Criminal Procedure – Reinvestigation Authority – Magistrate directed reinvestigation of a road accident case after closure report was accepted – Petition contended lack of jurisdiction under J&K Cr.P.C. to order reinvestigation – High Court held Magistrate can only direct further investigation, not reinvestigation – Orders directing reinvestigation set aside [Paras 8-12, 28].

Victim’s Rights – Protest Petition – Whether victim or close relative can lodge protest petition when closure report is filed – High Court noted only informant entitled to notice and heard before closure report accepted – Victim can appear and lodge protest petition, but no obligation on Magistrate to issue notice unless victim is informant [Paras 22-26, 32].

Further Investigation – Procedural Compliance – Revisional Court’s direction to consider protest petition by father of deceased required treating it as a fresh complaint if closure report accepted – High Court emphasized need to proceed under Chapter XVI Cr.P.C. if protest petition treated as complaint [Paras 30, 33-34].

Decision: Petition allowed – Orders by Magistrate and Revisional Court directing reinvestigation set aside – Further investigation, if carried out, quashed – Respondent No. 3 permitted to file fresh complaint – Magistrate directed to consider complaint on merits and in accordance with law [Paras 34-35].

Bail Application – NDPS Act – Second bail application filed after chargesheet submission – First bail application dismissed with liberty to reapply post chargesheet – Alleged false implication and fabrication of evidence by police – CCTV footage and purchase bills not considered by Investigating Officer – Fair investigation not conducted – Bail granted with conditions – Further investigation directed due to defective investigation [Paras 1-19].

Fair Investigation – Constitutional Rights – Emphasis on fair and transparent investigation as part of constitutional rights under Articles 20 and 21 – Investigation must ascertain truth without bias – Reference to Vinay Tyagi vs. Irshad Ali and Babubayi vs. State of Gujarat [Paras 13-16].

Defective Investigation – Further Investigation Ordered – Investigation by original officer found to be biased and incomplete – New investigation directed to competent officer not below the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police – Instructions for expeditious completion within three months [Paras 17-18].

Decision: Second bail application allowed – Petitioner to be released on bail upon furnishing bonds – Further investigation ordered due to defective initial investigation – Proceedings before the trial court to be stayed until completion of further investigation** [Paras 10-19].

Filing of Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226 – Petitioners seeking directions for protection against threats to their life and liberty – Relationship between the major petitioner No. 1 and minor petitioner No. 2 (17 years & 9 months) is a matter of their personal choice and stated to be consensual [Para 1, 2].

Notice and Representation – Initial hearing and acceptance of notice by the Additional Advocate General for the respondents – Submission of a prior representation to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur, concerning threats from private individuals which had not been acted upon by the police [Para 3, 5].

Precedent and Protection under Law – Reliance on analogous High Court decisions protecting individuals in live-in relationships akin to married couples seeking protection against familial threats – Cites constitutional protection of life and liberty applicable regardless of societal acceptance of the relationship [Para 6].

Court’s Order and Directions – Direction issued to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur, to assess the threat perception based on petitioners' representation and take necessary action – No comment on the legitimacy of the relationship but emphasis on ensuring safety [Para 7].

Disposition – Without delving into the legality of the relationship, the petition is disposed of with specific directions to police for assessment and action regarding the threat perception to petitioners [Para 8].

Service Law - Promotion and Seniority Dispute - Appellant, Ram Mehar Singh, contests the promotion of a junior (Paras Ram) to the post of Operator, claiming seniority and alleging irregularities in the promotion process - Appeal challenges the judgment and decree dated 06.10.1997 of the Additional District Judge, Rohtak, which favored the respondent by reversing an earlier favorable judgment for the appellant [Paras 1, 2, 5, 15].

Issue of Limitation - Key contention regarding the timeliness of the suit, with the appellant asserting that the action was initiated after becoming aware of the junior’s promotion - The respondent and courts assert the claim is time-barred, referencing Article 113 of the Limitation Act prescribing a three-year limitation period for seeking such declarations [Paras 8, 10-14].

Qualifications for Promotion - Dispute over the appellant’s qualifications for the Operator position - Evidence suggests the promotion was based on suitability and recommendations, noting the specific experience of the promoted individual, which the appellant lacked [Paras 3, 15].

Court’s Rationale and Decision - The High Court upheld the decision of the lower appellate court, agreeing that the promotion was based on merit and recommendations and that the appellant’s claim was barred by limitation - No substantial question of law raised for consideration [Paras 16, 17].

Employment Law – Challenge of Promotion Order – Regular Second Appeal against judgment of the lower appellate court reversing trial court’s decree favoring appellant’s promotion claim – Appellant, a T-mate, claims seniority and rightful promotion over co-worker promoted by respondent – Lower appellate court found no Irregularity in the promotion process, emphasizing promotion based on recommendations and specific qualifications which appellant lacked – Appeal dismissed as no substantial question of law arose. [Paras 1-17]

Promotion Criteria and Seniority – Consideration of qualifications and recommendations – Appellant contends wrongful promotion of junior based on seniority list – Respondents argue promotions made on basis of work, conduct, and specific qualifications necessary for position, not maintained by seniority – Appellant’s lack of experience in required role pivotal in upholding promotion of junior. [Paras 5, 15]

Limitation and Jurisdiction – Suit for declaration regarding promotion barred by limitation – Appellant’s suit filed significantly beyond three years as prescribed under Indian Limitation Act, making it time-barred and outside the purview of judicial relief – Court underscores strict adherence to statutory limitation periods in employment disputes. [Paras 10-14]

Decision: Dismissal of Appeal – High Court finds no substantial question of law, upholding lower appellate court’s decision based on facts and established legal principles concerning employment promotions and statutory limitations. [Para 17]

Legal Representation and Right to Pursue Execution – Revision Petitions Analysis – Held – The High Court set aside the Executing Court's decision allowing Harjinder Kaur, who could not prove her legal marriage to the deceased Avtar Singh, to continue the execution proceedings. The High Court found no evidence supporting her status as the legally wedded wife, despite her being permitted to represent the deceased's estate in previous proceedings. The contradictory findings of the Executing Court were highlighted, leading to a remand to decide the issues afresh. The court emphasized the lack of any legal basis for her participation in the execution proceedings. [Para 6-7]

Issues of Legal Heir Status and Documentary Evidence – Discussion – The High Court critiqued the lower court's reliance on marked but unexhibited documents to determine the legal heir status of Harjinder Kaur. Both counsel admitted the absence of evidence proving the documents, leading to legal questions over the appropriate procedures and rules for filing applications under the Civil Procedure Code. The High Court highlighted procedural missteps in handling documentary evidence and legal heir applications, calling for a reconsideration of the same. [Para 3-4, 6]

Decision – Remand of Case to Executing Court – Due to the conflicting and unsupported findings by the Executing Court regarding the legal heir status of Harjinder Kaur and her rights to pursue execution, the High Court remanded the matter for a fresh decision. The court directed parties to reappear before the Executing Court with proper legal representation to resolve the outstanding legal and procedural issues. All pending applications related to the case were also disposed of as part of this order. [Para 7]

Assessment of Compensation and Future Prospects – Tribunal awarded compensation based on deceased’s monthly income of Rs.11,840, applying 1/3rd deduction and multiplier of 18 – Insurance Company's argument for assessing income as per Minimum Wages Act rejected – Supreme Court precedents affirm assessing income with reasonable flexibility and consideration of future prospects – 40% addition towards future prospects warranted due to deceased’s young age and potential – [Paras 5-11].

Legal Principles on Deductions and Multiplier – Insurance Company's contention accepted for 50% deduction due to deceased being a bachelor – Tribunal’s application of multiplier and assessment methods upheld – Importance of 'just compensation' underscored to restore claimants to position prior to accident [Paras 10-11].

Conventional Damages and Loss of Consortium – Increased conventional damages under 'loss of estate' and 'funeral expenses' by 20% following Supreme Court guidelines – Loss of consortium awarded to parents of deceased, acknowledging emotional and support losses [Paras 11].

Revised Compensation Calculated – Total revised compensation calculated at Rs.19,22,208 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing claim till realization, including enhanced awards for future prospects, loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium [Para 12].

Background and Pleadings – Appellants (State representatives) appeal against the decision favoring the respondent regarding unpaid irrigation dues from land revenue collections dating back to 1975 – Respondent had been appointed as Sarbrah Lambardar and was responsible for depositing collected dues, disputed by the appellants who alleged a deficiency in deposits – Trial Court dismissed initial suits but was overturned by First Appellate Court granting relief to the respondent. [Paras 1-3]

Issues Framed – Key legal issues include entitlement to relief, maintainability of the suit, locus standi, jurisdiction, effect of no Section 80 CPC notice, and valuation for court fees and jurisdiction. [Para 3]

Evidence and Analysis – First Appellate Court finds no evidence supporting appellants’ claim of non-deposit of due amounts by respondent – Respondent substantiated regular deposits through evidence (Ex.P1 to Ex.P64, Dakhla Forms) – Trial Court's reliance solely on Khatauni Mal as evidence of dues questioned, found insufficient for establishing non-deposit of collected dues by the respondent. [Paras 6-9]

Decision – Appeals dismissed as devoid of merit, based on a lack of substantial evidence to prove appellants' claims against the respondent – First Appellate Court's judgment upheld, confirming respondent's compliance with deposit obligations. [Para 10]

Specific Performance of Agreement of Sale – First Appeal No: 3790/2003 – Decision against High Court of Andhra Pradesh – Plaintiffs sought specific performance of agreement of sale for land containing mango, casuarina, blackberry, and palmyrah trees, executed on 24-10-1990, involving defendants as joint family members with one acting as family manager. High Court held that the agreement was not enforceable against defendants who did not sign or were minors at the time of agreement, thus unable to confer rights for specific performance to plaintiffs. Directed refund of advance amount with interest. [Paras 1-36]

Role of Defendants in Sale Agreement – Analysis of Defendants’ Role and Validity of Agreement – Defendants 1 and 3, with limited authority and no absolute rights, improperly entered agreement, impacting the enforceability of the agreement against non-signatory co-owners. Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate readiness and willingness to fulfill their obligations under the terms of the agreement by the stipulated time. [Paras 14, 34]

Judicial Determination on Specific Performance – Held – High Court concluded that the plaintiffs were not entitled to specific performance due to the defective nature of the agreement of sale, lack of consent from all co-owners, and plaintiffs' failure in procedural compliance. However, plaintiffs entitled to a refund of the advance payment with interest due to partial performance acknowledged by defendants 1 and 3. [Paras 33-36]

Decision – Partial Allowance of Appeal – High Court modifies trial court’s decision by denying specific performance but granting plaintiffs alternative relief of refund of advance payments with interest. Each party to bear their own costs. [Para 36]