Property Law – Redemption of Mortgage – Appeal challenging the judgment reversing the trial court's decision on the respondents' suit for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction regarding property mortgaged in 1946 – Respondents claimed the property and challenged its mutation as evacuee property – Trial Court dismissed the suit, ruling the property vested in the custodian after the mortgagee's migration – Appellate Court reversed, declaring respondents' ownership due to non-redemption within 30 years and no limitation on redemption – High Court upheld Appellate Court's decision, citing the Supreme Court's interpretation of usufructuary mortgage rights under Section 62 of the Transfer of Property Act [Paras 1-11].

Mortgage Redemption – Limitation – Conflicting judicial views on redemption rights under Section 62 of the Transfer of Property Act – High Court affirmed no limitation period applies for redemption under usufructuary mortgages where possession remains with the mortgagee until mortgage money is recovered – Appellants' right to auction property as per Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act dismissed [Paras 8-10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – First appellate court's decree upheld – Respondents declared owners in possession of the suit property – Mutations in favor of custodian department invalid [Para 11].
 

Service Law – Dismissal for Unauthorized Absence – Appellant, a police constable, dismissed for absence from duty without leave from 25.12.1989 to 28.12.1989 and from 22.01.1990 to 27.03.1991 – Appeal contends dismissal was illegal and not in compliance with principles of natural justice and Punjab Police Rules – Lower courts upheld dismissal based on misconduct – High Court affirms, emphasizing the importance of discipline in the police force [Paras 1-20]​​.

Procedural Compliance – Punjab Police Rules – Rule 16.38 regarding concurrence of District Magistrate not applicable as the absence did not involve a criminal offense with the public – Rule 16.2 justifying dismissal for gravest acts of misconduct upheld – High Court rejects contention that departmental enquiry was flawed [Paras 8-12]​​.

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Dismissal upheld – Court finds no substantial question of law, affirms lower courts' findings on misconduct and procedural adherence [Paras 17-19]​​.

Master Circular on Wilful Defaulters – Interpretation and Application – Forensic Audit Report – Validity and Reliance – Writ petitions challenging the decision of the Willful Defaulter Identification Committee and the Review Committee (RC) of the Central Bank of India declaring the petitioners as willful defaulters. The main evidence relied upon by the First Committee was a Transaction Audit Report (TAR) prepared by M/s. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India, LLP. The TAR contained disclaimers regarding its conclusiveness, and its findings were not independently verified. NCLT and NCLAT had previously dismissed the reliance on the TAR in related insolvency proceedings. – Held that reliance solely on the TAR, which itself was inconclusive and discredited by judicial authorities, was improper and untenable. The Central Bank of India could not independently declare the petitioners as willful defaulters when the lead Bank, Punjab National Bank, had dropped the charges. – Decisions of both the First Committee and the RC set aside and quashed. [Paras 2-36]

Reliance on Forensic Audit Report – Inadequate Basis for Willful Defaulter Declaration – Analysis – Held – The sole reliance on the TAR by the First Committee and RC was unjustified. The TAR itself contained multiple disclaimers, stating that it was not conclusive, not independently verified, and not suitable for legal proceedings. The NCLT and NCLAT had rejected the TAR’s findings in related insolvency proceedings, making it untenable for the Central Bank to rely on it for declaring the petitioners as willful defaulters. [Paras 6-14, 15-18, 20, 22-24]

Procedural Irregularities – Natural Justice – Review Committee’s Decision – Held – The RC’s decision was grossly mechanical, clubbing twenty-one entities together without individualized reasoning, and was primarily based on the discredited TAR. The Supreme Court’s guidelines in State Bank of India vs. Jah Developers Private Limited were not followed, as no reasoned order was provided to the petitioners. – RC’s decision set aside for lack of adherence to due process and principles of natural justice. [Paras 31-34]

Decision – Quashing of Willful Defaulter Declaration – Court quashes the decisions of the Willful Defaulter Identification Committee and the Review Committee declaring the petitioners as willful defaulters. All consequential actions, including the uploading of the petitioners’ names as willful defaulters, to be reversed immediately. [Paras 35-36]

Criminal Law - Dishonour of Cheque - Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. - Conviction upheld by Special Judge (NDPS), Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi - Petitioner convicted under Section 138 N.I. Act for dishonour of cheque amounting to Rs.5,26,785/- - Sentenced to simple imprisonment for four months and fine of Rs.8,50,000/- with default clause - Fine amount directed to be paid to respondent.

Complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act - Allegation of dishonour of cheque issued in discharge of legal liability - Cheque issued for payment of goods received - Petitioner contested stating cheque particulars filled by clerical staff and goods returned due to defect - Legal notice served but payment not made.

Evidence and Trial Court Findings - Respondent presented evidence including bill, cheque, bank return memo, legal notice, and postal receipt - Petitioner admitted signatures on cheque but contested liability - Defence of return of goods not substantiated - No examination of transporter to confirm return - Trial Court presumed service of notice under Section 27 of General Clauses Act and held cheque issued for legally enforceable debt - Appellate Court upheld conviction and sentence.

Decision - Petitioner's defence of defective goods and return not proven - Failure to stop cheque payment or respond to legal notice considered indicative of liability - Distinguished from cases where cheques issued as advance payments for undelivered goods - Revisional Court found no perversity or jurisdictional error in concurrent findings - Revision petition dismissed.

Criminal Law – Conviction under Section 6 of POCSO Act, Section 506 IPC, and Section 323 IPC – Appeal against Trial Court’s Acquittal – High Court Reversal of Acquittal based on Victim's Testimony and Corroborative Evidence – Victim's consistent testimony, supported by medical evidence and corroborative witnesses, held sufficient for conviction despite delay in FIR – Reversed acquittal due to Trial Court’s misinterpretation of evidence and undue emphasis on minor contradictions [Paras 1-23, 25-106].

Delay in Reporting – High Court held delay in filing FIR not fatal – Explained delay due to victim’s fear and familial pressure – Victim’s testimony found credible and consistent despite delay – Case law cited to support that delay in sexual assault cases, particularly involving family members, can be condoned if satisfactorily explained [Paras 24-43].

Credibility of Testimony – High Court found victim to be a witness of sterling quality – Testimony consistent with initial statements and corroborated by mother and brother – Minor discrepancies considered trivial and not undermining the overall credibility – Legal precedent cited supporting reliance on victim’s sole testimony in sexual assault cases [Paras 44-96].

Acquittal Reversed – High Court found Trial Court’s judgment based on conjectures and misinterpretation of evidence – Guilt of accused established beyond reasonable doubt based on credible and corroborative testimony of the victim – Appeals allowed and respondent convicted under relevant sections [Paras 97-106].

Decision – Conviction Ordered – Held – The appeal is allowed, and the acquittal is reversed. Respondent convicted under Section 6 of POCSO Act, Sections 506 and 323 IPC. Sentencing arguments scheduled – Directions for victim impact report and confirmation of interim compensation [Paras 107-111].

Civil Procedure – Power to Amend and Strike Out Issues – Petition challenging the trial court’s order deleting certain issues in a civil suit and denying further cross-examination – High Court examined the validity of the trial court's suo moto deletion of issues and refusal to recall a witness for cross-examination on additional documents – Court reinstated two issues considering their relevance to the dispute but upheld the denial of further cross-examination – Jurisdiction under Article 227 explained as supervisory, not appellate [Paras 1-35].

Adoption and Property Dispute – Suit for possession and mesne profits of property involving complex family and adoption claims – Petitioner contested the suit claiming oral family settlement and disputed the adoption of respondent – Trial court deleted issues related to the adoption and nature of the property – High Court reinstated the issues concerning adoption and property characterization due to their critical role in resolving the dispute [Paras 1-5, 28-31].

Evidentiary Procedure – Application for further cross-examination denied – Trial court refused to recall respondent for cross-examination on new documents related to a will and probate order – High Court upheld the decision, finding no relevance or necessity for additional cross-examination on those documents [Paras 3, 13, 32-33].

Decision – Petition Partially Allowed – Held – The impugned order was set aside to the extent of deleting issue nos. 4 and 5, as they were deemed relevant to the case – The application for recalling the respondent for further cross-examination was rightly dismissed – High Court emphasized the limited scope of Article 227 jurisdiction for correcting grave errors rather than reassessing factual matters [Para 34-35].

Criminal Law – Anticipatory and Regular Bail – Appeals filed under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act – Appellants accused of abusing and threatening the complainant using casteist slurs – Complaint filed 14 days post-incident – Accused sought anticipatory bail (A1) and regular bail (A2) [Paras 1-4].

Delay in Filing Complaint and Nature of Dispute – Delay of 14 days in filing complaint – Complainant not an eyewitness – Complaint based on hearsay – Incident related to a civil dispute over allotment of sites [Paras 5-9].

Prima Facie Case and Applicability of SC/ST Act – Court found no prima facie case under SC/ST Act based on complaint – Cited Supreme Court's decision in Rahna Jalal v. State of Kerala, which allows anticipatory bail where no prima facie case under the Act is made out – Stringent conditions imposed to safeguard investigation process [Paras 10-13].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Appellant (A1) granted anticipatory bail – Appellant (A2) granted regular bail – Both appellants required to comply with specific conditions to prevent interference with the investigation and trial processes [Paras 13-13].

Patent Law – Inventive Step and Patentability – Appeal challenges the rejection of a patent application for a probiotic formulation involving Bifidobacterium longum NCIMB 41676 (AH1714) – Controller of Patents refused the application citing lack of inventive step and non-patentability under Sections 3(c), 3(d), and 3(e) – High Court assesses the distinctiveness and technical advancement of the claimed formulation over prior art [Paras 1-4, 16-24].

Prior Art and Synergistic Effects – Examination of prior art documents D1 to D5 revealed similar probiotic formulations – Key issue revolves around whether the properties of Bifidobacterium longum NCIMB 41676 (AH1714) demonstrate significant technical advancement – Appellant argues for the unique immunomodulatory properties and therapeutic benefits of the strain [Paras 9-11, 18-24].

Legal Standards for Obviousness – High Court applies jurisprudential guidelines from Biswanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v. Hindustan Metal Industries Ltd., Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. & Anr. v. Cipla Ltd. – Emphasizes the need for an objective assessment of obviousness without hindsight bias – Evaluates the inventive step based on a person skilled in the art (PSITA) framework [Paras 12-15, 21-24].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order set aside – Matter remanded to the Controller of Patents for fresh consideration – High Court directs a limited revaluation of the novelty and inventive step of the claimed formulation – Controller to provide a detailed analysis addressing specific questions regarding the novelty, technical advancement, and second medical use of the strain – Final decision to be rendered within four months [Paras 25-31].

Motor Vehicles Act – Motor Accident Claims – Negligence – Tribunal's Findings – Appeal by insurer challenging award for damages to respondent’s car – Accident caused by rash and negligent driving of an Alto car insured by appellant – Tribunal awarded Rs.1,07,447/- with interest – Appeal dismissed – Supreme Court principles on the nature of Tribunal proceedings and reliance on police reports as prima facie evidence of negligence upheld [Paras 1-11].

Evidence – Documentary Proof – Formally Proving Documents – Tribunal relied on survey report and repair bills – Appellant contended lack of formal proof – Court held that non-objection to documents at trial stage and their prima facie reliability justified Tribunal’s reliance [Paras 12-13].

Quantum of Compensation – Depreciation – Appellant argued for deduction based on vehicle's age – Tribunal accounted for depreciation in awarding lesser amount than claimed – No fault found in Tribunal’s method, adherence to established law on depreciation noted [Paras 14-15].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Tribunal's award upheld – No substantial questions of law or errors in Tribunal’s findings – Appellant directed to deposit remaining award amount within one month.