Civil Law - Partition Suit – Amendment of Preliminary Decree – Discovery of Prior Endowment Deed – Amendment Upheld - Plaintiff sought amendment of a 1995 preliminary decree in a partition suit in 2018 based on a 1969 endowment deed discovered in 2017 – Trial Court allowed the amendment, recognizing the property had been endowed to a Deity and thus was not part of the inheritance – Held: The Court has jurisdiction to amend a preliminary decree to do complete justice even if the event predates the suit, provided it was not within the parties’ knowledge at the time of litigation – Endowment deed was valid and unchallenged, transferring ownership to the Deity [Paras 6, 13-15, 21-24].

Doctrine of Intervening Event – Not Restricted to Post-Decree Events – Events Beyond Party Knowledge Can Be Grounds for Amendment - Petitioner argued that only post-decree events could justify amendment – Court clarified that principles laid down by Supreme Court permit amendments where events, even predating the decree, come to light later and affect parties' rights – No fraud or suppression found against respondent – Application for amendment was maintainable under Section 151 CPC [Paras 9, 16-21, 24].

Final Decree Proceedings – Validity of Amendment – Rejection of Petitioner’s Challenge – Upheld - Petitioner's application asserting invalidity of endowment deed was rightly rejected by trial and revisional courts – Endowment deed remained valid and unchallenged in court – Dismissal of related civil revisions and writ petitions justified [Paras 7, 25-26].

Decision – Writ Petitions Dismissed – Orders Passed by Trial and Revisional Courts Upheld - The High Court found no legal infirmity in the trial court’s decision to allow amendment of preliminary decree based on a valid and previously unknown endowment deed – Petitioner's objections were rejected, and both writ petitions were dismissed accordingly [Paras 25-26].

Patent Law – Inventive Step – Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act – Appeal Dismissed – The appellant's patent application for a Ziegler-Natta catalyst process was rejected for lacking inventive step – Court held that the claimed process was obvious in view of prior art documents D1, D2, and D3 – Combination of existing techniques using diether compounds and hot filtration was a predictable outcome to a person skilled in the art – Held: No inventive step present, rejection order upheld [Paras 16–18, 27–30, 35].

Obviousness – “Could-Would” Test – Skilled Person's Motivation – No Technical Advancement Shown – The Court affirmed the Controller’s reliance on the “Could-Would” approach to conclude that a skilled person would have arrived at the claimed invention by combining disclosures in cited prior art – Mere use of known diether donors and process steps does not amount to technical advancement – Held: Invention lacked non-obviousness and did not satisfy statutory inventive step requirement [Paras 19, 30, 33].

Evergreening – Multiple Applications on Similar Subject – Attempt to Reclaim Known Invention – The appellant had filed two similar patent applications simultaneously, one of which was granted – The current application was found to be an attempt to evergreen and extend monopoly on the same invention – Held: Subject matter already covered in granted application, second claim rightly denied [Paras 10.1, 31].

Controller’s Reasoning – Proper Evaluation of Prior Art – Judicial Standards Met – The Controller’s order was found to be well-reasoned and compliant with legal standards under Agriboard and Dolby cases – All three prongs of inventive step analysis (prior art, subject invention, and obviousness to skilled person) were addressed – Held: No procedural error or violation of natural justice [Paras 21–22, 32].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – No Grounds to Interfere with Rejection – The Court dismissed the appeal, confirming that the invention was obvious and lacked inventive merit under Indian patent law – No costs awarded [Paras 35–36].

Criminal Writ – Withdrawal from Prosecution – Executive Overreach – Government Order Set Aside - The petitioner challenged a government order directing Public Prosecutors to withdraw 43 criminal cases – Court held that the directive unlawfully intruded upon the discretionary domain of prosecutors under Section 321 CrPC and was issued despite objections from the Police, Law, and Prosecution Departments – Held: Such mass withdrawal was politically coloured, undermined rule of law, and could not be sustained [Paras 2–6.5].

Prosecutorial Independence – Section 321 CrPC – Executive Cannot Dictate – Autonomy Reaffirmed - Court reiterated settled law that Public Prosecutors must independently assess each case for withdrawal – Cited Supreme Court rulings emphasizing prosecutorial autonomy – Held: Cabinet’s directive compromised individual judgment and reduced prosecutors to political instruments – Such conduct erodes justice system integrity [Paras 5.3–6.4.1].

Cabinet Note – Confidentiality Claim Rejected – Admissibility Upheld - Despite objections, the Court accepted the Cabinet Note as evidence – Held: If authenticity is not disputed and document serves public interest, its confidential origin does not bar judicial scrutiny – Based on Supreme Court precedent in Umesh Kumar v. State of A.P., 2013 (10) SCC 591 [Paras 5.5–5.5.2].

Rule of Law – Political Interference in Criminal Justice – Abuse of Power - The withdrawal process was based on political representation and involved cases with influential accused, including MLAs and ministers – Court condemned the political motives and held that such conduct violated constitutional governance principles – Directed restoration of prosecutorial discretion [Paras 3.1–6.2, 6.5].

Final Decision – Petition Allowed – Government Order Quashed - Government Order No. HD 129 MHB 2024 dated 15.10.2024 was declared void ab initio – Consequences to follow in law – Petition allowed with strong affirmation of prosecutorial independence and rule of law [Para 7].

Income Tax Law - Cloud Computing Services – Taxability under DTAA – No Royalty or FIS – Exemption Upheld – The Assessee, a US-based cloud service provider, was held not liable to tax in India on payments received from Indian customers – The Tribunal found, and the High Court affirmed, that such payments were for standard automated cloud computing services that did not involve any transfer of rights in intellectual property or scientific equipment – Held: Charges were not taxable as royalty or fees for included services under Article 12 of the India–US DTAA [Paras 1–6, 13–16, 40].

Royalty under Section 9 and Article 12(3) – No Right to Use Scientific Equipment – Taxability Not Attracted – The AO's characterization of cloud service payments as “equipment royalty” was rejected – The Court held that customers merely accessed AWS's infrastructure without acquiring any right to use or exploit it independently – The phrase “right to use” under Article 12(3)(b) must be interpreted narrowly – Held: Payments were not for royalty under domestic law or DTAA [Paras 12, 37–39, 47].

Fees for Included Services – No Transfer of Technical Knowledge or Skills – Not Taxable – Technical support offered by AWS was ancillary and did not make available any knowledge or process to customers – Customers only accessed services and did not gain control over AWS’s technology – Held: The services did not satisfy the “make available” test under Article 12(4)(b) of the DTAA and thus were not taxable as FIS [Paras 11, 15, 17, 29–30, 39].

Precedent – Payments for Cloud Services Not Taxable – Consistent Judicial View – The Court followed binding precedents including the Supreme Court’s ruling in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. and its own prior decisions in Salesforce.com Singapore Pte. Ltd., Telstra Singapore Pte. Ltd., and Asia Satellite – Held: Subscription-based access to cloud platforms does not amount to royalty or FIS when no IP rights are transferred [Paras 42–44, 46–47].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – No Substantial Question of Law – The High Court held that the ITAT correctly applied the law to undisputed facts – Payments made to AWS were not taxable in India in the absence of a permanent establishment and due to the lack of transfer of rights or technical know-how – All pending applications were also dismissed [Para 48].

Criminal Jurisdiction – Maintainability of Writ Appeal – Quashing of FIR – Appeal Dismissed – Petitioners sought to quash FIR and chargesheet under Sections 498A, 406, 354C IPC filed by Haryana Police – Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition under Article 226 r/w Section 482 CrPC – Division Bench held that appeal under Section 4 of Karnataka High Court Act lies only in matters of original civil jurisdiction – Quashing of FIR amounts to exercise of criminal jurisdiction – Appeal held not maintainable [Paras 1, 21, 24, 25, 29].

Constitutional Law – Territorial Jurisdiction – Article 226(2) Invoked – Not Sufficient for Appeal – Petitioners invoked Article 226(2) claiming cause of action arose in Karnataka – However, Bench ruled that despite territorial cause, prayer related to quashing criminal proceedings falls under criminal jurisdiction – Power under Article 226(2) does not convert nature of proceedings to civil for appeal purposes [Paras 11-13, 23].

Procedural Law – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Quashing FIR – Bench Roster and Circular Compliance – Registry correctly raised objection based on 2012 Circular directing writs for quashing FIR/chargesheet be posted before Bench with CrPC Section 482 roster – Petition treated as filed under Section 482 CrPC and not purely under Article 226 – Hence, intra-court appeal barred [Paras 6, 19, 24].

Precedent – Sreemad Jagadguru and Ram Kishan Fauji Cases Followed – High Court followed coordinate Bench ruling in Sreemad Jagadguru Shankaracharya v. State of Karnataka and Supreme Court decision in Ram Kishan Fauji v. State of Haryana – Held: Nature of jurisdiction exercised determines appealability, not nomenclature of petition – Criminal jurisdiction decisions not appealable intra-court under Section 4 of the Act [Paras 22.1, 26].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Court upheld registry objection – Writ appeal dismissed as not maintainable under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 – No costs imposed [Para 29].

Civil Law - Motor Accident Claim – Negligent Driving – Insurer’s Liability – Compensation Enhanced - Deceased, a 35-year-old permanent employee of HCL Technologies, died after his two-wheeler was hit by a rashly driven water tanker – Tribunal found the tanker driver negligent and awarded Rs.81.89 lakhs – Insurer challenged liability; claimants sought enhancement – Held: Spot sketch and FIR confirmed rash driving by tanker; insurance policy valid – Tribunal correctly held insurer liable [Paras 6, 12–13].

Assessment of Income – Gross Salary and Allowances – Allowances Form Part of Pay - Monthly salary of deceased was Rs.1,37,350/- including fixed allowances paid regularly – Tribunal erred in reducing income to Rs.40,000/- on ground of probation – Held: Allowances were part of agreed pay package and must be included; no justification for reducing income due to probation status [Paras 14–20, 22–23].

Future Prospects and Deductions – Age Below 40 – Addition of 40% – Tax Deducted - Deceased was 35 years old – 40% added for future prospects – Deductions made for income and professional tax only – Multiplier of 16 applied as per Sarla Verma principle – Compensation under loss of dependency computed at Rs.2.25 crores [Paras 21, 24–25].

Conventional Heads – Consortium and Funeral Expenses – Updated as per Pranay Sethi - Rs.48,000/- awarded per claimant (wife, son, parents) under loss of consortium with 20% enhancement over Rs.40,000/- – Additional Rs.18,000/- each under loss of estate and funeral expenses, total compensation Rs.2,27,32,608/- [Paras 26–27].

Final Decision – Insurer’s Appeal Dismissed – Claimants’ Appeal Allowed in Part - Award modified, enhancing compensation by Rs.1,45,43,608/- – Insurer directed to deposit enhanced amount with 6% interest within 4 weeks – Tribunal’s apportionment directions maintained [Paras 28–29].

Civil Law - Succession – Proof of Will – Compliance with Section 69 of Evidence Act – Validity Upheld – The appellant challenged the exclusion of a residential plot from partition based on an unprobated Will allegedly executed by her mother – Propounder failed to produce attesting witnesses, but established their death and proved execution through scribe's testimony – Held: Requirements of Section 69 of Evidence Act satisfied – Scribe's evidence consistent and corroborated by surrounding circumstances – Execution and attestation of Will duly proved [Paras 18–24].

Testamentary Capacity – Mental and Physical Fitness of Testatrix – No Medical Evidence Against Capacity – Appellant alleged mother was bedridden and visually impaired at time of Will's execution – However, no medical records produced – Photographs and testimony of DW5, DW3, and DW4 showed testatrix was of sound mind and mobility – Held: Allegations of incapacity unsubstantiated – Testamentary capacity affirmed [Paras 15, 28–29].

Suspicious Circumstances – Role of Beneficiary and Attesting Witnesses – No Undue Influence Proved – Appellant claimed undue influence by first defendant and use of “stock witnesses” – Trial court found scribe (DW5) reliable and independent – Propounder not present during execution – No evidence of coercion or manipulation – Mere exclusion of heirs not suspicious when justified by surrounding facts – Held: No suspicious circumstances vitiating Will [Paras 11, 27, 30–35].

Delay in Challenging Will – Long Silence and Acquiescence – Will Dated 1988, Suit Filed in 2011 – First defendant had mutated property and evicted tenant based on Will long before suit – Plaintiff was aware of Will and raised no objection for over two decades – Held: Delay supports genuineness of Will and undermines appellant’s challenge [Paras 5, 33, 35].

Presumption of Valid Execution – Registered Will – Compliance with Statutory Formalities – Will was registered with Sub-Registrar after verifying identity of executant – DW5 and DW4 deposed to execution process – Sub-Registrar’s endorsement carries presumption of regularity – Held: Execution and registration legally valid and enforceable [Paras 12–14, 32].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Judgment of Trial Court Affirmed – Will declared valid – Residential plot excluded from partition – No order as to costs – All interlocutory applications closed [Paras 36].

Labour Law – Termination of Employment – Reinstatement – Petitioner (Cognizant Technology Solutions Pvt. Ltd.) challenged the Appellate Authority’s order directing reinstatement of the 2nd Respondent (Sivakumar Krishnamurthy) – Authority found the termination was not for a reasonable cause and amounted to punitive action – No domestic enquiry conducted as mandated under Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Shops & Establishments Act, 1947 – Termination held stigmatic and unjustified – Held: Termination order liable to be set aside and employee entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages [Paras 3, 34–38, 41, 46–52, 68].

Quasi-Judicial Authority – Allegations of Bias – Petitioner alleged that the impugned order was not authored by the Appellate Authority and claimed mala fides – Court found no substance in these allegations – Noted that the officer was not impleaded in personal capacity – Allegations held baseless and unsubstantiated – Imposition of cost of ₹1,00,000 directed for making frivolous allegations and wasting judicial time – Costs to be remitted to Tamil Nadu Labour Welfare Fund [Paras 14, 25–32, 70].

Scope of Appellate Authority – Powers under Section 41(2) – Authority empowered to set aside termination and assess reasonableness of cause – Reinstatement with full benefits flows as a legal consequence from setting aside termination – Not a separate or excessive exercise of power – Petitioner’s reliance on loss of confidence argument rejected – Appellate Authority justified in findings after analysing oral and documentary evidence – Held: No perversity in order warranting interference under Article 226 [Paras 41–43, 60–62, 67].

Circumstantial Inference – Shifting Stance by Employer – Petitioner initially dismissed 2nd Respondent for misconduct based on a domestic enquiry – Later rescinded dismissal and issued fresh order of termination citing “reasonable cause” – Court held this was an attempt to camouflage punitive dismissal as termination simpliciter – Such strategy legally impermissible – Authority rightly pierced the veil and found the real motive behind the termination [Paras 35–40, 56–58].

Decision – Writ Petition dismissed – Termination order set aside – Reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages upheld – Allegations against Appellate Authority rejected – Cost of ₹1,00,000 imposed on Petitioner for baseless claims and judicial impropriety [Paras 68–70].

Criminal Law – Murder - Sections 302, 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Appeal Against Conviction - Delay in Lodging FIR – Incident at 7:30 a.m., FIR at 10:15 a.m. – Delay Explained – Delay Not Fatal – The prosecution established that the FIR was lodged promptly after the informant parted from the deceased and travelled to the police station 10 km away – Medical and witness evidence corroborated time of death – Held: No unreasonable delay found, delay not fatal to prosecution case [Paras 28-30, 55, 65].

Credibility of Eyewitnesses – Related Witnesses – Evidence Acceptable – No Contradictions – The Court upheld the credibility of eyewitnesses P.W.-2 (father), P.W.-3, and P.W.-4 despite being related to the deceased – Their testimonies were consistent, natural, and free of embellishments – Earlier affidavits denying presence were held to be manipulated – Held: Relatedness does not disqualify truthful testimony [Paras 31-34, 38-39, 47-54].

Medical Evidence – Compatibility with Ocular Testimony – No Conflict – The injuries described in the postmortem were consistent with use of a sharp and pointed weapon like tabbal – Witnesses described tabbal with pointed ends; doctor confirmed such injuries possible – Held: Medical and ocular evidence corroborate each other [Paras 20, 66-68].

Motive – Land Dispute Following Widow’s Remarriage – Motive Established – Though not essential due to direct evidence, motive was shown through land ownership conflict after informant’s nephew’s widow remarried accused – Held: Motive supported by documentary evidence and explained animus [Paras 56-57, 59-60].

Non-Recovery of Weapon – Not Fatal – The failure to recover the tabbal and pistol used in the attack was not fatal – The court accepted that accused fled with weapons and did not disclose their location – Held: Non-recovery did not undermine consistent and reliable eyewitness and medical evidence [Paras 63, 66].

Affidavits Disowning Eyewitness Role – Discarded – P.W.-3 and P.W.-4 Denied Making Such Affidavits – The affidavits allegedly denying their presence were found to be manipulated – Witnesses provided plausible explanation, denied authoring them, and supported prosecution case in court – Held: Statements in court prevail over extrajudicial affidavits [Paras 54, 60].

Common Intention – Sections 302/307 r/w Section 34 IPC – Conviction Upheld – The court held both accused guilty for acting in concert with shared intent – Attack was coordinated and aimed to kill – Held: Offences under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC proved beyond doubt [Paras 72-74].

Decision: Appeal – Conviction Affirmed – Sentence Upheld – The court found no merit in the appeal – All evidentiary links complete – Held: Judgment and conviction by trial court sustained – Accused to surrender and serve sentence [Paras 73-74].