Classification of Employees as Workmen – Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 2(s) – Interpretation by Industrial Tribunal – Challenge in High Court – High Court upholds Tribunal’s classification of certain employees as ‘workmen’ under the Act. Tribunal found that these employees primarily performed manual, skilled, and unskilled work, contrary to petitioner’s claim of them engaging in managerial or supervisory roles. High Court confirms Tribunal’s finding that the duties of the employees fit within the definition of ‘workman’ under the Act, rejecting the argument of managerial or supervisory duties. [Paras 1-22]

Nature of Work Performed – Determinative Factor in Employee Classification – The court emphasizes the importance of the actual work performed by the employees, rather than their designations or bands, in determining their status as workmen. Evidence demonstrated that the employees were engaged in manual and skilled tasks, with no substantial supervisory control over other employees, fitting the definition of workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. [Paras 11, 18, 20]

Decision – Dismissal of Writ Petition – The High Court, upon thorough examination of the material on record, finds no ground to interfere with the Industrial Tribunal’s order. The classification of the respondents as workmen under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act is held to be justified and in accordance with the law. The writ petition challenging the Tribunal’s order is dismissed. [Paras 21-22]

Attempted Murder Conviction and Appeals – Conviction of appellants Bhima, Ravi, and Munesh under Sections 307/34 IPC for a stabbing incident in 2011 – Sentenced to 7 years of rigorous imprisonment and fines [Paras 1-4].

Suspension of Sentence Applications – Filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. – Based on prolonged trial, incarceration, and claims of false implication – Arguments drawing from jurisprudence on suspension of sentences in prolonged appeal processes [Paras 5-7, 13-15].

Prosecution's Opposition – Emphasized seriousness of offenses and conviction based on substantial evidence – Distinguished between pre-conviction bail and post-conviction suspension of sentence considerations [Para 10].

Court's Evaluation – Examined material contradictions in prosecution's evidence, differences in injury assessments, non-recovery of the weapon, and delays in appeal hearings – Acknowledged appellants' young age at the time of the incident, clean antecedents, and the hardship of prolonged trial [Para 16].

Decision on Suspension – Considering Supreme Court precedents and facts, the court suspended the sentences, releasing appellants on bail with conditions such as not leaving the country without permission and avoiding criminal activities [Paras 16-18].

 Modification of interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 - Original order directed the Husband to pay Rs.66,000/- per month cumulatively to Wife and daughters following a divorce petition - Husband seeks modification citing elder daughter’s majority and employment in the USA, reduction in his salary, and personal financial constraints, including increased rent and medical expenses - Wife opposes, highlighting her lack of independent income, health issues, and children's needs - Court’s examination of Husband's financial records from 2018 and 2022 reveals minor salary variation and significant future savings, undermining his claims of reduced financial capacity - The Court modifies maintenance to Rs.44,000/- per month from July 2023, considering elder daughter's employment - Directs clearance of arrears within four weeks and urges Family Court for expeditious conclusion of divorce proceedings.

Eviction Order Challenge - Petitioner Kulwant Singh challenging eviction order due to non-filing of application for leave to contest under Section 14(1)(e) - Respondent Vikas Ahuja filed eviction petition - Petitioner did not vacate the subject premises post expiry of tenancy agreement, leading to the present dispute - Issue revolves around the service of summons and whether the petitioner's written statement should be treated as an application for leave to contest [Paras 1-2, 3, 7].

Service of Summons and Legal Proceedings - Summons initially issued in wrong format - Later correctly served through Anil Kumar, allegedly the brother of petitioner - Petitioner's denial of relationship with Anil Kumar and non-service claim rejected by Additional Rent Controller - Trial court records indicate multiple adjournments and absence of petitioner from hearings [Paras 2.2-2.4, 6-6.14].

Admissibility of Written Statement as Leave to Contest - Petitioner's counsel's argument for treating written statement as application for leave to contest, based on precedent in Rambir Singh vs Smt. Balwant Kaur Choudhary & Anr - Court distinguishes present case from the precedent - Petitioner's failure to request treatment of written statement as application for leave to contest noted [Paras 7, 8, 10].

Court's Decision and Reasoning - Court finds no infirmity in the impugned eviction order - Non-truthful stand of the petitioner regarding service of summons - Consistent avoidance of service and non-compliance with procedural requirements lead to dismissal of petition and pending applications [Paras 9, 11, 12].

Criminal Procedure – Anticipatory Bail – Medical Impersonation and Forgery – The High Court of Delhi deliberated on the grant of anticipatory bail to a practitioner of Unani medicine accused of impersonating an MBBS doctor and committing document forgery in relation to medical practice. The case revolved around the death of a patient post-childbirth, with allegations of using a forged MBBS degree and practicing modern medicine illegally. [Para 1-5, 26-28]

Qualifications and Practice of Unani Medicine – Consideration – The court examined the credentials of the applicant, a Bachelor of Unani Medicine and Surgery (BUMS) degree holder from Jamia Hamdard Delhi. The defense argued that the applicant was authorized to conduct normal deliveries as per the guidelines of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, and had significant experience in Unani medical practice. [Para 6-7, 11]

Allegations of Impersonation and Forgery – Evaluation – The prosecution accused the applicant of impersonating an MBBS doctor and using a forged stamp, highlighting discrepancies in the registration numbers used and absence of necessary qualifications for prescribing certain medications. The court assessed these allegations to determine the applicability of relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code. [Para 3, 16-18, 27]

Considerations for Granting Anticipatory Bail – Analysis – The court considered various factors, including the seriousness of the charges, the need for effective investigation, the likelihood of the applicant’s availability for trial, and the balance between personal liberty and the public interest, in deciding the anticipatory bail application. Reliance was placed on the principles laid down in landmark judgments such as Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others. [Para 29-32]

Decision – Anticipatory bail application dismissed due to the gravity of the allegations and the necessity for effective custodial interrogation to verify the claims and collect material evidence. [Paras 33-34]

Petitioners' Rights to Life and Liberty Under Live-in Relationship – Judicial Precedence and Constitutional Rights – Held – Petitioners, despite being in a non-marital live-in relationship, are entitled to protection of their life and liberty as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court, relying on past judgments, emphasizes that the legal recognition or status of the relationship does not diminish the right to protection. Petitioners' fundamental rights upheld irrespective of their marital status or age of majority. [Paras 2-4, 9, 10, 13]

Directions to Police for Protection – Assessment of Threat Perception – Held – Respondent No.2, Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur, directed to consider the petitioners' representation for protection and assess any threat to their life and liberty. Appropriate action to be taken in accordance with the law, ensuring the safety of the petitioners, reflecting the Court's commitment to safeguard individual rights under the Constitution. [Para 14]

Judicial Approach towards Non-Conventional Relationships – Analysis – Held – The Court demonstrates a progressive approach in acknowledging and protecting individuals in live-in relationships. Recognizes the evolving societal norms and extends legal protection irrespective of traditional marital boundaries, underscoring the primacy of individual liberty and rights over societal conventions. [Paras 8-10, 12, 13]

Decision – Protection of Life and Liberty in Live-in Relationship – Court grants protection to the petitioners, living in a live-in relationship, directing the police to assess and respond to their safety concerns. The judgment reiterates the sanctity of life and liberty under the Constitution, extending its protection to relationships outside the traditional marital framework. [Paras 14-15]

Registration Law - Mandamus to Register Sale Certificate - Writ petition seeking mandamus directing Sub-Registrar to register sale certificate issued under SARFAESI Act - Sub-Registrar refused registration citing pending Income Tax dues against original owners - Supreme Court holds SARFAESI Act provisions override other statutory claims - Mandamus issued directing Sub-Registrar to register sale certificate - State Government directed to issue circular to Sub-Registrars clarifying registration obligations under SARFAESI Act. [Paras 1-15]

Priority of Secured Creditors - SARFAESI Act - Examines Section 26E and Section 35 of SARFAESI Act - Held, secured creditor's rights have priority over other statutory dues - Sub-Registrar’s refusal to register sale certificate due to pending Income Tax dues invalid - SARFAESI Act provisions take precedence over Income Tax Act dues. [Paras 9-14]

Sub-Registrar’s Jurisdiction - Refusal to Register - Analyses grounds under Section 71 of Registration Act and Rule 171 of Karnataka Registration Rules - Sub-Registrar’s refusal to register sale certificate based on reasons not listed in Rule 171 invalid - Mandates compliance with statutory provisions for registration. [Paras 10-14]

Decision - Issuance of Mandamus - Directs Sub-Registrar to register sale certificate immediately - Orders State Government to issue clarificatory circular to all Sub-Registrars - Circular to reference Rules and Supreme Court judgments to prevent similar refusals. [Para 15]

Commercial Law – Condonation of Delay in Filing Written Statement –adjudicated upon the condonation of delay in filing the written statement by the respondent in a commercial dispute under the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The primary contention revolved around whether the delay beyond the statutorily prescribed period could be condoned under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. [Para 1-10, 13, 15, 25-26]

Service of Summons – Interpretation of Proper Service – The court analyzed the correctness of service of summons upon the respondent and its implications on the obligation to file the written statement within the prescribed timeframe. The impact of the mediation process on the computation of the period for filing the written statement was also examined. [Para 7-8, 17-18, 20]

Supreme Court Guidelines – Compliance in Commercial Disputes – The judgment referred to the Supreme Court precedent in “M/s SCG Contracts India Pvt Ltd Vs K S Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt Ltd” to determine the permissible limits for condoning delay in commercial disputes. It emphasized the strict timelines set by the Supreme Court for filing written statements in such matters. [Para 9, 14, 15, 25]

Decision – Non-Condonation of Delay – High Court set aside the Commercial Court's order allowing the condonation of delay - Court directed that the written statement filed beyond the permitted timeframe should not be taken on record. [Para 26]

Criminal Law – Negotiable Instruments Act – Compounding of Offence – In the case of Devender Sharma versus State NCT of Delhi & Anr, the High Court of Delhi, presided by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Jain, dealt with a revision petition under Section 397, read with Sections 401 & 482 of Cr.P.C., challenging the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. [Paras 1-5]

Condonation of Delay – The court condoned the delay in filing the revision petitions, with the consent of the respondents, ensuring no prejudice to their rights and contentions. [Paras CRL.M.A. 9426/2024, 3]

Settlement and Compounding – The petitioner, while in custody, reached a settlement with the complainant, leading to the filing of an application under Section 147 of the NI Act for compounding the offence. The Court noted the terms of the settlement and the payment of the agreed sum to the complainant. [Paras 7-12, 16-17]

Effect of Compounding – Acquittal – On allowing the application for compounding, the Court highlighted that compounding of the offence would result in acquittal as per Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C., directing the release of the petitioner if not required in any other case. [Paras 17-18]

Petition Disposal – The petition was disposed of, and instructions were issued for the petitioner's release and the submission of the cost payment proof [Paras 23-26].