Bail – Relevance of antecedents – Applicability of "bail is the rule, jail is the exception" principle – Bail Granted - The petitioner, accused of serious offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, argued that the case was fabricated due to marital discord and emphasized his prolonged judicial custody of 40 days and completed investigation. The Court held that antecedents, though relevant, cannot automatically deny bail. It cited precedents emphasizing that bail should not be withheld as punishment. Further detention was deemed unnecessary, and bail was granted subject to conditions [Paras 7-10].

Judicial custody – Considerations for granting bail – Impact of investigation completion - Despite opposition from the prosecution citing the petitioner's antecedents and alleged threat to witnesses, the Court noted that the petitioner had cooperated with the investigation, which was practically complete. Held: Continued detention was unwarranted as sufficient conditions could be imposed to mitigate concerns of witness tampering and further offences [Paras 6-10].

Conditions for Bail – Safeguards against misuse - The Court imposed conditions to ensure the petitioner’s compliance, including appearance before the Investigating Officer, prohibition on tampering with evidence, and surrender of passport. Violation of conditions would empower the jurisdictional court to revoke bail [Para 10].

Bail Jurisprudence – SCs & STs (PoA) Act – Grant of Bail Post-Investigation – Held: Appellant accused of caste-based violence under the SCs & STs (PoA) Act granted bail – Court considered completion of investigation and absence of apprehension of evidence tampering – Observed that allegations require examination during trial – Bail granted on conditions [Paras 8-10].

Caste-Based Offences – Prima Facie Examination – Pre-Trial Stage – Held: At the bail stage, the culpability of the accused is not to be decided – Allegations of assault and caste-based insult require evidence scrutiny during the trial – Observed that the de facto complainant’s objections were not submitted [Para 8].

Property Dispute – Criminal Allegations Arising from Civil Dispute – Held: The appellant contended that the case emanated from a property dispute and claimed title over the disputed land – Court noted this submission but emphasized that such issues require detailed adjudication during trial [Paras 4, 9].

Bail Conditions – Judicial Custody and Prevention of Tampering – Held: Appellant enlarged on bail with stringent conditions – Required to report weekly to the police station and restrained from tampering with witnesses or evidence – Non-compliance will invite prosecution for bail cancellation [Para 10].

Decision:

The appeal was allowed. The trial court's order denying bail was set aside. Bail was granted to the appellant under strict conditions, including a personal bond of ₹20,000 with two sureties, weekly police station reporting, and prohibitions on evidence tampering.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Complaint – Civil Dispute Labeled as Criminal – Abuse of Process of Law – Complaint under Sections 417 and 418 IPC alleged the manufacture of sub-standard medicines by petitioners, causing loss to respondent company – Held: Dispute emanated from a trademark license agreement and was purely civil in nature – No fraudulent or dishonest intention at inception established – Complaint found to be an attempt to give criminal color to a contractual breach – Criminal proceedings quashed [Paras 38-40, 44-48].

Arbitration Clause – Wide Interpretation – Applicability to Present Dispute – Agreement contained an arbitration clause covering “any doubt or question arising out of or incidental to the agreement” – Court held arbitration clause broad enough to encompass the alleged dispute regarding sub-standard medicines – Continuation of criminal prosecution inappropriate where alternative civil remedy exists [Paras 46-47].

Business Disputes – Conflation with Criminal Proceedings – Caution against converting purely commercial disputes into criminal cases – Courts must discourage misuse of criminal law to settle civil disputes – Allegations in complaint lacked prima facie ingredients of Sections 417 and 418 IPC, warranting intervention under Section 482 Cr.P.C. [Paras 40-43, 48].

Decision: Complaint Case No. 7271 of 2021 and all consequential proceedings quashed – Petition allowed.
 

Arbitration Law – Interpretation of Limitation under the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 – Limitation period extended due to consent of parties – Petitioner’s claims remanded – The petitioner contended the arbitration tribunal's dismissal of claims as time-barred, arguing the extension of the dispute resolution period by mutual consent – Held: Clause 20.4 of the General Conditions of Contract allowed for extensions of time with mutual consent, making the petitioner's arbitration application timely. The Tribunal was directed to adjudicate the case on merits. [Paras 60-68].

Price Escalation Disputes – Adjudication Mechanism under Construction Contracts – Decision deferred to Tribunal – Disputes related to price escalation deductions must follow contractual mechanisms, including recourse to the Tribunal under the Adhiniyam – Held: Tribunal improperly dismissed claims solely on preliminary objection; procedural propriety requires remand for merits adjudication. [Paras 45-50].

Public Contracts – Role of Dispute Boards and Finality of Decisions – Limited Binding Effect – Dispute Board decisions under Clause 20.4 are binding but subject to appeal or arbitration – Held: Decisions must not undermine equitable remedies available under Section 19 of the Adhiniyam. [Paras 32-40].

Doctrine of Limitation – Mixed Questions of Law and Fact – Tribunal's premature dismissal overturned – Limitations on reference petitions must consider facts including communication delays and mutual agreements – Held: Dismissal without factual examination was contrary to principles of justice. [Paras 20-30].

Decision: The High Court allowed the arbitration revision filed by the petitioner. The impugned order of the Arbitration Tribunal dismissing Reference Case No. 35/2014 as time-barred was set aside. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal for adjudication on merits. The Court directed the Tribunal to reconsider the petitioner's claims in light of the parties' agreements and the contract's provisions, ensuring no procedural errors.

Criminal Procedure Code – Quashing of FIR – Sections 63 and 65 of Copyright Act, 1957 and Sections 103 and 104 of Trade Marks Act, 1999 – FIR and subsequent proceedings quashed – Violation of procedural safeguards under Trade Marks Act – Investigation and seizure by unauthorized officer [Paras 1–14].

Copyright Act, 1957 – Scope of Copyright – Manufacturing and sale of garments under a fake label – Held: Copyright under Section 13 of the Act does not extend to manufacturing or sale of garments – Prosecution under Sections 63 and 65 not sustainable – Reliance placed on Deepak v. State of Haryana (CRM-M-39653-2021) [Paras 9, 12].

Trade Marks Act, 1999 – Section 115(4) – Search and Seizure – Mandatory requirements – Investigation conducted by an officer below the rank of DSP without obtaining Registrar’s opinion – Held: Non-compliance renders the proceedings unsustainable – Reference made to Ashok Kumar v. State of Punjab (CRM-M-12823-2021) [Paras 10–11, 12].

Judicial Oversight – Procedural Violations – Failure to follow statutory safeguards under Section 115(4) of Trade Marks Act – Search and seizure conducted in contravention of law – Entire proceedings quashed to prevent miscarriage of justice [Paras 11–13].

Decision: Petition allowed – FIR, charges under Copyright Act and Trade Marks Act, and all consequential proceedings quashed [Para 14].

Tenancy Law - Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Bonafide Need for Eviction – Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act – Landlords sought eviction of tenants/subtenants from premises at Naya Bazar, Delhi-6 for residential and commercial needs – Tenants/subtenants contested the landlord-tenant relationship and asserted lack of bonafide need – Held: Landlord-tenant relationship established – Subtenants were impleaded and contested through leave-to-defend applications – Bonafide need of landlords for residence and transport business upheld [Paras 53-64, 68-74].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Limited Scope – Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act – Court's revisional power confined to verifying whether the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) acted within the law and followed proper procedure – High Court cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute findings unless there is an apparent error of law – No procedural or jurisdictional errors found in the ARC's judgment [Paras 49-52].

Bonafide Requirement – Determination of Residential and Commercial Needs – Tenanted premises required for landlords’ family, including sons seeking to establish transport businesses in Delhi – Residential need established as landlord’s son resided in rented accommodation in Greater Kailash-II – Commercial need established for transport operations – Court emphasized landlord's prerogative to decide use of premises and rejected tenants’ claims of alternate accommodation [Paras 68-74].

Subtenant's Status and Applicability of Section 14(1)(e) – Subtenants argued eviction under Section 14(1)(e) impermissible as it applies only to tenants – Held: Definition of "tenant" includes subtenants under Section 2(l) of the Delhi Rent Control Act – Subtenants were impleaded, contested, and were bound by the eviction order – Case distinguished from earlier judgments on facts [Paras 55-64].

Decision: Petitions dismissed – ARC's order of eviction upheld – Landlords’ bonafide need for residential and commercial purposes and absence of alternative accommodation confirmed – No procedural or legal infirmities found in the ARC’s judgment [Paras 84-87, 97-100, 108-110].
 

Judicial Review of Speaker’s Inaction – Permissible Scope – Directions Issued Valid – Appellant contended that the High Court cannot direct the Speaker to decide disqualification petitions within a timeframe – Court held that inordinate delay in deciding disqualification petitions violates constitutional mandates – Judicial review under Article 226 is permissible where the Speaker’s inaction undermines democracy – Held: Single judge's directions justified and upheld [Paras 34-38, 60-62].

Tenth Schedule – Role of Speaker as Tribunal – Judicial Superintendence Permissible – Speaker acts as a tribunal while deciding disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule – Court relied on Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu to affirm that judicial review is confined to jurisdictional errors, mala fides, and constitutional violations – Held: Speaker’s inaction may warrant judicial interference to preserve democratic processes [Paras 39-41, 60(ii)].

Nature of Rules Under Tenth Schedule – Directory and Not Mandatory – Appellant argued the procedural rules under the Tenth Schedule are directory – Court held this does not exempt the Speaker from adhering to constitutional obligations – Delay beyond three months deemed unreasonable, warranting judicial intervention [Paras 42-44, 60(vi)].

Precedents – Supreme Court’s Guidance on Disqualification Petitions – Court extensively referred to decisions in Kihoto Hollohan, Rajendra Singh Rana, Keisham Meghachandra Singh, and Subhash Desai, holding that disqualification petitions should generally be decided within three months, barring exceptional circumstances – Held: Speaker must adhere to this principle [Paras 45-48, 61].

Ratio Decidendi and Judicial Precedents – Application of Principles – Court emphasized the importance of following binding precedents and the doctrine of ratio decidendi – Observed that the Speaker must decide the petitions within a reasonable time to uphold the constitutional intent of the Tenth Schedule [Paras 54-58].

Decision: The appeals were disposed of as follows:
The common order dated 09/09/2024 passed by the single judge directing the Secretary of the Telangana Legislative Assembly to place disqualification petitions before the Speaker was set aside.
The Speaker of the Telangana Legislative Assembly was directed to decide the disqualification petitions within a reasonable time, bearing in mind the pendency period, the object of the Tenth Schedule, and the Assembly's tenure.
Miscellaneous applications were dismissed, with no order as to costs.
 

Jurisdiction of Benches – Appeals Based on Sentence Length – Rules Clarified – Question arose whether criminal appeals with a sentence of ten years or less, traditionally heard by a Single Judge, could be transferred to a Division Bench when arising from a common trial court judgment involving cases requiring Division Bench jurisdiction (e.g., under Section 372 or 377 CrPC) – Held: Such listing before a Division Bench is valid to prevent contradictory outcomes, but does not confer jurisdiction where none existed [Paras 8-12, 18].

Adherence to Supreme Court Precedents – Principles of Coram Non Judice – Referencing Pandurang v. State of Maharashtra and Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi, Court emphasized that judicial orders by an incorrect Bench are nullities, yet no similar issue arises when Division Benches hear cases meant for Single Judges [Paras 20-22].

Allocation of Benches – Avoidance of Anomalous Orders – Practice of listing all appeals arising from the same trial judgment together, including those requiring Division Bench jurisdiction, upheld to maintain judicial consistency and efficiency [Paras 23-25].

Rules vs. Practical Necessity – Procedural Amendments Suggested – Court recommended amendments to Patna High Court Rules to institutionalize the practice of grouping related appeals to Division Benches in appropriate cases [Paras 28-30].

Decision:

The reference was answered by affirming that appeals carrying sentences up to ten years can validly be heard by a Division Bench when arising from a common judgment involving related cases requiring Division Bench jurisdiction. The judgment emphasized the need for amendments to ensure procedural clarity and avoid ambiguity.

Service Law - Compassionate Appointment – Inclusion of Widowed Daughter – Discriminatory Exclusion Held Unconstitutional – Petitioner, a widowed daughter, was denied compassionate appointment under BSNL’s scheme – Court held that exclusion of widowed daughters from the definition of “dependent family member” is discriminatory, violative of Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution, and contrary to precedents expanding the definition of family – Held: Widowed daughters who were dependent on their deceased parent must be considered eligible for compassionate appointment [Paras 25-35, 61].

Judicial Precedents – Expansive Interpretation of Family in Compassionate Appointment Cases – Relying on decisions from various High Courts and the Supreme Court, including Vimla Srivastava v. State of U.P. and Meenakshi Dubey v. Madhya Pradesh Poorv Chhetra Vidut Vitran Co. Ltd., the Court noted a consistent trend in treating married and widowed daughters as part of the family for compassionate appointment purposes [Paras 38-49].

Dependency Criterion – To Be Determined on Facts – The Court clarified that the eligibility of a widowed daughter must be assessed based on her dependency on the deceased at the time of death, and non-inclusion in the guidelines alone cannot disqualify her [Paras 56-58].

BSNL’s Weightage System – Cannot Supplant Eligibility Guidelines – BSNL’s 2007 weightage system, which restricted references to unmarried daughters, was held subordinate to the broader eligibility criteria in the 1998 DoPT guidelines, which do not exclude widowed or married daughters [Paras 51-53].

Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the Tribunal's order dated 13/01/2023. It directed BSNL to reconsider the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment within two months, applying the weightage point system and ensuring that her widowed status does not result in exclusion.