Civil Procedure – Appeal against judgment and decree – Appellant filed appeal under Section 96 of the CPC challenging a judgment and decree passed in a suit filed by the respondent – Suit filed for recovery of a loan amount – Appellant had initially sought leave to defend, which was granted conditionally – Appellant failed to comply with the condition, leading to the passing of the impugned judgment. [Para 1-8]

Summary Procedure – Order XXXVII of the CPC provides for a summary procedure for expeditious disposal of suits – Timelines under this procedure must be strictly followed – Trial Court granted sufficient opportunity to the appellant, including conditional leave to defend. [Para 15-17]

Compliance with Conditions – Appellant's contentions regarding lack of awareness of the conditions imposed were rejected by the Trial Court – Appellant's subsequent application and appeal seen as afterthoughts to evade liability – Procedure under Order XXXVII Rule 3(6)(b) of the CPC followed, allowing judgment for the plaintiff. [Para 18-22]

Appeal Dismissed – The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent – Amount deposited by the appellant released to the respondent in partial satisfaction of the decree. [Para 23]

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) - Petitioner highlights the inaction of the University Grants Commission (UGC) regarding unspecified courses in universities/institutions/colleges - Petitioner seeks various reliefs related to standardization of degree nomenclature and accountability of UGC officials. [Para 1-3]

Lapses and Inconsistencies - Petitioner argues that the lack of adherence to UGC regulations leads to students being conferred with unrecognized degrees, wasting time and resources - Highlights UGC's notification specifying degree nomenclature. [Para 4-6]

Section 22 of UGC Act - Section 22 of the UGC Act, 1956 is discussed, emphasizing the mandatory nature of conferring degrees only by recognized institutions - Petitioner claims that some universities violate this provision. [Para 7]

Violation of Fundamental Rights - Petitioner alleges that conferring unspecified degrees violates students' fundamental rights under Article 21 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India - Also claims discrimination under Article 14. [Para 11-13]

Supreme Court Judgment - Petitioner refers to the Supreme Court's judgment in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corp. Ltd. v. Rabi Shankar Patro and Ors., highlighting the role of UGC in regulating education and the need for effective implementation of regulations. [Para 13]

Section 13 of UGC Act - Section 13 of the UGC Act, 1956 is mentioned, and the petitioner suggests interpreting "may" as "shall" to ensure the prescribed education standards are met. [Para 14]

Penalties - Petitioner criticizes the relatively low penalty of one thousand rupees mentioned in Section 24 of the UGC Act, 1956 for contravention of Sections 22 and 23 - Claims UGC's lack of enforcement leads to litigation and problems for students. [Para 16]

Previous Writ Petition - Petitioner withdrew a previous writ petition and moved this PIL due to the systemic issues and lack of enforcement by UGC officials. [Para 17]

UGC's Actions - Counter-affidavit by Respondent no. 2 (UGC) mentions UGC's efforts to communicate and ensure compliance with Section 22 of the UGC Act, 1956 by universities and colleges - UGC's notifications and letters to universities are highlighted. [Para 18-23]

Compliance Measures - UGC's efforts to maintain standards and compliance with regulations are detailed, including the publication of specified degrees and penalties for non-compliance. [Para 27-30]

Disposition - The PIL is disposed of with observations that UGC should take necessary actions to ensure compliance with the UGC Act, 1956. [Para 30-31]

Quashing of Appointment of Lambardar -  petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the order appointing respondent No. 4 as Lambardar, alleging erroneous acceptance of the revision petition and reversal of earlier orders - petitioner was initially appointed as Lambardar, but respondent No. 4 was appointed through revision - challenge to the order is based on grounds of suitability and character - Court conducts a comparative evaluation of age, qualification, and land holdings between the petitioner and respondent No. 4, taking into consideration Rule 15 of Punjab Land Revenue Rules - importance of personal character, influence, and integrity in the appointment of Lambardar is emphasized - finding perversity in the Collector's appointment, the Court remands the case for a fresh decision by the Collector - petition is partially allowed.

Civil Service Promotion – Challenge to non-promotion based on below benchmark Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs) – Petitioner seeks promotion to Grade IV with Grade Pay Rs. 8700/- – Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) recommended promotion for some officers but deferred consideration for 11 officers including the petitioner due to below benchmark APARs – Petitioner’s APARs were mostly ‘Outstanding’ except for one year rated as ‘Good’ – Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dismissed the original application (OA) – Petitioner’s claim for promotion challenged before the High Court. [Para 1-10]

Validity of Below Benchmark Grading – The Supreme Court’s ruling in Dev Dutt case highlighted that non-communication of below benchmark grading in Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) or APARs is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution – Such entries not communicated should not be considered for promotion to a higher grade. The case of Saroj Kumar reinforced this principle. [Para 27-28]

Effect of Rejection of Representation – The validity of the grading in APARs when the representation against it is rejected depends on whether the rejection is accompanied by valid reasons – In G.R. Meghwal case, the Supreme Court emphasized the need for valid reasons when rejecting a representation against below benchmark grading – Saroj Kumar case held that when the representation is rejected with a speaking order, it doesn’t need reassessment. [Para 29-32]

Way Forward – The petitioner’s representation against below benchmark grading was rejected without any reasoning – Absence of reasoning renders the APAR grading invalid – It cannot be considered for promotion – The Department should reconsider the petitioner’s case following guidelines in Chapter 54 of the Manual on Establishment and Administration for Central Government Offices, considering the years with ‘Outstanding’ grading and ignoring the ‘Good’ grading – The petitioner should be granted promotion on a notional basis from the year of DPC consideration, and retiral benefits and arrears should be recalculated accordingly. [Para 33-36]

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition – Challenge to FIR under section 366 IPC – Petitioners in a torrid affair from different religions – Allegation of enticement and elopement – Informant claims danger to her daughter – Petitioners seek protection for a live-in relationship – Age of the victim disputed – Allegations of mistreatment and physical abuse – Court rejects superficial submissions for quashing FIR – Court expresses reservations about such relationships and emphasizes the need for seriousness and sincerity – Rejects the petition, declining protection during the investigation. [Para 6-22]

Family Law – Divorce Appeal – Husband appeals against the family court’s decision of dismissing his divorce petition – Wife’s refusal to reside separately and allegations of cruelty against the husband cited as reasons for appeal. [Para 1-2]

Marital Behavior – Allegations of mental and emotional distress inflicted by the wife on the husband – Wife denies allegations and argues willingness to return to matrimonial home. [Para 2-4]

Maintenance – Wife granted monthly maintenance of Rs. 5500 under Section 125 of the CrPC – Husband contests this as a ground for divorce. [Para 3]

Counseling – Contradictions in parties' statements during counseling sessions – Husband unwilling to reside with wife, despite her stated willingness. [Para 4, 12]

Evidence – Both parties produce witnesses to substantiate their claims – Family Court finds insufficient proof of cruelty or desertion against the wife. [Para 5-6]

Decision – Court observes husband’s unwillingness to accommodate wife and failure to make efforts for restitution of conjugal rights – Appeal dismissed, family court judgment upheld. [Para 13-14]

Criminal Proceedings - Quashing of FIR under Section 306 IPC based on compromise - Legal position regarding quashing of criminal proceedings explained - The inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to quash criminal proceedings relating to non-compoundable offences, particularly those of a civil and personal nature, upon compromise, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. [Para 6-13]

Offence under Section 306 IPC - Abetment to commit suicide - Specific criteria for establishing an offence under Section 306 IPC discussed - The mere mention of the accused in a suicide note without specific allegations or attribution may not be sufficient to invoke Section 306 IPC. [Para 18-25]

Quashing of Proceedings - High Court's discretion to quash proceedings based on compromise - When allegations in the FIR do not constitute the offence under Section 306 IPC, and a compromise has been reached between the parties, quashing the proceedings serves the purpose of preventing the abuse of the court's process. [Para 9, 10]

Decision - The petition is accepted, and FIR No.180 dated 14.04.2022 registered under Section 306 IPC is quashed along with all subsequent proceedings arising from it. [Para 11]

Bail Application - Grant of regular bail to petitioners - Petitioners are accused in a case involving charges under Sections 307, 353, 186, and 34 IPC, Section 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, and Section 25 of the Arms Act - Petitioner Sukhchain Singh alias Bhujia withdrew his petition. [Para 3-4]

Bail Application - Petitioners Manpreet Singh alias Patwari and Gurjinder Singh alias Gurinder Singh alias Baba not named in the FIR - No recovery of firearms from them - No prior conspiracy established - Other accused named in the FIR - Alleged involvement based on disclosure statements - Petitioners in custody for an extended period - Trial likely to take time - Bail granted to petitioners subject to bail/surety bonds and non-involvement in any other criminal activity. [Para 5-13]

Legal Precedent - Citing "Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another," 2012 (2) SCC 382, highlighting that the accused's role in the case should be considered when deciding a bail application, and bail cannot be rejected solely based on previous criminal antecedents. [Para 10]

Decision - Petitions allowed, and petitioners ordered to be released on bail, with a cautionary note about potential bail cancellation if they engage in criminal activity or attempt to influence witnesses. [Para 13-16]

Criminal Offenses – Quashment of FIR and Charge Sheet – Application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing FIR and charge sheet – Allegations of commission of offense under Section 294 and 506 of IPC – Complaint based on allegations of abuse and threat – Examination of the factual matrix – Lack of specific allegations and necessary ingredients for the offenses – Mere use of abusive language and threats not sufficient to constitute offenses – Insufficient evidence to establish intent to cause alarm – Quashing of FIR and charge sheet justified. [Para 2-28]