Application for Exemption – CPC Section 151 – Applications for various procedural exemptions including filing clearer copies, original documents, and pre-litigation mediation – Exemptions granted with stipulations for filing within specified time frames [Paras 1-10].

Pleadings – Filing Requirements – Directions for filing written statements, affidavits, and replications within prescribed periods – Emphasis on adherence to procedures to avoid rejection [Paras 11-15].

Interim Injunction – Copyright Infringement – Plaintiff seeks interim relief to prevent defendant from using copyrighted sound recordings – Plaintiff owns rights through assignments under Section 18 of the Copyright Act – Court finds prima facie case for interim injunction, emphasizing the need to protect copyright and prevent irreparable damage to plaintiff [Paras 16-37].

License Fee Dispute – Section 31 of Copyright Act – Plaintiff alleges defendant’s unwillingness to pay standard license fee – Defendant claims unreasonableness of fees – Court directs that the defendant may negotiate with plaintiff but must adhere to demanded fees for license issuance [Paras 38-41].

Decision: Applications for various exemptions and interim relief granted – Directions issued for compliance with procedural requirements – Interim injunction imposed to prevent copyright infringement pending final resolution – Case listed for further proceedings.
 

Negligence in Educational Institutes – Medical Facilities – Petition filed alleging negligence resulting in the death of a student due to inadequate medical facilities at Thakur Polytechnic College – Court acknowledges individual tragedy but emphasizes the broader issue of medical infrastructure in educational institutes – Directions issued to State authorities to ensure medical facilities [Paras 1-4].

Writ Jurisdiction – Tort Law – High Court finds it inappropriate to adjudicate on disputed factual issues related to pre-existing conditions and negligence in writ jurisdiction – Petitioner's claim for damages falls within tort law, hence not granted relief for damages [Para 7].

Mandate for Medical Facilities – State Government directed to issue directives ensuring medical facilities in educational institutes – Reference to AICTE guidelines and the need for structured medical infrastructure – Importance of immediate medical aid highlighted – Circular dated July 10, 2024, issued by the Higher and Technical Education Department mandating basic medical facilities in all educational institutes [Paras 8-12].

Government Circular and Compliance – Circular mandates first aid rooms, medical training, insurance for students, and emergency response mechanisms – Need for consequences for non-compliance emphasized – Directions for monitoring and ensuring adherence to medical facility standards – Proposal for a helpline and social media presence for reporting deficiencies [Paras 12-14].

Decision:

Petition partly allowed – Directions issued to State authorities for ensuring medical facilities in educational institutes – Petitioner's individual claim for damages rejected – State Government to issue similar directives within one month – Rule made absolute in specified terms [Paras 14-15].

Bail Application – Regular Bail – Appellants accused of drug smuggling and financing terrorism – Held in custody for nearly four years – High Court granted bail emphasizing the constitutional right to speedy trial and personal liberty – Bail granted with strict conditions despite stringent provisions under UAPA and NDPS Act [Paras 1-29].

Constitutional Law – Right to Speedy Trial – Appellants detained for four years without trial – Supreme Court’s precedent cited to reinforce the right to speedy trial and personal liberty – Detention exceeding substantial part of potential sentence considered [Paras 12-15, 26].

Statutory Interpretation – Sections 37 of NDPS Act and 43D of UAPA – Twin conditions for bail – Reasonable grounds to believe accused not guilty and unlikely to commit offense while on bail – High Court found compliance with these conditions, facilitating bail grant [Paras 17-19, 23].

Case Specifics – Role of Appellants – Charges against appellants varied, with different sets of offenses under IPC, NDPS Act, and UAPA – Detailed examination of charges, role in alleged crimes, and lack of recovery of drugs or proceeds of crime for some appellants [Paras 8-10, 20-22].

Decision – Bail Granted – Held – Appellants directed to be released on bail with stringent conditions – Conditions include furnishing substantial sureties, surrender of passports, regular court appearance, and prohibition from involvement in criminal activities or tampering with evidence [Paras 27-29].

Arbitration – Challenge to Award – Interest on Claims – VAT Claims – Challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act against an award allowing claims for unsupplied items and VAT components – Held that the arbitrator acted beyond jurisdiction by granting claims contrary to contractual terms – Clause 15.4 of the tender document precluded any interest claims against the purchaser – Arbitrator’s award of interest despite contractual bar was beyond his jurisdiction – VAT claims for unsupplied items and post-delivery period precluded by contractual terms – Award set aside [Paras 1-44].

Contractual Terms and Jurisdiction of Arbitrator – Arbitrator bound by contract terms – Section 28(3) of the Act mandates consideration of contract terms – Short closure clause within the tender terms justified non-purchase of balance items – No breach of contract by petitioner railways – Arbitrator’s award disregarding contract terms vitiated by illegality and perversity – Section 34(2)(a)(iv) and Section 34(2-A) of the Act invoked [Paras 22-29, 35-41].

Interest Award – Clause 15.4 of bid document barred interest claims – Section 31(7) of the Act permits interest only if not otherwise agreed by parties – Arbitrator’s award of interest beyond contract terms held illegal and beyond jurisdiction – Judgments cited reinforcing arbitrator’s inability to grant interest in contradiction to contract [Paras 37-40].

Decision – AP No.105 of 2021 allowed – Arbitral award dated September 24, 2020, set aside – No order as to costs – Directions for urgent certified copies issuance upon compliance [Paras 44-46].

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 260A – Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 – Appeal against Tribunal's order dismissing appellant's plea due to non-payment under the Scheme – Tribunal and lower authorities erred in dismissing appeal as withdrawn without issuing a certificate under Section 90(2) of the 1998 Act – Appeal allowed, remanded to Commissioner (Appeal) for fresh decision on merits [Paras 2-8].

Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 – Section 90 – Interpretation – Appeal withdrawal contingent upon issuance of certificate under Section 90(2) – No certificate issued due to non-payment by appellant – No automatic dismissal of appeal – Jurisdictional Commissioner required to decide appeal on merits [Paras 6-7].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Case remanded to Commissioner (Appeal) for fresh adjudication on merits – Pending miscellaneous applications disposed of [Para 9].
 

Bail – Regular Bail in Suicide Case – Petitioners sought bail in a case under Section 306 IPC, alleging harassment leading to suicide – Court noted petitioners' long incarceration, lack of evidence examination, and Supreme Court’s bail principles – Bail granted considering prolonged detention without trial progression [Paras 1-15].

Suicide Note – Evidentiary Value – Suicide note implicated petitioners – Court awaited forensic report on handwriting – Emphasized bail does not determine guilt but ensures presence for trial [Paras 6, 8, 15].

Principles of Bail – Fundamental Rights – Referenced Supreme Court principles on bail as a rule and jail as an exception – Highlighted right to a speedy trial and presumption of innocence – Emphasized judicial discretion in granting bail to avoid unnecessary incarceration [Paras 10-12].

Decision – Petitions Allowed – Held – Petitioners granted regular bail on furnishing bail bonds – Observations limited to bail decision, not affecting trial merits [Paras 16-18].
 

Criminal Law – Bail – Petition for regular bail – Petitioner arrested with counterfeit currency notes – Prosecution case based on secret information and recovery by police – Petitioner claims false implication and non-recovery of counterfeit notes – Petitioner contends that counterfeit notes are toys and not genuine currency – Held – Petitioner in custody for over 9 months – Several other cases against petitioner but on bail in majority – Past cases not a basis to refuse bail in present case – Reference to Supreme Court rulings allowing bail despite pendency of other cases – Bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 1-7].

Bail Conditions – Regular Bail – Petitioner to furnish bail bonds and surety bonds – Conditions include non-inducement of witnesses, attendance on court dates, no absenteeism without permission, surrender of passport, and disclosure of residence and mobile details – Imposition of further conditions at trial court’s discretion [Para 7].

Decision: Petition allowed. Petitioner granted regular bail subject to furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court/duty magistrate/chief judicial magistrate concerned. Specific conditions imposed include non-inducement of witnesses, mandatory court attendance, surrender of passport, and reporting of residence and mobile number changes. Court emphasizes that involvement in any other criminal activity during the trial will be viewed seriously and may lead to bail revocation [Para 7].

Cheque Dishonour – Appeal Against Acquittal – Appellant challenged trial court’s acquittal of respondent in cheque dishonour case – Court upheld acquittal noting lack of evidence of goods delivery and accused’s liability – Emphasized need for concrete proof to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 2-6, 12-14].

Presumption and Evidence – Section 138 and 139 NI Act – Court highlighted requirement to prove debt or liability for cheque dishonour cases – Noted failure to provide delivery proof, invoices without acknowledgment, and absence of business records corroborating transaction – Accused’s claim of misplaced cheque book substantiated by timely police report [Paras 10-12].

Scope of Acquittal Appeals – Reappreciation of Evidence – Reiterated principles of limited interference in acquittal appeals – Emphasized prejudice in favour of acquitted accused and necessity of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt for conviction [Paras 9-10].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – Trial court’s judgment well-reasoned and evidence-based – No grounds to interfere with acquittal – Leave to appeal denied [Para 14].

Customs Law – Acquittal and Exit Permit – Petitioner, a Chinese national, was intercepted at Mumbai airport carrying gold bars, subsequently acquitted by the trial court – Customs Department’s appeal dismissed – Respondent No. 2’s failure to challenge acquittal within the statutory period – FRRO’s refusal to issue Exit Permit due to pending LOC initiated by Customs Department – High Court criticizes Customs Department’s conduct as vindictive and an abuse of power – Orders issuance of Exit Permit and compensation for mental agony and trauma [Paras 1-42].

Article 21 of the Constitution – Right to Liberty for Foreign Nationals – Court emphasizes protection of liberty under Article 21 extends to foreign nationals – Highlights procedural failures and humanitarian considerations – Ensures no discrimination against foreign nationals and upholds right to fair treatment and liberty [Paras 34-39].

Jurisdiction and Procedural Compliance – Respondent No. 2’s appeal found non-maintainable due to lack of requisite approval as mandated by Circular No. 27/2015-Cus – High Court underscores necessity for compliance with procedural requirements before filing appeals [Paras 23-28].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – High Court directs issuance of Exit Permit within one week – Orders compensation of Rs. 10,00,000 to be paid to petitioner by Union of India, recoverable from salary of responsible Customs official – Emphasizes humane and fair treatment of foreign nationals in accordance with constitutional provisions [Para 42].