Criminal Law – Parole Denial – Petitioner challenged the denial of parole by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Bathinda, based on the report of the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Bathinda, which cited the petitioner as a threat to public order – Petitioner argued that the denial was unjustified as he had already been acquitted in another related case – High Court found the denial based on unsubstantiated apprehensions without substantial material evidence – Emphasized the importance of family meetings for prisoners' emotional health as part of their human rights [Paras 1-10]​​.

Human Rights – Prisoners' Rights – Reference to Supreme Court judgment in Asfaq vs. State of Rajasthan, highlighting the humanistic approach towards prisoners and the necessity of maintaining family links for successful reintegration into society – Court found that denying parole based solely on apprehensions without concrete evidence violates prisoners' rights to family and societal connections [Para 7]​​.

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned order set aside – Petitioner granted six weeks parole with the condition of weekly reporting to the local police station [Para 9]​​.

Quashing of Proceedings – Incompetence of Complainant – Inadequate Authority of Additional Chief Medical Officer – Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act Violations –  Court holds that the Additional Chief Medical Officer, who filed the complaint, was not the ‘appropriate authority’ as mandated under Section 28 of the Act of 1994. Observes that the complaint was therefore incompetent, rendering the trial court’s cognizance of the offences and summoning of the applicant legally unsustainable. [Paras 2, 6, 9, 11]

Jurisdictional Competence – Filing of Complaint under Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act – Analysis of Section 28 of the Act of 1994 – Emphasizes the Act’s stipulation that only complaints made by the appropriate authority, as defined and appointed under Section 17 of the Act, can be cognized by courts. Recognizes that the complaint by the Additional Chief Medical Officer fell outside this jurisdictional ambit. [Para 4, 5, 9]

Decision – Quashing of Order and Proceedings – The court allows the application, quashing the order dated 03.06.2014 and all proceedings of Case No. 4495 of 2011. The decision underscores the importance of strict adherence to statutory requirements for legal actions under specialized legislation like the Pre-Conception & Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994. [Para 10-11]

Criminal Law – Copyright Infringement – Vicarious Liability – Court dealt with the issue of vicarious liability under the Copyright Act, 1957. The petition sought the quashing of proceedings against the petitioner, accused of copyright infringement in his capacity as AGM of a company. The Court examined the applicability of vicarious liability and the role of the company in the alleged infringement. [Para 1-7, 22-24]

Legal Standing of Phonographic Performance Ltd. (PPL) – Questioned – The petitioner challenged the legal standing of PPL, contending that it was not a registered society under Section 33 of the Copyright Act, and thus, not authorized to issue licenses for public performance of copyrighted music. The Court examined the legitimacy of PPL's claims based on the government notification and a Delhi High Court order. [Para 4-5, 7]

Company as Principal Accused – Necessary – The Court relied on Supreme Court judgments to establish that a company must be arraigned as a principal accused for proceeding against individuals like the petitioner. This was based on the principle that a company is a separate juristic entity, and vicarious liability arises only if the company itself has committed the offence. [Para 11-16, 25-27]

Amendment to Include Company as Accused – Permissible – The Court observed that if specific averments against a company are made in a complaint, and the company is not named due to inadvertence, the complaint can be amended to include the company as an accused. This was based on the principle of curable legal infirmity and the objective to avoid abuse of process. [Para 18-20, 27-28]

Decision – Dismissal of Quashing Petition – The Court dismissed the petition for quashing the proceedings, directing the trial court to add the company as a party to the case and proceed in accordance with law. The decision emphasized the need for a trial to ascertain the validity of the claims regarding copyright infringement and licensing. [Para 29-34]

Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Compulsory Retirement –  Court examined the petitioner's challenge against the Tribunal's dismissal of his appeal regarding disciplinary actions including compulsory retirement, and later modification to withholding promotion for five years. The disciplinary actions stemmed from false declarations made by the petitioner concerning his parents' income and dependence for CGHS benefits and fraudulent claim of medical reimbursements. [Paras 1-6]

Judicial Review – Scope and Limitation – The Court observed the limited scope of judicial review in matters concerning disciplinary actions, emphasizing that the court cannot substitute the disciplinary authority's decision with its own but only review for legality, rationality, and procedural propriety. [Paras 20-21, 23]

Proportionality of Punishment – In assessing the proportionality of the punishment (withholding of promotion for five years), the Court took note of the serious nature of the charges, the initial penalty of compulsory retirement, and the subsequent modification by the appellate authority. The court found no grounds to interfere with the modified penalty. [Paras 8-9, 23]

Role of Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities – Highlighted the roles of disciplinary and appellate authorities in determining suitable penalties in disciplinary proceedings. The court recognized the appellate authority's decision to modify the penalty considering the petitioner's conduct and the circumstances of the case. [Paras 6, 9]

Dismissal of Writ Petition – The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the arguments for reducing the disciplinary penalty imposed on the petitioner. The decision reiterated the court's limited interference in matters where the disciplinary authority has competently exercised its judgment. [Para 24]

Right to Education – Eligibility for Admission under EWS Category – Involves petition for admission of a child, Jiya, under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category in a specific school for academic year 2023-24. High Court holds that right to education under Article 21A of the Constitution and Section 12 of the RTE Act entitles a child only to free and compulsory education till the age of fourteen, not to admission in a particular school of choice. For entitlement to admission in a specific school, a child must apply to the Directorate of Education (DoE), be shortlisted in a computerized draw, and allocated to that school for a specific academic year. [Paras 22-26]

Direction to Admit in Specific School – Legality – DoE's directive to admit Jiya in a specific school is deemed unenforceable, as it was based on an application and shortlisting for a previous academic year. Each academic year is treated as a separate entity; rights for admission do not carry forward automatically to subsequent years. Thus, the child's right to admission in the specific school ceased at the end of the academic year for which she was initially shortlisted. [Paras 30-32]

DoE’s Role in Admission Process – High Court notes the detailed process followed by DoE for EWS admissions and underscores the need for an application specific to class, school, and academic year. Directives issued by DoE are subject to these specific conditions and do not grant perpetual rights to admission in any subsequent academic year. [Paras 23-29]

Decision – Admission to Class II in Sought School – Jiya's petition for admission to Class II in the specific school is rejected based on absence of application for that academic year. However, the DoE is directed to make efforts to secure Jiya’s admission in another school as an EWS student for Class II, reflecting the commitment to uphold her right to education as guaranteed under the RTE Act and the Constitution. [Paras 36-38]

Trademark Rectification – Application for cancellation of respondent's mark ‘POMA-EX KIWKHEAL’ under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 – Mark registered post injunction against respondent's earlier packaging – Consideration of distinctive aspects of petitioner's and respondent's packaging and trademarks – Application focused on new device mark of respondent granted on 16th December, 2014 [Paras 1, 3, 20-22, 29-30].

Petitioner's Trademark History and Claim – Petitioner PIDILITE INDUSTRIES LTD., renowned in adhesives, sealants, etc. – Claim of ownership over 'FEVIKWIK' since 1987 with distinctive packaging – New packaging adopted in November 2007 – Claimed infringement by respondent's use of ‘KWIKHEAL’ [Paras 6-11, 13, 24-25].

Bombay High Court Injunction – Injunction granted against respondent for earlier packaging deemed infringing – Bombay High Court's prima facie findings considered, but not conclusive for rectification application – Differences in new packaging of respondent post injunction [Paras 13-14, 19-20].

Respondent's Trademark 'KWIKHEAL' – Argument of commonality in the word 'KWIK' – 'KWIKHEAL' registered without objection and not exclusive to petitioner – Comparative analysis showing dissimilarities between petitioner’s and respondent’s trademarks and packaging [Paras 18.4, 22-23, 25-26, 28-29].

Decision and Analysis – Rectification petition dismissed due to dissimilarities between the marks and lack of exclusive right of petitioner over part of the mark 'KWIK' – Distinctive dissimilarities in respondent’s new device mark post the earlier injunction – No monopoly for petitioner over 'KWIK' and its variations – Respondent’s registration post Bombay High Court injunction not opposed by petitioner [Paras 29-30].

Intellectual Property Law – Copyright Infringement – Dynamic Injunctions – The High Court deliberated on the application of dynamic injunctions against rogue websites engaged in unauthorized streaming of IPL Events. The Court examined the sufficiency of existing legal tools in addressing the challenges of digital piracy in rapidly evolving online environments. [Para 15-20]

Dynamic Injunctions and Digital Piracy – Held – Recognized the need for dynamic injunctions to combat the persistent issue of digital piracy, especially in the case of live sporting events like the IPL. The Court affirmed the necessity of evolving legal responses to effectively counter the unauthorized dissemination of copyrighted content on digital platforms. [Para 17-18, 20]

Broadcasting Rights – Analysis – Examined the Plaintiff's exclusive broadcasting rights for IPL Events, emphasizing the significance of these rights in the context of digital and television media. The Court assessed the implications of unauthorized streaming on the Plaintiff's investment and the overall value of broadcasting rights. [Para 15.3, 16]

Decision – Granting of Interim Dynamic Injunction – The Court granted an interim dynamic injunction against Defendants No. 2 to 7 and additional unidentified rogue websites. This injunction was extended to include immediate blocking measures by ISPs, DoT, and MeitY, and emphasized real-time responsiveness to emerging pirated content. [Para 20]

Revision against Order Striking off Defence for Non-filing of Written Statement – Challenge against order dated 04.03.2024 striking off defendant-petitioners' defence in civil suit for failing to file written statement within prescribed time – Revision petition in High Court. [Para 2]

Contention and Counter-Contention – Petitioners seek opportunity to file written statement, willing to compensate with costs – Respondent contends sufficient opportunities already provided, defence rightly struck off for delay. [Para 3-4]

Relevant Legal Principles and Precedents – Referencing Desh Raj vs. Balkishan (D) through proposed LR Ms. Rohini [(2020) RCR (Civil) 807], distinguishing between timelines for filing written statement in commercial and non-commercial disputes – Unamended Order VIII Rule 1 CPC deemed directory, not mandatory for non-commercial suits. [Para 6]

Decision and Directions – High Court allows one more opportunity to file written statement by 28.03.2024, subject to Rs.30,000/- costs to respondent – Payment of costs as condition precedent for filing written statement – Counsel for defendant-petitioners advised against unnecessary adjournments. [Para 7]

Disposition – Petition disposed of with directions for filing written statement and payment of costs – Pending applications, if any, also disposed of. [Para 8]

Quashing of Proclamation as Proclaimed Person – Challenging the order declaring petitioner as proclaimed person in FIR No.79/2014 under Sections 325, 323, 34 IPC – Allegation of incorrect calculation of mandatory 30 days period under Section 82 Cr.P.C. – Proclamation and declaration as proclaimed person quashed due to non-compliance with mandatory requirements of Section 82 of Cr.P.C. [Paras 1-9]

Computation of Period for Proclamation – Incorrect Calculation – The Court finds procedural error in computing the 30-day period as required under Section 82 Cr.P.C. for the proclamation – Period calculated from the date of ordering the fixing of proclamation, not from the date of its actual effect – Declares the proclamation order legally unsustainable. [Paras 4-5, 8]

Mandatory Requirements for Proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. – Non-compliance – Judgment highlights non-fulfillment of mandatory procedural requirements for proclaiming an individual as a proclaimed person – Emphasizes on strict adherence to the provisions of Section 82(1) and 82(2) Cr.P.C. – Failure in adhering to the procedures renders the proclamation and subsequent proceedings null and void. [Paras 6, 7, 9]

Decision – Quashing of Proclamation Order – High Court sets aside the order dated 26.08.2016, declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person, on grounds of material procedural irregularities and incorrect computation of the mandatory 30-day period as stipulated in Section 82 Cr.P.C. [Para 8-9]