(A) Constitution of India, Art.226 - Recruitment - Irregularities - Recruitment in question arose from a 2013 advertisement for 245 posts of Junior Assistant (Fire Service), comprising 122 unreserved, 78 OBC, 22 SC and 23 ST posts - After completion of selection process, only 158 candidates were appointed: all 122 unreserved posts were filled on merit, while only 10 OBC, 22 SC and 4 ST candidates were appointed - Appellant Authority prepared merit list by first selecting candidates for unreserved posts purely on merit, including reserved category candidates who had not availed any relaxation and had scored marks equal to or higher than unreserved candidates; such candidates were treated as selected against unreserved posts - Respondent, though qualified, scored less than last selected unreserved candidate and was therefore placed in waiting panel, not selected - High Court held that roster had been wrongly applied and directed appointment of respondent and compliance with the 1997 DoPT Office Memorandum - High Court misunderstood purpose of reservation roster, which operates after selection and is meant to regulate cadre strength and future vacancies, not to govern selection itself - Reserved category candidates selected on their own merit can be adjusted against unreserved posts - Since all 122 unreserved posts were filled strictly on merit and without any relaxation, selection was valid - Order of High Court upholding irregularity in recruitment process was set aside. (Para 27-31,33,34)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.14, Art.21, Art.41, Art.142 - Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act (49 of 2016), S.3, S.2(ze) - Appointment - Right of reasonable accommodation - Post of Management Trainees under Visually Handicapped (VH) category - Appellant applied for post and was qualified for interview - Appellant's medical report revealed that she was suffering from 57% of disability - Appellant's disability exceeded benchmark disability i.e.40% rendering her eligible for appointment under reserved quota however, she was declared unfit on ground that she was not only suffering from visual disability but also from residuary partial hemiparesis - Appellant was denied appointment for no fault of her , only because notification advertising vacancies did not provide for "multiple disability" - Appellant cannot be denied employment due to technicalities such as expiry of panel for year or factum of interim order reserving vacancy having come to be passed after expiry of panel - Reasonable accommodation is gateway right for person with disabilities to enjoy all rights enshrined in Constitution and law - Without gateway right of reasonable accommodation, PwDs would be excluded from mainstream - Further, Rights of PwDs have to be viewed from prism of Corporate Social Responsibility to protect and further such rights - True equality at workplace could be achieved only with right impetus given to disability rights as facet of Corporate Social Responsibility - Consequently, Dept. was directed to provide suitable position to appellant as per universal design as defined under Act. (Para 7, 8, 23, 27, 29, 31)

(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 3 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 302, S. 304 Part II - Murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Determination - There was commotion where anger-filled group of two rival parties attacked each other, and injuries were sustained by both sides - Therefore, no common object could be attributed to any individual - Accused hit lathi on head of deceased with single blow - Accused had also suffered grievous injuries on head, from free fight - The way as sequence of events happened and since offence by accused was committed in midst of commotion and group clash, it could be legitimately inferred that accused acted without any premeditation as such to cause death of deceased, although in eye of law, having regard to kind of weapon used and nature of injury inflicted, which corresponded to weapon used, knowledge could be inferred in law - Order of High court altering conviction u/S. 302 to S. 304 Part II was proper. (Para 5.3, 5.4, 5.5)

(B) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S. 386 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 304 Part II - Sentence - Modification of - Accused was convicted for offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Accused had suffered incarceration of six years and three months - Accused was more than 80 years of age - Since accused was old and aged person, and in December of his life, it would be harsh and inadvisable to send him behind bars again at the stage - In view of advanced age of accused and considering totality of facts and circumstances, while confirming conviction u/S. 304 of Penal Code, sentence was reduced to already undergone by him. (Para 6, 6.1)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S.482, S.2(s), S.2(o) - A. P. Reorganisation Act (6 of 2014), S.2(f), S.100 - Registration of FIR - Jurisdiction of Police Station - Effect of bifurcation of state - FIRs had been registered at the office of Anti-Corruption Bureau, Central Investigation Unit, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada Police Station, between the years 2016 and 2020, for offences punishable under Prevention of Corruption Act - Plea of accused that Anti-Corruption Bureau, Central Investigation Unit, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada Police Station, is not notified as a police station under S.2(s) of CrPC and, therefore, lacks jurisdiction to register FIRs - Existing laws, prior to bifurcation, would continue to be in force in both States, unless altered, repealed or amended in accordance with law - Any construction to the contrary would defeat the very intent and purpose of Government Orders, which were given the status of 'law,' vide relevant Circular - G.O. declaring ACB offices as police stations constituted "law" and continued to operate after bifurcation - Order quashing FIR, was set aside. (Para 26, 27, 28)

(A) Contract Act (9 of 1872), S.126 - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (31 of 2016), S.7 - Insolvency proceedings against guarantor - Rejection of application - Borrower had availed financial facility from creditor pursuant to sanction letter - Later, one of promotors of borrower company, executed Deed of Undertaking, warranty, and indemnity of undertaking whereby it undertook limited obligation to arrange for infusion of funds into borrower company - Subsequently, upon implementation of resolution plan against borrower, application was filed by creditor for initiation of insolvency proceedings against promoter on ground that it had furnished corporate guarantee for debt of borrower - Payment of amount by promoter to secured creditor was not made on account of any contractual obligation but it was made in its capacity as promotor of borrower - Such payment by itself does not give rise to any contract of guarantee, particularly when there is no contractual obligation of guarantee in Deed of Undertaking - Further, contemporaneous documents also reinforced conclusion that parties never intended to create contract of guarantee - S.126 mandates guarantor to 'perform a promise' or 'discharge the liability' of a third person which necessarily implies a direct performance or discharge - However, it does not include obligation to enable principal debtor to perform its own obligation - Deed of Undertaking does not constitute contract of guarantee and promoter cannot be treated as guarantor for financial facilities availed by borrower - Rejection of application was justified. (Para 17, 21, 22, 23, 25)

(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 3 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 302 - Murder - Testimony of eye-witness - Reliability - In a double murder case, accused was convicted as driver of a Tata Mobile 207 used by main accused to carry out shootings - Prosecution relied on testimonies of father and sister-in-law of victim - Accused appellant was not initially arrayed as 'accused' but was summoned later as additional accused, while actual recoveries were made only from absconding shooters - Upon scrutiny, Court found that testimony of witness alleging that accused alighted and dragged his son, was a fatal improvement, as this crucial overt act was missing from his original statement - Similarly, testimony of other witness was weakened by the fact that police recorded no statement from her at the time of the inquest despite her presence - DSP testified that both witnesses had failed to cooperate during initial investigation - Seized vehicle was never produced in Court for identification - Recognizing a history of gang-related animosity and vengeful actions between two families, vague and inconsistent allegations failed to establish direct involvement or shared common intention of accused beyond reasonable doubt - Accused was acquitted. (Para 5 to 11)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 311 - Dismissal from service - Post of Additional District Judge - Ground of professional misconduct - Appellant-judicial officer was removed from service, based on allegations of misconduct of passing eighteen bail orders, four of which purportedly failed to expressly mention requisite statutory provision - Series of procedural and substantive lapses were however noticed in departmental inquiry - Original complaint was directed at a stenographer rather than appellant - Complainant was never examined and sole supporting witness failed to corroborate charges - Prosecutor who appeared in subject cases testified that bail orders were legally sound, passed on proper grounds and notably, State never challenged those orders in higher forums - Mere absence of a specific statutory reference in a judicial order does not render it "dishonest" or "perverse," nor can misconduct be inferred solely from a judicial decision without evidence of extraneous considerations or corruption - Inquiry findings were based on mere hypothesis rather than evidence, making them unsustainable in law - Removal order was set aside. (Para 40, 41, 43)

(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 3 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 302 - Murder - Testimony of sole witness - Accused assaulted informant's minor son during Durga Puja Programme - Later, accused along with co-accused persons returned to pandal armed with pistol, rifle and lathi, exhorted each other, and started firing resulting in death of two persons and firearm injuries to informant and other persons - There were multiple persons injured in incident, yet, except informant, all other eye-witnesses did not support prosecution case and consistently stated that there was no light at time of occurrence - Testimony of informant as injured eye-witness was unreliable as he failed to specifically mention role of accused in shoot-out - Further, rifle magazine recovered from spot did not match with seized rifle, which had no magazine, and magazine of the weapon was produced by its licensed holder, giving rise to a doubt whether rifle used in crime was of co-accused, or there was some other weapon used, or some other person was involved in crime - Accused had no motive to kill two deceased persons - Further, only one empty cartridge was found at spot, which did not forensically connect with rifle seized from co-accused - Testimony of sole witness who had criminal antecedents was not of that stellar quality as to form sole basis of conviction when other witnesses did not support prosecution case - Prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt - Conviction was set aside. (Para 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38)

(A) Workmen's Compensation Act (8 of 1923), S.3 - Compensation - Death in course of employment - Deceased was employed as driver on monthly salary and he met with a fatal accident when lorry coming from opposite direction rammed into the vehicle and he succumbed to the injuries - Evidence of owner who had stated that deceased was in his employment since prior to the date of the accident - Based on such consideration, finding of fact was recorded to the effect that deceased was an employee of owner of the vehicle which met with the accident - Deceased was employed as driver and his death occurred during the course of and arising out of his employment - Joint and several liability fixed upon Insurance Company and the owner was proper. (Para 6, 7, 8)

(A) Limitation Act (36 of 1963), Art.65 - Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S. 34 - Suit for recovery of possession - Plea of adverse possession by defendant - Tenability - Plaintiffs stated that defendant was a licensee whose licence had been terminated - Defendant resisted suit claiming title by adverse possession, asserting long, continuous occupation and construction over suit property - Person claiming title by adverse possession must specifically plead and prove when possession became adverse, nature of possession, continuity, publicity and hostility to the true owner - Mere long possession or construction on land is not sufficient - Absence of pleading and evidence as to the starting point of adverse possession and lack of animus possidendi - Possession against an unknown owner cannot be hostile - Electoral roll or voter identity card only shows residence and does not determine nature of possession - Suit decreed in favour of plaintiff was proper. (Para 15)

(A) Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O. 6, R. 17 - Amendment of plaint - Permissibility - Suit for specific performance - Amendment seeking declaration that decree/order passed by Permanent Lok Adalat is forged, fabricated and void and that suit property is joint family property - Such amendments seeking declaratory reliefs virtually convert suit for specific performance into a title/declaratory suit and fundamentally change nature and character of original suit, which is not permissible - Proper remedy is to file a separate suit -Amendments to that extent was liable to be struck off - However, amendments which do not alter nature of suit and are merely formal or explanatory can be permitted. (Para 3, 7)

(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 3 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 302, S. 307, S. 34 - Murder, attempt to murder and common intention - Appreciation of evidence - Allegation that accused along with co-accused persons came armed with country-made pistols and hand bombs and co-accused fired gun at deceased from close range, as a result of which, he died at spot and accused along with co-accused fired at others and threw another bomb, resulting in injuries to injured persons - Evidence conclusively establishes participation of surviving accused in crime with premeditation and prior planning, along with deceased co-accused - Essential ingredients of S. 34 of IPC, namely, pre-planning, premeditation and participation, stand fully established and proved against surviving accused - Since prosecution evidence had conclusively proved existence of pre-plan, premeditation and active participation on part of accused he was consequently liable to be convicted for offence and charge levelled against him by prosecution - Conviction was proper. (Para 32, 33)

(A) High Court of Karnataka Arbitration Proceedings before the Courts Rules (2001), R. 9(4) - Arbitration and Conciliation Act (26 of 1996), S. 21, S. 9, S. 11 - Arbitral proceedings - Commencement of - In relation to dispute - Commencement of arbitral proceedings is statutory event defined exclusively under S.21 of Act, wherein respondent's receipt of request to refer dispute to arbitration sets arbitral proceedings in motion and no judicial application i.e. whether under S.9 or S.11 petition, constitutes commencement.

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Release of marksheets and degree - On completion of course of BA.LLB - Prayer for - Appellant took admission in MB University and was issued Bonafide Certificate - Due to registration of FIR against University, students were unable to procure their academic documents - In order to address grievance of students, High Court, directed University to constitute Committee for verification and release of photocopies of relevant documents of students - However, name of appellant was not reflected in admission disclosure list - University admitted in its affidavit that appellant had taken admission in BA.LLB course and cleared all semester-wise examinations - Detailed Marks Certificates for 1st to 4th semester were issued to appellant - Name of appellant duly reflected in University's Green Register, which was primary internal record maintained by University - However, due to clerical and inadvertent error, name of appellant was not included in admission disclosure list sent to Committee - From affidavit of University and documents on record, undisputedly appellant was bona fide student of University and had cleared all her examinations - Exclusion of name of appellant in admission disclosure list was not due to no fault on part of appellant, rather same was at hands of University for which appellant cannot be made to suffer - University was directed to issue marksheets of 5th to 10th semester, degree and any other relevant documents, if any to appellant within four weeks. (Para 18, 19, 20)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226, Art. 14 - Bid - Cancellation of - On ground that quoted rate was allegedly lower than rates fetched for smaller plots of different dimensions - Decision to discard highest bid must have a nexus to rationale - Demand for smaller plots being higher was sold at a higher price per square metre than suit plot which was large in square metre - Merely because smaller plots were auctioned and sold at a higher price as compared to suit plot of larger size, could not have been basis for cancelling auction regarding suit plot - No other party had complained about process of auction conducted by authority - Expectation of a higher bid in a subsequent auction cannot be a reason to cancel an auction held in accordance with law - Financial bid offered by appellant was highest and above reserve price - There was no reason to decline financial bid - Bid ought to have been accepted - Order cancelling bid on basis of irrelevant considerations that too without notice to appellant was quashed. (Para 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S. 482 - Cognizance order - Quashing of - Development agreement was allegedly entered into between accused persons and complainant - As per terms of agreement, main consideration was 50% of built up area as absolute consideration for agreement - There was no endorsement in development agreement rewarding payment of any amount in favour of accused persons - Even assuming that accused persons refused to get development agreement registered due to non-payment of extra amount demanded by accused persons, same would give rise to a civil dispute - There was no intention of cheating from very inception as alleged in complaint and order taking cognizance - In entire complaint, there was no allegation that development agreement was executed claiming to be someone else or authorized by some one else or that accused persons altered or tempered a document - No prima facie evidence was brought by complainant showing that title of land of accused persons were forged and fabricated - No offence was made out against accused persons - Allegations gave rise to civil dispute but same was given colour of criminal offence - Permitting prosecution to continue against accused persons would amount to abuse of process of criminal court - Cognizance order was quashed. (Para 15, 16, 21, 22, 23, 24)

(A) Warehousing Corporations Act (58 of 1962), S. 42 - Constitution of India, Art. 309 - Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Service Regulations (1992), Regn. 110 - Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules (1982), R. 27 - Recovery from retired employee - Permissibility - After retirement of employee based on allegations of storage loss and Railway Transit Loss during tenure of employee as 'Centre Head', he was held responsible and his retiral benefits were withheld by applying R. 27 - Specific case of employee that Corporation lacked jurisdiction to institute departmental proceedings against him in absence of any provision in Regulations of 1992 - In furtherance to Regn. 110, no board decision/order adopting 1982 Pension Rules in toto for employees of Corporation had been brought on record - Provision of R. 27 cannot be made applicable ipso facto until Board of Directors had taken conscious decision specifying circumstances and making similar benevolent provision as made in 1982 Pension Rules or having sanction of Government as required under R. 27(2) (b)(i) for instituting or continuing proceedings in contingency as specified applying Regulations - Held, Corporation had no jurisdiction to institute departmental proceedings against employee for alleged misconduct and to direct recovery against him by applying 1982 Pension Rules - Accordingly, departmental proceedings against employee were quashed and Corporation was directed to release all retiral benefits to employee within eight weeks. (Para 21, 24, 26, 30)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.226, Art.309 - Bihar Engineering Service Class-II Recruitment Rules (2019), R.8(5) (As amended by Amendment of 2022) - Amendment in service recruitment rules - Retrospective application - Challenge against - State notified the Bihar Engineering Service Class-II Recruitment Rules, 2019, providing that selection to Assistant Engineer posts would be made solely on basis of marks obtained in written examination - BPSC issued advertisements in 2019, conducted written examination in 2022, published provisional merit lists - After recruitment process had substantially concluded, State issued the Bihar Engineering Service Class-II Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 2022, retrospectively introducing R.8(5) granting weightage for contractual experience and age relaxation from 2019 - Appellants, whose names appeared in provisional merit lists prepared under unamended 2019 Rules, challenged retrospective application of amendment - High Court dismissed writ petition holding amendment to be a permissible policy decision, observing that no vested right accrued from a merit list - Recruitment process had to be governed by rules existing on date of advertisement - Retrospective application of R.8(5) impermissibly changed basis of selection after "game had begun," violated Arts.14 and 16, and could not be applied to ongoing recruitment - Order of High Court was set aside and State was directed to finalize appointments strictly in accordance with unamended 2019 Rules within two months. (Para 34-45)

(A) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act (33 of 1976), S. 10, S. 9 - Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act (15 of 1999), S. 3 - Acquisition of vacant land in excess of ceiling limit - Principles of - Discussed. (Para .)

(B) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act (33 of 1976), S. 10(3), S. 10(5), S. 10(6) - Acquisition of vacant land in excess of ceiling limit - Delivery of notice - Requirement of issuance of notice under S.10(5) is mandatory and must be issued to person(s) actually in possession of concerned land. (Para .)

(C) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act (33 of 1976), S. 10(5), S. 10(6) - Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act (15 of 1999), S. 4 - Acquisition of vacant land in excess of ceiling limit - Abatement of proceedings - Landowner/holder of land may claim benefit of S.4 of Repealing Act (abatement of proceedings) if de facto possession has not yet been transferred either through voluntary surrender, peaceful transfer under S.10(5) of ULC Act.(which, requires notice to possessor) or forceful dispossession under S.10(6) of ULC Act. (Para 18.3)

(D) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act (33 of 1976), S. 10 - Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act (15 of 1999), S. 3(2), S. 4 - Acquisition of vacant land in excess of ceiling limit - Abatement of proceedings - Legislative intent is that in cases where lands were deemed to have been vested but possession was not yet transferred as on date of enforcement of Repealing Act , lands were to remain in possession of private parties - S.3(2) of Repealing Act prescribes procedure to be followed in specific types of situations, i.e., where amounts paid by State Govt. must be refunded - But, underlying concepts are clear, that vesting and possession are distinct and that without latter, private parties have a claim over continuing to be in possession - This is subsequently further emphasised in S.4 of Repealing Act under which proceedings abate. (Para 22. 6)

(E) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act (33 of 1976), S. 10(3), S. 10(5), S.10(6), S. 11, S. 12, S. 13, S. 14 - Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act (15 of 1999), S. 3, S. 4 - Acquisition of vacant land in excess of ceiling limit - Abatement of proceedings - Appellants were in actual possession of sub-plots at time of enforcement of Repealing Act - Notice under S.10(5) of ULC Act regarding transfer of possession to State Govt. was issued to original landowner but not to appellants - As, no notice was issued to appellants, there was no transfer of possession in accordance with S.10 of ULC Act and it continued with appellants both in fact and in law - Omission to issue notice to appellants violated mandatory requirement of serving notice under S.10(5) and meant that legal process of acquiring possession was still ongoing, leading to abatement of proceedings under S. 4 of Repealing Act on its enforcement - Order of Division Bench of High Court holding that appellants were not in possession of subject land on date on which ULC Act came into force and they were illegal occupantswas erroneous. (Para .)

(F) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act (33 of 1976), S. 10 - Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act (15 of 1999), S. 4 - Acquisition of vacant land in excess of ceiling limit - Abatement of proceedings - Consequential reliefs - In writ petition, Single Judge observed that appellants cannot be granted NOC as they had no valid title - Said reasoning was contrary to S.4 of Repealing Act inasmuch as abatement of proceedings was by operation of law based on facts of each case and once proceedings under S.10 of ULC Act abate, consequential reliefs would have to be granted to appellants - Hence, appellants were entitled to all consequential reliefs pursuant to abatement of proceedings under S.4 of Repealing Act. (Para 22. 9)

(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act (26 of 1996), S.9 - Interim relief - Prayer for appointment of Advocate Commissioner - To take possession of equipments described in schedule - Grievance of applicant was that respondent had committed breach of terms of agreement - Notice was issued by applicant to handover equipments immediately and also expressed intention of applicant to refer matter to arbitration - Respondent took stand that he is willing to handover equipments - Liberty was granted to applicant to re-possess all equipments from respondent. (Para 8)

(A) T. N. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act (14 of 1982), S.3 - Preventive detention - Detenue was detained branding him as 'Goonda' under Act - Two adverse cases and one ground case was registered against him - Detention order against co-accused on similar grounds was set aside - On ground of parity, detenue was entitled to same benefit - Hence, order of detention was not proper and set aside. (Para 5,6)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S. 433A - Premature release of prisoner - Murder convict - Petitioner was seeking premature release of his brother-convict, who completed over 17 years of life imprisonment - His request was rejected by State under G.O.(Ms)No.430 and G.O.(Ms)No.488 due to staunch objections from family of victim - Govt. orders mandate consideration of safety and life of affected family as a prerequisite for clemency and existing objection from kin of victim acts as a valid administrative barrier to invoking power of premature release of State - Cordial relationship had since developed and the families now reside in distant locations, rejection to premature release was legally sound based on record available at time of decision - Subjective satisfaction of State regarding potential for peace and safety is paramount in remission cases, petitioner was given liberty to file a fresh application supported by affidavits from family members proving their change of heart and cordial relations for seeking premature release. (Para 5, 6, 7)

(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act (26 of 1996), S.11, S.16 - Appointment of arbitrator - Legality - Leave and license agreement - There was arbitration agreement between parties - Undisputedly, possession had been handed over by appellant to respondents - Dispute between parties was regarding monetary claim by appellant asserting that security deposit should be repaid by respondents whereas respondents claimed sums of money towards alleged arrears of amounts payable for balance lock-in period - Appellant raised objection to appointment of arbitrator on ground that dispute is non-arbitrable in view of S.41 of Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 - S.41 of 1882 Act confers jurisdiction on Small Causes Court for certain types of disputes but it cannot be interpreted to mean that it neutralises arbitration clauses in agreements ex proprio vigore i.e. by its own force - Since application filed by appellant before arbitrator under S.16 was dismissed, parties have to work out their remedies in accordance with law - Dispute regarding nature of claim in form of debt or whether it pertains to matter covered under S.41(1) is required to be decided by arbitrator - Appointment of arbitrator was proper. (Para 21(I), 21(III), 22, 23, 27)

(A) Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O. 1, R. 10 - Impleadment of party - Challenge against - Suit was filed by owners of property to recover service charges for use of furniture and fixtures from respondent partnership firm that was inducted as a sub-tenant in premises by tenant - Appellant claimed to be successor of respondent, wanted to defend suit on its behalf or as its representative - Appellant had not established its independent right to be impleaded to defend suit except for claiming to be successor of respondent - Owners were not claiming any relief against appellant - There was no material to indicate that relief, as claimed in suit against respondent, if granted, would be implemented against appellant - Therefore, appellant was not a necessary party to suit - Appellant cannot be construed as a proper party once it had failed to establish that it was a successor to respondent - In absence of any evidence to prove that respondent had ceased to exist or cannot be represented in suit on its own to contest it on merits, appellant was not a proper party to provide any assistance to court in suit - Also, owners who had instituted suit were dominus litis and it was for them to choose their adversaries and they cannot be compelled to add a party to defend a suit against their wishes - Order of High Court setting aside impleadment of appellant was proper. (Para 31, 37, 38, 39, 41)

(B) Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O. 1, R. 10 - Impleadment of party - Challenge against - Suit was filed by owners of property to recover service charges for use of furniture and fixtures from respondent partnership firm that was inducted as a sub-tenant in premises by tenant - Appellant claimed to be successor of respondent and wanted to defend suit on its behalf or as its representative - Summons issued in suit meant to be served upon respondent were served in 2008 - Seal and signatures on acknowledgment on summons was of appellant which indicated that appellant had acquired knowledge of suit in 2008 - But, appellant kept silent and moved motion for impleadment only after evidence was closed in 2014 and court had directed to proceed ex-parte in matter - Impleadment application was filed almost after nine years of knowledge of pendency of suit - Order of High Court setting aside impleadment of appellant was proper. (Para 42)

(A) Contempt of Courts Act (70 of 1971), S. 12, S. 2(b) - Contempt petitions - Plea of wilful disobedience - Directions were issued by Court to return non-judicial stamp worth Rs. 3,99,100/- back to petitioner - Respondent had failed to refund amount of Rs. 3,99,100/- being cost of non-judicial stamp papers purchased by petitioner - Rejection of application of petitioner for refund was founded on R.218 of U.P. Stamp Rules, 1942 which prescribes refund of physical non-judicial stamp papers after expiry of a period of eight years - State conceded that said action was taken on a bona fide interpretation of said provision and had tendered unconditional apology and had stated that State remained duty-bound to implement directions issued by Court in interest of justice - Contempt petitions were disposed of by issuing a direction simpliciter to State to refund a sum of Rs. 3,99,100/- to petitioner, upon return of non-judicial stamp papers received by him from respondent. (Para 7, 8)

(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), S.348 - Summoning of witness - Denial of - Ground that earlier conditional order was not complied with by petitioners - Petition was filed seeking recall of prosecution witnesses for purpose of cross-examination - Petitioners were accused facing trial for offence u/S.420 of Penal Code - Prosecution witnesses were relevant witnesses and had not been cross-examined by petitioners - If petitioners were not allowed to recall witnesses and cross-examine them, it would cause grave prejudice to them - Hence, order denying to summon witnesses was not proper and set aside. (Para 7)

(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act (26 of 1996), S.34, S.21, S.23 - Arbitral award - Setting aside of - Nature and effect of S.21 notice - Scope of Arbitral Tribunal's Jurisdiction - Non-issuance of a separate S.21 notice does not vitiate arbitral proceedings, as S.21 is only for limitation and not a mandatory precondition - Where there is a wide arbitration clause and parties' conduct show submission of all disputes to arbitration, the tribunal has jurisdiction to decide all claims - Award cannot be set aside on ground that arbitration was restricted to a single dispute. (Para .)

(A) Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S.20, S.16(c) - Decree of specific performance - Readiness and willingness - Out of total sale consideration of Rs. 6.11 Crores, plaintiff had paid Rs. 90 lakhs as part payment - Plaintiff could not demonstrate that he had necessary financial wherewithal to make balance payment - He did not even visit Sub-Registrar's office on stipulated date - Plaintiff failed to prove his readiness and willingness - At same time, defendants too did not fulfil their contractual obligations, particularly with respect to obtaining mutation and securing conversion of suit property from leasehold to freehold - Since 17 years had passed since agreement, granting specific performance was no longer equitable relief - Decree of specific performance was rightly set aside - However, allowing defendants to keep earnest money would result in unjust enrichment, especially where both parties were at fault - Defendants were directed to pay lumpsum amount of Rs.3 crores to plaintiff. (Para 5, 8)

(A) Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act (30 of 1983), S.152 - Constitution of India, Art.226 - Writ petition - Alternate remedy - Dispute regarding misappropriation of funds of society - Statutory remedy of appeal was available to petitioner-members of society - Petitioners directed to file appeal within a period of thirty days. (Para 7)

(A) Limitation Act (36 of 1963), S.5 - Condonation of delay - Sufficient cause - Delay of 1221 days in filing second appeal - Petitioner claimed that he was residing in Dubai, came to know of appellate judgment only recently, and later suffered ill-health - However these explanations found vague and unsupported by any evidence - Petitioner had actively pursued first appeal from Dubai through counsel and failed to explain when he returned to India or why there was further delay even after obtaining certified copies - In absence of proof of illness and in view of clear negligence, inaction, and lack of bona fides, sufficient cause was not made out under S. 5 - Delay was not condoned. (Para 7,8,11,12)

(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), S.528 - Quashing of FIR and proceedings - FIR, read as a whole and supported by material collected during a duly conducted preliminary enquiry, prima facie disclosed specific allegations of siphoning, diversion and misappropriation of entrusted funds involving dishonest intent, use of intermediary accounts, and inflated or fictitious invoices, which could not be reduced to a mere breach of contract at this stage - Record showed that a preliminary enquiry was conducted prior to registration of FIR, notices were issued to petitioners, and unsatisfactory replies were received, thereby negating any violation of due process - Disputed questions of fact, pleas of mala fides, and defence of a purely civil dispute cannot be examined at stage of quashing High Court cannot conduct a mini-trial or test veracity of allegations while investigation is ongoing - Quashing at threshold is exception and not rule - In view of prima facie disclosure of cognizable offences and investigation being at a crucial stage, FIR and subsequent proceedings were not quashed. (Para 24-33)

(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), S.528 - Inherent power - Plea to modify condition imposed for grant of bail - Petitioner-accused was ordered to be released on bail on executing bond for sum of Rs.10,000/- with two local sureties with solvency certificate and another two blood sureties, each for like sum - Petitioner stated that he was not in position to produce two local sureties to satisfaction of trial Court - Also, stated that he does not have close blood relatives of family members to stand as sureties - Hence, condition imposed was modified to extent that petitioner shall be released on bail on executing bond for sum of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties to satisfaction of Court. (Para 5)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.226 - Writ of Mandamus - Petitioner sought direction to authorities to restore online patta in name of petitioner for property in question - No prejudice would be caused to authorities if direction is issued to authority-Revenue Divisional Officer to dispose of petitioner's appeal seeking restoration of online patta for property - Hence, direction was issued to Revenue Divisional Officer to dispose of petitioner's appeal seeking for restoration of online patta for property. (Para 4,6)

(A) Transfer of Property Act (4 of 1882), S.106 - Suit for eviction - Grant of decree - Plaintiff was absolute owner of suit schedule property - There was lease deed between plaintiff landlady and defendant tenant - Relationship between parties remain undisputed by defendant - Admittedly, no fresh lease deed was executed between defendant and plaintiff after expiry of lease period - Defendant claimed that plaintiff used to collect rent from him and issued receipts to him but prima facie no evidence was adduced by him to prove the same - Later, plaintiff issued notice to vacate suit propety to which defendant issued a reply - However, defendant neither vacate premises nor obtained fresh lease deed instead continued possession in suit property - It is settled law that status of erstwhile tenant has to be treated as tenant at sufferance, akin to trespasser having no independent right to continue in possession - Grant of decree in favour of plaintiff was justified. (Para 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23)

(A) Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S.31 - Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), S.151 - Sale deed executed by agent - Suspicious circumstances - Absence of proof of consideration - Multiple documents executed on same day - Life certificate produced despite alleged personal presence - Receipt undated and materially altered - Transaction held as sham and collusive - Possession of vacant land follows title - Consequently, Trial Court rightly held that plaintiff was in possession - However, money decree of Rs.5,00,000/- granted by Trial Court in favour of defendant was set aside - Judgment of trial court confirmed with modification.

(A) Limitation Act (36 of 1963), Art. 65 - Adverse possession - Suit for partition and separate possession - Claim of adverse possession by defendant over the ancestral property - Defendant was unable to prove any overt act denying plaintiff's title - There was no proof of knowledge of such denial, no pleading disclosing the date, month or year from which the alleged adverse possession commenced or of continuous hostile possession beyond twelve years - Plea of adverse possession was not tenable - Suit decreed in favour of plaintiff was proper. (Para 9,13,14)

(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.91, S.92 - Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S.10, S.22 - Agreement for sale - Suit for specific performance - Registered document - Defendants admitted it's execution - Wheras plaintiff pleaded that agreement was security for loan - Parties allowed to adduce evidence to show document was never intended to be acted upon - Surrounding circumstances showed prior loans, rent collection towards interest, negligible balance consideration and long period for completion - Agreement was sham - No intention to sell - Specific performance rightly refused - Refund of advance under S.22 could not be granted in absence of valid sale agreement. (Para 13, 14, 15)

(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), S. 482 - Anticipatory bail - Prayer for - Allegation that accused persons first stopped motorcycle on which deceased was travelling and thereafter assaulted him - Subsequently, co-accused fired shot from country-made pistol, as result of which deceased succumbed to his injuries - Though name of accused was earlier in complainant, complainant in his subsequent statement, did not attribute any specific role or presence to accused at scene of occurrence but described possibility of his role - Another alleged eye witness also stated in same line - Main accused was already arrested - Accused was aged about 25 years and there was no direct specific allegation against him - Anticipatory bail was granted subject to conditions. (Para 5)

(A) Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act (10 of 1937), S.20 - Retail vending shop - Petitioner was landlord of subject property - He had entered into agreement with respondent for opening of TASMAC shop in his property - Even after grant of permission, respondent had not yet opened shop - No prejudice will be caused to respondents if petitioner's grievance was considered on merits and in accordance with law, based on proceedings of Collector permitting opening of TASMAC shop, within time frame to be fixed by Court - Petitioner was directed to give representation to respondents for purpose of opening of TASMAC shop in subject property. (Para 4)

(A) Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S. 38 - Suit for permanent injunction - Claim by plaintiff that suit property was Gramanatham land and patta stood in their name and in their possession - Defendants admitted the possession of plaintiff but pleaded it to be communal land and that the Panchayat had installed a borewell, water tank and electric motor so plaintiffs does not have exclusive possession - Panchayat does not claim ownership to the same - Defendants though strangers to the land. claimed that said land was used for communal purposes such as assembly, last rituals and festival gatherings, but they had produced no revenue record, title deed, patta or any documentary evidence - Whereas plaintiff had proved his possession by producing patta, patta transfer proceedings and kist receipts - Grant of injunction was proper. (Para 14,17,18)