Administrative Law – Railway Licenses – Petitioners challenged Clause 5 and Clause 11 of the 2017 Policy, which abolished the renewal and extension of licenses for MPS units, arguing that it violated Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution – Petitioners contended they were coerced into converting their stalls to MPS under unequal bargaining conditions – Petitioners sought renewal of licenses in line with past policies and parity with other stall renewals [Paras 1-20].

COVID-19 – Force Majeure Implementation – Petitioners argued the 68-day extension granted due to COVID-19 was arbitrary, asserting other zones received longer extensions – Court found extension periods were determined by ground realities at individual stations – Petitioners were advised to seek arbitration for further grievances [Paras 30-35].

Decision: Petitions dismissed – Court upheld the validity of Clause 5 and Clause 11 of the 2017 Policy – No renewal or extension of licenses beyond the tenure specified in the 2017 Policy – Petitioners granted three months from the end of their extended license period or from the date of judgment to vacate their stalls – Rights to pursue arbitration for any further claims were reserved [Paras 36-38].
 

Civil Procedure – Remand Order – Appellate court quashed trial court's judgment and remanded case for fresh consideration – Appellant contended appellate court failed to specify new issues or necessity for additional evidence – High Court finds remand order lacks justification, sets it aside, and directs appellate court to decide appeal on merits [Paras 1-13].

Order 41 CPC – Powers of Appellate Court – Remand under Rules 23, 23A, 24 – Appellate court must specify issues or necessity for remand – Evidence on record sufficient for adjudication mandates final decision without remand – High Court emphasizes appellate court’s obligation to decide appeal on merits unless retrial is essential [Paras 7-10].

Judicial Precedents – High Court refers to Kerala and Allahabad High Courts' rulings, emphasizing minimal use of remand powers and appellate court’s duty to decide on merits when evidence suffices – References: Gopalkrishnan v. V. Ponnappan, Prem Raj v. Nagar Palika, RSRTC v. Haridwarilal Sharma [Para 10].

Decision – Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Allowed – Remand order quashed – Appellate court directed to hear and decide appeal on merits – Parties to appear before appellate court on specified date [Paras 11-13].

Criminal Law – Conviction Under Common Intention – Appellants convicted for offences under Sections 302/149 IPC – Court finds material contradictions in eyewitness testimonies – Appellants not proven to have individually caused fatal injuries – Conviction under Section 302/149 IPC set aside, convictions under Sections 147, 323, 325/149 IPC maintained [Paras 1-18].

Eyewitness Testimony – Reliability – Several prosecution witnesses turned hostile – Injured eyewitness could not identify attackers due to darkness – Court notes inconsistencies and contradictions in statements regarding involvement of accused in causing fatal injuries [Paras 12-14].

Evidence and Delay – Incident reported with two-hour delay – Bloodstained lathis recovered but blood group undetermined – Court finds prosecution failed to conclusively link appellants to fatal injuries [Paras 8, 16].

Joint Liability – Applicability of Section 149 IPC – Material contradictions in evidence regarding common intention – No direct evidence linking surviving appellants to causing fatal injuries – Court emphasizes requirement for clear evidence of common object for joint liability [Para 17].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Convictions under Section 302/149 IPC quashed – Convictions under Sections 147, 323, 325/149 IPC maintained – Benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act extended – Appellants' bail bonds discharged [Paras 18-19].

Income Tax Law – Assessment under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Appeals against ITAT’s deletion of additions under Section 68 – Assessments based on voluntary disclosure of unaccounted income during a search operation – ITAT quashed additions due to lack of incriminating material found during the search – Held, assessment cannot be based solely on statements recorded under Section 132(4) without corroborative evidence – AO’s failure to provide cross-examination of witnesses amounts to a violation of natural justice, rendering the assessment invalid – Reliance on Section 292B to cure jurisdictional defects found unmerited – Appeals dismissed. [Paras 1-37]

Evidence Evaluation – Statements under Section 132(4) – Mere admissions by the assessee during search insufficient for assessment without corroborative material – Statements recorded under Section 132(4) can only constitute information and must be corroborated by evidence discovered during the search – Courts reaffirmed that assessments should be based on tangible evidence found during search operations, not solely on admissions. [Paras 20-23, 25]

Principles of Natural Justice – Right to Cross-Examination – Failure to provide cross-examination of key witnesses violates natural justice – Supreme Court’s precedent in Andaman Timber Industries reaffirms that denial of cross-examination renders orders null and void – Jurisdictional AO must provide an opportunity for cross-examination when requested by the assessee – Assessments based on statements without cross-examination deemed invalid. [Paras 30-32]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeals – Held – Appeals dismissed due to lack of incriminating material and violation of principles of natural justice – ITAT’s order setting aside assessments and deleting additions upheld – The assessment proceedings were vitiated by procedural irregularities and lack of substantiated evidence. [Para 37]

Patent Law – Inventive Step – Assessment – Appeal against the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs’ refusal of a patent application for a portable vehicle management system – Refusal based on the application not meeting the inventive step requirement under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970 – Claims rejected as obvious in light of prior art D4 (US2002019703A1) and D5 (US2015019266A1) – Court upheld the refusal, stating the claimed features of portability and comprehensive monitoring were well-known and lacked inventive ingenuity. [Paras 7-26]

Patent Law – Doctrine of Non-Obviousness – Analysis – Court found the invention lacked inventive step as the features of portability and anomaly detection were already disclosed in prior arts – The combination of known technologies from prior arts D4 and D5 was deemed obvious and within the capabilities of a person skilled in the art – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 15-26]

Decision – Rejection of Patent Application – Court affirmed the Assistant Controller’s decision to reject the patent application under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970 – Held that the subject invention did not exhibit an inventive step over prior arts – Patent refusal justified. [Para 25-26]

Labour Law – Implementation of Wage Board Award – Applicability of Exemption Clause – The appellant challenged the enforcement of the Majithia Wage Board Award, which mandated revised wages for newspaper employees. The primary contention was that the appellant was exempt from making such payments due to “heavy cash losses” incurred in the preceding three financial years. The court evaluated the factual matrix and balance sheets provided by the appellant and concluded that the appellant failed to establish continuous crippling losses necessary for the claimed exemption. The court emphasized the importance of compliance with the Wage Board Award upheld by the Supreme Court. Held: The appellant is not entitled to exemption from paying revised wages as per the Majithia Wage Board Award. [Paras 1-56]

Review Jurisdiction – Scope and Limitation – Reiteration of Legal Principles – The appellant sought review of the initial order dismissing their plea for exemption under the Wage Board Award. The court reiterated that the scope of review is limited and cannot be used to reargue the same points already decided or to introduce new grounds not raised initially. The appellant’s acquiescence to jurisdiction and participation in proceedings without raising jurisdictional objections at earlier stages precludes raising such objections in review. Held: Review petitions dismissed; no new grounds for reconsideration found. [Paras 36-56]

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Both the impugned judgment and the review order passed by the learned Single Judge were upheld. The appellant is directed to comply with the Majithia Wage Board Award and pay the arrears to the respondent employees within four weeks. No order as to costs. [Paras 57-59]

Administrative Law – Writ of Mandamus – Commercial Circular No. 61 of 2017 – Petitioners, operating multipurpose stalls at railway stations, challenged Clauses 5 and 11 of the 2017 Policy as arbitrary and unconstitutional – Sought renewal of licenses in light of the Supreme Court judgment in South Central Railways – Court held the 2017 Policy was non-arbitrary and the provisions were within the legal framework – Petitioners’ contention of coercion in converting to the new policy was dismissed due to lack of evidence – Held that the policy was in line with public interest, ensuring fair competition and opportunity for all eligible participants – Writ petitions dismissed. [Paras 1-36]

Contract Law – Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation – Petitioners argued legitimate expectation for renewal of licenses – Court found no merit as the policy explicitly stated licenses were non-renewable – Doctrine of legitimate expectation does not grant an indefeasible right – Reliance on public interest and policy changes can negate such expectations – Held that the refusal to renew was not arbitrary. [Paras 25-29]

Force Majeure – Extension of License Period due to Covid-19 – Petitioners sought longer extension of licenses due to Covid-19 disruptions – Respondents had already extended the period by 68 days – Court found the extension was determined based on ground realities and was not arbitrary – Petitioners’ claim for further extension or policy framing was not maintainable under writ jurisdiction – Remedy lies in arbitration as per license agreement. Petition Dismissed. [Paras 30-35]

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Vicarious Liability – Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by Azim Premji seeking quashing of complaint proceedings and related orders. The complaint involved alleged violations of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976, by G4S Secure Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., a third-party security service provider for Wipro Ltd. The applicant, as Chairman and Managing Director of Wipro Ltd., was not directly involved in the operations of the Wipro office at Lucknow or the management of G4S. Supreme Court precedents on vicarious liability of corporate directors were extensively considered.

Held – The Chief Judicial Magistrate failed to apply judicial mind and ensure compliance with legal provisions. No direct role or criminal intent of the applicant in the alleged violations was established. Summoning order and bailable warrant against the applicant quashed. The continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law. [Paras 1-40]

Vicarious Liability – Directors of Company – Legal Principles – Court reiterated that directors or senior officers of a company can be made vicariously liable only if specific statutory provisions exist and sufficient material proves their active role coupled with criminal intent. References were made to Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI and Shiv Kumar Jatia v. State of NCT of Delhi regarding vicarious liability. [Paras 21-25]

Judicial Application of Mind – Requirement for Issuing Process – need for Magistrates to apply judicial mind before issuing summons, ensuring the sufficiency of allegations and evidence. Mechanical issuance of orders without proper reasoning is contrary to the principles of criminal jurisprudence. [Paras 31-34]

Decision – Quashing of Summoning Order and Bailable Warrant – complaint proceedings, summoning order dated 03.09.2016, and bailable warrant dated 08.02.2017 were quashed. The Court found the actions against the applicant to lack legal and factual foundation, recognizing the applicant’s impeccable reputation and distinguishing career. [Paras 39-40]

Criminal Law – Conviction for Murder – Appellant convicted under Sections 302, 436, 447 IPC and Section 3/27 of the Arms Act – Trial court relied on eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, and motive – High Court re-examines evidence and finds significant discrepancies, lack of corroboration, and unreliable eyewitness accounts – Conviction quashed, appellant acquitted [Paras 1-25].

Eyewitness Testimony – Reliability – Alleged eyewitnesses, including the complainant and his sons, claimed to have witnessed the incident – High Court finds inconsistencies in their statements and lack of corroboration from the crime scene – Discrepancies regarding the presence and activities of the witnesses at the time of the incident undermine credibility [Paras 12-17].

Motive and Enmity – Prosecution argued motive based on longstanding enmity over land disputes – High Court acknowledges enmity but notes it as a double-edged sword, potentially leading to false implication – No conclusive evidence linking appellant to the crime based solely on enmity [Para 19].

Medical and Forensic Evidence – Postmortem confirms homicidal death by gunshot – However, forensic evidence, including the recovery of the weapon and its connection to the appellant, lacks conclusive proof – High Court emphasizes need for corroborative evidence beyond medical findings [Paras 10, 14].

Appellate Review – Standards of Proof – High Court reiterates principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt – Finds trial court's reliance on prosecution evidence insufficiently scrutinized – Emphasizes requirement for credible and trustworthy evidence for conviction in serious offences like murder [Paras 23-24].

Decision – Criminal Appeal Allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Bail bonds discharged [Paras 24-25].