Writ Jurisdiction – Exercise of Power under Article 226 – Discretionary Nature – Rule of Self-Imposed Limitation – High Court’s power to issue certiorari for legality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety – Not barred by statutory remedy if fundamental rights violation or public policy at stake [Paras 7-8].

Building Plan Sanction – Requirement of Registered Agreement – Sanction Plan for Ratan Heights over 86 Kathas – Revision without authority’s approval – False representation in L.S. Case No. 39 of 2009 – Illegal new building plan over 46 Kathas quashed – Violations of FAR and ground coverage norms – Directions for demolition upheld [Paras 10-12, 63-67].

Fraud and Misrepresentation – Effect on Legal Proceedings – Orders obtained by fraud – Proceedings in L.S. Case No. 39 of 2009 vitiated – Fraudulent revised map – Reference to “Ram Chandra Singh” and “Lazarus Estates Ltd.” – Fraud unravels all judicial acts [Paras 15, 67].

Common Areas and Facilities – Definition under Jharkhand Apartment Ownership Act – Rights of Flat Owners – Earmarking of 46 Kathas for common facilities – Undivided interest cannot be altered without written consent of all flat owners – Infringement of residents’ rights by unauthorized construction [Paras 12, 63-64].

Demolition and Safety – Imminent Threat to Residents – Structural integrity compromised – Evaluation by Director (Technical), MECON – Directions to demolish unsafe constructions justified – Pre-violation protection under Article 21 [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Writ court’s directions upheld – Sanction plan over 86 Kathas for common facilities maintained – Unauthorized construction over 46 Kathas to be demolished – Landowners and new builder directed to restore area for common use [Paras 16].
 

Criminal Law – Conviction under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC – Petitioner convicted for rash and negligent driving causing death – Trial court sentenced petitioner to six months' imprisonment under Section 279 IPC and one year under Section 304-A IPC – Conviction and sentence upheld by appellate court – Challenge in High Court of Jharkhand – High Court modified sentence considering petitioner's age, time elapsed since the incident, and period already spent in custody – Sentence reduced to period already undergone [Paras 1-9].

Evidence Evaluation – Issues Raised by Petitioner – Petitioner contended non-proof of key documents and failure to examine essential witnesses – Arguments included lack of proof of MVI report, inquest report, post mortem report, and FIR; non-examination of investigating officer and doctor conducting autopsy; inconsistent eyewitness accounts; and suggestion of contributory negligence by the deceased – High Court found sufficient evidence supporting initial conviction despite these contentions – Recognized petitioner's advanced age and previous cooperation during trial [Paras 4-7].

Decision – Modification of Sentence – High Court upheld conviction but modified sentence due to mitigating factors – Recognized significant time lapse since the incident, petitioner's age, and period of custody already undergone – Sentenced petitioner to imprisonment already undergone instead of original sentence – Criminal Revision disposed of with modification in sentence [Paras 7-8].

Arbitration – Extension of Arbitral Tribunal's Mandate –  Arbitration Law – Applications filed under Section 29(A)(4) and Section 29(A)(5) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 – M/s Geo Miller & Co. Pvt. Ltd. and GPT Infraprojects Limited sought extension of arbitral tribunal’s mandate – High Court appointed arbitrators under Section 11 of the Act – Issues related to jurisdiction and conflicting precedents regarding the maintainability of such applications before the High Court or Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction – Previous judgments by Coordinate Benches considered. [Paras 1-4, 6-7]

Judicial Precedents – Conflicting Judgments – Doctrine of Stare Decisis – Supreme Court’s guidance on handling conflicting judgments of Coordinate Benches – Earlier decisions to be followed until overturned or clarified by a Larger Bench – Judgment in Indian Farmers Fertilizers Cooperative Limited vs. Manish Engineering Enterprises highlighted as binding precedent – Reference to Larger Bench on related issues. [Paras 8-24]

Decision – Maintainability of Applications under Section 29A – Judgments in Lucknow Agencies and Indian Farmers Fertilizers delineated different factual scenarios – Applications under Section 29A maintainable before High Court when arbitrator appointed under Section 11 by High Court – Earlier judgment in Indian Farmers Fertilizers holds precedence over A’Xykno Capital Services. [Paras 25-33]

Copyright Law – Licensing and Royalty Payments – Commercial Exploitation of Sound Recordings – Whether Vodafone Idea Limited is required to obtain a license from IPRS and pay royalties before commercially exploiting musical and literary works incorporated into sound recordings. Held, Vodafone is statutorily obliged to procure licenses from IPRS and pay royalties, even if it has entered into agreements with Saregama India Limited for the exploitation of sound recordings. [Paras 1-32]

Rights of Authors – Amendments to the Copyright Act – Interpretation – The amendments to the Copyright Act in 2012 grant specific rights to authors of literary and musical works, including mandatory royalty sharing for public communication of such works. The statutory changes prohibit authors from renouncing their rights to royalties, and commercial exploiters of such works are required to comply with these provisions. [Paras 20-24]

Role of Saregama – Assignment of Rights – Legal Limitation – Saregama, having assigned its rights in musical and literary works to IPRS, cannot grant Vodafone rights to exploit these works. Any assignment by Saregama to Vodafone is void under the amended Copyright Act. [Paras 25-30]

Decision: Vodafone is required to obtain licenses from IPRS and pay royalties for the exploitation of musical and literary works in sound recordings. The interim orders restraining IPRS from claiming royalties from Vodafone are vacated, and Vodafone is directed to comply with the statutory requirements. [Paras 31-32]

Family Law - Customary Divorce - Validity and Proof - Second Appeal: The appellant, Anarkali, contended that she was the legally wedded wife of Late Rampal until his death, arguing against the claim of customary divorce (Chhoda Chhutti) by the respondent no.1, Siyawati. The court held that the existence and recognition of the custom must be specifically pleaded and proved by cogent evidence. The first appellate court erred in accepting the customary divorce without adequate proof of its prevalence and recognition in the concerned community. The court reiterated that a Hindu marriage can only be dissolved in accordance with the statutory provisions or a well-established custom. The judgment of the first appellate court was set aside, restoring the trial court's decision. [Paras 13-34]

Validity of Marriage - Substantial Questions of Law - Burden of Proof: The appellant's marriage was held valid as the respondent no.1 failed to prove the customary divorce and her own marriage to Late Rampal in accordance with Hindu rites. The court underscored that the burden of proof lies heavily on the party claiming the customary divorce. The appellant successfully rebutted the presumption of a valid customary divorce, maintaining her status as the legally wedded wife. [Paras 21-25, 27-30]

Procedural Law - Appeal - Counter Claim: The court addressed the issue of whether a single appeal challenging the common judgment and decree passed in both the main suit and the counter-claim was maintainable. It held that the appeal was valid as it adequately covered both decrees, emphasizing the principle that one appeal is sufficient where there has been one trial and one decision, even if multiple decrees are drawn. The appeal process in such cases must ensure comprehensive adjudication to avoid piecemeal litigation. [Paras 37-48]

Decision: The Second Appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 05.03.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.7, Raibareli in Civil Appeal No.86/2009 is set aside. The judgment and decree passed by the trial court is restored.

Criminal Law – Cancellation of Anticipatory Bail – Factors Considered – Criminal petitions filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to private respondents in a case involving allegations under Sections 323, 406, 498-A, 506, and 34 IPC, and Section 25 of the Arms Act – Anticipatory bail granted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad – Petitioners argued non-recovery of dowry articles and misuse of bail – Court holds non-recovery of dowry articles not a sufficient ground for cancellation of anticipatory bail – Petitioner failed to demonstrate misuse of bail or influence on witnesses by respondents – Petitions dismissed.

Cancellation of Bail – Relevant Factors – Analysis – Held – To cancel bail, there must be evidence of misuse of bail, influence on witnesses, or violation of bail conditions by the accused – Court found no such evidence against the respondents – Emphasizes distinction between cancellation of bail and setting aside bail order based on supervening circumstances.

Decision – Petitions for Cancellation of Bail – Dismissed – Petitions seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondents by Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, dismissed due to lack of sufficient grounds such as misuse of bail or intimidation of witnesses – Non-recovery of dowry articles alone insufficient to warrant cancellation

Service Law – Dismissal from Service – Departmental Enquiry – Criminal Charges – Writ Petition challenging the order of dismissal from service based on a departmental enquiry – Petitioner alleged to have amassed assets disproportionate to known sources of income – Enquiry report based on FIR and suspension order without substantial evidence – Held, departmental proceedings conducted in violation of principles of natural justice and based on no evidence – Quashing of dismissal order and reinstatement of petitioner with full back wages and consequential benefits. [Paras 1-24]

Procedural Irregularity in Departmental Enquiry – Analysis – Enquiry conducted ex parte – Petitioner’s medical leave requests denied – No substantial evidence presented during enquiry – Prosecution relied only on FIR and suspension order – Enquiry Officer’s findings based on presumptions without concrete evidence – Violates principles of natural justice. [Paras 6-8, 14]

Decision – Quashing of Disciplinary Actions – Court quashes the enquiry report dated 02.05.2022, the dismissal order dated 10.05.2022, the appellate order dated 25.07.2022, and the memorial order dated 21.03.2023 – Orders reinstatement of petitioner with continuity of service and full back wages along with consequential benefits within three months. [Paras 21-24]

Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Bank employee accused of temporary misappropriation of Rs. 35,000 – Initial punishment of discharge from service by disciplinary authority – Central Government Industrial Tribunal modified penalty to reinstatement with 50% back-wages and stoppage of two increments – Single Judge partially upheld Tribunal’s decision, modifying penalty to reinstatement with 20% back-wages and stoppage of five increments – Appeals filed by both delinquent employee and Bank Management [Paras 1-3, 10-14].

Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act – Tribunal’s power to modify punishment – Tribunal's discretion in modifying penalties must be exercised judiciously, considering the gravity of the misconduct and the employer's loss of confidence in the employee – High Court held that Tribunal’s interference with the disciplinary authority’s penalty of discharge was unjustified given the proven misconduct and breach of trust by the employee [Paras 6-13].

Decision – Appeals by Bank Management allowed – Appeals by delinquent employee dismissed – Original penalty of discharge from service upheld – Tribunal’s and Single Judge’s orders modifying the punishment set aside [Paras 14].

Negotiable Instruments – Section 138 – Quashing of Complaints – Grounds for Quashing – Petitioner contended that the complaints should be quashed due to the absence of partnership deed and authorization, and lack of requisite license under the Money Lenders and Accredited Loan Providers Act – High Court held that authorization and partnership deed issues should be examined during trial, not at the stage of quashing – Complaints not quashed, petitions dismissed [Paras 1-14].

Partnership and Authorization – Prima facie acceptance of authorization for filing complaint – Complaints not quashed solely due to absence of partnership deed or specific authorization documents – Relevant during trial [Paras 7-10].

Money Lenders Act – Registration Requirement – Petitioner’s contention on lack of registration under the Money Lenders and Accredited Loan Providers Act rejected – Nature of financial support not clearly established as a loan – Issue to be examined during trial [Paras 11-13].

Inherent Powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Not exercised to quash complaints where facts are disputed and require trial – Importance of trial in establishing material facts and evidence emphasized [Paras 13-14].

Decision:

Petitions dismissed – Complaints and proceedings under Section 138 NI Act allowed to proceed – Issues regarding authorization and registration under Money Lenders Act to be examined during trial.