Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Liability of Insured on Hiring a Driver - Owner's responsibility to take reasonable care in employing a qualified and competent driver - Not required to verify the genuineness of the driving license before hiring - Insurance company must prove the owner's negligence in hiring the driver with a fake license - Held, the insurer must show that the owner failed to exercise reasonable care in hiring the driver - Mere possession of a fake license by the driver is not sufficient to absolve the insurer from liability - Appeal dismissed. [Para 11]

Reasonable Care and Verification - Owner's obligation limited to checking the validity of the license and competence of the driver - Held, owners are not expected to verify the authenticity of the license with the licensing authority before hiring - The insurer must prove the owner's knowledge or negligence regarding the fake license to avoid liability - Recovery rights granted to the insurance company were justified. [Para 16]

Supreme Court Precedent - Reliance on National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Laxmi Narain Dhut - Fake or invalid license alone not a defense for the insurer against third parties - Insurer must establish owner's failure in exercising reasonable care - Held, liability on the insurer persists unless the owner's negligence is proven - Appeals dismissed based on established precedent. [Para 12]

Decision: Appeal dismissed. The owner’s responsibility to verify the driving license was fulfilled by checking its validity and the competence of the driver. The insurance company’s recovery rights against the owner are upheld. [Paras 19-23]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Interest on Compensation - Entire compensation deposited with the Land Acquisition Collector - Claimants deprived of withdrawing the compensation due to interim orders - Held, deposit was as good as non-deposit since claimants could not withdraw - Interest under Section 34 payable as rights stem from the statute - Interim orders cannot negate statutory rights - Appeals dismissed. [Para 13]

Doctrine of Actus Curiae NeminemGravabit - No act of the Court should harm any party - Compensation deposited in a non-operative account - Interest on compensation under Section 34 continues to accrue as claimants were deprived of its use - Held, the appellant cannot escape liability for interest by merely depositing the compensation - Claimants entitled to statutory interest for the deprivation period. [Para 15]

Principle of Restitution - Interim orders intended to protect the interests of both parties - Held, the appellant benefitted from interim orders by avoiding higher statutory interest - On dismissal of writ petition, claimants entitled to the difference between interest earned and statutory interest - Appeals devoid of merit. [Para 15]

Decision: Appeals dismissed. Appellant to pay the interest on compensation under Section 34 for the period claimants were deprived of the compensation. [Para 15]

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Bona Fide Necessity of Landlord - Petition for eviction based on the need for premises for landlord's unmarried sister to open a boutique - Dependency of the relative on the landlord not required to be proved - Held, non-averment of such requirement in the eviction petition is not fatal if sufficient cogent evidence of necessity is provided. Further held, the basic object under the Act is to test the bona fide requirement of the landlord or his normal emanations, not to adhere to a particular form of pleadings. [Paras 23-24]

Dependency and Requirement Proof - Question of proving dependency of the dependent on the landlord for seeking eviction - Held, no statutory requirement for proving dependency exists - The necessity includes that of normal emanations of the landlord, covering moral, social, or legal responsibilities towards family members. [Para 26]

Tenant's Obligation to Raise Objection - Requirement for tenant to raise objections regarding non-averment at the time of filing a written statement - Held, failure to raise such objections implies waiver of the objections - Tenant must bring to notice if the person for whose necessity eviction is sought is occupying another building or has vacated any such building without sufficient cause. [Para 27]

Decision: Revision petition dismissed. The bona fide necessity of the premises for the landlord's sister to open a boutique was upheld, and the eviction order was affirmed. [Paras 29-30]

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Subletting without Landlord's Consent - Petition for eviction filed after 15-17 years of alleged subletting - Appellate Authority inferred acquiescence due to delay - Held, as per Section 13(2)(ii)(a), written consent from the landlord is mandatory for subletting - Long delay in filing eviction does not imply acquiescence. Further held, the Appellate Authority erred in drawing adverse inference against the landlord - Petition filed after significant delay does not negate the requirement for written consent. [Paras 12-13]

Evidentiary Requirements and Burden of Proof - Tenant's inconsistent statements regarding subletting and payment of rent - Held, inconsistent defense by the tenant undermines credibility - Burden of proof on tenant to show valid subletting with landlord's consent - Tenant failed to provide documentary evidence supporting direct tenancy under the original owner. [Paras 2, 6, 8, 12]

Appellate Authority's Reversal of Rent Controller's Decision - Appellate Authority did not critically analyze Rent Controller's detailed reasoning - Held, failure to address specific findings and inconsistencies identified by Rent Controller constitutes a reversible error - Appellate Authority's judgment set aside, Rent Controller's order of eviction restored. [Paras 10-11, 14]

Decision: Revision petition allowed. Appellate Authority's judgment set aside, Rent Controller's eviction order restored. Costs of Rs. 50,000 awarded to the petitioner. [Paras 14-15]

Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 - Definition of Supplier – Filing of Memorandum – Held – Filing of memorandum under Section 8(1) is not a condition precedent for a micro or small enterprise to be considered a supplier under Section 2(n) – Registration under Section 8 is only qualifying and not mandatory for maintaining the application before the Facilitation Council – Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court and Delhi High Court precedents followed. [Paras 11-16]

Arbitration Clause in Agreement – Applicability of Section 18(3) of MSME Act – Proceedings can take place even if there is an arbitration clause in the agreement – The Act's provisions have an overriding effect – Held – The Council has the jurisdiction to proceed under Section 18(3) despite the existence of an arbitration agreement – Reliance on the ruling in Welspun Corp. Ltd. v. Micro and Small, Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council. [Paras 17-20]

Limitation – Issue of limitation for claims – Held – The major amount claimed is from the year 2017, and the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact that can be decided by the arbitrator appointed by the Council – The petitioner's challenge on limitation grounds dismissed. [Para 20]

Decision: Writ petition dismissed. The Facilitation Council’s notices and order are upheld. No order as to costs.

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Bona Fide Requirement of Landlord - Eviction sought for landlord's son to start his business - No specific format required for pleadings under the Act - Tenant's failure to object in the written statement regarding lack of specific pleadings on the necessity of the premises - Held, landlord is required to prove the ingredients of bona fide necessity even if not specifically pleaded, as long as evidence is provided - Revision petition dismissed as the landlord's bona fide necessity for the premises was sufficiently demonstrated. [Paras 14, 19, 22]

Evidentiary Requirements and Tenant's Obligation - Tenant did not raise objections in the initial written statement - Held, failure to object implies waiver of that objection, and landlord is deprived of the opportunity to amend the pleadings - Tenant cannot subsequently raise objections if not initially brought up. [Para 22]

Decision: Revision petition dismissed. The eviction order by the Rent Controller, affirmed by the Appellate Authority, is upheld. [Para 23]

Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975 - Integrity of Judicial Officer - Judicial officer's premature retirement upon completing twenty years of service - High Court found serious anomalies in officer's judgments - Officer failed to mention crucial details like the 'salt' and quantity of contraband in NDPS Act cases - Awarded sentences below mandatory minimums. Held, retirement justified due to officer's doubtful integrity and consistent serious errors - Presumption of inadvertence not applicable due to multiple lapses over short periods. [Para 11-13]

Application of Premature Retirement Rules - Argument on non-applicability of Rules rejected - Rules not framed under Article 234 of the Constitution or with prior consultation with Punjab Public Service Commission deemed academic and misconceived. Held, premature retirement rules are applicable, and petitioner's compulsory retirement upheld. [Para 15-16]

Judicial Conduct and Administrative Review - Contradictory annual confidential reports (ACRs) discussed - Prior ACRs rated officer well, but later ACRs indicated poor performance and doubtful integrity - Administrative review's rejection of officer's representation against adverse remarks upheld - No merit found in petition challenging premature retirement. [Paras 3-4, 6-8, 10]

Decision: Writ petition dismissed. The recommendations for the officer's premature retirement were fully justified and legally sound.

Civil Procedure - Injunction - Onus of Proof - Permanent injunction sought by plaintiffs to restrain defendant from interfering with possession of suit land - Onus to prove possession on date of suit and alleged dispossession during suit lies on plaintiffs - Plaintiffs failed to establish possession and took contradictory stands - Appeal partly allowed, suit dismissed concerning constructed portion, injunction granted for remaining land. Held, possession at suit's institution date must be proved by plaintiffs, which they disproved through contradictory pleadings - Remedy lay in seeking possession suit, not injunction. [Paras 26-35]

Civil Procedure - Appellate Court Findings - Whether first appellate court misread evidence and failed to comply with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC - Appellate court misread evidence and did not comply with mandatory requirements of Rule 31 - Trial court's dismissal of suit upheld for constructed portion of land. Held, appellate court misread evidence, trial court's findings on possession upheld - Decree for mandatory and prohibitory injunctions set aside for constructed portion. [Paras 37-39]

Role of Statutory Presumption - Revenue records showed plaintiffs as owners in possession - Presumption of correctness attached to revenue records unless rebutted by equal evidence - Contradictory stands by plaintiffs rebutted presumption. Held, statutory presumption under Section 44 of Punjab Land Revenue Act attaches correctness to revenue records, but rebutted by plaintiffs' contradictions. [Para 33]

Decision - Partly allowing appeal, appellate court's decree set aside, trial court's dismissal of suit concerning constructed portion upheld - Appellant restrained from interfering with plaintiffs' possession over remaining suit land. [Paras 40-41]

Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - Rash and Negligent Driving - Preponderance of Probabilities

Compensation for Fatal Accident - Preponderance of Probabilities – Deceased suffered fatal injuries in an accident involving a school bus, remained under treatment for five months, and eventually died – Tribunal awarded Rs. 37,400/- but did not link death to accident injuries due to lack of post-mortem – Held, in claim petitions, preponderance of probabilities is sufficient, not proof beyond reasonable doubt – Death linked to injuries from the accident – Tribunal's observation on absence of post-mortem not a valid ground to reject claim – Award enhanced to Rs. 11,62,369/- including future prospects, loss of estate, consortium, and funeral expenses. [Paras 29-30, 32]

Practical and Humane Approach in Compensation Awards – Tribunals should adopt a practical and humane approach while adjudicating compensation claims – Technicalities should not overshadow the beneficial legislation meant to provide relief to victims and their families – Emphasis on sensitivity towards victims' circumstances. [Para 30]

Decision: Appeal allowed, compensation enhanced to Rs. 11,62,369/-. Respondents to pay the remaining balance within six weeks, with adjustments for any amount already paid. [Paras 32-33]