Education – Implementation of 6th and 7th Central Pay Commission (CPC) in Private Unaided and Minority Schools – Private unaided schools, including minority schools, directed to implement 6th and 7th CPC recommendations for staff salaries and benefits. Compliance with Section 10 of Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (DSE) mandated, ensuring salaries and benefits are on par with government-aided schools. [Paras 49-57, 158-172]

Constitutional Rights – Minority Educational Institutions – Minority unaided schools bound by Section 10 of DSE – Required to provide salaries and benefits to staff equivalent to those in government-aided schools, notwithstanding minority status. [Paras 150-170]

Administrative Law – High-Powered Committee Establishment – Formation of Zonal and Central level committees for overseeing and ensuring implementation of CPC recommendations in private unaided schools, addressing staff grievances regarding pay and arrears. [Paras 200-206]

Delay and Laches – Claims for Arrears – Staff claims for arrears based on Pay Commission recommendations not barred by delay or laches – Schools responsible for timely implementation and payment irrespective of claim timing. [Paras 173-182, 186-191]

Decision – Mandate for private unaided and minority schools to adhere to Pay Commission recommendations – Establishment of committees for streamlined implementation and redressal of staff grievances. [Paras 202-206, 208]

Validity of Tax Assessment on a Social Club Under the Delhi Tax on Luxuries Act, 1996 – Challenge to the order by Delhi Gymkhana Club regarding tax assessment for FYs 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2011-12 under the Delhi Tax on Luxuries Act, 1996 – Club argued based on principles of mutuality and its status as a not-for-profit company under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 – Held, the club falls within the ambit of "establishment" and "hotelier" as defined in the Act, thus liable for luxury tax as per Section 3. [Para 1, 2, 3, 11]

Impact of Amendments in the Delhi Tax on Luxuries Act, 2012 on Assessment – Examination of the Act's provisions pre and post the 2012 Amendment – Noted that the amendment expanded the scope of establishments liable for luxury tax but did not directly affect the club's liability for the assessment years in question – The principle of mutuality not applicable due to the club's provision of residential accommodation. [Para 4, 16, 17, 19]

Principles of Mutuality and Applicability to Tax Levies – Reference to Supreme Court decisions on the doctrine of mutuality in relation to club activities and tax levies – Observations on the difference in context and statutory provisions between the Delhi Tax on Luxuries Act and cases cited – Held, principles of mutuality inapplicable to the club's case for the assessment years under consideration. [Para 22, 23]

Conclusion and Implications for Future Assessments – The Court upheld the Commissioner's order for the assessment periods FY 2009-10 to 2011-12, noting the specific statutory provisions applicable during those years – Emphasized that this decision should not be treated as a precedent for periods post the 2012 Amendment Act. [Para 25, 26]

Decision – Delhi Gymkhana Club's challenge to the tax assessment under the Delhi Tax on Luxuries Act, 1996, dismissed – Club held liable for luxury tax for FYs 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2011-12 – Observations made regarding the non-applicability of mutuality principles and impact of the 2012 Amendment Act limited to the assessment years in question. [Para 26]

Income Tax – Reassessment proceedings under Section 148 – Challenge against issuance of notice for reassessment – Impugned notice based on ‘reason to believe’ that income had escaped assessment – Writ petition filed against proceedings. [Paras 1-6]

Income Tax Return – Filing and processing of return – Return for Assessment Year 2011-12 processed under Section 143(1) – Subsequent issuance of notice under Section 148 after six years and nine months. [Paras 4-6]

Assessing Officer’s Duties – ‘Reason to believe’ for reassessment – Failure to furnish reasons alongside notice – Petitioner’s request for ‘reason to believe’ document and subsequent response from AO. [Paras 8-9]

Legal Principles – Reassessment based on ‘reason to believe’ versus ‘reason to suspect’ – Distinction critical for initiating reassessment proceedings – Assessment based on suspicion not sufficient. [Para 17.5]

Procedural Irregularities – Non-disclosure of relevant documents and information by AO – AO’s reliance on information not shared with petitioner – Misalignment of periods in question for reassessment. [Paras 16-17, 17.2-17.3]

Judicial Review – High Court’s examination of reassessment proceedings – Lack of tangible material to support AO’s belief – Quashing of the impugned notice under Section 148. [Paras 18-20]

Decision – Quashing of impugned notice for reassessment under Section 148 – Petition disposed of with no order as to costs. [Paras 20-23]

Goods and Services Tax – Classification of Polypropylene Woven and Non-Woven Bags – Challenge against Circular No. 80/54/2018-GST dated 31.12.2018 – Circular quashed due to lack of authority of Tax Research Unit to issue such clarifications under CGST Act. [Paras 1, 3, 4, 7, 23]

Judicial Authority – Power of Tax Research Unit under Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 – TRU lacks statutory authority to issue clarifications or directives on classification of goods – Only the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs empowered to issue such directions. [Paras 5, 6, 23]

Tax Classification – Dispute over Classification of Polypropylene Bags – Whether to be classified under plastic goods (Chapter 39) or textiles (Chapters 56 and 63) – Matter left open for competent authority due to lack of comprehensive material and industry-wide ramifications. [Paras 10-12, 26-28]

Statutory Interpretation – Interpretation of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 – Notes in Chapter 39 excluding textiles from its ambit – Circular failed to consider distinctions between plastics and textiles as per the Act. [Paras 9, 26]

Judicial Review – Role of Courts in Classification Disputes – Courts to avoid definitive rulings on classification without adequate material – Importance of addressing industry-wide impacts and statutory framework in classification disputes. [Paras 27, 28]

Decision – Quashing of Impugned Circular No. 80/54/2018-GST dated 31.12.2018 – Petitioners allowed to adopt permissible legal measures for resolving classification issue. [Para 29]

Writ of Certiorari – Quashing Proceedings – Petition for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to quash proceedings of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.3855/2016/Ka.4 dated 08.07.2016 – Challenge to order for recovery of compensation amount from Block Development Officers, including petitioner, for electrocution incident in 2005. [Para 1, 5]

Electrocution Incident and Legal Proceedings – Electrocuting incident in Kadambangudi Village in 2005 – Suits filed by legal heirs of deceased in O.S.Nos.312 and 313 of 2010 – Ex-parte decree awarding compensation – Subsequent recovery orders from Block Development Officers including the petitioner. [Para 3, 4]

Responsibility and Accountability – Petitioner's contention of no responsibility for ex-parte decree and financial loss to the government – Petitioner joined as Block Development Officer after the decree date – Allegation of dereliction of duty by earlier officers. [Para 6, 13]

Principle of Natural Justice – Impugned order against the principles of natural justice – Lack of notice or opportunity for petitioner to present his case before issuing recovery order. [Para 15, 16]

Decision – Impugned order in Na.Ka.No.3855/2016/Ka.4, dated 08.07.2016 set aside – Direction to return the recovered amount to the petitioner – Establishment of no fault on petitioner’s part in the electrocution incident and subsequent legal developments. [Para 17]

Companies Act, 2013 – Non-Furnishing of Report Under Section 208: Petitioners contend non-receipt of report under Section 208 as grounds for stalling investigation – Court finds no legal right for petitioners to demand report at investigation stage – Appropriate stage for such contention is during criminal trial. [Paras 1, 27, 28]

Natural Justice and Procedure – Compliance in Investigations: Petitioners argue non-adherence to principles of natural justice and procedural norms under Companies Act, 2013 – Court observes no mandatory requirement for hearing or explanation from petitioners at pre-investigation inquiry stage – Emphasizes uninterrupted progression of investigations without undue stalling tactics. [Paras 3, 18-24]

Judicial Precedents – Relevance to Current Case: Petitioners cite judgments from Bombay High Court and coordinate Bench regarding Companies Act, 2013 provisions – Court finds cited judgments not supporting petitioners’ contention about mandatory furnishing of report during investigation. [Paras 7-14]

Investigation Process under Companies Act – Steps and Compliance: Court outlines necessary sequential steps for investigation under Sections 206-210 – Emphasizes on following procedural norms before submitting report to Central Government for further investigation. [Paras 15-17]

Decision – Dismissal of Petition: Court dismisses WPA 23787 of 2023, ruling no legal basis for petitioners’ demands at investigation stage – Highlights importance of not impeding investigations based on inflated notions of audi alteram partem. [Paras 29, 30]

Bail Application – Rejection of Bail in Money Laundering Case – Petitioner's involvement in alleged primary teacher recruitment scam – Petitioner, previously the President of the West Bengal Board of Primary Education, accused of facilitating illegal appointments – Bail application rejected due to the gravity of the offense and the influential position of the petitioner, impacting the ongoing investigation. [Para 1-10]

Money Laundering Allegations – Enforcement Directorate's Investigation – Allegations of money laundering in connection with the recruitment of primary teachers – Recovery of incriminating materials from petitioner's premises – ED argues strong evidence against the petitioner, making a case for continued custody. [Para 5-6, 9]

Judicial Considerations for Bail – Parameters for Granting Bail – Court considers factors such as the nature and gravity of the accusation, the severity of punishment upon conviction, and potential impact on ongoing investigation – References to Supreme Court judgments highlighting the seriousness of economic offenses and the necessity of stringent conditions for granting bail. [Para 9-10, 13]

Investigation Timeline – Directive for Completion of Investigation – Hon’ble High Court's direction for the conclusion of investigation by 31st December 2023 – Emphasis on the need for thorough investigation within the set timeline, considering the complexity and impact of the case. [Para 9]

Impact of Petitioner's Role in Recruitment – Evaluation of Petitioner's Influence and Control – Examination of the role and responsibilities of the petitioner as the President of the West Bengal Board of Primary Education – Discussion on the extent of his influence over the recruitment process and appointments at the district level. [Para 7-8]

Rejection of Bail – Consideration of Ongoing Investigation and Petitioner's Influence – Court's decision to reject bail based on the advanced stage of the investigation and the petitioner's influential position, which could potentially impact the investigation's outcome. [Para 10]

Trademark Infringement – Pharmaceutical Product Similarity – AZIWOK vs. AZIWAKE – Alleged infringement of Plaintiff’s registered trademark ‘AZIWOK’ by Defendant’s use of ‘AZIWAKE’ for similar azithromycin pharmaceutical products – Issues concerning phonetic similarity, potential consumer confusion, and need for clear distinction in pharmaceutical trademarks. [Paras 44-45, 52-56]

Preliminary Objection and Urgent Interim Relief – Rejection of Defendant’s objection based on Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act regarding pre-institution mediation necessity – Plaintiff’s case of urgent interim relief accepted. [Paras 27-40]

Phonetic Similarity – Application of ‘Pianotist’ test – Concluding AZIWAKE phonetically similar to AZIWOK, potentially confusing average consumer with imperfect recollection – Emphasis on increased caution in pharmaceutical trademark similarity cases following Cadila Health Care Ltd. Precedent. [Paras 43-45, 52-53]

Balance of Convenience and Irreparable Harm – Favoring Plaintiff due to longer history of trademark usage and potential brand dilution – Acknowledgment that monetary compensation inadequate for trademark infringement in pharmaceuticals. [Paras 68-69]

Decision – Grant of interim injunction against Defendant’s use of ‘AZIWAKE’ – Exception for existing market stock with specific compliance requirements. [Para 70]

Initiation of Contempt Proceedings – Contempt petition filed following the submission of an alleged fraudulent order from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) by respondents in a trademark infringement case. [Para 1]

Investigation of Fraudulent Document – Inquiry conducted by Registrar (Vigilance) and Registrar (Original Side) into the authenticity of the document, revealing the document's suspicious nature. [Paras 4-6]

Unconditional Apology by Respondents – Respondents, particularly respondent No. 1, misled by advocate Mr. Sanjay Aggarwal, tendered an unconditional apology and explained the acquisition of the document. [Paras 7-10]

Discharge from Contempt Proceedings – Court accepted the respondents' unconditional apology and discharged them from the proceedings. Directed Bar Council of Delhi to take action against Mr. Sanjay Aggarwal if guilty of producing the fraudulent document. [Paras 11-12]

Decision – Contempt case disposed of with discharge of respondents. Direction issued to Bar Council of Delhi for appropriate action against the involved advocate. [Para 12]