Criminal Petition – Quashing of Complaint – Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing complaint in C.C.No 225 of 2018 for offense under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Accused sought to quash complaint alleging fraudulent cheque and misuse of power of attorney. [Para 1, 5]

Cheque Fraud – Accusation of issuing a fraudulent, colored Xerox copy of a cheque – Complainant alleged the accused issued a cheque for Rs. 2,50,00,000/- which was returned due to being a fraudulent copy. [Para 4]

Power of Attorney – Validity and Use in Criminal Proceedings – Argument that power of attorney holder cannot file a complaint in their own name; need for explicit assertion of knowledge in the transaction by the power of attorney holder – Reliance on judgments of Apex Court for interpretation. [Para 5, 6, 7, 10, 13]

Procedural Defects – Assessment of technical defects in legal proceedings – Court's consideration of whether procedural discrepancies, such as mentioning a future bouncing date of a cheque in a power of attorney, are technical in nature or affect the merits of the case. [Para 11, 12, 15]

Trial Proceedings – Necessity of detailed factual examination – Court's emphasis on the need for a full trial to ascertain factual details and resolve disputes related to the issuance and misuse of the cheque and the power of attorney. [Para 17, 18, 19]

Decision – Dismissal of Criminal Petition – Court's refusal to quash the complaint at the initial stage and direction for the continuation of the trial to determine the factual aspects and decide on the merits of the case. [Para 17, 18, 19, 20]

Bail Application – Grant of Anticipatory Bail in Case FIR No. 260/2023 – Allegations of Rape and Threats under Sections 376/377/504 IPC – Petitioner's Relationship with Prosecutrix and Subsequent Incidents – Application for Anticipatory Bail Filed. [Para 1]

Facts of the Case – Allegations by Prosecutrix of Forceful Physical Relations, Threats with Nude Photographs, and Forced Abortion – Petitioner's Relationship with Married Prosecutrix and Subsequent Avoidance. [Para 2-3]

Defense by Petitioner – Claims of Prosecutrix Being Already Married with a Child, Withdrawal of Previous Complaint, and False Allegations – Submission of False Divorce Decree by Prosecutrix – Petitioner's Participation in Investigation. [Para 5-6]

Prosecution's Argument – Seriousness of Allegations, Pretense of Marriage for Sexual Acts, and Threats to Prosecutrix – Support of Prosecutrix's Version in Statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C. [Para 7]

Court's Observations – Consensual Nature of Relationship, False Divorce Decree, and Lack of Evidence for Video-graphed Sexual Acts – Complaint of Threats Unsubstantiated. [Para 8-9]

Decision – Grant of Anticipatory Bail to Petitioner with Conditions – Personal Bond of Rs. 25,000/- and Joining Investigation as Required – Observations Not Reflecting Opinion on Merits of the Case. [Para 10-11]

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 – Challenge to Arbitral Award – Petitioner challenges the arbitral award under Section 34 of the A&C Act – Objection to the award delivered by the Arbitral Tribunal concerning a Services and Alliance Agreement. [Para 1]

Arbitral Proceedings and Award – Disputes arising from the Services and Alliance Agreement and subsequent amendments – Award of Rs.2 crore with interest by Arbitral Tribunal to the respondent for breach of Agreement by the petitioner – Rejection of claims related to damages for losses and goodwill. [Para 2-3]

Novation and Amendment of Agreement – Contention that the initial Agreement was novated by a subsequent agreement without an arbitration clause – Court finds subsequent agreement only amended certain clauses, not novating the original agreement. [Para 4, 6]

Validity of Arbitral Proceedings – Petitioner’s argument on the invalidity of arbitral proceedings due to alleged novation – Court upholds the validity of proceedings, finding no novation of the original agreement. [Para 4, 6-8]

Issuance of Post-dated Cheque and Settlement – Argument that issuance of post-dated cheque resolved disputes and arbitral tribunal was not a competent forum – Court rejects the contention, finding no conclusive settlement agreement. [Para 4, 8]

Public Policy – Claim that the award is against the Public Policy of India – Court rejects the contention as baseless and without explanation. [Para 9]

Decision – High Court dismisses the petition, upholding the arbitral award – Finds no merit in objections under Section 34 of the A&C Act. [Para 10]

Income Tax Assessment and Judicial Review – Petition against order and notice under Income Tax Act for alleged tax evasion. The case revolves around the question of whether the Revenue should continue proceedings given the small amount involved. [Para 1]

Petitioner’s Prayers for Relief – Seeking quashing of the order dated 29.07.2022 and notice dated 30.07.2022. Requests include writs of Mandamus/Certiorari or similar orders to set aside the actions taken by the Revenue. [Para 2]

Contest over Amount of Income Escapement – Counsel for petitioner asserts that the income escaping assessment is not more than Rs. 12,800. The respondent’s counsel, representing the Revenue, concedes to the meager amount after internal deliberations. [Paras 3, 5]

Revenue’s Decision and Court’s Disposition – Based on Revenue’s decision to not pursue the case due to the negligible amount, the court disposes of the petition. The broader legal questions are left open for determination in appropriate future cases. [Paras 6-7]

Enforcement of Foreign Award – Jurisdiction of Delhi High Court in Enforcement Proceedings – Award debtor’s contention of lack of jurisdiction due to non-residency and absence of assets in Delhi – Counter-argument of assets owed to award debtor by a company in Delhi – Court’s determination of jurisdiction based on existence of debtor’s assets within its domain. [Para 1-6]

Jurisdictional Analysis – Debt Classification and Financial Health – Court’s analysis on whether amount owed constitutes an asset of the debtor – Consideration of financial statements and classification of debt as “doubtful” or “written off” – Supreme Court’s precedent on interpretation of written off debts and their recoverability – Court’s conclusion that existence of debtor’s asset within its jurisdiction confers enforcement authority. [Para 7-10]

Policy Against Forum Shopping – Applicability in Enforcement Proceedings – Supreme Court’s guidelines on enforcement proceedings location – Relevance of the award debtor’s assets location for jurisdiction purposes – Dismissal of concerns regarding forum shopping in enforcement context. [Para 13-14]

Decision – Rejection of Preliminary Objection – Delhi High Court’s jurisdiction upheld for enforcement proceedings against the award debtor – Dismissal of applications challenging jurisdiction – Setting date for further proceedings. [Para 15-17]

Criminal Appeal – Cheque Dishonour Case – Appeal against acquittal in a Section 138 NI Act case – Appellant challenges trial court's acquittal of the respondent for dishonour of a cheque worth Rs. 7 Lacs – Appeal based on the contention that the trial court erred in not considering the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. [Para 1-7]

Presumption under Section 139 NI Act – Examination of the presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque – Appellant contends that the respondent failed to rebut the presumption of a legally enforceable debt – Trial court's analysis of presumption and burden of proof discussed. [Para 8, 10, 14]

Evidence and Cross-Examination – Analysis of the evidence and cross-examination of witnesses – Trial court's findings on the credibility of witnesses and the improbability of the appellant's claim – Discussion on the absence of a written agreement or receipt of payment, and discrepancies in the appellant's statements. [Para 10-12, 14]

Defence of the Respondent – Respondent's defence involving circumstances of obtaining the cheque and lack of a legally enforceable debt – Consideration of evidence from bank officials and police investigation supporting the respondent's defence. [Para 13-14]

Judicial Analysis and Application of Law – Trial court's application of legal principles to the facts of the case – Consideration of the principles of presumptions, burden of proof, and the standard of proof required for the rebuttal of presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act. [Para 9, 15-16]

Decision – High Court upholds trial court's acquittal of the respondent – High Court agrees with the trial court's findings and analysis, confirming the absence of a legally enforceable debt and the improbability of the appellant's claim – Appeal dismissed, and trial court's judgment confirmed. [Para 17-18]

Criminal Appeal – Regular Bail Application Dismissal 

Gursewak Singh appealed against the dismissal of his regular bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by the Special Judge, Amritsar. [Para 1, 4]

Prosecution Sanction Under UAP Act 

Concerns were raised about the prosecution under the UAP Act due to the absence of pre-requisite sanction from the competent authority at the time of the presentation of the challan. [Para 8]

Specific Role Attribution and Evidence 

The prosecution failed to attribute a specific role to the appellant in the commission of offences under the UAP Act and other IPC sections, lacking material evidence against him. [Para 9, 10]

4. Bail Grant Considerations 

The appeal was allowed considering the appellant's lengthy custody and the slow pace of the trial, with directions for bail upon furnishing a bond and regular reporting to the local police station. [Para 11]

5. Decision Without Prejudice to Trial Merits 

The High Court set aside the Special Court's order, granting regular bail to the appellant, clarifying that the observations made were solely for bail purposes. [Para 12, 13]

Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Additional Directors under Negotiable Instruments Act – Application for quashing FIR and process against additional directors in a cheque dishonor case – Application allowed, process quashed. [Para 1, 16]

Negotiable Instruments Act, Sections 138 and 141 – Interpretation and Applicability – Clarification on applicability of Sections 138 and 141 to additional directors – Specific averments required to establish responsibility for conduct of company’s business. [Para 9, 10, 13]

Director’s Liability – Types of Directors – Analysis of roles and responsibilities of Managing Directors, Non-Executive Directors, Executive Directors, and Additional Directors – No automatic vicarious liability for additional directors without specific averments. [Para 12, 13]

Judicial Discretion under Section 482 of CrPC – Inherent powers of High Court – Exercised to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice – Applied to quash proceedings lacking prima facie satisfaction of legal provisions. [Para 14, 15]

Decision – Criminal proceedings against applicants (additional directors) quashed – Lack of specific averments against applicants and non-satisfaction of ingredients under Sections 138, 141, and 142 of NI Act. [Para 16]

Maternity Leave for Surrogate Mothers – Legal Recognition and Entitlement:

The central issue is whether a surrogate mother can be denied maternity leave under the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. The petitioner, a mother through surrogacy, sought maternity leave for her newborn twins but was denied by state authorities. The case examines the eligibility of surrogate mothers for maternity leave and its implications on their rights under the Constitution of India. [Para 4, 5, 7]

Interpretation of Maternity Leave Provisions – Inclusivity of Surrogacy:

The judgment explores the interpretation of 'maternity leave' and its applicability to surrogate mothers. The court considered various High Court decisions, emphasizing the need for inclusive interpretation of maternity leave provisions in the light of developments in reproductive technologies and societal changes. [Para 13-17, 20-26]

Right to Motherhood under Article 21 – Constitutional Perspective:

The court recognized the right to motherhood as part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It highlighted the necessity of extending maternity leave to surrogate mothers, considering the importance of the mother-child bond and the well-being of the child. [Para 25, 27]

Order – Grant of Maternity Leave to Petitioner:

The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the order denying maternity leave to the petitioner. The court directed the respondents to grant 180 days of maternity leave to the petitioner, with all consequential benefits. [Para 30]

Recommendation for Legislative Amendment – Addressing Surrogacy in Maternity Leave Provisions:

The court recommended legislative amendments to explicitly include provisions for maternity leave for surrogate and commissioning mothers, acknowledging the evolving nature of motherhood and family structures. [Para 31]

Decision – No Distinction in Motherhood Forms:

The judgment established that no distinction should be made between natural, biological, and surrogate mothers regarding maternity leave entitlements, affirming the rights of all mothers under the Constitution. [Para 29, 31]