Cooperative Societies - Recovery of Loan from Estate of Deceased - Section 22 of Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 - Rule 17(2) of Punjab Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Rules, 1959 - Time-barred recovery - Borrower deceased on 27.12.2004 - Recovery notice issued on 17.10.2011 held time-barred - Debt recovery permissible only within two years of borrower's death - Resultant award dated 10.09.2013 declared non-est - Writ petition allowed, sale notice quashed. [Paras 1, 4, 7, 9]

Statutory Limitation - Enforcement of Debt - Award passed after the statutory period deemed unenforceable - Recovery actions initiated beyond prescribed two-year period from borrower’s death not maintainable - Reference to arbitrator and subsequent award invalidated due to delay - Quashing of sale notice affirmed. [Paras 7, 9]

Court's Reasoning - Precedent and Legal Interpretation - The Rajpura Janta Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. v. State of Punjab applied - Emphasis on statutory limitation for enforcing debt from deceased’s estate - Differentiation from Lalq Singh’s case which did not involve Section 22 of the Act - Decision guided by precedents establishing time-bar for recovery actions. [Paras 4, 7, 8]

Decision:

The writ petition is allowed. The recovery notice issued by the Bank and the resultant arbitration award are quashed. The recovery of the loan amount from the estate of the deceased borrower is time-barred, as it was not initiated within two years of the borrower's death.

Family Law - Custody of Children - Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 - Sections 8, 12, 25 - Custody granted to father despite pending FIR for abetment of wife's suicide - Acquittal from charges pivotal in deciding custody - Held, FIR under Section 306 IPC against the father cannot alone be a ground to deprive him of the custody of his children, especially when acquitted - Welfare of the children remains the paramount consideration - Appeal dismissed. [Para 6, 13, 14]

Custody Rights - Acquittal and Welfare of Minors - Father's acquittal from charges under Section 306 IPC signifies no bar on exercising natural guardianship rights - Court emphasizes children's welfare over unproven allegations - Maternal grandparents' custody rejected as children’s welfare better served with father - Preference to natural guardian upheld unless proven unfit. [Paras 11, 13]

Court's Reasoning - Presumption of Welfare with Natural Guardian - Supreme Court precedents underscore welfare of minors as primary consideration - Preferential right of natural guardian (father) upheld post-acquittal - Allegations without conviction insufficient to deny custody - Children's welfare presumed to align with natural parents’ care. [Paras 11, 13, 14]

Decision:

The appeal is dismissed. The order dated 03.12.2018 by the Guardian Judge, Ludhiana, granting custody of the children to the respondent-father is upheld. No illegality or infirmity in the trial court’s order warranting interference is found.

Partnership Law - Dissolution and Tenancy Rights - Section 48 of Partnership Act, 1932 - The issue of whether tenancy rights, post-dissolution of a partnership firm, transfer to individual partners as separate tenants or remain as joint tenancy - Held, upon dissolution, tenancy rights do not transfer to individual partners but remain as joint tenancy - The erstwhile partners become joint tenants with no individual tenancy rights in any part of the property. [Para 13]

Suit for Possession by Ex-Partners - Maintainability - Whether an ex-partner of a dissolved firm can maintain a suit for possession against the landlord after the surrender of the premises by other partners - Held, once possession of the tenanted premises is surrendered by the ex-partners, the tenancy ends - An ex-partner has no right to claim possession from the landlord and must seek remedies under the Partnership Act against other ex-partners - The suit for possession against the landlord is not maintainable. [Para 15, 18]

Court's Analysis - Tenancy Inheritance and Joint Tenancy - Upon dissolution, tenancy rights remain joint and do not confer individual tenancy rights to the former partners - Supreme Court precedent in Suresh Kumar Kohli v. Rakesh Jain applied - Tenancy rights terminate upon the surrender of possession by ex-partners - The claim for individual tenancy rights post-dissolution is invalid. [Para 13, 14, 18]

Decision:

The Regular Second Appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court are set aside, restoring the trial court's decision. The ex-partners' remedies lie under the Partnership Act, and the tenancy rights ceased upon the surrender of possession.

Service Law - Seniority - Inter-Charge Transfer - Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16 - CBDT Circular dated 14.05.1990 - Petitioners transferred on compassionate grounds claim seniority from the date of joining the parent region - Seniority determined region-wise, transfer on request results in placement at the bottom of seniority list in the new region - Petitioners' seniority correctly fixed per circular, previous service not counted in new region - Petition dismissed. [Paras 6, 7, 8, 13]

Inter-Charge Transfer - Circular Compliance - Seniority in New Region - CBDT Circular mandates that service in the old region is not considered for seniority in the new charge - Petitioners' request for inter-charge transfer granted, seniority fixed at the bottom in the new region - Tribunal's decision to uphold seniority determination as per CBDT Circular dated 14.05.1990 found correct - Transfer on compassionate grounds without promotion benefit. [Paras 7, 8, 12]

Legal Principle - Applicability of DOPT Instructions - Petitioners' reliance on Ministry of DOPT instructions dated 11.11.2010 - Instructions of the concerned department (CBDT) take precedence over general instructions of DOPT - CBDT specific instructions govern the seniority issue in inter-charge transfers - Petitioners' seniority claims based on DOPT instructions not applicable. [Paras 10, 11]

Decision:

The writ petition is dismissed. The orders dated 04.04.2018 and 04.07.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, are upheld. Petitioners' seniority in the new region is correctly fixed at the bottom of the list as per CBDT Circular dated 14.05.1990, excluding their service in the previous region. No illegality or infirmity found in the Tribunal's orders.

Criminal Law - Probation - Sections 360, 361 of Cr.P.C. - Sections 3, 12 of Probation of Offenders Act - Purpose of criminal law to reform individuals and maintain societal harmony - Petitioner convicted for forgery to obtain a loan - Sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years - Petitioner's appeal dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge - High Court holds the trial and appellate courts failed to consider probation - Petitioner ordered to be released on probation for one year. [Paras 1, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25]

Reformative Justice - Sections 360, 361 of Cr.P.C. - Sections 3, 12 of Probation of Offenders Act - Courts must consider age, character, antecedents, and circumstances of the offense before sentencing - Probation allows offenders to reform - Magistrate and appellate court must record reasons for not granting probation - Conviction upheld but sentence set aside in favor of probation. [Paras 22, 24, 25]

Court's Reasoning - Judicial Precedents and Legislative Intent - Supreme Court in Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) emphasized balance between punitive and reformative justice - Probation aimed at rehabilitation - Sections 360 and 361 Cr.P.C. mandate consideration of probation - Chandreshwar Sharma v. State of Bihar reiterated mandatory duty to consider probation. [Paras 19, 23, 24]

Decision:

The revision petition is allowed. The conviction of the petitioner under Sections 420 and 471 IPC is upheld. However, the substantive sentence of imprisonment is set aside. The petitioner is ordered to be released on probation for a period of one year, subject to executing bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned, undertaking to keep peace and be of good behavior for the said period, and to appear and receive the sentence if called upon. The petitioner is directed to pay Rs. 25,000 as costs of litigation to the State.

Civil Procedure - Registration of Decree - Section 100 of CPC - Whether a judgment and decree passed by a court acknowledging a prior family settlement with respect to a self-acquired property of a common ancestor is compulsorily registrable - Held, No - Family settlements acknowledged by court decrees do not require registration unless property is transferred through a decree - Appeal allowed, and First Appellate Court's decision reversed. [Para 11]

Civil Procedure - Nondisclosure of Previous Suit - Order 7 Rule 1(j) - Whether a judgment and decree can be set aside for nondisclosure of a previous suit in the plaint - Held, No - Absence of provision mandating dismissal of a suit for nondisclosure of previous litigation - Amendment by Punjab does not mandate dismissal - Appeal allowed on this ground as well. [Para 14]

Civil Procedure - Bar to Subsequent Suits - Order 23 Rule 1(4) - Whether bar to maintainability under Order 23 Rule 1(4) can be invoked without examining pleadings of both suits - Held, No - For proving subsequent suit is barred, pleadings of both suits must be examined - Appeal allowed on this ground. [Para 17]

Evidence Law - Proof of Will - Section 68 of Evidence Act - Whether a registered will executed by a common ancestor duly proved can be held surrounded by suspicious circumstances on basis of conjectures and surmises - Held, No - Suspicious circumstances must have solid foundation - Courts erred in finding will suspicious without concrete evidence - Appeal allowed, and will upheld. [Paras 18, 21]

Decision:

The Regular Second Appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court are set aside. The suit filed by the plaintiffs is dismissed. All pending miscellaneous applications are also disposed of.

Criminal Law - Abetment of Suicide - Sections 107 and 306 IPC - Essential ingredients for abetment under Section 306 IPC include provocation, incitement, or inducement to commit suicide - Accused must have intended their acts to drive the deceased to commit suicide - Delay in lodging FIR casts doubt on prosecution's version - No evidence of active role or mens rea on part of appellants to instigate suicide - Deceased appeared overly sensitive to ordinary petulance and discord - Appeal allowed, conviction set aside. [Paras 10, 11, 12, 13]

Mens Rea - Intention to Abet Suicide - Section 107 IPC - Mens rea, or intention, is crucial for abetment - Words uttered in rage or emotion without intent do not constitute instigation - Degree of sensitivity varies; it is the accused's intent that is pivotal, not the deceased's reaction - Deceased’s hypersensitivity and reaction to ordinary disputes not sufficient for abetment charge. [Paras 11, 12]

Court's Reasoning - Examination of Facts and Evidence - Delayed FIR and general allegations insufficient for conviction - Essential elements of Sections 107 and 306 IPC, including mens rea and direct instigation, missing - Supreme Court precedents emphasize careful scrutiny of facts to ensure fairness in abetment cases - Conviction cannot be sustained on vague or generalized accusations. [Paras 10, 11, 12, 13]

Decision:

The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 306 IPC by the Addl. Sessions Judge (Ad), Amritsar, are set aside. The appellants are acquitted and ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Medical Reimbursement - Treatment Abroad - Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India - Petitioner's claim for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred during treatment abroad at Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, Australia, from 06.02.2012 to 10.02.2012 - Claim for reimbursement of travel expenses for petitioner and wife also made - Held, travelling allowance does not include airfare for overseas medical treatment under current government policy - No explicit clause in policy dated 25.01.1999 to support airfare for attendant - Petitioner's treatment abroad undertaken without prior approval from State Medical Board - Claim for full reimbursement including travel expenses not supported by instructions or policy - Petition dismissed. [Paras 1, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13]

Court’s Reasoning - Medical Reimbursement Policy - Definition of travelling allowance limited to travel undertaken within the foreign country, not international travel - Approval from State Medical Board mandatory for reimbursement of medical expenses for treatment abroad - Petitioner failed to obtain prior approval - Instructions dated 25.01.1991 revised and superseded by guidelines dated 13.02.1995 - Reimbursement granted as per Director, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab rates - No provision for reimbursement of international travel expenses. [Paras 6, 7, 12, 13]

Decision:

The writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is not entitled to full reimbursement of medical expenses including travel expenses for himself and his wife for treatment undertaken abroad without prior approval from the State Medical Board. The reimbursement already granted is upheld, and no further interference in the impugned order is warranted.

Motor Vehicles Act - Survival of Claim - Sections 110-A, 166 - Indian Succession Act - Section 306 - Death of injured claimant during appeal - Claim for personal injuries abates if death not due to injuries - Legal representatives can prosecute claim for loss of estate - Legal representatives entitled to prosecute for enhancement of compensation related to loss of estate but not for personal injuries. [Para 24]

Compensation for Personal Injuries and Loss of Estate - Claims abate with death if unrelated to injuries - Legal representatives can claim for loss of estate - Compensation related to medical expenses, loss of earnings during treatment, and other pecuniary losses included in estate - Non-pecuniary damages for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and future income not prosecutable by legal representatives unless death is injury-related. [Paras 24, 27, 33]

Court's Reasoning - Modified Action Personal Law - Section 306 of Succession Act permits survival of most claims to legal representatives except for personal injuries not causing death - Compensation merges into estate if awarded during claimant’s life - Legal representatives can defend and claim awarded compensation forming part of estate. [Paras 24, 25, 31]

Decision:

The appeal is partly allowed. The legal representatives are entitled to payment of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and additional amounts under heads of transportation, special diet, and attendant charges, loss of earnings during medical treatment, and loss of earnings due to permanent disability till the claimant's death. Total enhanced compensation of ₹73,180/- is awarded with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing the petition till realization.