Education Law – Admission – Online Application Submission – Petitioner participated in entrance examination for MBBS, securing rank 41 – Unable to submit online application by deadline due to internet connectivity issues – University rejected her application – Held, petitioner faced genuine difficulty in online submission – No deliberate laches on her part – University established to foster education and should accommodate genuine issues – Denial of admission to meritorious candidate amounts to betrayal – Impugned order quashed, University directed to admit petitioner. [Paras 1-9]

Equitable Treatment in Admissions – Analysis – Held – University must exercise reasonableness and accommodate genuine difficulties faced by students – Petitioner’s case demonstrated sincere effort to comply with deadlines – Internet connectivity issues beyond her control – University’s rigid adherence to deadline unwarranted when seats remained vacant – Courts should ensure meritorious candidates are not unjustly denied admission. [Paras 6-8]

Decision – Allowing Writ Petition – Court quashes University’s rejection of petitioner’s application – Directs University to admit petitioner in existing vacancy – Orders University to pay costs of ₹10,000 for lack of reasonable accommodation. [Paras 8-9]

Motor Vehicles Act – Amendment of Claim Petition – Enhancement of Compensation – Passenger killed in accident where driver drove car into a tree – Original claim under Section 163-A of MV Act – Application to amend claim under Section 166 filed after 12 years – Insurer objected to delay – Held, Section 163-A allows claims on strict liability basis without proof of negligence – Delay does not bar amendment in welfare legislation cases – Insurance Company liable to pay under terms of policy – Amendment allowed – Compensation enhanced considering proof of negligence under Section 166. [Paras 1-5]

Strict Liability and Welfare Legislation – Analysis – Held – Section 163-A enables claims without proving negligence, aimed at economically weaker sections – Claim amendment to Section 166 permitted, with requirement to prove negligence – Insurance Company must pay claims under policy terms – Application of res ipsa loquitur principle indicates driver’s negligence – Vehicle owner and insurer liable – Conversion of claim justified despite delay. [Paras 1-4]

Decision – Allowing Amendment and Enhancing Compensation – Court permits amendment from Section 163-A to Section 166 – Insurance Company’s objection on delay dismissed – Enhanced compensation awarded based on income, prospects, and other heads under judicial guidelines – Total compensation of Rs. 12,14,535 awarded to claimants, distributed equally among widow and children – Liability on Insurance Company. [Paras 5-6]

Cooperative Societies – Arbitration and Limitation – Refund of Excess Charges – Respondent No. 3, a member of the petitioner-society, sought refund of excess amount charged for a flat and excess interest at 18% instead of the stipulated 12% – Registrar, Cooperative Societies directed refund of excess amount – Petitioner claimed the reference was time-barred under Section 3 of the Limitation Act – Held, Section 3 of the Limitation Act does not apply to arbitration proceedings under the 1961 Act – Proceedings before Registrar are not a suit, appeal, or application – Arbitration proceedings under Sections 55 and 56 of the 1961 Act are statutory and not bound by the Limitation Act – Writ petition dismissed. [Paras 1-13]

Arbitration and Statutory Provisions – Analysis – Held – The limitation period prescribed for a suit does not destroy the right, only bars the remedy in court – Section 55 of the 1961 Act authorizes the Registrar to refer disputes between a society and its members to arbitration – Registrar’s acceptance of a reference is not a decision but a referral to a third party – Statutory arbitration under the 1961 Act differs from contractual arbitration in mercantile disputes – Expiry of limitation period does not prevent arbitration under statutory provisions. [Paras 10-12]

Decision – Dismissing Writ Petition – Court finds no error in the authorities' decision to order a refund of the excess amount – Limitation Act does not apply to statutory arbitration under the 1961 Act – Writ petition dismissed in limine. [Para 13]

Military Law – Disability Pension – Casual Leave – Petitioner, a military personnel, suffered multiple injuries leading to a 20% permanent disability while on casual leave – Accident occurred in Cantonment Area, struck by an army truck – Disability pension claim rejected on the grounds that the injury was not attributable to or aggravated by service – Held, personnel on casual leave are deemed to be in active service – Injuries suffered during such period are attributable to military service – Petitioner entitled to disability pension. [Paras 1-20]

Interpretation of Military Regulations – Analysis – Held – According to Army Act, personnel are considered on active service even during casual leave unless exceptions apply – Entitlement Rules and previous case law confirm that injuries during leave can be attributable to service if related to service risks – Liberal interpretation favored to uphold beneficial provisions. [Paras 6-16]

Decision – Allowing Writ Petition – Court sets aside the Tribunal's order – Grants disability pension to petitioner – Directs payment of arrears from three years prior to filing the original application. [Para 21-22]

Civil Law - Mandatory Injunction – Mutation of Land – Execution of Sale Deeds – Section 34 of Punjab Land Revenue Act and Section 39 of Specific Relief Act – Appeal Dismissed – Plaintiffs had purchased the land through registered sale deed dated 17.06.1976 (Ex.P1), based on a prior sale deed dated 15.01.1975 (Ex.P2) – Defendants denied execution of sale deeds and sought declaration of both as null and void – Lower Appellate Court found no evidence to support their claim and held the sale deeds genuine – Revenue authorities were held under statutory obligation to initiate mutation proceedings upon such acquisition – Civil Court’s jurisdiction upheld to issue mandatory injunction compelling performance of such obligation – Appeal dismissed as no substantial question of law arose [Paras 1-9].

Jurisdiction of Civil Court – Mutation Entries – Section 158(2)(vi) of Punjab Land Revenue Act – Civil Suit Held Maintainable – Court clarified that suit was not for correction of mutation but to compel initiation of mutation entry – Held: Civil Court has jurisdiction where authorities fail in their statutory obligation [Paras 6-8].

Delay in Seeking Relief – Limitation – Delay of 30 years – No Bar Shown – Plaintiffs approached authorities in 2003 regarding 1976 sale – No provision in Limitation Act cited barring suit for mandatory injunction – Argument rejected [Para 8].

Possession – Delivery on Execution of Sale Deed – Validity of Mutation – Appellant argued mutation cannot be sanctioned without delivery of possession – Evidence showed possession delivered and plaintiffs in continuous possession – Argument rejected [Para 9].

Appeal Decision – No Substantial Question of Law – Lower Appellate Court rightly decreed suit for mandatory injunction – Findings upheld – Appeal Dismissed [Final Para].

Execution of Decrees – Transfer of Execution Proceedings – Jurisdiction – Petitioner, judgment debtor, challenged the order of the District Judge transferring execution proceedings from the Civil Judge (Junior Division) to the Civil Judge (Senior Division) due to administrative exigencies – Held, District Judge has the power to supervise and control execution of decrees and can transfer cases to appropriate courts – Term ‘Court which passed the decree’ does not mean only the original judge or coordinate judge – Execution proceedings properly transferred to avoid delays and ensure effective decree enforcement – Revision petition dismissed. [Paras 1-11]

Supervision and Transfer of Cases – Analysis – Held – District Judge must ensure execution work is not neglected and can redistribute cases to maintain efficiency – Provisions of Order 21 Rule 10, Sections 39 and 42 of CPC, read with High Court Rules, support the transfer to an appropriate court – Transfer necessary due to withdrawal of the original court for administrative reasons – Jurisdiction correctly exercised by District Judge. [Paras 8-10]

Decision – Dismissing Revision Petition – Court upholds District Judge’s order transferring execution proceedings to the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) – Jurisdiction correctly exercised to ensure timely execution of decrees – Petition dismissed, execution to proceed expeditiously. [Para 11]

Criminal Law – Honour Killing – Formation of SIT – Petitioner married inter-caste and his wife was abducted and later killed – Complaint named eleven suspects, but no action taken initially – Police later registered a case and charged five individuals – Petitioner sought investigation by a senior officer of SSP rank – Held, inter-caste marriages must be supported by law enforcement – Directed DGP to form SIT with SSP to lead investigation due to initial police laxity – SIT to assure public confidence by avoiding local influence – Directions for systemic reforms in investigating honour killings provided. [Paras 1-13]

Social Transformation and Legal Enforcement – Analysis – Held – Law must facilitate orderly social transformation, supporting inter-caste marriages and combating honour killings – Economic progress and individual autonomy essential for societal advancement – Law enforcement agencies must protect couples facing threats from familial and societal pressures – Need for compassionate and proactive police support emphasized – Formation of SIT to rectify initial investigation lapses and maintain public trust. [Paras 8-12]

Decision – Allowing Writ Petition – Court directs DGP to form SIT with SSP to investigate the case – SIT to examine petitioner and gather detailed information on suspects – SIT to operate independently of local influence – State to submit progress report and details of systemic reforms to address honour killings – Writ petition disposed with specific directives to law enforcement. [Paras 12-14]

Rent Control Law – Execution of Ejectment Order – Stay of Proceedings – Respondent-landlord filed a rent petition under Section 13-A, claiming he became the owner by a sale deed and required the premises for personal use after retirement – Rent Controller declined tenant’s leave to defend and ordered ejectment – Tenant's revision and SLP dismissed – Tenant filed objections and application under Order 21 Rule 29 CPC to stay execution on grounds of pending suit challenging ownership – Held, once ejectment order attains finality, subsequent objections without merit – Execution proceedings cannot be stayed based on pendency of suit filed after rent proceedings attained finality – Petition dismissed, directing immediate execution with police assistance if needed. [Paras 1-47]

Frivolous Litigation and Legal Ethics – Analysis – Held – Courts must prevent misuse of legal process to delay execution of decrees – Legal professionals have a duty to uphold justice, not support frivolous and obstructive tactics – Frivolous objections waste judicial resources and frustrate decree-holders – Judicial system’s integrity relies on enforcing legitimate orders without undue delay. [Paras 28-33]

Decision – Dismissing Revision Petition – Court directs the Executing Court to expedite execution of the decree and restore possession to the respondent – Police assistance to be provided if necessary – Warns counsel against unethical practices and emphasizes the responsibility of advocates to provide honest legal advice. [Paras 47-52]

Land Acquisition – Oustees Policy – Discrimination – Appellants' land acquired in 1976 for urban estate development – Government policy entitles oustees to preferential allotment of residential plots if they lack other residential properties – Initial applications made in 1981, with further public notices in 1983 – PUDA allotted a 100 square yard plot at 1997 rates (2700/sq yd) to appellants – High Court directs consideration at 1981 rates (85/sq yd) – Appellants' claim denied by PUDA – Held, entitlement to plot size and rates to be based on 1983 policy – Hostile discrimination against appellants in allotment – Appellants entitled to allotment at rates applied to others in 1985-86. [Paras 1-38]

Judicial Review and Policy Adherence – Analysis – Held – State must adhere to rehabilitation schemes for land-losers – Any deviation subject to judicial review – 1983 policy determined plot size based on acquired land area – 1981 policy clause limiting to 200 square yards redundant when determining eligibility in 1983 – PUDA's application of policies inconsistently and discriminatorily invalid. [Paras 19-33]

Decision – Allowing Appeal – Court sets aside lower court’s dismissal of the claim – Directs PUDA to allot plots at the same rates as allotted to other oustees in 1985-86 – Establishes that public authorities must act reasonably and fairly under Article 14. [Para 43]