted merely by alleging cheating or fraud without clear prima facie criminal intent [Paras 28–30].

Writ Jurisdiction – Article 226 – Disputed Questions of Fact – Petition involved disputed factual issues concerning compliance with NOCs, construction standards, environmental norms and maintenance obligations – Held: Such disputed questions cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings and require evidence – Writ petition not maintainable [Paras 29–30].

Alternate Remedies – Availability under Statutory Law – Court held that Petitioners have efficacious alternate remedies under Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate for alleged cognizable offences and before civil courts, consumer fora or regulatory authorities for grievances relating to construction defects, delay, amenities and maintenance – Writ jurisdiction declined [Para 32].

Direction to Investigating Agencies – Limits of Judicial Review – Prayer for court-monitored investigation by CBI/CVC rejected – Held: Extraordinary writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to bypass statutory remedies or convert civil disputes into criminal proceedings [Paras 31–33].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – No direction for registration of FIR or investigation issued – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 33–34].

Criminal Law – Food Adulteration – Misbranding – Reversal of Conviction – Accused prosecuted for selling misbranded soy sauce bottles lacking batch number and vegetarian symbol – Convicted by Trial Court under Section 16(1)(a)(i) PFA Act and sentenced to six months' simple imprisonment – First Appellate Court acquitted the accused – Held: Appellate Court rightly found that prosecution failed to prove misbranding at the time of sampling – No mention of missing label elements in Panchnama – Food Inspector failed to recall label details during trial – Independent witness did not corroborate prosecution case – Prosecution's reliance solely on Public Analyst report without establishing foundational facts created serious doubt about offence – Acquittal upheld – Appeal dismissed [Paras 13–16]

Appellate Review – Presumption of Innocence – Double Presumption – Appellate Court reiterated that once a trial court acquits an accused, presumption of innocence is reinforced – Appellate court must be slow in interfering unless acquittal is found perverse or unreasonable – No such perversity shown in the present case [Paras 9–11]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal by First Appellate Court upheld – Accused acquitted – Bail bonds discharged.

Service Law – Regularization – Clause 4(C) of Model Standing Orders – Industrial Court allowed complaints directing NMC to grant permanency to Safai Karmacharis who had completed 240 days' service annually – High Court held that Clause 4(C) does not confer automatic right to regularization in absence of sanctioned posts – Orders granting such relief without sanctioned posts are unsustainable [Paras 37–41].

Labour Law – Applicability of Model Standing Orders (MSO) – NMC argued that it had Certified Standing Orders and MSO was not applicable – Court rejected this objection, relying on NMC v. Ramchandra Sathe – However, held that even if MSO applies, right to permanency under Clause 4(C) cannot override statutory requirements under Municipal Acts regarding sanctioned posts [Paras 19, 35] –

Unfair Labour Practice – Item 6 & 9 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act – Industrial Court declared NMC guilty of unfair labour practice for continuing workers as daily wagers despite long service – High Court held that such a declaration cannot be sustained where appointments were not against sanctioned posts and regularization was not permissible under law – Declaration quashed [Paras 38, 40] –

Public Employment – Regularization and Creation of Posts – Citing Umadevi, Hari Nandan Prasad, Ilmo Devi, and others – Court reaffirmed that no right to regularization accrues without sanctioned post – Courts cannot create posts or mandate their creation – Merely working for years does not entitle regular status unless service was against sanctioned post [Paras 28–29, 32–35] –

Judicial Precedent – Conflicting View in Recent Judgments – Court noted judgments favoring regularization based on nature of work (e.g., Jaggoo, Shripal) did not reconcile with earlier binding precedents like MSRTC v. Casteribe and Tulsidas Bindhade – Held: Earlier Division Bench decisions are binding; newer views deviating from settled law are not to be followed [Paras 24–27, 36] –

Administrative Action – Regularization via Policy – NMC had already regularized complainants against 4407 supernumerary posts created by State Government – Their past service was not counted as per policy – Held: This does not violate MSO or amount to unfair labour practice – Policy decision upheld [Paras 39, 41] –

Decision: Writ Petitions allowed – Impugned Industrial Court judgments directing regularization/quasi-permanency on basis of Clause 4(C) MSO set aside – Complaints dismissed – Industrial Court erred in holding NMC guilty of unfair labour practice where no sanctioned post existed [Paras 42–43].

Civil Law - Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Rejection of plaint – Daughter claiming share in ancestral/urbanised land – Mutation entries and Section 50 DLR Act relied upon to non-suit plaintiff – Held: plaint disclosed triable cause of action – issues of coparcenary, succession, limitation and applicability of special law require evidence – rejection set aside – suit restored [Paras 11–32].

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) CPC – Scope – Court to examine plaint averments alone and not conduct mini trial – Existence of cause of action to be tested on pleadings, not ultimate success – Where plaint discloses triable issues, rejection impermissible [Paras 12–15, 29–30].

Succession – Ancestral Property – Daughter’s rights – Section 6 Hindu Succession Act (as amended in 2005) – Plaintiff pleaded property as ancestral and unpartitioned – Detailed proof of creation of HUF or coparcenary not required at pleading stage – Whether property is ancestral or self-acquired is mixed question of law and fact to be decided at trial [Paras 19–20, 28–29].

Mutation – Revenue Records – Effect – Mutation entries neither create nor extinguish title – Only for fiscal purposes – Mutation in favour of sons after father’s death does not defeat substantive inheritance rights of other legal heirs – Reliance on mutation to deny cause of action held erroneous [Paras 15, 18].

Delhi Land Reforms Act – Section 50 – Applicability – Succession to bhumidhari rights – Plaintiff pleaded that land stood urbanised in 2006 – Applicability of DLR Act post-urbanisation doubtful and requires evidence – Special law cannot be conclusively applied at threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Paras 17–18, 27].

Hindu Succession Act – Section 4(2) (since omitted) – Effect – After omission of Section 4(2), succession governed by HSA even in respect of agricultural land – Plaintiff’s claim raised post-2005 – Whether DLR Act continues to govern succession requires adjudication on facts and law [Paras 17, 24–27].

Limitation – Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC – Mixed question of law and fact – Where plaint pleads continuing cause of action, fraud and later knowledge of alienations, limitation cannot be decided at threshold [Paras 22].

Order II Rule 2 CPC – Bar – Requires comparison of pleadings of previous suits – Such inquiry impermissible at stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Para 21].

Precedents – Applicability – Judgments rejecting vague HUF claims distinguished – Where plaint contains categorical averments of ancestral property and subsisting joint status, rejection at threshold not justified [Paras 23, 28].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order dated 01.12.2022 set aside – Suit restored to original number – Parties directed to appear before learned Single Judge – All pending applications disposed of [Paras 31–34].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Scope and Limits – Appellants sought quashing of FIR and summoning order at pre-trial stage – Court reiterated that inherent jurisdiction can be exercised only where allegations, taken at face value, do not disclose commission of any offence – High Court cannot conduct a mini trial or assess veracity of evidence at cognizance stage [Paras 18–21].

Cognizance – Order of Summoning – Judicial Restraint – Cognizance is taken of offence and not offender – At stage of taking cognizance, Magistrate only to see existence of prima facie material – Detailed reasoning or evaluation of evidence not required – Interference warranted only if order is perverse or based on no material [Paras 21–23].

Criminal Law – Contradictions and Improvements – Stage of Consideration – Alleged inconsistencies between FIR, additional complaint, Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement and supplementary statement – Court held that appreciation of contradictions, improvements and credibility of witnesses is matter for trial or stage of charge – Not a ground for quashing proceedings [Paras 19, 25].

SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – Prima Facie Case – Public View and Knowledge of Caste – Allegations of casteist abuse made in additional complaint, Section 164 statement and supplementary statement – Presence of labourers and neighbours alleged – Prima facie ingredients disclosed – Issues regarding public view, intention to humiliate and applicability of specific clauses to be examined at trial [Paras 24–25].

Criminal Law – Section 308 IPC – Nature of Injury – Simple injury and intention to cause death – Court held that determination whether offence under Section 308 IPC is made out depends on evidence and surrounding circumstances – Such assessment impermissible at stage of quashing [Paras 6–7, 25].

Official Duty – Requirement of Sanction – Section 197 Cr.P.C. – Plea that acts were in discharge of official duty – Held: Whether acts complained of have reasonable nexus with official duty is a mixed question of fact and law – To be considered at appropriate stage and not at threshold [Paras 7, 25].

Cross FIR – Effect – Existence of counter FIR regarding same incident – Held: Cross cases reinforce need for full-fledged trial – Cannot be ground to quash proceedings at inception [Para 24].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Order dated 25.01.2024 taking cognizance upheld – FIR not quashed – Liberty granted to appellants to raise all pleas at stage of framing of charge – Trial Court to decide uninfluenced by observations made in judgment.