Arbitration – Challenge to Arbitral Awards – Petitions filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against arbitral awards in favor of respondents concerning wage arrears claims – Presidential Directives and Settlement Memoranda considered – Tribunal's mandate to adjudicate the quantum of arrears payable from 01.01.1997 to 31.12.2007 upheld – Petitioner’s objections regarding scope of the Tribunal’s mandate and the legality of the Presidential Directive rejected – Tribunal's findings on admission of dues by Petitioner and direction for payment of arrears including interest upheld – Petitions dismissed. [Paras 2-60]

Presidential Directive – Binding Nature and Tribunal Jurisdiction – Presidential Directives issued under Section 9 of the Air Corporations (Transfer of Undertakings and Repeal) Act, 1994 are binding on the enterprise but are administrative in nature – Tribunal has jurisdiction to assess legality and validity of directives when referred to arbitration by the Supreme Court – Tribunal’s decision to override Presidential Directive for payment of wage arrears based on DPE Guidelines and factual circumstances upheld. [Paras 38-44, 50]

Interest on Arbitral Awards – Post-award interest on entire adjudged amount – Tribunal empowered to award interest on sum inclusive of the adjudged amount and interest – Decision in Vedanta Ltd. distinguished – Tribunal’s direction for payment of compound interest upheld. [Paras 57-59]

Arbitral Awards – Minimal Judicial Interference – Courts to exercise restraint in reviewing arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Act – Judicial review limited to grounds of patent illegality or perversity going to the root of the matter – Tribunal’s findings based on careful consideration of submissions and materials, interference by court not warranted. [Paras 55-56]

Labor Disputes – Entitlement to Wage Arrears – Employees' entitlement to wage arrears from 01.01.1997 as per DPE Guidelines despite Presidential Directive stipulating notional fixation – Arbitral Tribunal’s finding in favor of employees based on evidence and recommendations by the petitioner to the Union of India – Petitioner's recommendations deemed as admission of liability to pay arrears – Tribunal’s decision to award arrears upheld. [Paras 45-47, 53-54]

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]

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]

Land Demarcation and Ownership Dispute – Challenge to the demolition process of encroachments by DDA in Mehrauli Archaeological Park – Petitioners assert ownership over properties within khasra No. 1151/3 of Village Mehrauli, disputing DDA's claim of government land – Demolition notice dated 12th December, 2022, based on demarcation report dated 21st December, 2021, contested for not following due process – Demarcation accuracy and property location in question – Writ court's jurisdiction limited, not extending to intricate factual determinations of land demarcation – Petitioners' rights to be determined by competent authority or civil courts – Demolition notice quashed for non-compliance with procedural fairness under Section 30 of the DDA Act – Direction for DDA to reissue notice, allowing petitioners a fair hearing. [Paras 1, 3, 4, 6-7, 10-11, 13-14, 16-17, 18-21]

Conservation Efforts and Judicial Supervision – DDA's responsibility to maintain Mehrauli Heritage Zone as per court directives – High Court's involvement in overseeing conservation does not absolve DDA from following legal procedures – Importance of procedural fairness and compliance with statutory procedures highlighted. [Paras 5, 16-17]

Procedural Fairness in Administrative Actions – DDA's demolition action without show-cause notice contravenes principles of natural justice and statutory requirements – Affected persons entitled to a hearing before property deprivation – Court upholds petitioners' objection on procedural grounds, mandates corrective action by DDA. [Paras 16-17, 19]

Writ Court's Jurisdiction – High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 limited in matters requiring specialized knowledge and technical expertise in land demarcation – Emphasis on statutory authorities' role in resolving complex land disputes – High Court refrains from adjudicating on demarcation report, allows petitioners recourse to appropriate forums. [Paras 7-8, 12-13, 18]

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) - Irregularities in the functioning of Special Olympics Bharat (SOB) - Alleged favoritism and irregularities in the selection of sportspersons for Special Olympics World Games and in the appointment of office-bearers of SOB - Violation of guidelines and regulations - SOB recognized as a National Sports Federation with specific conditions - Continuation of office-bearers beyond the prescribed tenure - Appointment of National Coach without following selection guidelines - Allegations against SOB.

Compliance with National Sports Development Code (NSDC) - SOB submits amendments to trust deed in compliance with NSDC, limiting the tenure of office-bearers - Positive developments during the proceedings, including the appointment of new office-bearers and selection of coaches in accordance with NSDC guidelines.

Resolution of the issues raised by the Petitioner - Appreciation for the accomplishments of athletes with intellectual disabilities and SOB's efforts - Emphasis on SOB's continued compliance with NSDC for future elections and selections.

Decision of the PIL - PIL allowed and disposed of with gratitude for the assistance of the Learned Amicus. [Para 1-16]

Civil Suit – Permission to examine sole witness – Petitioner seeks permission to examine its sole witness in a civil suit for ejectment and recovery of mesne profits – Matter pending at the stage of defendant evidence – Petitioner willing to pay costs and seeks a final opportunity – Respondent agrees to one final opportunity subject to legal costs and strict terms – Petitioner permitted to lead evidence of sole witness on the specified date – Limited right to lead evidence granted with conditions – No infirmity found in the Trial Court’s previous order – Petitioner bound to address final arguments after the conclusion of defendant evidence – Petition disposed of with directions. [Para 1-8]

Trademark Infringement – Unauthorized use of ‘PATANJALI’ trademark in an advertisement for men’s undergarments – Allegations of the video being defamatory and disparaging to the brand ambassadors – Claim of revenue generation by the respondents from the video. [Para 3-5]

Jurisdiction – Dispute characterized as a commercial matter by the Trial Court, invoking the definition of ‘Commercial Dispute’ under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Trial Court’s decision to return the plaint for presentation in the appropriate court challenged. [Para 6-7, 10]

Intermediary Liability – Respondents’ claim of intermediary status under the Information Technology Act, 2000 – Exemption from liability discussed with reference to Section 79 of the said Act. [Para 8]

Trial Court Procedure – Non-compliance with Order VII Rule 10A CPC by the Trial Court – Appeal against the Trial Court’s decision to return the plaint without following due process. [Para 10-11]

Freedom of Speech – Respondents’ defense of parody content under fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression – No financial gain claimed by the respondents from the video. [Para 12]

Decision – Appeal allowed – Trial Court directed to rehear the matter and decide issues after fresh hearing – Parties to appear for hearing on 01.12.2023. [Para 13]

Recruitment Examination – Non-conduct of scheduled recruitment exams for Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police during 2021 and 2022 – Petitioners, having become over-aged due to delay, seek interim relief to appear in the examination – Tribunal dismissed the interim relief – Petitioners' appeal for age relaxation and permission to participate in the examination. [Para 1-7]

Recruitment Rules – Challenge to the Tribunal's refusal to grant age relaxation – Reliance on the Delhi Police (Appointment & Recruitment) Rules, 1980 – Rules mandate annual recruitment in January; Rule 30 allows relaxation of Rules by the Administrator in necessary cases – Petitioners argue for a one-time age relaxation due to the exceptional circumstances of COVID-19. [Para 8-11, 26-28]

Age Relaxation – Discussion on precedents where age relaxation was granted due to administrative failures to conduct timely recruitment – Examination of whether petitioners are entitled to similar relaxation – Tribunal's conclusion against relaxation discussed. [Para 10, 17-21, 33-38]

Tribunal’s Order – Tribunal's rationale on not granting interim relief – Concerns over creating a separate class with vested age relaxation rights – Tribunal's decision upheld by the High Court, petitions dismissed. [Para 21-22, 29-32, 39]

Decision – High Court upholds the Tribunal's decision, denying interim relief to petitioners for age relaxation – Petitions dismissed due to lack of merit. [Para 39]

Taxation – Challenge against the lower deduction of tax certificate issued under Section 197 of the IT Act – Petitioner, a company in e-commerce retail, sought to challenge the certificate permitting the deduction of TDS at 0.5% instead of 0.01% requested – The court found the order to be non-speaking and mechanically issued, lacking proper reasoning – Impugned actions set aside with directions for a fresh determination. [Para 1, 6, 15-16]

Judicial Review – Application of Rule 28AA of the IT Rules – The court emphasized the need for a speaking and reasoned order, referring to Supreme Court’s decision in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr. – Orders cannot be validated by reasons added later, such as through affidavits – Respondent No. 1’s reasons found to be broad generalizations, indicative of non-application of mind. [Para 13-15]

Procedure – Remand for fresh determination of the application – The case remanded back to Respondent No. 1 for a fresh determination of the Petitioner’s application for lower TDS deduction in accordance with the law – Directed to be conducted as expeditiously as possible. [Para 16-17]