Civil – PbHr
Crop Insurance–Compensation– Kisan Credit Card Loan Facility– Case of complainant that crops of millet and cotton destroyed due to inadequate rainfall–Held, no document on file to prove any specific killa number in which crops were sown by applicant and same were allegedly destroyed–Applicant failed to produce any document regarding destruction/damage of his ¼ share of 182 kanal 14 marla land–It is not proved by applicant by filing any document about kill No. which were in exclusive possession of applicant–Report of Kanungo reiterated by Tehsildar, relied upon by applicant, does not refer to any description of land and merely relies on an information furnished by Nambardar–Applicant filed present application without filing claim petition before competent Board/Committee, that can assess total claim, as per notification of Government–Application filed under Section 22(C) Legal Services Authorities Act dismissed by Permanent Lok Adalat.
Date of decision–04.12.2023
Civil – PbHr (S.C Referred)
Civil Trial–General principles as to when a mere suit for permanent injunction shall lie and when it is necessary to file a suit for declaration and/or possession with injunction as a consequential relief :- (A) Where a cloud is raised over plaintiff’s title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction, is the remedy–Where plaintiff’s title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of possession, he has to sue for possession with a consequential injunction–Where there is merely an interference with plaintiff’s lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an injunction simpliciter. (B) As a suit for injunction simpliciter is concerned only with possession, normally issue of title shall not be directly and substantially in issue–Prayer for injunction shall be decided with reference to finding on possession–But in cases where de jure possession has to be established on basis of title to property, as in case of vacant sites, issue of title may directly and substantially arise for consideration, as without a finding thereon, it shall not be possible to decide issue of possession. (C) But a finding on title cannot be recorded in a suit for injunction, unless there are necessary pleadings and appropriate issue regarding title (either specific or implied)–Where averments regarding title are absent in a plaint and where there is no issue relating to title, Court shall not investigate or examine or render a finding on a question of title, in a suit for injunction–Even where there are necessary pleadings and issue, if matter involves complicated questions of fact and law relating to title, Court shall relegate parties to remedy by way of comprehensive suit for declaration of title, instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction. (D) Where there are necessary pleadings regarding title and appropriate issue relating to title on which parties lead evidence, if matter involved is simple and straightforward, Court may decide upon the issue regarding title, even in a suit for injunction–But such cases are exception to normal rule that question of title shall not be decided in suits for injunction–But persons having clear title and possession suing for injunction, should not be driven to costlier and more cumbersome remedy of a suit for declaration, merely because some meddler vexatiously or wrongfully makes a claim or tries to encroach upon his property–Court should use its discretion carefully to identify cases where it shall enquire into title and cases where it shall refer to plaintiff to a more comprehensive declaratory suit, depending upon facts of case.
Date of decision–26.02.2024
Civil – PbHr
Rent and Eviction–East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act–Section 13–Amendment of eviction petition at Appellate Stage–Bonafide Necessity–As per Section 13(3)(iii)(a), landlord while filing petition is expected to disclose that he is not occupying another building in urban area concerned or he has not vacated such building without sufficient cause after commencement of this act–Rent Controller dismissed eviction petition on ground that landlord did not disclose the fact that he has taken possession of ground floor of commercial premises–Appellate Court allowed application for amendment in order to fulfill requirements of Act–Plea of tenant that Appellate Authority has not granted any opportunity to file amended written statement and lead evidence–Held, only a procedural amendment in order to fulfill statutory requirement was allowed–Such amendments, which do not need any evidence but are necessitated by requirement of law, should not delay the decision of case–Plea rejected–Petition rightly allowed by Appellate Authority. (2) Eviction petition filed on ground of personal bonafide necessity–Landlord claims that premises is required for bonafide requirement of his wife, who wants to run her boutique–Plea of tenant that premises is not appropriate for running a boutique–Held, even if property is situated in a market, which is predominantly trading in iron (metal), still there is no prohibition in opening a boutique–Plea rejected–Petition allowed.
Date of decision–21.02.2024
Civil – PbHr (S.C Referred)
MACT–Fake Insurance Policy–Fault of Agent–In case agent of insurance company committed some wrong, insurance company may be entitled to initiate criminal action against him, however, insurance company cannot disown its liability to pay the compensation, as Principal is liable for acts of its agent. — Insurance company has been exonerated by Tribunal on ground that insurance policy was fake–Hence this appeal–Held, no details of any fraud or forgery given in written statement filed by insurance company–Though pleadings under Motor Vehicles Act are summary in nature, however, basic principles of CPC would be applicable as per Order 6 Rule 4 CPC in all cases in which party relies on any misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, willful default or undue influence–Particulars would be necessary to give details of fraud–There are no details of any fraud or forgery–If at all it is a forged and fabricated document, it was obviously prepared in connivance with officials of insurance company and possibly that would explain why insurance company did not lodge any complaint regarding the same–Appeal allowed–Award Modified–Insurance Company held liable to pay the compensation.
Date of decision–26.02.2024
Civil – PbHr
Order 7 Rule 14 CPC–Where plaintiff sues upon a document, then he is liable to produce the same in Court–In present case, claim of plaintiff is based on registered Will, which was not annexed with plaint–Defendant moved an application for production of original Will, but Trial Court dismissed application on ground that photocopy of Will placed on record and onus is on plaintiff to produce the same and in case of failure to produce the same, adverse inference would be drawn against plaintiff–Hence this revision–Held, when case of plaintiff rests on basis of Will, then it is his duty to produce original Will for purpose of perusal and examination by other party–No prejudice would be caused to plaintiff in producing original Will–Revision allowed–Plaintiff is directed to produce original Will.
Date of decision–22.02.2024
Civil – PbHr
MACT–Driving Licence–Hazardous Goods Vehicle–No endorsement on licence to drive hazardous goods vehicle–No evidence that accident took place because of dangerous or hazardous substance being carried in vehicle–Insurance company cannot be absolved of its liability. — Recovery Rights–There is nothing on record which could point out to fact that accident occurred because of fact that endorsement on license was missing or driver was incompetent to drive the vehicle in absence of endorsement–Thus insurance company can neither escape its liability to pay compensation nor press for rights of recovery–Findings of Tribunal absolving insurance company of its liability set aside–Award passed by Tribunal modified.
Date of decision–19.01.2024
Civil – PbHr
MACT–Registration number of offending vehicle disclosed by petitioner after 35 days of accident and driver-owner of offending vehicle are neighbours of petitioner–Plea of collusion rejected–Petition allowed. (2) Motor Vehicles Act–Section 166–FIR registered against an unknown vehicle after two days of accident–Initially petitioner was aware about description of offending vehicle i.e. a tractor but was not knowing about its registration number, however, after an effort being made by his family, he came to know registration number of offending vehicle–He throughout remained consistent in his cross examination about involvement and negligence of offending vehicle–Mere fact that he admitted driver and owner of offending vehicle to be his neighbours is not enough to impeach his credibility–Motor Vehicles Act is beneficial legislation and strict proof of liability cannot be made applicable under said Act–Further, insurer did not try to summon any witness (including driver and owner) to prove collusion –Petition allowed. (3) Contributory Negligence–Plea of insurance company that accident took place as a result of head on collision, thus it was a case of contributory negligence–Held, plea of contributory negligence cannot be believed without there being any evidence led to establish negligence on part of petitioner–Plea rejected.
Date of decision–21.12.2022
Civil – PbHr
MACT–Sec.163A–Amendment in petition to reduce income of deceased from Rs.4000 per month to Rs.3000 per month–Application for amendment allowed. — Motor Vehicles Act–Section 163-A–While filing petition, claimants claimed that deceased was earning more than Rs.4,000 per month–During pendency of petition, upon realizing that petition u/s 163-A M.V Act is maintainable only for persons who are having an income upto maximum of Rs.40,000 per annum, an application for permission to amend the petition filed, to reduce income of deceased to Rs.3,000 per month–Tribunal dismissed application–Hence this revision–Held, only amendment sought is to scale down income to come within maximum limit prescribed in Schedule to M.V Act–Amendment of pleadings is a well known concept and in absence of any specific bar or prohibition or restriction, it would not be appropriate to hold that Tribunal or Court has no power to permit parties to amend the petition–Revision allowed–Tribunal shall proceed to decide amended claim petition, in accordance with law.
Date of decision–28.09.2023
Civil – PbHr
MACT–Section 163-A M.V Act–Claim from own insurance company–Deceased was driver-owner of Eicher 407–Comprehensive insurance policy–Insurer of Eicher 407 cannot escape from its liability. — Motor Vehicles Act–Section 163A–Version of claimants that deceased was going on his vehicle Eicher 407–Deceased lost balance, due to which his vehicle struck with a Trailer and suffered serious injuries–On statement of father of deceased, FIR u/s 279, 304-A IPC registered–Claimant has been awarded compensation of Rs.6,04,500, out of which, insurer of Trailor was directed to pay Rs 4,04,500 holding primary liable and remaining Rs.2,00,000 to be paid by insurer of Eicher 407–Hence this appeal–Insurer of Eicher 407 denied its liability on ground that deceased was owner of Eicher 407 and owner does not fall within purview of third party–Held, insurance policy of Eicher 407 was comprehensive or package policy covering the driver and it was specifically mentioned that even the owner could drive the vehicle having valid driving license–Therefore, insurance company could not escape its liability–Appeal dismissed.
Date of decision–17.08.2023
Civil – PbHr
Order 21 Rule 41 CPC–Section 56 CPC–Suit filed by plaintiff seeking recovery of arrears of rent and damages decreed–In Execution, J.D has been sentenced to undergo civil imprisonment for one month and warrants of arrest issued against her–Hence this revision–Plea of J.D that according to Section 56 CPC, there is a specific prohibition of arrest or detention of a women in execution of decree for money–Held, proceedings are initiated on application under Order 21 Rule 41 CPC, which enables decree holder to get information from judgment debtor regarding his or her assets, which is within the special knowledge of judgment debtor–Therefore, it cannot be said that application under Order 21 Rule 41 CPC is an application for execution of decree but merely it is an aid to decree holder to enable him to execute the decree by obtaining information from J.D–J.D was not justified in disobeying orders of Executing Court passed under provisions of Order 21 Rule 41 CPC–She was duty bound to disclose about her assets alongwith documents which she failed to disclose–Revision dismissed.
Date of decision–13.09.2023
Civil – PbHr
Suit for declaration, joint possession and permanent injunction–Challenge to Will and transfer deed on ground of fraud–Executors of both registered documents died much after execution of Will and transfer deed, but within their lifetime, they never made complaint about any such incident of wrong act committed against them by defendants that their signatures and thumb impressions taken forcibly or some fraud was played–Further, a registered document/registered sale deed carries presumption of genuineness unless rebutted–Burden is on the person who alleges that it is not genuine–Plaintiff failed in bringing any evidence on record to prove his pleadings–There is endorsement of Sub Registrar on transfer deed that it was read over and explained to executant–Defendants proved execution of Will and transfer deed by examining scribe and attesting witness of said documents–Suit dismissed.
Date of decision–23.08.2023
Civil – PbHr (S.C Referred)
Service Matter–Mere acquittal in a criminal case does not entitle an employee to reinstatement in service. — Once a government servant is convicted on a criminal charge of murder, his dismissal from service is an automatic consequence of conviction–It is not desirable to retain such a person anymore in service. — In present case, petitioner was a Government servant and was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment u/s 302 IPC by trial Court and said judgment has not been set aside till date and appeal filed by petitioner is pending in this Court–On basis of conviction of petitioner, firstly petitioner was suspended and thereafter he was dismissed from service–Petitioner challenged both orders in a civil suit which was dismissed but in appeal both orders were set aside with liberty to competent authority to pass fresh orders while taking into consideration conviction of petitioner–In compliance of order passed by Appellate Court, competent authority considered the matter afresh and passed fresh order whereby petitioner was dismissed from service–Order upheld.
Date of decision–31.07.2023
Civil – PbHr
Appointment of Lambardar–Choice of Collector cannot be ignored in a cavalier manner–It is subjective satisfaction of Collector which has to be given respect–Appointment of Lambardar is primarily the prerogative and administrative act of District Collector–Selection made by him is normally not to be undone unless and until it is shown that same suffers from gross irregularity, perversity or there is some patent error in appointment. — Petitioner was found to be 50 years of age who was under matric by qualification–He has 40 kanals of land and thus, is agriculturist by profession–On the other hand, respondent no.4 was found to be 51 years of age who was 8th class passed–He was an ex-serviceman and on verification, found to have received an award in Battle of Kargil–He permanently resided in village and actively participated in development activities–Respondent no.4 was appointed Lambardar by Collector–Order upheld.
Date of decision–13.07.2023
Civil – PbHr
Service Matter–Ex gratia amount–Limitation Period–Bread earner of family died on 22.09.2008 in harness–Petitioners moved application dated 20.12.2008 seeking appointment on compassionate ground–This application never came to be adjudicated–Petitioners moved application on 16.09.2011 seeking ex-gratia amount in lieu of appointment on compassionate ground–This application was dismissed on ground of barred by limitation–Petitioners challenged this order–Held, as per policy, application for compassionate appointment could be moved within 12 months and application for ex-gratia amount could be moved within 06 months–Petitioners moved application for compassionate appointment within 3 months from date of death of employee–Alternative relief should not be treated as fresh application whereas it should have been considered as continuation of earlier application and must relate back to original application–Petition allowed–Respondents-Bank is directed to make payment of ex-gratia amount alongwith interest @ 6% per annum.
Date of decision–07.07.2023
Civil – PbHr
National Highway Authority of India Act–Section 3-H–Disbursement of compensation–Maintainability of writ petition–Where several persons claim to be interested in amount deposited under Sub Section 1, competent authority is required to determine the persons who, in its opinion, are entitled to receive the amount payble to each of them and if dispute arises as to apportionment of amount or any part thereof, competent authority shall refer the dispute to decision of Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction within the limit of whose jurisdiction, land is situated–Thus statutory remedy prescribed under this Act is either to approach competent authority and/or a reference may be so made by competent authority to Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction–Since an efficacious alternative remedy is available to petitioners under the statue, present writ petition is dismissed.
Date of decision–15.05.2023
Civil – Delhi
Execution Proceedings–Process of Court can not be utilized for purposes of gathering information as to whereabouts or other information in respect of judgment debtor–It is primary obligation of decree holder itself to obtain such information from wherever it is possible. — In present case, plea of decree holder that he has been unable to trace out residential address of judgment debtor and trying from last seven years to execute the decree–He filed an application seeking directions to bank of judgment debtor to produce KYC and other relevant documents of judgment debtor so as to be able to trace out address or any additional information in regard to whereabouts of judgment debtor–Application dismissed.
Date of decision–29.05.2023
Civil – PbHr (S.C referred)
Agreement to sell–Relief of specific performance is not to be granted where only nominal amount is paid out of total sale consideration. (2) Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC–Suit for specific performance dismissed by trial Court–Appeal preferred by plaintiff along with application for ad interim injunction–Agreement settled for consideration of amount of Rs.4,28,00,000 whereas only 4.5% of total sale consideration paid as advance payment–Payment of nominal consideration shall not entitle grant of discretionary relief of specific performance because even if proposed seller, on suit being decreed much later than date of agreement to sell, gets only sale price with interest and with this amount, seller can not purchase an equivalent property which he would have purchased many years earlier when agreement to sell was entered into–No prima facie case made out nor balance of convenience lies in favour of plaintiff–Stay application dismissed.
Date of decision–29.05.2023
Civil – PbHr (S.C referred)
Order 15 Rule 5 CPC–Defence struck off–Plaintiff filed suit for possession of suit property and also for recovery of amount of Rs.96,64,597, consisting of arrears of lease money, mesne profits and electricity dues–During pendency of suit, plaintiff filed application for striking off defence of defendants on account of non payment of lease money, electricity dues and STP charges–Held, where defendant has not denied his status as being lessee, it was imperative for him to have deposited arrears of rent due together with interest on or before first date of hearing and as per second part of sub-rule(1) of Rule 5 of Order 15 CPC, he was under specific obligation to make regular deposit of monthly amount due, whether he was admitting any such dues or not–Thus defendants cannot escape their liability to pay arrears of lease money etc on ground that plaintiff failed to comply with terms and conditions enumerated in lease deed–Application allowed–Direction issued to defendants to make payment Rs.1,14,83,922 on these counts.
Date of decision–30.05.2023
Civil – PbHr (S.C referred)
Oral Will–Sanction of mutation on basis of Oral Will–Evidentiary Value–Sections 63, 65 & 66 Indian Succession Act–Oral Will is unknown to law–Section 63 Indian Succession Act requires a Will to be in writing–Secondly, mutation of property in revenue record does not create or extinguish title nor has any presumptive value on title and it only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered, to pay land revenue in record–Thus claim of title on suit property on basis of mutation, sanctioned on basis of oral Will, rejected. (2) If there is any dispute with respect to title and more particularly when mutation entry is sought to be made on basis of Will, party who is claiming title/right on basis of Will, has to approach appropriate Civil Court/Court and get his rights crystalised and only thereafter on basis of decision before Civil Court, necessary mutation entry can be made.
Date of decision–28.04.2023
Civil – PbHr
Rejection of Plaint–Suit for recovery of damages for defamation–Cause of action not disclosed–Simply averring in plaint that defamatory and derogatory statements have been made, would not amount to disclosure of cause of action. — Perusal of plaint reveals that none of the facts constituting cause of action i.e. defamation, are forthcoming from plaint–There is not a whisper as to which derogatory/defamatory statements allegedly made by defendant–Plaint is silent regarding details of authorities wherein alleged defamatory/derogatory statements are alleged to have been made by defendant–Plaint does not disclose any dates on which cause of action is stated to have arisen–Thus details mentioned in plaint are not sufficient for continuation of suit–Application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC allowed–Plaint rejected.
Date of decision–18.04.2023
Civil – PbHr (S.C referred)
Execution Proceeding–Executing Court has to execute the decree even if it is erroneous–Only a decree, which is nullity, can be subject matter of objection under Section 47 CPC and not one which is erroneous either in law or on facts–Executing Court is required to execute the decree as it is and it cannot go beyond the decree, which had been passed.
Date of decision–09.05.2023
Civil – PbHr
Civil trial–Exhibition of documents–If documents are already a part of record & they are per se admissible, Court is itself required to mark those documents as exhibits–For this purpose, no separate application is required. (2) Order 13 Rule 4 CPC–Application filed by petitioner for marking the documents as exhibits, which are already a part of record, dismissed by trial Court–Hence this revision– Held, there is a local amendment in Order 13 Rule 4 CPC, as applicable to States of Punjab and Haryana–Court can mark the documents at any stage particularly when they are already a part of record–Revision disposed of while directing trial Court to mark the documents as exhibits, if same are per se admissible.
Date of decision–09.12.2022
Civil – PbHr (S.C referred)
Service Matter–Dismissal from service without departmental inquiry–Article 311(2)(b) of Constitution–Mere allegation that petitioner had close connection with accused and helped them, who are hardcore criminals, would not be sufficient ground to invoke Article 311(2)(b) to dispense with holding of departmental inquiry before dismissing him from service. (2) Petitioner stands dismissed from service on ground that he had close connection with accused, against whom FIR No.0036 registered & petitioner helped them, which would hamper security of State–His dismissal is by invoking Article 311 (2) (b) of Constitution of India, thereby dispensing with normal procedure of holding a departmental inquiry under Rule 16.24 of Punjab Police Rules–Petitioner challenged this order–Held, Article 311(2)(b) would show that authority, who is empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce his rank without holding departmental inquiry, has to record reasons in writing as to why it is not reasonably practical to hold such inquiry–This reasoning is missing in present order–Mere registration of FIR is also not a valid ground to dispense with holding a regular inquiry–Petition allowed–Order dismissing petitioner from service set aside, leaving it open to Department to take departmental action in accordance with law.
Date of decision–05.12.2022
Civil – PbHr
Agreement to Sell–Non payment of stamp duty- Suit for specific performance–Delivery of possession is disputed–Application for impounding agreement to sell on ground of non payment of stamp duty dismissed– Alternative prayer for rejection of plaint also declined. (2) In a suit for specific performance based upon an unregistered agreement to sell, which contained a clause regarding part performance of contract by delivery of possession, shall not be dismissed for want of registration of contract. (3) Order 7 Rule 11 CPC–Headnote of plaint shows that plaintiff is seeking relief of possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell–Prayer clause also shows the same–Though a routine averment made by plaintiff in plaint regarding delivery of possession, same has been denied by defendant–Thus it cannot be said with absolute certainty that possession of suit land is with plaintiff–If after appreciation of evidence, Court finds that possession is delivered to plaintiff vide agreement, then before pronouncement of judgment, deficiency in stamp duty can be fulfilled–Application for impounding agreement to sell on ground of non payment of stamp duty by plaintiff dismissed and alternative prayer for rejection of plaint also declined by trial Court– Order upheld.
Date of decision–30.11.2022
Civil – PbHr
Execution under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC– Maintainable only if Court comes to conclusion that judgment debtor had an opportunity of obeying the decree but wilfully failed to obey it. (2) Suit for permanent injunction decreed– Executing Court directed delivery of possession of suit property to decree holder solely on ground that as per report of Local Commissioner, judgment debtor found in possession of suit property–Hence this revision–Held, Executing Court did not record any such finding that judgment debtor had an opportunity of obeying the decree but wilfully failed to obey it–Order passed by Executing Court set aside while requesting it to pass fresh order after proof of requirements provided U/O 21 R 32 CPC–Revision allowed.
Date of decision–28.10.2022
Civil – PbHr (D.B) (S.C referred)
Punjab Village Common Lands Act–Section 7– Eviction of unauthorized occupant–Protection u/s 4(3)(ii) PVCL Act–Gram Panchayat filed petition u/s 7 PVCL Act seeking eviction of respondent from Shamlat Deh–Respondent sought protection/exemption u/s 4(3)(ii) PVCL Act–Held, Clause (ii) of Section 4(3) shall be attracted only if three conditions are satisfied (1) the person must be cultivating land which is part of Shamilat deh of a village (2) he should be cultivating such land for a period of 12 years immediately preceding commencement of the Act (3) he should be cultivating such land without payment of rent or payment of charges in excess of land Revenue and cess– All three conditions stand fulfilled–Petition dismissed.
Date of decision–27.10.2022
Civil – PbHr (S.C referred)
MACT–Offending vehicle driven/used without a valid registration–It amounts to violation of Section 39 and 192 Motor Vehicle Act, which is a fundamental breach of terms and conditions of policy–Recovery rights granted to insurance company. (2) Certificate of registration of offending vehicle reveals that it was registered as a transport vehicle being motor cab and registration was valid upto 16.04.2016-Since accident took place on 09.07.2016, so, on date of accident, registration of vehicle had already expired-Perusal of Section 39 M.V Act shows that no person shall drive motor vehicle in any public place without any valid registration granted by registering authority in accordance with provisions of MV Act-Thus using a vehicle on public road without any registration is not only an offence punishable u/s 192 Motor Vehicles Act but also fundamental breach of terms & conditions of policy contract-Recovery rights granted to insurance company.
Date of decision–11.11.2022
Civil – PbHr (S.C referred)
MACT–100% Permanent Disability–Attendant Charges to be calculated on basis of multiplier method–Assuming attendant charges at nominal rate of Rs.4,000 per month & applying multiplier of 18, it comes to Rs.8,64,000 (4000 X12 X 18). (2) Injury Case-Quantum-Functional Disability- Petitioner, a young person of 20 years has become mentally retarded due to head injuries- He has become mentally retarded-IQ 58% and suffered 100% permanent disability in relation to whole body-He has become mentally retarded, which has resulted in complete loss of income earning capacity-Thus functional disability of petitioner assessed @ 100% (3) Compensation under Non Pecuniary Heads (Pain and sufferings, Disability, loss of amenities and enjoyment of life) awarded Rs.6 Lakh. (4) Compensation on account of loss of marriage prospects awarded Rs.2 Lakh. (5) Total Compensation awarded Rs.48,05,142 alongwith interest @ 9% per annum on amount of compensation from date of filing of petition till its realization.
Date of decision–09.11.2022
Civil – PbHr (S.C referred)
MACT–Death of Child aged 4 years–Quantum– In case of death of a non earning member like a child, compensation shall be calculated after taking into consideration notional income of deceased, at the time of accident–Therefore, compensation need to be granted by taking into consideration notional income as Rs.30,000 per annum (including future prospects) after applying multiplier of 15–Claimant is also entitled for compensation under other conventional heads, such as consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses-Total compensation awarded Rs.5,27,000 alongwith interest @ 9% per annum. (2) Driver of offending vehicle acquitted by Juvenile Justice Board-Held, proceedings under Motor Vehicle Act are summary in nature -Judgment of a criminal case is not binding in these proceedings where burden of proof is strict-Thus, merely fact that driver has been acquitted, cannot come to rescue of driver- Petition allowed.
Date of decision–29.10.2022
Civil – PbHr (S.C referred)
Specific Performance of agreement to sell– Readiness–Financial Capacity–Except oral statement made by plaintiff while appearing as PW-1, no document produced to establish his financial capacity as regards balance sale consideration–Findings regarding readiness cannot be recorded in favour of plaintiff–Suit dismissed. (2) Plea of plaintiff that in order to prove his readiness, plaintiff is not required to file proof of entire amount of balance sale consideration being ready with him in shape of cash-Held, despite being not required to prove cash in hand throughout, plaintiff is required to prove his financial capacity based on reliable documents-Oral evidence, even if uncontroverted, would not be of much relevance in this regard-Plea rejected. (3) Delay in filing suit has to be treated fatal to interest of plaintiff. (4) Plea of plaintiff that once there is total denial of execution of agreement on part of defendant, he is estopped from raising objection as regards readiness and willingness on part of plaintiff-Held, merely because defendant denied execution of agreement to sell, does not absolve plaintiff from duty to assert and prove that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract-Plea rejected. (5) Plaintiff failed to establish his readiness & willingness to perform his part of contract as enjoined u/s 16(c) Specific Relief Act-Suit for specific performance dismissed. (6) Readiness means capacity of plaintiff to perform his part of contract which includes his financial position to pay purchase price and willingness to perform his part of contract which relates to his conduct.
Date of decision–28.10.2022
Civil – PbHr
Cancellation of Admission in University–Refund of fee–Seat remained vacant due to withdrawal of admission by petitioner–University not liable to refund of fee. (2) Petition under Section 22-C(1) Legal Services Authorities Act–Petitioner took admission in B.Tech and Rs.1,15,000 deposited as tuition fee and other charges for whole academic year-He sought cancellation of admission after a month of attending classes & prayed for refund of amount deposited by him- University refunded only Rs.3,000 as against total deposited amount of Rs.1,15,000-Hence this petition-Held, as per provision contained in Brochure regarding refund of fee, if seat has remained vacant on account of not being filled up by any other student by last date of admission, Institution is not liable to refund of fee-Having taken part in admission process, fully knowing conditions and having exercised his options, it does not lie for petitioner to subsequently raise a challenge to terms and conditions of Brochure-In so far as plea of petitioner that it was for University to establish that seat remained vacant, is concerned, said plea is without merit-There can be no negative burden cast upon University to establish a fact which is not in existence–Said burden lay on petitioner that seat had actually been occupied & not remained vacant-Petition dismissed.
Date of decision–27.09.2022
Civil – PbHr
Setting aside ex parte judgment and decree– Dismissal of Application–An effort has to be made that lis be decided by giving opportunity to both sides to represent their case on merits, but principle of hearing both parties cannot be stretched to an extent so as to give a chance to a party who is intentionally and for malafide reasons, with a purpose of delaying the matter, is avoiding to join the proceedings despite knowledge, at cost of a litigant who is pursuing his remedy with due diligence and thus cannot be made to suffer agony of de novo trial for no fault on his part, but just to benefit someone who has no sense of importance for Court proceedings. (2) Order 9 Rule 13 CPC–From evidence available on record, it has been proved that summons were duly served upon petitioner and he failed to establish any sufficient cause for his non appearance–Application U/O 9 R 13 dismissed.
Date of decision–19.10.2022
Civil – National Commission
Life Insurance Law-Intoxication- Accident benefit claim-Death by drowning-Insurance company repudiated accident benefit claim on ground that deceased was under influence of alcohol (drunk) at the time of accident-Hence this complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act-Held, in Post Mortem Report, there are no findings to prove that stomach contents had smell of alcohol and whether blood and urine samples of deceased were collected or not-As per FSL report, blood alcohol concentration (BAC) was 59.45 mg%–As per Modi’s Jurisprudence, a person who has consumed less than 150 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of his blood, cannot be said to be under influence of alcohol (intoxicated), whereas as per text book of Lyon’s, a person having 100 mg or more per 100 ml of blood shall be said to be under influence of alcohol-Thus, BAC level 59.45 mg% is far less to say that deceased was intoxicated as to be out of his senses or with reflexes impaired-As per PMR, death of insured was due to ‘asphyxia’ and ‘wet drowning’, and not due to ‘intoxication’–Complaint allowed.
Date of decision–14.09.2022
Civil – National Commission (S.C referred)
Medical Negligence-Expert Opinion-In each and every case of alleged medical negligence, there is no absolute need for an expert opinion and it is not mandatory-There cannot be a mechanical or strait jacket approach that each and every case must be referred to experts for evidence-State Commission dismissed consumer complaint by holding that there is no expert evidence adduced by complainant-Order set aside-Matter remanded back.
Date of decision–05.09.2022
Civil – PbHr (S.C referred)
Service Matter-Annual confidential report (ACR) which records adverse comments, has to be given to an employee, so as to seek comments and to give opportunity to employee to present his case qua adverse remark recorded therein, failing which said report cannot be taken into account for any purpose so as to cause prejudice to employee concerned. (2) Though arrears of salary can be declined but arrears of pension, once found entitled for, cannot be declined. (3) Where an employee has rendered 30 years of service continuously, State cannot be permitted to take a stand that employee was not regular in service and non-regularization of services, resulting in denial in pension, is unreasonable.
Date of decision–15.07.2022
Civil – PbHr (D.B)
Installation of water connection without consent of co-sharer–Applicant is co-sharer of land in question-Water connection disconnected on complaint of another co sharer on ground that applicant did not obtain ‘No Objection Certificate’ from other co-sharers prior to obtaining water connection-Applicant challenged this order by filing application under Section 22-C Legal Services Authorities Act in Permanent Lok Adalat-Held, words used in amended bye laws vide notification dated 03.05.2016 especially bye-law 5 (v) shows that water connection shall only be released in name of owner and not in name of GPA holder or any other person-This makes it clear that person has to be an exclusive owner of property-In case of co sharer, water connection can be obtained if other co-sharers give their consent for issuance of water connection- There being no partition of land, applicant cannot be said to be exclusive owner of land in question and thus has rightly been denied re-connection of water-Application dismissed.
Date of decision–04.04.2022
Civil – PbHr
Rent Law-Mesne Profit-Mere filing of appeal by tenant against order of eviction does not operate order of stay on order of eviction-Order has to be specifically passed and that would lie under discretion of Lower Appellate Court to grant or not to grant the stay-Even if, stay regarding dispossession is granted by Lower Appellate Court, claim with regard to mesne profit cannot vanish away-Issue of mesne profit is to be decided during pendency of appeal when appeal is pending for disposal-During pendency of appeal, tenant is liable to pay the charges towards use and occupation with regard to premises in question-Tenancy stands terminated with passing of order of eviction with effect from that date-Landlord is not bound by contractual rate of rent effective for the period preceding the date of order-For any period subsequent thereto, tenant becomes liable to pay damages for use and occupation at the rate at which landlord would have let out the premises on being vacated by tenant. (2) In present case, Appellate Authority calculated Rs.85,000 per month towards mesne profit-Rent agreement specifically prescribes rate of rent to be Rs.50,000 per month with an increase of 10% per annum- Since rent agreement has already been relied by Rent Controller while ejecting tenant, thus rate of rent @ Rs.50,000 per month with an increase of 10% per annum would bring tally to Rs.85,000 per month-Order upheld.
Date of decision–07.12.2021
Civil – PbHr
Suit for permanent injunction-Possession in form of throwing rubbish, putting kurdis and tethering cattles etc. cannot be said to be settled possession of user of such type of land- Plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction, restraining defendants from interfering in possession over suit property comprised in khasra No.102/4, claiming that plaintiff with other co-sharers is owner in possession of suit land-Plea of defendants that they are in possession of suit property and same is being used by defendants for putting their kurdis, tethering cattles etc.–Held, khasra No.102/4 is owned and possessed by plaintiff and same is proved on basis of revenue record-Possession of defendants over some part of khasra No.102/4 cannot be held to be settled possession as same was found to be in form of throwing rubbish and putting kurdis and tethering cattles etc.–Mere an act of throwing rubbish is a weak evidence of user, which cannot take place of evidence of possession and same is not conclusive proof of possession unless an overt act to exclude others from use and possession of same is established-Suit decreed
Date of decision–07.12.2021
