Service Law – Dismissal from Service – Departmental Enquiry – Criminal Charges – Writ Petition challenging the order of dismissal from service based on a departmental enquiry – Petitioner alleged to have amassed assets disproportionate to known sources of income – Enquiry report based on FIR and suspension order without substantial evidence – Held, departmental proceedings conducted in violation of principles of natural justice and based on no evidence – Quashing of dismissal order and reinstatement of petitioner with full back wages and consequential benefits. [Paras 1-24]

Procedural Irregularity in Departmental Enquiry – Analysis – Enquiry conducted ex parte – Petitioner’s medical leave requests denied – No substantial evidence presented during enquiry – Prosecution relied only on FIR and suspension order – Enquiry Officer’s findings based on presumptions without concrete evidence – Violates principles of natural justice. [Paras 6-8, 14]

Decision – Quashing of Disciplinary Actions – Court quashes the enquiry report dated 02.05.2022, the dismissal order dated 10.05.2022, the appellate order dated 25.07.2022, and the memorial order dated 21.03.2023 – Orders reinstatement of petitioner with continuity of service and full back wages along with consequential benefits within three months. [Paras 21-24]

Public Interest Litigation – Allotment of Industrial Land – Absence of Public Auction – Challenge to GIDC’s allotment of developed industrial plots to respondent No.5 without holding public auction – Petitioner claimed illegal and unauthorized allotment leading to significant public exchequer loss – High Court found allotment violated GIDC's own policy mandating public auction – Exchange deed executed for lands of unequal value without proper valuation – Allotment set aside – Directed GIDC to reassess allotment process ensuring compliance with legal requirements and transparency. [Paras 1-37]

Administrative Law – Decision-Making Process – Flaws in Process – Court observed delegation of decision-making authority by GIDC Board to Vice Chairman and Managing Director was improper – Such significant policy decisions should be made collectively by the Board – Legal opinions obtained were found to be misplaced – Directed comprehensive reassessment of allotment. [Paras 19-35]

Land Acquisition – Compensation and Exchange – Mismatch in Valuation – Court highlighted disparity in valuation between agricultural lands and developed industrial plots – Required GIDC to properly evaluate and compensate for land exchanges to protect public interest – Recommended acquisition compensation based on historical valuations to avoid undue public loss. [Paras 30-33]

Decision: Held: Writ petition allowed – Allotment of industrial plots to respondent No.5 by GIDC without public auction quashed – Directed GIDC to re-evaluate and reprocess allotments in compliance with statutory requirements and transparent procedures – Ordered GIDC to ensure fair compensation for land exchanges based on proper valuations. [Paras 36-42]

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

Termination of Pregnancy – Rape Victim – Petitioner, a 19-year-old rape victim, sought permission to terminate her pregnancy of 16 weeks – High Court permitted the termination emphasizing the mental and physical health risks and social stigma attached to continuing the pregnancy – Medical and legal considerations were thoroughly evaluated [Paras 1-11].

Application of MTP Act – The Court applied the amended provisions of the MTP Act, 2021, allowing termination up to 24 weeks for certain categories of women, including rape victims – Emphasized the reproductive autonomy of women and the necessity of informed consent [Paras 7-10].

Reproductive Autonomy and Health – Reiterated the right of women to make decisions about their own bodies – Court highlighted the trauma and potential harm to mental and physical health of the victim in case of continuation of pregnancy from rape – Importance of respecting the victim's choice was underlined [Paras 9-10].

Legal Precedents – Referenced key decisions supporting the reproductive rights and autonomy of women, including the Supreme Court rulings in XYZ v. State of Gujarat and X v. State (NCT of Delhi), stressing the constitutional protections for women's health and choice [Paras 8-9].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Permission granted for medical termination of pregnancy – Directions issued for the medical procedure to be conducted with due care, and for DNA sampling for evidence collection [Paras 11-11.4].

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.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Bail Conditions – Revisionist challenged the order directing him to deposit 20% of the fine amount for bail – Contention that the deposit is not mandatory but directory – Additional Sessions Judge’s order considered lawful and not mechanical – Revision dismissed [Paras 1-16].

Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Judicial Discretion – Emphasized the court’s discretion in ordering deposit under Section 148 – Referenced Surinder Singh Deswal and Jamboo Bhandari cases to underline that deposit conditions can be relaxed in exceptional cases – Held that the lower court appropriately exercised discretion, requiring no interference [Paras 7-14].

Decision – Revision Dismissed – Held – Conditions imposed for bail justified – Revisionist’s previous attempts to delay proceedings noted – Appeal for reduction in pre-deposit amount rejected – Order of lower court upheld [Paras 15-16].

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].

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]