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].

Service Law – Withholding of Pension – Rule 3 Part III KSR – Action Held Arbitrary – Petitioner, a retired Principal of Government Engineering College, was denied pensionary benefits citing pending review petition against prior Supreme Court dismissal of SLP – Held: In absence of pending disciplinary or judicial proceedings, withholding pension violates Rule 3 of Part III KSR – State’s action amounted to harassment and was arbitrary and illegal – Fundamental rights under Article 14 and property rights infringed [Paras 6–7, 15–16].

Fundamental Rights – Enforcement under Article 226 – Maintainability of Petition under Article 227 Expanded – Though relief was sought under Article 227, Court invoked powers under Article 226 to enforce fundamental rights – Held: Constitutional courts can enforce fundamental rights even when petition is formally under Article 227, especially in face of manifest arbitrariness – Tribunal’s limited power to enforce rights distinguished from High Court’s broader constitutional mandate [Paras 12–14].

Administrative Law – Tribunal’s Jurisdiction vs. Constitutional Court’s Role – Doctrine in L. Chandrakumar Case Reaffirmed – High Court retains supervisory jurisdiction over Tribunal decisions under Articles 226 and 227 – Enforcement of fundamental rights is distinct from service dispute adjudication and remains exclusive to constitutional courts – Held: Tribunal lacks authority to enforce fundamental rights even though it may adjudicate violations [Paras 9–11, 14].

Judicial Review – Arbitrariness in State Action – Constitutional Check – Petitioner’s appointment as Vice Chancellor was statutory and not voluntary – Disciplinary action based on assumption of that post already quashed – Held: Delay in pension disbursement unjustifiable and reflects mala fide exercise of power – Court cautioned against misuse of state power to harass retired officers [Paras 1–3, 6–7].

Decision – Petition Allowed – State directed to release entire terminal benefits including pension within two weeks – Liberty granted to petitioner to approach Tribunal for interest claim – Exercise of Article 226 jurisdiction justified due to violation of constitutional rights [Para 16].

Service Law – Writ - Army Officer Dismissal – Refusal to Participate in Regimental Religious Rituals – Dismissal Upheld – Petitioner, a Christian Army officer, declined to enter the sanctum sanctorum of Mandir/Gurudwara during religious parades citing faith-based reasons – Held: His conduct constituted willful disobedience of lawful command under Section 41 of the Army Act and adversely affected military discipline and unit cohesion – Army’s action under Section 19 read with Rule 14 of the Army Rules is valid [Paras 1–5, 66–73].

Religious Freedom vs Military Discipline – Article 25 of Constitution – Restrictions Permissible – Held: Article 33 empowers Parliament to restrict fundamental rights of Armed Forces personnel to maintain discipline – Refusal to participate in regimental rituals by Commanding Officer undermines esprit de corps and was rightly treated as misconduct – Army’s secular fabric is preserved while expecting uniform compliance with military customs [Paras 43–44, 55–65, 73].

Court Martial – Not Mandatory – Rule 14 of Army Rules – Disciplinary Action Valid – Court held that it was impracticable and inexpedient to conduct a Court Martial due to the sensitive nature of religious issues – Show Cause Notice was duly issued and proper procedure followed – No arbitrariness found in administrative termination under Section 19 of Army Act [Paras 74–84].

Judicial Review – Scope Limited in Military Discipline Cases – Military Leadership's Discretion Prevails – Held: Court must defer to military judgment in matters affecting unit cohesion and morale – Petitioner's insistence on prioritizing personal faith over command directives was rightly treated as indiscipline – Courts cannot second-guess military standards absent manifest arbitrariness [Paras 70–73].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Delhi High Court upheld the Army’s decision to dismiss the petitioner from service, holding that the disciplinary procedure was compliant with law, and refusal to participate fully in religious parades was a valid ground for administrative termination [Para 85].

Civil Writ - Public Appointment – Managing Director – Section 20 of Warehousing Corporations Act – Interim Appointment Quashed – State Government appointed retired police officer as Managing Director without effective consultation with Board of Directors – Held: Appointment violative of Section 20(1)(c) which mandates consultation with Board before such appointment – Learned Single Judge rightly quashed appointment and directed selection of regular MD based on merit – Interim appointment cannot be extended indefinitely [Paras 2–4, 8–9, 11–13].

Writ Jurisdiction – Quo Warranto – Valid Scope – Court May Interfere Where Statutory Violation in Appointment – Respondent’s appointment challenged under writ of quo warranto for not complying with statutory prerequisites – Held: Petition maintainable as breach of statutory procedure is evident – Appellant’s administrative experience irrelevant when appointment process is non-compliant with Section 20 – Procedure trumps performance [Paras 3–5, 11–12].

Interim Administrative Continuance – Legal Boundaries – No Perpetuity in Interim Appointments – Appointment of Sri. Anil S. Das was admittedly interim – Court held such continuation cannot be indefinite – Ordered Corporation to appoint a new Managing Director within two months – Future extension of current interim post explicitly barred [Paras 11–14].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Order of Single Judge upheld – Kerala State Warehousing Corporation directed to appoint new Managing Director through lawful process within two months – Interim continuation of Sri. Anil S. Das to cease post that period, without extension [Para 14].

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].

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].

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 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].

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].