Election Petition – Joinder of Contesting Candidates – Section 63(3) read with Section 62(4) of UP Municipal Corporations Act – Defect Not Curable by Amendment – Petition Maintainability Fails – Respondent filed election petition without impleading all contesting candidates – Later moved amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to implead five remaining candidates after expiry of limitation – Held: Joinder of all contesting candidates is mandatory – Non-joinder is fatal – Defect not curable by amendment after limitation – Orders allowing amendment and rejecting recall are unsustainable [Paras 1-20].

Limitation in Election Petition – Thirty-Day Period under Section 62(4) of the 1959 Act – Mandatory Requirement – Amendment Beyond Limitation Invalid – Election petition was filed within limitation but without necessary parties – Held: Amendment to implead necessary parties cannot relate back after expiry of 30-day limitation – Mandatory procedural compliance under special law cannot be overridden by CPC [Paras 11-19].

Code of Civil Procedure – Applicability of Order VI Rule 17 – Limited by Special Statute – Amendment Not Permissible Where Statute Bars Maintainability – Power to Allow Amendment Exists But Cannot Override Statutory Mandates – Held: CPC can supplement but not override statutory mandates – Impleadment under Order I Rule 10 and amendment under Order VI Rule 17 not available where non-joinder of party results in dismissal under special statute [Paras 13-16].

Decision – Amendment Orders Set Aside – Writ Allowed – Court set aside order dated 17.09.2024 allowing impleadment and order dated 29.01.2025 rejecting recall – Held: Amendment could not cure the defect of non-joinder post limitation – Writ petition allowed, question framed answered in favour of petitioner [Paras 20-23].

Maintainability of Gratuity Claim – Direct Approach to Controlling Authority – Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act – Application Not Mandatory – Claim Allowed – The employer contended that the gratuity claim made directly before the Controlling Authority was not maintainable without first filing an application with the employer – Held: Section 7(2) & (3) impose an independent obligation on the employer to determine and pay gratuity upon exit of the employee, regardless of any formal application – A direct claim before the Controlling Authority is maintainable [Paras 14-15, 30].

Limitation – Rule 7 of MP Rules vs. Parent Act – Gratuity Claim Not Time-Barred – Rule Not Overriding the Statute – The appellant raised limitation under Rule 7 of MP Gratuity Rules – Held: The Act of 1972, being a welfare legislation, overrides the Rules – Rule 7(5) itself clarifies that delay alone does not invalidate the claim – No limitation applies for making a gratuity claim under the Act [Paras 12, 20-21, 23-24].

Interest on Delayed Payment – Section 7(3A) – Automatic Accrual – Interest Mandatory – It was argued that delayed claims should not accrue interest – Held: Interest accrues automatically from the date gratuity becomes payable if not paid within 30 days, unless delay is due to the employee’s fault and Controlling Authority permits such delay – No such circumstance was shown – Interest @10% upheld [Paras 3, 16, 24].

Definition of Employee – Inclusion of Teachers – Amendment of 2009 – Teachers Covered – Initially relying on the Ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teachers’ Assn. case to exclude teachers – Held: Following 2009 amendment and SC judgment in Birla Institute of Technology v. State of Jharkhand, teachers are now covered as employees under the Act [Paras 5, 29].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Employer’s Argument of Maintainability and Limitation Rejected – No Error in Controlling Authority or Learned Single Judge’s Orders – Directed that gratuity with interest be paid within 30 days if not already paid [Para 31].

Service Law – Regularisation in Higher Post – Petitioner Appointed as Peon but Entrusted Duties of Cashier – LongTerm Functioning in Higher Post Without Formal Promotion – Regularisation Ordered as Peon Ignoring Court Direction and Favourable Performance Report – Held: Petitioner qualified for regularisation in post of Cashier under 1984 Rules – Board failed to consider performance report as directed by Court – Impugned order quashed – Direction issued to reconsider regularisation in post of Cashier [Paras 6–13]. 
 
Constitutional Mandate – Non-Compliance of Judicial Direction – Mandate of High Court to Consider Branch 
Manager’s Report Ignored – Resolution of Board Preceded Court’s Direction But Later Order Failed to Incorporate Directed Consideration – Held: Violation of judicial discipline and disregard of binding direction – Action unsustainable [Paras 8.3–8.5, 12.3–12.5]. 
 
Doctrine of Equal Pay for Equal Work – Long-Term Discharge of Duties of Cashier with Lower Pay – Petitioner Entrusted with Responsibilities of Higher Grade Without Regularisation or Pay Benefits – Held: Petitioner entitled to pay and post of Cashier – Reliance placed on Supreme Court judgment in State of Punjab v. Dharam Pal – Principle of equal pay for equal work invoked [Paras 10.1–10.6, 12.6]. 
 
Applicability of 1984 Rules vs. 2011 Rules – Resolution for Regularisation Predated 2011 Rules – Eligibility to Be Assessed Under 1984 Rules – Held: Respondent’s reliance on 2011 Rules misplaced – Petitioner’s case to be decided under 1984 Rules where she met eligibility criteria for post of Cashier [Paras 7.3, 8.8, 13.1–13.2]. 
 
Administrative Law – Requirement of Reasoned Orders – Order Regularising as Peon Lacked Reasons or 
Consideration of Pertinent Facts – Held: Decision without reasons contrary to settled principles – Quashed for nonapplication of mind – Reliance placed on Steel Authority of India Ltd. V. Sales Tax Officer [Paras 9–9.5]. 
 
Maintainability of Writ – Availability of Alternative Remedy Not a Bar – Long Delay and Two Rounds of Litigation Justified Invocation of Article 226 – Held: Writ maintainable despite alternative remedy under Section 68 of Odisha Cooperative Societies Act [Paras 11.1–11.5, 14]. 
  
Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Impugned Order Quashed – Petitioner’s Case to Be Reconsidered for Regularisation as Cashier – Direction to Decide Within Three Months – Petitioner Entitled to Higher Pay Scale upon Favourable Decision [Paras 15–17]. 
 

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Conviction - Demand and Acceptance – Prevention of Corruption Act – Conviction Set Aside – The complainant alleged that the appellants demanded ₹10,000 as bribe for facilitating land possession – Trap was allegedly conducted and bribe recovered from the Circle Officer – However, material witnesses including the two independent village witnesses and two Trap Team constables who allegedly caught the appellant were not examined – Serious inconsistencies noted in the testimonies of the complainant and verifying officer, including contradiction regarding pending Title Suit and application for possession – Held: Chain of demand and acceptance not proved beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction and sentence set aside [Paras 55-75].

Criminal Law - Murder – Kidnapping for Ransom – Child Strangulated and Buried – Conviction Upheld – Appellant lured minor child to his home under pretense, strangled him with a cotton rope, and buried the body in a salt-lined tank – Strong circumstantial evidence including discovery of body and incriminating materials at appellant's instance corroborated the prosecution's case – Motive established by ransom demand and neighbor identification of appellant’s voice during ransom call [Paras 2-3, 17-19, 31-33].

Circumstantial Evidence – Chain of Events Complete – All Elements of Crime Proved – The court affirmed that the series of events starting from kidnapping, demand of ransom, concealment of body, and forensic evidence formed an unbroken chain conclusively establishing the appellant’s guilt – No explanation offered by accused under Section 313 CrPC regarding recovered evidence [Paras 17-18, 31-33, 35-37].

Voice Identification – Recognition by Victim’s Father – No Need for Spectrographic Analysis – Complainant PW-13, being a close neighbor, identified the appellant’s voice during ransom call – Supreme Court precedents held sufficient where caller and recipient were well-acquainted – No contradiction in testimony raised sufficient doubt to discard evidence [Paras 31-33].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and Sentences Affirmed – Appellant's conviction under Sections 302, 364A, 363, and 201 IPC sustained – Life imprisonment and other sentences upheld – No interference warranted by High Court [Para 40].

Civil Law - Copyright Licensing – Rights of Assignees – Section 18 and Section 30 – Restrictions under Section 33 – Licensing Prohibited Without Compliance – The Court held that though PPL is the owner of copyright in the assigned sound recordings under Section 18(2), it cannot lawfully carry on the business of issuing licenses unless it is registered or is a member of a registered copyright society – The licensing right under Section 30 must operate in accordance with the conditions under Section 33(1) – Mere ownership does not exempt PPL from statutory compliance [Paras 19.17–21(x)].  

Interpretation of Section 33(1) – Proviso Cannot Override Main Provision – Requirement to Be Member of Registered Copyright Society – The Court clarified that the proviso to Section 33(1) is applicable only to those owners who are members of a registered copyright society – To permit otherwise would defeat the intent of the main section and reduce the regulatory structure to redundancy [Paras 20.3–20.10].  

Regulatory Oversight – Findings of 227^th Parliamentary Committee – Transparency and Anti-Cartelisation – The Court referred to the 227^th PSC Report to note concerns regarding non-transparent practices of copyright societies like PPL – The legislative intent behind Section 33A was to bring transparency and fair pricing in licensing, which cannot be circumvented by claiming ownership without registration [Paras 23.1–23.2].  

Interim Relief – Modified Injunction – Payment at Tariff of RMPL Directed – Considering balance of equities, the Court modified the impugned injunction and directed Azure to make payments to PPL at the tariff prescribed by RMPL – The amount is to be treated as interim, subject to the outcome of the trial in CS (Comm) 714/2022 [Paras 25.4–25.7].  

Decision – Impugned Order Modified – Appeal Partly Allowed – Injunction order passed by Single Judge was modified – Azure permitted to play the recordings upon making interim payment at RMPL tariff rates – Final adjudication to determine enforceability of PPL’s licensing rights [Paras 26–28].

Criminal Law – Murder - Unlawful Assembly – Formation of Common Object – Section 149 IPC – Conviction Upheld – Accused persons, all armed with firearms, engaged in abusive conduct while passing the victims’ house and, upon being confronted, opened indiscriminate fire causing multiple injuries and two fatalities – Held: The unlawful assembly came into existence the moment firing began – The conduct, presence, and nature of arms carried by the accused established their shared object to commit the offence – Prosecution evidence consistent and reliable – Conviction under Sections 147, 148, 149/302, and 149/307 IPC rightly recorded [Paras 26-36]. 
 
Delayed FIR – Explanation and Consequence – FIR registered nearly 6.5 hours after incident – Informant carried injured to police station 10–12 km away in a tractor-trolley – Written report prepared promptly and submitted upon arrival – Held: Delay satisfactorily explained – No adverse inference drawn against prosecution [Paras 26-27]. 
 
Testimony of Injured Witnesses – Evidentiary Value – Reliability Affirmed – Injured eyewitnesses PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3 corroborated prosecution case – Medical evidence supported injury reports – Hostile witnesses did not deny incident – Held: Testimonies of injured witnesses credible and consistent – No reason to disbelieve them [Paras 36]. 
 
No Recovery – Effect on Conviction – Weapons Not Recovered from Appellants – Defence raised doubt due to lack of recovery and specific overt acts – Held: Non-recovery not fatal – Participation in unlawful assembly and role in indiscriminate firing sufficient to uphold conviction under Section 149 IPC [Paras 20-21, 36]. 
 
Common Object – Inference from Conduct – Sections 141 and 149 IPC – Applicability Established – Court reaffirmed legal position that common object can develop on the spot – No requirement of prior meeting of minds – Assembly became unlawful upon firing – Armed nature and conduct at scene sufficient to establish shared object [Paras 28-33]. 
 
Appeals – Dismissal – Conviction and Sentences Affirmed – Court found no merit in the appeals – Trial court’s judgment upheld – Appellants directed to undergo sentence – Bail of two appellants cancelled and custody ordered [Paras 37-39]. 
 

Writ Jurisdiction – Arbitration - Maintainability under Article 227 – Arbitral Tribunal subject to writ jurisdiction in exceptional cases – High Court held that constitutional powers under Article 227 cannot be ousted by Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act – Where arbitral tribunal acts without jurisdiction or in violation of fundamental legal principles, writ lies – Held: Petition maintainable due to egregious error and suppression of material facts by the opposite party [Paras 22–46]. 
 
Arbitral Award – Lease Agreement Not Duly Stamped – Legal Consequences – Arbitrator proceeded to pass award despite impounding order and nonpayment of requisite stamp duty – Held: The arbitration proceedings and award based on such an instrument are non-est in law until proper stamping is done – Lease agreement cannot be acted upon until duly stamped and endorsed under Section 42 of the Stamp Act [Paras 47–57]. 
 
Jurisdictional Illegality – Violation of Mandatory Law – Arbitrator exceeded jurisdiction by proceeding with award on an impounded document not regularised under law – Held: Award suffers from patent illegality and is liable to be set aside – Arbitration cannot be sustained unless statutory compliance is ensured [Paras 58–60]. 
 
Decision – Award Set Aside – Arbitration Kept in Abeyance – Court directs the Collector to collect stamp duty and penalty as per Stamp Act – Arbitration to recommence only upon satisfaction of legal formalities – No order as to costs [Paras 61–64]. 
 

Criminal Law - Appeal Against Acquittal – Appreciation of Evidence – Section 378(3) CrPC – Acquittal Upheld – The State challenged the acquittal of accused under Sections 307, 323, and 325 IPC read with Section 34 IPC – The High Court held that the trial court’s evaluation of evidence was plausible and well-reasoned – No perversity found warranting interference – Held: Government appeal dismissed [Paras 16-21, 30-31].

Common Intention – Requirement of Pre-Arranged Plan – Section 34 IPC – No Evidence of Pre-Meditation – The Court held that vague and omnibus allegations without attribution of specific roles or proof of pre-arranged plan are insufficient to invoke Section 34 IPC – Absence of direct evidence against the surviving accused negated liability under common intention – Held: Acquittal justified [Paras 15, 23-29].

Medical Evidence – Absence of Corroboration – Non-Matching Injuries – Discrepancy in Prosecution Story – The first informant alleged injuries by lathis, but medical records showed no such injuries or examination – Only one superficial injury found on another victim – No witness identified the assailant – Held: Medical evidence failed to support prosecution version [Paras 24-26].

Parity of Legal Precedents – Mahbub Shah v. Emperor Applied – Distinction Between Similar Intention and Common Intention – The Court relied on Mahbub Shah (AIR 1945 PC 118) to underscore that mere similar intentions cannot substitute for common intention under Section 34 IPC – Held: Inference of common intention must be based on necessary evidence and not assumptions [Para 28].

Standard of Review – Appellate Interference in Acquittal – Judicial Restraint Reiterated – The Court reiterated the principle that appellate interference in acquittal must be based on clear perversity, manifest error, or unsustainable findings – Held: Trial court's judgment reflected a fair and plausible view, hence no interference warranted [Paras 16-21, 30].