Adv. Pradeep Kumar Khatana-CIVIL,CRIMINAL,CYBER Lawyer in Gurgaon

11/07/2026

Rent Controller Cannot Condon Delay Beyond 15 Days | Punjab & Haryana High Court Explained

Can the Rent Controller condone a delay in filing an application for leave to defend after the statutory period of 15 days? In this video, Advocate Pradeep Kumar Khatana explains the important judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Aiman v. Nasib Chand, Civil Revision No. 7301 of 2010, decided on 10.11.2010, wherein the Court held that the Rent Controller has no power to condone the delay after expiry of the statutory period prescribed under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.

The judgment reiterates that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, particularly Section 5, are not applicable for condoning delay in filing leave to defend before the Rent Controller. The Court relied upon several earlier precedents and held that the Rent Controller is deemed to be a Court only for limited purposes and cannot exercise powers beyond the statute.

This video is essential for advocates, landlords, tenants, law students, and anyone dealing with rent litigation.

Citation:
Aiman v. Nasib Chand, Civil Revision No. 7301 of 2010, decided on 10 November 2010, Punjab and Haryana High Court, before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, reported in 2011 (4) RCR (Civil) 91.

Key Principle:
The Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond 15 days in filing an application for leave to defend under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.

Hashtags:

10/07/2026

Title:
Narinder Singh Rao v. AVM Mahinder Singh Rao & Ors. (AIR 2013 SC 1470): A Landmark Judgment on Succession, Wills, and Inheritance Rights

Description:
The Supreme Court in Narinder Singh Rao v. AVM Mahinder Singh Rao & Ors., AIR 2013 SC 1470 clarified significant principles governing inheritance under the Hindu Succession Act. The Court held that an unregistered and unattested document providing that the survivor would inherit the property was neither a valid Will nor a valid instrument of transfer. Consequently, upon the owner’s intestate death, the property devolved equally upon the widow and children. The judgment further reaffirmed that a person can bequeath only the share legally vested in him or her, and questions of fact such as testamentary capacity or benami ownership cannot ordinarily be raised for the first time in a second appeal. This decision continues to be an important precedent in succession disputes involving Wills and co-heir property rights.

Citation:
Narinder Singh Rao v. AVM Mahinder Singh Rao & Ors., AIR 2013 SC 1470 : (2013) 9 SCC 425

Hashtags:

09/07/2026

Title:
Order XXI Rules 99 & 101 CPC | Third Party Rights in Ex*****on Proceedings | Supreme Court Landmark Judgment

Description:
A landmark Supreme Court judgment explaining the scope of Order XXI Rules 99 & 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, holding that a third party dispossessed during ex*****on proceedings can seek adjudication of their rights before the executing court itself without being compelled to file a separate civil suit. The Court clarified that in cases involving vacant land, delivery of possession through the Court Nazir amounts to dispossession of the person in possession, and all questions relating to right, title, and interest must ordinarily be decided by the executing court.

Citation:
N.S.S. Narayana Sarma & Ors. v. Goldstone Exports (P) Ltd. & Ors., (2002) 1 SCC 662 (Reported in Apex Court Judgments, 2004(1), Paras 21–27).

Hashtags:

06/07/2026

Title:
Can a Minor Child Be Summoned to Testify Against a Parent in Matrimonial Litigation? | Punjab & Haryana High Court

Description:
In Dharmendra Kumar v. Rubika Kumar & Ors., CR No. 7129 of 2013 (Punjab & Haryana High Court), Justice K. Kannan held that although a child may be a competent witness under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is grossly inappropriate to summon a minor child to testify regarding the alleged adulterous conduct or personal behaviour of a parent in matrimonial disputes. The Court emphasized that compelling a child to depose against a parent causes immense emotional embarrassment and should be avoided except in the rarest of circumstances. The revision petition seeking to summon the minor daughter as a witness was dismissed.

Citation:
Dharmendra Kumar v. Rubika Kumar & Ors., CR No. 7129 of 2013, decided on 22.11.2013, 2014 (Suppl.) Civil Court Cases 491 (P&H).

Hashtags:

05/07/2026

Title:
Sanction Under Section 197 Cr.P.C. Not Required for Fabrication of False Evidence by a Public Servant – State v. Shiv Lal
Description:
In State v. Shiv Lal, the Delhi High Court held that a public servant cannot claim protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. for acts that are wholly outside the scope of official duty. The Court ruled that the deliberate fabrication of a search memo and creation of false evidence to secure the conviction of an accused is not an act performed in the discharge of official functions. Consequently, prior sanction for prosecution under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was held to be unnecessary. The judgment reiterates that the test is whether there exists a reasonable nexus between the alleged act and the official duty of the public servant. Acts involving intentional fabrication of evidence or abuse of authority do not qualify for statutory protection. This decision remains an important precedent on the limited scope of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. and accountability of public officials.
Citation:
State v. Shiv Lal, Criminal Reference No. 1 of 1981, decided on 23.03.1998, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) (Delhi High Court).
Hashtags:

03/07/2026

Title:
Section 145 Cr.P.C. Proceedings Not Maintainable When Civil Suit Is Pending – Kulbir Singh v. State of Punjab (P&H High Court)
Description (Approx. 150 words):
In Kulbir Singh v. State of Punjab, Criminal Misc. No. 14759-M of 1996, decided on 12.12.1996 by the Punjab & Haryana High Court, the Court held that proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not maintainable where the dispute between co-owners is already pending before a competent Civil Court. Since the Civil Court had granted a temporary injunction restraining the parties from alienating the property beyond their respective shares, the High Court observed that the Executive Magistrate should not have initiated parallel proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. The Court emphasized that issues relating to possession and partition should be left to the Civil Court for adjudication, and criminal proceedings should not be used to interfere with pending civil litigation. Consequently, the Kalandra, the SDM’s order, and the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were quashed.
Citation:
Kulbir Singh v. State of Punjab, Criminal Misc. No. 14759-M of 1996, decided on 12.12.1996 (Punjab & Haryana High Court).
Hashtags:

27/06/2026

Title:
Calcutta High Court Upholds Corporate Reputation: ₹5 Lakh Defamation Damages Awarded Against Political Leaders for False Allegations Against TISCO

Description:
The Calcutta High Court, in a landmark defamation suit, held that false and reckless allegations published against Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. (TISCO) seriously damaged its commercial reputation and goodwill. The Court awarded ₹5 lakh as compensatory damages against each of the concerned political defendants, granted a decree of perpetual injunction, directed publication of an unconditional apology within one month, and observed that damages in defamation must compensate injury to reputation, humiliation, and loss of goodwill while deterring irresponsible public accusations.

Citation:
Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. The Observer (India) Ltd. & Ors., Suit No. 7 of 1997, decided on 13.04.1998 (Calcutta High Court), reported in 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 226.

Hashtags:

25/06/2026

23/06/2026

Title: Service of Statutory Notice under Section 138 NI Act is Mandatory – Failure to Prove Valid Service Leads to Acquittal

Description:
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that valid service of statutory demand notice is not a mere technical requirement but an essential ingredient for constituting an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Where the complainant fails to establish proper service of notice upon the accused, conviction cannot be sustained and the accused becomes entitled to acquittal.

Citation:
Sharanayya v. Chandrakanth
(2014) 4 Criminal Court Cases 71 (SC)

Hashtags:

22/06/2026

False Information under Section 182 IPC | Mere Allegation Is Not Enough to Prosecute

The Supreme Court held that for an offence under Section 182 IPC, it must be specifically established that false information was knowingly given to a public servant with an intention to misuse lawful authority against another person. Mere failure of allegations or absence of police action does not automatically make the complaint false. The Court further observed that where the investigating agency fails to establish intentional falsehood and harassment, criminal proceedings under Section 182 IPC deserve to be quashed.

Citation of Judgment:
Santosh Bakshi v. State of Punjab & Others
Reported as: 2014 (4) Criminal Court Cases 494 (SC)

Hashtags: