Negotiable Instruments Act – Compounding of Offence – Petitioners sought to compound the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act – Application dismissed by the appellate court due to lack of consent from the complainant – Court emphasized that consent of the complainant is essential for compounding under Section 147 of the N.I. Act – Distinguished from the Supreme Court’s rulings in M/s Meters and Instruments Pvt. Ltd. And Damodar S. Prabhu, which stress the necessity of consent for compounding – Application of Section 482 Cr.P.C. without complainant’s consent not permitted [Paras 1-20].

Jurisdiction and Powers of Courts – Section 147 of the N.I. Act – The court does not have inherent powers to compound the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act without the complainant’s consent – Reference made to the recent Supreme Court ruling in Raj Reddy Kallem, reinforcing the necessity of complainant’s consent [Paras 13-14].

Decision- Petition dismissed – Upheld the order of the Additional District Judge – Reiterated the requirement of complainant’s consent for compounding under Section 147 of the N.I. Act – Rejected the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the absence of complainant’s consent [Para 20].

Arbitration – Extension of Arbitral Tribunal's Mandate –  Arbitration Law – Applications filed under Section 29(A)(4) and Section 29(A)(5) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 – M/s Geo Miller & Co. Pvt. Ltd. and GPT Infraprojects Limited sought extension of arbitral tribunal’s mandate – High Court appointed arbitrators under Section 11 of the Act – Issues related to jurisdiction and conflicting precedents regarding the maintainability of such applications before the High Court or Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction – Previous judgments by Coordinate Benches considered. [Paras 1-4, 6-7]

Judicial Precedents – Conflicting Judgments – Doctrine of Stare Decisis – Supreme Court’s guidance on handling conflicting judgments of Coordinate Benches – Earlier decisions to be followed until overturned or clarified by a Larger Bench – Judgment in Indian Farmers Fertilizers Cooperative Limited vs. Manish Engineering Enterprises highlighted as binding precedent – Reference to Larger Bench on related issues. [Paras 8-24]

Decision – Maintainability of Applications under Section 29A – Judgments in Lucknow Agencies and Indian Farmers Fertilizers delineated different factual scenarios – Applications under Section 29A maintainable before High Court when arbitrator appointed under Section 11 by High Court – Earlier judgment in Indian Farmers Fertilizers holds precedence over A’Xykno Capital Services. [Paras 25-33]

Copyright Law – Licensing and Royalty Payments – Commercial Exploitation of Sound Recordings – Whether Vodafone Idea Limited is required to obtain a license from IPRS and pay royalties before commercially exploiting musical and literary works incorporated into sound recordings. Held, Vodafone is statutorily obliged to procure licenses from IPRS and pay royalties, even if it has entered into agreements with Saregama India Limited for the exploitation of sound recordings. [Paras 1-32]

Rights of Authors – Amendments to the Copyright Act – Interpretation – The amendments to the Copyright Act in 2012 grant specific rights to authors of literary and musical works, including mandatory royalty sharing for public communication of such works. The statutory changes prohibit authors from renouncing their rights to royalties, and commercial exploiters of such works are required to comply with these provisions. [Paras 20-24]

Role of Saregama – Assignment of Rights – Legal Limitation – Saregama, having assigned its rights in musical and literary works to IPRS, cannot grant Vodafone rights to exploit these works. Any assignment by Saregama to Vodafone is void under the amended Copyright Act. [Paras 25-30]

Decision: Vodafone is required to obtain licenses from IPRS and pay royalties for the exploitation of musical and literary works in sound recordings. The interim orders restraining IPRS from claiming royalties from Vodafone are vacated, and Vodafone is directed to comply with the statutory requirements. [Paras 31-32]

Criminal Law – Cancellation of Anticipatory Bail – Factors Considered – Criminal petitions filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to private respondents in a case involving allegations under Sections 323, 406, 498-A, 506, and 34 IPC, and Section 25 of the Arms Act – Anticipatory bail granted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad – Petitioners argued non-recovery of dowry articles and misuse of bail – Court holds non-recovery of dowry articles not a sufficient ground for cancellation of anticipatory bail – Petitioner failed to demonstrate misuse of bail or influence on witnesses by respondents – Petitions dismissed.

Cancellation of Bail – Relevant Factors – Analysis – Held – To cancel bail, there must be evidence of misuse of bail, influence on witnesses, or violation of bail conditions by the accused – Court found no such evidence against the respondents – Emphasizes distinction between cancellation of bail and setting aside bail order based on supervening circumstances.

Decision – Petitions for Cancellation of Bail – Dismissed – Petitions seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondents by Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, dismissed due to lack of sufficient grounds such as misuse of bail or intimidation of witnesses – Non-recovery of dowry articles alone insufficient to warrant cancellation

Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Bank employee accused of temporary misappropriation of Rs. 35,000 – Initial punishment of discharge from service by disciplinary authority – Central Government Industrial Tribunal modified penalty to reinstatement with 50% back-wages and stoppage of two increments – Single Judge partially upheld Tribunal’s decision, modifying penalty to reinstatement with 20% back-wages and stoppage of five increments – Appeals filed by both delinquent employee and Bank Management [Paras 1-3, 10-14].

Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act – Tribunal’s power to modify punishment – Tribunal's discretion in modifying penalties must be exercised judiciously, considering the gravity of the misconduct and the employer's loss of confidence in the employee – High Court held that Tribunal’s interference with the disciplinary authority’s penalty of discharge was unjustified given the proven misconduct and breach of trust by the employee [Paras 6-13].

Decision – Appeals by Bank Management allowed – Appeals by delinquent employee dismissed – Original penalty of discharge from service upheld – Tribunal’s and Single Judge’s orders modifying the punishment set aside [Paras 14].

Negotiable Instruments – Section 138 – Quashing of Complaints – Grounds for Quashing – Petitioner contended that the complaints should be quashed due to the absence of partnership deed and authorization, and lack of requisite license under the Money Lenders and Accredited Loan Providers Act – High Court held that authorization and partnership deed issues should be examined during trial, not at the stage of quashing – Complaints not quashed, petitions dismissed [Paras 1-14].

Partnership and Authorization – Prima facie acceptance of authorization for filing complaint – Complaints not quashed solely due to absence of partnership deed or specific authorization documents – Relevant during trial [Paras 7-10].

Money Lenders Act – Registration Requirement – Petitioner’s contention on lack of registration under the Money Lenders and Accredited Loan Providers Act rejected – Nature of financial support not clearly established as a loan – Issue to be examined during trial [Paras 11-13].

Inherent Powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Not exercised to quash complaints where facts are disputed and require trial – Importance of trial in establishing material facts and evidence emphasized [Paras 13-14].

Decision:

Petitions dismissed – Complaints and proceedings under Section 138 NI Act allowed to proceed – Issues regarding authorization and registration under Money Lenders Act to be examined during trial.

Family Law - Customary Divorce - Validity and Proof - Second Appeal: The appellant, Anarkali, contended that she was the legally wedded wife of Late Rampal until his death, arguing against the claim of customary divorce (Chhoda Chhutti) by the respondent no.1, Siyawati. The court held that the existence and recognition of the custom must be specifically pleaded and proved by cogent evidence. The first appellate court erred in accepting the customary divorce without adequate proof of its prevalence and recognition in the concerned community. The court reiterated that a Hindu marriage can only be dissolved in accordance with the statutory provisions or a well-established custom. The judgment of the first appellate court was set aside, restoring the trial court's decision. [Paras 13-34]

Validity of Marriage - Substantial Questions of Law - Burden of Proof: The appellant's marriage was held valid as the respondent no.1 failed to prove the customary divorce and her own marriage to Late Rampal in accordance with Hindu rites. The court underscored that the burden of proof lies heavily on the party claiming the customary divorce. The appellant successfully rebutted the presumption of a valid customary divorce, maintaining her status as the legally wedded wife. [Paras 21-25, 27-30]

Procedural Law - Appeal - Counter Claim: The court addressed the issue of whether a single appeal challenging the common judgment and decree passed in both the main suit and the counter-claim was maintainable. It held that the appeal was valid as it adequately covered both decrees, emphasizing the principle that one appeal is sufficient where there has been one trial and one decision, even if multiple decrees are drawn. The appeal process in such cases must ensure comprehensive adjudication to avoid piecemeal litigation. [Paras 37-48]

Decision: The Second Appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 05.03.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.7, Raibareli in Civil Appeal No.86/2009 is set aside. The judgment and decree passed by the trial court is restored.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Quashing of Complaint – Petitioner sought quashing of complaint and proceedings under Section 138 NIA – Petitioner argued entire liability had been discharged prior to complaint – Court noted petitioner made payments exceeding the cheque amount – Respondent’s claim for interest not a ground for maintaining the complaint – Held, once cheque amount is paid and accepted, Section 82 NIA applies, discharging liability [Paras 1-31].

Interest Claim – Section 138 NIA – Whether dishonor of cheque issued for interest on delayed payment constitutes legally enforceable debt – Court held, in absence of specific demand and agreement for interest in complaint, interest cannot form basis for Section 138 NIA action – Presumption under Sections 118, 139 NIA applies only to principal amount [Paras 16-22, 25-28].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Complaint and all consequential proceedings quashed – Court directed release of remuneration for legal aid counsel as per rule [Paras 29-31].

Criminal Law – Conviction under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC – Petitioner convicted for rash and negligent driving causing death – Trial court sentenced petitioner to six months' imprisonment under Section 279 IPC and one year under Section 304-A IPC – Conviction and sentence upheld by appellate court – Challenge in High Court of Jharkhand – High Court modified sentence considering petitioner's age, time elapsed since the incident, and period already spent in custody – Sentence reduced to period already undergone [Paras 1-9].

Evidence Evaluation – Issues Raised by Petitioner – Petitioner contended non-proof of key documents and failure to examine essential witnesses – Arguments included lack of proof of MVI report, inquest report, post mortem report, and FIR; non-examination of investigating officer and doctor conducting autopsy; inconsistent eyewitness accounts; and suggestion of contributory negligence by the deceased – High Court found sufficient evidence supporting initial conviction despite these contentions – Recognized petitioner's advanced age and previous cooperation during trial [Paras 4-7].

Decision – Modification of Sentence – High Court upheld conviction but modified sentence due to mitigating factors – Recognized significant time lapse since the incident, petitioner's age, and period of custody already undergone – Sentenced petitioner to imprisonment already undergone instead of original sentence – Criminal Revision disposed of with modification in sentence [Paras 7-8].