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.

Land Transaction & Dispute – Appellant’s acquisition of land through unregistered sale deed followed by regularization under Section 5-A of ROR Act – Subsequent cancellation of pattadar passbook and title deed by RDO and Joint Collector on appeal by the 5^th respondent claiming forgery and fraud. [Para 3]

Jurisdictional Error in Appeal – Revenue Divisional Officer and Joint Collector’s orders challenged – Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad held no appeal against issuance of pattadar passbook and title deed under Section 6-A of ROR Act – Appeal before the 3^rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer against issuance of pattadar passbook under Section 6-A found not maintainable. [Paras 6-7]

Decision – Writ Appeal allowed – Orders of Revenue Divisional Officer and Joint Collector set aside due to lack of jurisdiction – Parties left to seek appropriate remedies before the appropriate forum in accordance with law – No order as to costs. [Para 8]

Acquittal – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) – Criminal Appeal against Special Court, Bathinda's judgment convicting under Sections 21 and 22 NDPS Act – High Court sets aside conviction – Finds prosecution's case unconvincing and lacking substantial proof – Highlights flaws in prosecution’s presentation and handling of evidence – Noted discrepancies in recovery process and involvement of independent witness – Held, stringent punishment demands stricter proof – Accused acquitted of all charges. [Paras 9-20]

Recovery of Contraband – Analysis – Prosecution alleged recovery of Methamphetamine and Codeine from appellants – Independent witness negates prosecution’s claim of recovery in his presence – Doubts raised over the credibility of police's version and handling of evidence – High Court finds prosecution's story implausible, particularly with regard to two persons carrying a bag of minor weight jointly – Appellants acquitted due to lack of convincing evidence. [Paras 14, 17-18]

Decision – Acquittal of Appellants – High Court observes that prosecution failed to establish a convincing case beyond reasonable doubt – Noted discrepancies in recovery process and inconsistencies in testimonies – Emphasizes the need for stricter proof in cases involving stringent penalties – Conviction under Sections 21 and 22 of NDPS Act set aside – Appellants acquitted of all charges. [Para 19-20]

Delay in filing written statement - Strike off of defence - Civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Petition filed by defendants seeking to set aside order striking off their defence for failure to file written statement within 90 days - Plaintiff filed suit for recovery of Rs.15,96,501/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. - Defendants alleged to have good family and business relations with plaintiff - Plaintiff issued cheque of Rs.1,25,000/- to defendants for expansion of their business - Defendants failed to file written statement within stipulated period, resulting in ex parte proceedings - Defendants sought setting aside of ex parte order, which was allowed - However, defendants again failed to file written statement within extended period, leading to striking off of their defence - Defendants challenged said order in revision petition - Held, provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC regarding filing of written statement are directory, not mandatory - Court possesses discretion to condone delay in filing written statement, particularly in non-commercial disputes - Ends of justice served by condoning delay subject to payment of costs - Defendants granted one more opportunity to file written statement - Revision petition allowed, impugned order set aside subject to payment of costs - Defendants directed to file written statement within specified time frame, failing which no further opportunity shall be granted - Plaintiff entitled to seek recalling of order if valid grounds presented - Petition disposed accordingly.