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 - Anticipatory Bail – Property Dispute – Forcible Entry Allegations – Bail Granted with Stringent Conditions - Petitioners accused of engaging lawyers to forcibly take possession during a property dispute under the guise of an injunction order – Court noted prima facie evidence suggesting misconduct by lawyers acting as henchmen – Held: Arrest not required for custodial interrogation; anticipatory bail granted with conditions including monetary deposits and daily appearance for interrogation [Paras 11-15].

Professional Misconduct – Role of Lawyers – Violation of BCI Rules – Directions Issued - Lawyers engaged in forcible possession activities condemned – Court directed Bar Council of Tamil Nadu to conduct disciplinary proceedings against errant lawyers – Emphasized that legal profession should not be misused as a cloak for unlawful activities [Paras 12-17].

Disciplinary Measures – Reformative Directives for Junior Lawyers – Court’s Proactive Steps - Directed Bar Council to rehabilitate junior lawyers involved by imposing monthly reporting and mentorship with senior lawyers to restore professional ethics [Paras 17(e)].

Decision – Anticipatory Bail Allowed – Specific Monetary Conditions Imposed - Petitioners directed to deposit Rs.3 lakh to the Legal Services Authority and Rs.10 lakh to court deposit – Additional stringent conditions imposed for release on bail to ensure accountability and prevent further misconduct [Paras 18-19].
 

Bail – Cheating and Forgery – Prima Facie Offence Established – Bail Denied – The petitioner, accused of inducing the complainant to invest Rs.1.73 crores in forged schemes by impersonating an employee of Yes Securities Ltd., failed to show any bona fide investment or return of funds – Investigation revealed the use of fake letters and documents to mislead the complainant – Coaccused declared a proclaimed offender – Held: Allegations are grave, fraudulent intent evident, and continued detention justified at this stage [Paras 5–9]. 
 
Nature of Dispute – Not Merely Civil – Serious Criminal Elements Involved – Court Rejected Argument of Civil Dispute – Despite presence of financial transactions and ledgers, the consistent use of false documentation, impersonation, and deceit elevated the matter beyond a commercial disagreement – Fraudulent inducement supported by forged documents indicative of premeditated criminal conspiracy [Paras 2–6]. 
 
Long Detention – Not a Ground for Bail – Judicial Custody Since June 2023 – Bail Refused – Though the petitioner has been in custody since 05.06.2023 and investigation is complete, the Court held that serious nature of the allegations outweighs the duration of detention – Ongoing trial and gravity of offence warranted continued custody [Para 9]. 
 
Decision – Bail Application Dismissed – Court found no ground to grant bail considering the serious nature of allegations and fraudulent conduct prima facie established during investigation [Para 9]. 
 

Bail – Alleged Violation of Official Secrets Act – Applicant Honey-Trapped – Bail Granted – Accused, a 23-year-old apprentice, was alleged to have shared names and details of naval vessels with two absconding accused identified as suspected foreign agents – Prima facie it appeared he was seduced through social media chats and lured into giving limited information without criminal intent – Court noted his full cooperation, clean antecedents, and prolonged custody – Held: A case of honey-trap, information not conclusively established as classified, and incarceration likely to derail reform – Bail granted with conditions [Paras 1–27]. 
 
Youth Offender – Reformative Approach – Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation – Applicant’s young age, lack of antecedents, and academic potential weighed heavily – Court invoked principles from Probation of Offenders Act and global penological trends focusing on reform of young offenders – Held: Long incarceration poses risk of pushing young accused into hardened criminality – Reform, not retribution, should guide the approach [Paras 21–26]. 
 
Honey Trap – Intelligence Modus Operandi – Judicial Alarm Raised – Court found the modus operandi of Accused Nos.2 and 3 to be a clear case of honey-trapping through social media – Observed: Youth are vulnerable targets of such covert techniques – Cautioned society at large about cyber-enabled seduction-based espionage – Held: Circumstances indicated the applicant was manipulated into inadvertent disclosures, without understanding the implications [Para 21]. 
 
Official Secrets Act – Prima Facie Evidence – Nature of Shared Information – Court examined the chats and documents to find that most information shared was not evidently classified or sensitive – Drawing shared was part of applicant’s training, and no wilful breach was proven – Held: Classification of shared material and criminal conspiracy are triable issues, not conclusive at bail stage [Paras 13–15]. 
 
Cooperation with Investigation – Full Disclosure – No Tampering – The applicant did not delete chats or withhold access to devices – Prosecution retrieved all data with the applicant’s assistance – Held: Conduct reflects bona fides, meriting consideration for bail [Para 12]. 
 
Decision – Bail Granted with Conditions – Considering the long incarceration (16 months), lack of antecedents, and no flight risk, bail granted – Directed to report to police and court regularly, surrender passport, and refrain from tampering with evidence – Court clarified observations are only for bail and not on merits of the case [Paras 27–28]. 
 

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].

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].

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].

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].

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].