Criminal Writ – Withdrawal from Prosecution – Executive Overreach – Government Order Set Aside - The petitioner challenged a government order directing Public Prosecutors to withdraw 43 criminal cases – Court held that the directive unlawfully intruded upon the discretionary domain of prosecutors under Section 321 CrPC and was issued despite objections from the Police, Law, and Prosecution Departments – Held: Such mass withdrawal was politically coloured, undermined rule of law, and could not be sustained [Paras 2–6.5].

Prosecutorial Independence – Section 321 CrPC – Executive Cannot Dictate – Autonomy Reaffirmed - Court reiterated settled law that Public Prosecutors must independently assess each case for withdrawal – Cited Supreme Court rulings emphasizing prosecutorial autonomy – Held: Cabinet’s directive compromised individual judgment and reduced prosecutors to political instruments – Such conduct erodes justice system integrity [Paras 5.3–6.4.1].

Cabinet Note – Confidentiality Claim Rejected – Admissibility Upheld - Despite objections, the Court accepted the Cabinet Note as evidence – Held: If authenticity is not disputed and document serves public interest, its confidential origin does not bar judicial scrutiny – Based on Supreme Court precedent in Umesh Kumar v. State of A.P., 2013 (10) SCC 591 [Paras 5.5–5.5.2].

Rule of Law – Political Interference in Criminal Justice – Abuse of Power - The withdrawal process was based on political representation and involved cases with influential accused, including MLAs and ministers – Court condemned the political motives and held that such conduct violated constitutional governance principles – Directed restoration of prosecutorial discretion [Paras 3.1–6.2, 6.5].

Final Decision – Petition Allowed – Government Order Quashed - Government Order No. HD 129 MHB 2024 dated 15.10.2024 was declared void ab initio – Consequences to follow in law – Petition allowed with strong affirmation of prosecutorial independence and rule of law [Para 7].

Patent Law – Inventive Step – Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act – Appeal Dismissed – The appellant's patent application for a Ziegler-Natta catalyst process was rejected for lacking inventive step – Court held that the claimed process was obvious in view of prior art documents D1, D2, and D3 – Combination of existing techniques using diether compounds and hot filtration was a predictable outcome to a person skilled in the art – Held: No inventive step present, rejection order upheld [Paras 16–18, 27–30, 35].

Obviousness – “Could-Would” Test – Skilled Person's Motivation – No Technical Advancement Shown – The Court affirmed the Controller’s reliance on the “Could-Would” approach to conclude that a skilled person would have arrived at the claimed invention by combining disclosures in cited prior art – Mere use of known diether donors and process steps does not amount to technical advancement – Held: Invention lacked non-obviousness and did not satisfy statutory inventive step requirement [Paras 19, 30, 33].

Evergreening – Multiple Applications on Similar Subject – Attempt to Reclaim Known Invention – The appellant had filed two similar patent applications simultaneously, one of which was granted – The current application was found to be an attempt to evergreen and extend monopoly on the same invention – Held: Subject matter already covered in granted application, second claim rightly denied [Paras 10.1, 31].

Controller’s Reasoning – Proper Evaluation of Prior Art – Judicial Standards Met – The Controller’s order was found to be well-reasoned and compliant with legal standards under Agriboard and Dolby cases – All three prongs of inventive step analysis (prior art, subject invention, and obviousness to skilled person) were addressed – Held: No procedural error or violation of natural justice [Paras 21–22, 32].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – No Grounds to Interfere with Rejection – The Court dismissed the appeal, confirming that the invention was obvious and lacked inventive merit under Indian patent law – No costs awarded [Paras 35–36].

Labour Law – Termination of Employment – Reinstatement – Petitioner (Cognizant Technology Solutions Pvt. Ltd.) challenged the Appellate Authority’s order directing reinstatement of the 2nd Respondent (Sivakumar Krishnamurthy) – Authority found the termination was not for a reasonable cause and amounted to punitive action – No domestic enquiry conducted as mandated under Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Shops & Establishments Act, 1947 – Termination held stigmatic and unjustified – Held: Termination order liable to be set aside and employee entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages [Paras 3, 34–38, 41, 46–52, 68].

Quasi-Judicial Authority – Allegations of Bias – Petitioner alleged that the impugned order was not authored by the Appellate Authority and claimed mala fides – Court found no substance in these allegations – Noted that the officer was not impleaded in personal capacity – Allegations held baseless and unsubstantiated – Imposition of cost of ₹1,00,000 directed for making frivolous allegations and wasting judicial time – Costs to be remitted to Tamil Nadu Labour Welfare Fund [Paras 14, 25–32, 70].

Scope of Appellate Authority – Powers under Section 41(2) – Authority empowered to set aside termination and assess reasonableness of cause – Reinstatement with full benefits flows as a legal consequence from setting aside termination – Not a separate or excessive exercise of power – Petitioner’s reliance on loss of confidence argument rejected – Appellate Authority justified in findings after analysing oral and documentary evidence – Held: No perversity in order warranting interference under Article 226 [Paras 41–43, 60–62, 67].

Circumstantial Inference – Shifting Stance by Employer – Petitioner initially dismissed 2nd Respondent for misconduct based on a domestic enquiry – Later rescinded dismissal and issued fresh order of termination citing “reasonable cause” – Court held this was an attempt to camouflage punitive dismissal as termination simpliciter – Such strategy legally impermissible – Authority rightly pierced the veil and found the real motive behind the termination [Paras 35–40, 56–58].

Decision – Writ Petition dismissed – Termination order set aside – Reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages upheld – Allegations against Appellate Authority rejected – Cost of ₹1,00,000 imposed on Petitioner for baseless claims and judicial impropriety [Paras 68–70].

Criminal Jurisdiction – Maintainability of Writ Appeal – Quashing of FIR – Appeal Dismissed – Petitioners sought to quash FIR and chargesheet under Sections 498A, 406, 354C IPC filed by Haryana Police – Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition under Article 226 r/w Section 482 CrPC – Division Bench held that appeal under Section 4 of Karnataka High Court Act lies only in matters of original civil jurisdiction – Quashing of FIR amounts to exercise of criminal jurisdiction – Appeal held not maintainable [Paras 1, 21, 24, 25, 29].

Constitutional Law – Territorial Jurisdiction – Article 226(2) Invoked – Not Sufficient for Appeal – Petitioners invoked Article 226(2) claiming cause of action arose in Karnataka – However, Bench ruled that despite territorial cause, prayer related to quashing criminal proceedings falls under criminal jurisdiction – Power under Article 226(2) does not convert nature of proceedings to civil for appeal purposes [Paras 11-13, 23].

Procedural Law – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Quashing FIR – Bench Roster and Circular Compliance – Registry correctly raised objection based on 2012 Circular directing writs for quashing FIR/chargesheet be posted before Bench with CrPC Section 482 roster – Petition treated as filed under Section 482 CrPC and not purely under Article 226 – Hence, intra-court appeal barred [Paras 6, 19, 24].

Precedent – Sreemad Jagadguru and Ram Kishan Fauji Cases Followed – High Court followed coordinate Bench ruling in Sreemad Jagadguru Shankaracharya v. State of Karnataka and Supreme Court decision in Ram Kishan Fauji v. State of Haryana – Held: Nature of jurisdiction exercised determines appealability, not nomenclature of petition – Criminal jurisdiction decisions not appealable intra-court under Section 4 of the Act [Paras 22.1, 26].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Court upheld registry objection – Writ appeal dismissed as not maintainable under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 – No costs imposed [Para 29].

Income Tax Law - Cloud Computing Services – Taxability under DTAA – No Royalty or FIS – Exemption Upheld – The Assessee, a US-based cloud service provider, was held not liable to tax in India on payments received from Indian customers – The Tribunal found, and the High Court affirmed, that such payments were for standard automated cloud computing services that did not involve any transfer of rights in intellectual property or scientific equipment – Held: Charges were not taxable as royalty or fees for included services under Article 12 of the India–US DTAA [Paras 1–6, 13–16, 40].

Royalty under Section 9 and Article 12(3) – No Right to Use Scientific Equipment – Taxability Not Attracted – The AO's characterization of cloud service payments as “equipment royalty” was rejected – The Court held that customers merely accessed AWS's infrastructure without acquiring any right to use or exploit it independently – The phrase “right to use” under Article 12(3)(b) must be interpreted narrowly – Held: Payments were not for royalty under domestic law or DTAA [Paras 12, 37–39, 47].

Fees for Included Services – No Transfer of Technical Knowledge or Skills – Not Taxable – Technical support offered by AWS was ancillary and did not make available any knowledge or process to customers – Customers only accessed services and did not gain control over AWS’s technology – Held: The services did not satisfy the “make available” test under Article 12(4)(b) of the DTAA and thus were not taxable as FIS [Paras 11, 15, 17, 29–30, 39].

Precedent – Payments for Cloud Services Not Taxable – Consistent Judicial View – The Court followed binding precedents including the Supreme Court’s ruling in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. and its own prior decisions in Salesforce.com Singapore Pte. Ltd., Telstra Singapore Pte. Ltd., and Asia Satellite – Held: Subscription-based access to cloud platforms does not amount to royalty or FIS when no IP rights are transferred [Paras 42–44, 46–47].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – No Substantial Question of Law – The High Court held that the ITAT correctly applied the law to undisputed facts – Payments made to AWS were not taxable in India in the absence of a permanent establishment and due to the lack of transfer of rights or technical know-how – All pending applications were also dismissed [Para 48].

Criminal Law - Foreigners Act – Misapplication of Section 14B – Charge Modified – Petitioner, a Sri Lankan national, accused of overstaying a valid visa and creating false Indian identity documents – Trial court erroneously framed charge under Section 14B of the Foreigners Act alleging use of forged passport to enter India – Held: Prosecution case itself confirms entry was on valid Sri Lankan passport and visa – Section 14B applies only where forged passport is used for entry – Petitioner’s act of overstaying and obtaining false identity documents attracts Sections 14(a) and 14(b), not 14B – Charge modified accordingly [Paras 1–5, 7].

Criminal Procedure – Plea Bargaining – Ineligibility Due to Incorrect Charge – Application for plea bargaining under Section 290 BNSS was dismissed due to framing of charge under Section 14B, which prescribes punishment up to 8 years – Held: Once charge is properly reframed to Section 14(b), where maximum punishment is 5 years, petitioner becomes eligible for plea bargaining – Impugned dismissal order of CMP quashed – Trial court directed to reconsider plea bargaining application [Paras 2, 6, 8].

Statutory Interpretation – Section 14B Foreigners Act – Scope and Ingredients – Section 14B mandates knowledge and use of a forged passport for entry into India – Mere overstay or illegal stay without such entry condition does not fall within scope of 14B – Interpretation reaffirmed in light of precise charge language and admitted facts [Paras 4–5].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Charge under Section 14B deleted – Replaced with Section 14(b) of the Foreigners Act – Impugned order dated 11/03/2025 rejecting plea bargaining application quashed – Trial court to reconsider the application on basis of modified charge [Paras 8–9].

Criminal Law – Murder - Sections 302, 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Appeal Against Conviction - Delay in Lodging FIR – Incident at 7:30 a.m., FIR at 10:15 a.m. – Delay Explained – Delay Not Fatal – The prosecution established that the FIR was lodged promptly after the informant parted from the deceased and travelled to the police station 10 km away – Medical and witness evidence corroborated time of death – Held: No unreasonable delay found, delay not fatal to prosecution case [Paras 28-30, 55, 65].

Credibility of Eyewitnesses – Related Witnesses – Evidence Acceptable – No Contradictions – The Court upheld the credibility of eyewitnesses P.W.-2 (father), P.W.-3, and P.W.-4 despite being related to the deceased – Their testimonies were consistent, natural, and free of embellishments – Earlier affidavits denying presence were held to be manipulated – Held: Relatedness does not disqualify truthful testimony [Paras 31-34, 38-39, 47-54].

Medical Evidence – Compatibility with Ocular Testimony – No Conflict – The injuries described in the postmortem were consistent with use of a sharp and pointed weapon like tabbal – Witnesses described tabbal with pointed ends; doctor confirmed such injuries possible – Held: Medical and ocular evidence corroborate each other [Paras 20, 66-68].

Motive – Land Dispute Following Widow’s Remarriage – Motive Established – Though not essential due to direct evidence, motive was shown through land ownership conflict after informant’s nephew’s widow remarried accused – Held: Motive supported by documentary evidence and explained animus [Paras 56-57, 59-60].

Non-Recovery of Weapon – Not Fatal – The failure to recover the tabbal and pistol used in the attack was not fatal – The court accepted that accused fled with weapons and did not disclose their location – Held: Non-recovery did not undermine consistent and reliable eyewitness and medical evidence [Paras 63, 66].

Affidavits Disowning Eyewitness Role – Discarded – P.W.-3 and P.W.-4 Denied Making Such Affidavits – The affidavits allegedly denying their presence were found to be manipulated – Witnesses provided plausible explanation, denied authoring them, and supported prosecution case in court – Held: Statements in court prevail over extrajudicial affidavits [Paras 54, 60].

Common Intention – Sections 302/307 r/w Section 34 IPC – Conviction Upheld – The court held both accused guilty for acting in concert with shared intent – Attack was coordinated and aimed to kill – Held: Offences under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC proved beyond doubt [Paras 72-74].

Decision: Appeal – Conviction Affirmed – Sentence Upheld – The court found no merit in the appeal – All evidentiary links complete – Held: Judgment and conviction by trial court sustained – Accused to surrender and serve sentence [Paras 73-74].

Civil Writ - Stone Crusher Licence – Safer Zone Declaration – Validity of Licence – Cancellation Order Set Aside - Petitioners challenged the cancellation of their stone crusher licence on the grounds that the unit was allegedly within 100 meters of a Major District Road – It was held that the area had already been declared a safer zone in 2017 after proper inspection and grant of Form-C licence in 2019 – The subsequent conflicting reports on distance were deemed unreliable – Held: The cancellation order dated 31.03.2022 was quashed as being factually and legally unsustainable [Paras 3.1–5.4].

Statutory Interpretation – Deemed Licence Extension – Section 5(2) of Amended Act – Extension Granted - Petitioner sought a declaration that the Form-C licence be deemed extended for 20 years as per the amendment – The Court upheld that since the licence was valid on the date of the amendment, it attracted the benefit of the deeming provision – Held: Licence deemed extended for 20 years from 02.02.2019 [Paras 5.5–6.1].

Contempt of Court – Interim Order Compliance – Contempt Petition Not Surviving - Since the licence cancellation was stayed via interim order dated 28.04.2022 and ultimately quashed, the contempt petition for non-compliance lost relevance – Held: Contempt petition does not survive in light of the judgment in writ petitions [Paras 3.3.1, 7].

Final Decision – Both writ petitions allowed – Licence cancellation set aside and deemed extension of 20 years granted – Contempt petition dismissed as infructuous [Paras 6–7].

Arbitration – Commencement Date under BOT Contract – Construction Start on Partial Possession Does Not Alter Commencement Date – Arbitrator Validly Held Date as 23.03.2006 – Court upheld arbitrator’s interpretation that full physical possession was a precondition under the agreement – Partial possession and early start by concessionaire irrelevant – Held: Interpretation plausible and within bounds of agreement [Paras 5-15].

Limitation – Objections to Arbitral Award – Commencement from Date of Final Denial of Claim – Claim Held Within Time – Communication from State denying full concession period triggered cause of action – Respondent promptly invoked arbitration – Held: Arbitral proceedings within limitation under Section 21 of the Act [Paras 6-11].

Damages and Compensation – Absence of Contractual Clause – Arbitrator’s Award of Compensation for Non-Closure of Railway Crossing Set Aside – No Clause Permitting Monetary Damages – Held: BOT model compensates via toll collection, not cash – Award of Rs.14.12 crore with interest patently illegal and beyond contract terms – Entitlement to compensation quashed [Paras 16-20, 28-31].

Compound Interest – Absence of Contractual Provision – Award of Interest on Interest Unsustainable – Arbitrator granted interest compounded quarterly despite no enabling clause – Court quashed total interest of Rs.30.85 crore on this ground – Held: Interest claim non-maintainable without contractual basis [Paras 26-27, 34].

Severability of Award – Valid and Invalid Portions Legally Distinct – Court Partially Set Aside Award – Claim for toll collection till 22.01.2012 upheld – Other heads including damages and interest struck down – Held: Claims severable as per Supreme Court ruling in Gayatri Balasamy – Partial modification permissible under Sections 34 and 37 of the Act [Paras 36-39].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Award upheld to extent of toll collection retention by respondent – Award of compensation for delay, non-closure of LRC, and interest thereon set aside – Award modified by quashing illegal components [Paras 39-40].