Internet Piracy – Copyright Infringement – Plaintiffs filed suit against rogue websites involved in unauthorized streaming, reproduction, and distribution of copyrighted content. Court acknowledged the global issue of piracy and the need for dynamic injunctions to protect copyright owners. [Para 5-9, 15-19]

Dynamic Injunction – Court issued an ex-parte ad-interim dynamic injunction, restraining unauthorized dissemination, including future works. Emphasized the need for global consensus and innovative remedies to combat internet piracy. [Para 15-19]

Defendants – Rogue Websites – Specific websites identified as engaging in illegal activities, encouraging users to avoid legitimate platforms. Court ordered blocking of these websites and extension of the injunction to mirror websites and alphanumeric variations. [Para 18-20]

ISPs and Domain Name Registrars – ISPs directed to block said websites, and Domain Name Registrars ordered to lock and suspend domain names, providing details to Plaintiffs. MeitY and DoT to issue blocking orders within one week. [Para 21-22]

Decision – Ex parte ad interim injunction granted, restraining Defendants from any infringement of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted content, including future works. Issued ‘Dynamic+ injunction’ to protect works as soon as created. Set further dates for compliance, reply, and listing. [Para 20-27]

Goods and Services Tax Act – Refund claim – Limitation period for filing refund application – Proper officer rejecting the petitioner's refund claim as barred by limitation – Petitioner assailing the rejection – Challenge to vires of Rule 90(3) of the CGST Rules and paragraph 12 of the impugned Circular – Nature of deficiencies noted – Whether application for refund complete in terms of Rule 89(2) of the CGST Rules – Application for refund accompanied by necessary documentary evidence – Proper officer requiring further documents and clarification – Whether limitation period stops running – Precedent of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Union of India &Ors. relied upon – Petition allowed, impugned order set aside, application for refund restored for consideration on merits. [Para 1-30]

Goods and Services Tax Act – Refund – Application for refund of IGST paid on zero rated supplies – Proper officer issuing deficiency memos pointing out defects and requiring clarifications – Proper officer rejecting refund claim on the ground of limitation – Whether the deficiencies render the application incomplete in terms of Rule 89(2) of the CGST Rules – Nature of deficiencies noted – Whether the application was accompanied by required documentary evidence – Whether proper officer can withhold processing of refund claim based on deficiencies – Precedent of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Union of India &Ors. considered – Refund application restored for consideration on merits. [Para 21-29]

Criminal Bail Application – Offences under Section 121-A and 153-A IPC read with Section 66 of the IT Act – Applicant seeking bail – Allegations of forming a WhatsApp group spreading jihadi literature and videos – Applicant charged with being the administrator of the group and promoting anti-India sentiments – Applicant’s association with foreign members and acquisition of arms alleged – Bail application challenged by the State – Whether offences are prima facie made out – Interpretation of Section 121-A IPC – Right to practice religion and propagate – Gravity of allegations – Bail denied. [Para 1]

Conspiracy to Commit Offences – Offence under Section 121-A IPC – Overawing Central or State Government by criminal force – Punishment of imprisonment for life or up to ten years – Applicant alleged to be administrator of two WhatsApp groups with foreign members promoting arms acquisition and religious prejudices – Gravity of allegations indicating potential conspiracy – Bail application rejected due to the seriousness of the charges. [Para 7]

Religious Freedom vs. Criminal Conspiracy – Right to practice and propagate religion under Article 19 – Allegations involving promotion of religious prejudices and acquisition of arms – Balance between religious freedoms and potential threat to public order – Second part of Section 121-A IPC deemed to be made out – Bail denied due to the weight of allegations and potential gravity of the conspiracy. [Para 7]

Conclusion – Bail application rejected – Seriousness of allegations of forming jihadi WhatsApp group with foreign members promoting arms acquisition and religious prejudices – Applicant’s association with the group and potential conspiracy deemed prima facie – Bail denied due to potential threat to public order and gravity of the offence. [Para 8]

Civil Procedure – Execution of Money Decree – Interest on deposited amount – Obligation of judgment-debtor to give notice to the decree-holder about the deposit of the decretal amount – Interest ceases to run on deposit and notice, or on tendering the amount outside the Court – Notice required to inform the decree-holder that the decretal amount is available for withdrawal – Violation of Order 21 Rule 1(2) CPC – Principles established in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Poonam Pahwa applied – Impugned order allowing refund of interest set aside – Revision petition allowed. [Para 8]

Facts – Petitioner and her son filed a claim petition for compensation – Award granted – Respondent No.1-Insurance Company appealed, but appeal dismissed – Insurance Company deposited amounts post dismissal – Petitioner initiated execution for the awarded amount – Respondent No.1-Insurance Company sought refund of interest – Executing Court allowed the refund – Petitioner challenged the order in revision.

Issues – Whether the petitioner's right to interest was affected due to the failure of the judgment-debtor (Insurance Company) to provide notice of deposit to the decree-holder (petitioner) as per Order 21 Rule 1(2) CPC.

Observations – The obligation of providing notice to the decree-holder about the deposit of the decretal amount is vital – Interest ceases upon deposit and notice, or on tendering the amount outside the Court – Notice serves to inform the decree-holder about the availability of the decretal amount for withdrawal – Violation of the principles in Order 21 Rule 1(2) CPC resulted in the delay of releasing the awarded amount and loss of interest to the petitioner.

Decision – The impugned order allowing the refund of interest to respondent No.1-Insurance Company is set aside – The case is allowed, and if the interest amount has been refunded, it shall be deposited with the Tribunal – Notice of deposit shall be given to the petitioner in accordance with Order 21 Rule 1 CPC. [Para 9]

Contempt of Court – Matrimonial dispute - Violation of Settlement Agreement – Respondent retracts from settlement agreement due to dissatisfaction with financial settlement, claiming financial constraints – Respondent’s behavior constitutes abuse of legal process as she seeks a more lucrative financial settlement – Respondent’s admission of not intending to resume marital life with petitioner – Court finds that marriage has broken down – Respondent’s refusal to abide by settlement agreement undermines faith in legal proceedings – Court examines past judgments on the sanctity of undertakings and agreements – Court imposes fine and one-month imprisonment on Respondent for contempt – Opportunity for respondent to avoid imprisonment by compliance and apology within two weeks – Application for stay of proceedings disposed as not applicable in other jurisdictions.

Criminal Appeal – Conviction under POCSO Act – Acquittal based on age determination – Appeal challenging judgment convicting appellant – Victim alleged consensual sexual relationship leading to pregnancy – Radiological report indicated victim’s age as 16 to 17 years – Marginal error allowed in determining age – Lack of conclusive medical evidence to prove victim’s age – Benefit of doubt given to accused – Acquittal granted under Section 6 of POCSO Act – Conviction set aside.

Age Determination – Appellant convicted for sexual offence under POCSO Act – Victim’s age crucial to establish applicability of POCSO Act – Prosecution failed to provide conclusive evidence of victim’s age – Radiological report indicated age as 16 to 17 years – Margin of error in age determination considered – Benefit of doubt goes to accused – Lack of evidence to prove victim’s age as below 18 years – POCSO Act cannot be invoked – Conviction set aside. [Para 33]

Consensual Relationship – Prosecution alleged consensual sexual relationship – Victim claimed age of 14 during the incident – Victim’s age disputed, no conclusive evidence provided – Marginal error in age determination considered – Benefit of doubt given to accused – Lack of evidence to prove victim’s age as below 18 years – Consensual relationship not constituting offence under POCSO Act – Conviction set aside. [Para 34]

Conclusion – Appeal allowed – Accused acquitted and set at liberty – Conviction and sentence under Section 6 of POCSO Act set aside – Lack of conclusive evidence for victim’s age – Benefit of doubt granted to accused – Acquittal based on age determination and consensual relationship. [Para 36]

Equal Pay for Equal Work - Writ Petition - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Claim for Parity in Pay Scale - Petitioners, teachers working in schools administered by the Punjab Wakf Board, sought parity in pay scales with teachers in other Islamia schools under the same board. The Court held that persons similarly situated are entitled to similar treatment, including similar pay if performing similar duties. Educational qualifications were considered relevant for determining pay scales. The writ petition was allowed, directing the Punjab Wakf Board to release the pay scale as per the petitioners' educational qualifications, with no interest on arrears awarded. [Paras 6-11]

Principle of Similar Treatment - Analysis - It was established that teachers imparting teachings in various Islamia schools, including the Islamia Senior Secondary School, Malerkotla, must be paid the same pay scale without discrimination. The Court reaffirmed the settled principle of law that similarly situated persons are entitled to similar treatment, including similar pay for similar duties. [Para 6]

Decision - Allowance of Writ Petition - The writ petition was allowed, directing the respondent-Board to fix the petitioners' salary after examining their educational qualifications and service records individually within four months. Arrears to be released up to the date of their service termination for those who have left the job. [Paras 7-11]

Family Court Appeal – Divorce on grounds of mental cruelty and allegations of illicit relationships – Husband seeking dissolution of marriage – Allegations of extra-marital affair made by wife in written statement – Husband’s failure to prove instances of cruelty claimed – Husband also alleging mental cruelty based on false allegations in wife’s pleadings – Husband’s failure to mention mental trauma in his affidavit – Family court granting divorce – Appeal challenging the decision – Court’s analysis of precedents regarding false and scandalous allegations in pleadings – Husband’s lack of mention of mental trauma disentitling him to divorce on this ground – Court’s finding that unsubstantiated allegations didn’t necessarily prove malice – Appeal allowed, impugned judgment set aside, divorce petition dismissed. [Para 1-58]

Arbitration Agreement – Prima facie consideration of the existence and validity of an arbitration agreement within the context of an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act – Court's role in determining the existence of a valid arbitration agreement and referring parties to arbitration – Application filed by plaintiff challenging the validity of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) containing the arbitration agreement – Court's analysis of the validity, admissibility, and effect of the MoU – Plaintiff's denial of signatures and fraud allegations – Limitation and registration issues addressed – Arbitration Agreement deemed to exist and cover the dispute prima facie – Court referring parties to arbitration and dismissing the suit – Application allowed with costs. [Para 70]

Validity of Arbitration Agreement – Arbitration Agreement's status as severable and independent from the main document – Court's power to refer parties to arbitration even if the main document is not registered or properly stamped – Arbitration Agreement not rendered invalid due to the main document's status – Court's discretion to refer parties to arbitration under Section 16(1)(a) of the Act – Defendant's status as a signatory to the Arbitration Agreement despite not being a party to the MoU – Plaintiff's claims against defendant's lack of signatory status rejected – Defendant's involvement as a party to arbitration upheld. [Para 75]

Scope of Judicial Review – Prima facie determination of the existence and validity of an Arbitration Agreement at the Section 8 stage – Court's limited role in scrutinizing allegations of fraud or forgery at this stage – Court's consideration of conditions for the fraud exception to arbitration – Limited scope for the court to intervene in determining subject-matter arbitrability – Court's examination of allegations within the ambit of the Arbitration Agreement – Denial of prima facie validity of fraud allegations by the plaintiff – Court's referral of parties to arbitration based on the Arbitration Agreement. [Para 62]

Limitation – Court's consideration of limitation as a mixed question of facts and law – Court's discretion in deciding whether to decline reference to arbitration based on limitation – Application of the limitation principle under Section 8 of the Act – Court's authority to determine whether the claim is ex facie time-barred – Court's stance on considering limitation issues in a possible Counter-Claim scenario – Court's reference of parties to arbitration despite the plaintiff's limitation plea. [Para 66]

Stamping and Registration – Arbitration Agreement's admissibility and validity in relation to stamping and registration requirements – Court's examination of Indian Stamp Act provisions for adequately stamped instruments – Court's interpretation of Section 32(3) of the Indian Stamp Act – Effect of certification by the Collector on the instrument's admissibility – Arbitration Agreement's independent status from the main document's stamping and registration requirements – Plaintiff's claim on stamping and registration issues rejected. [Para 71]