Criminal Law – Domestic Violence - Domestic Violence in USA and India – Allegations of physical, verbal, and emotional abuse, and economic deprivation from 1994 to 2017 – Incidents corroborated by family members – Admission of domestic violence incident in USA in 1999 – Sustained mental torture and emotional distress established. [Paras 4, 5, 8-13, 17-24, 71, 72]

Criminal Law – Domestic Violence – Application Under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) – Court adjudicated on the domestic violence allegations involving parties who were citizens of the USA and had resided in India. The Court examined the application of the DV Act to acts of domestic violence occurring both in India and the USA. [Para 57, 64, 66, 68-69, 71-72, 74, 82-83]

Interpretation of Domestic Relationship Under DV Act – Held – Emphasized that the term 'domestic relationship' as defined in the DV Act encompasses past relationships where parties have lived together. The Court clarified that separation or subsequent divorce does not negate the existence of a past domestic relationship for the purpose of DV Act. [Para 57-60, 68]

Jurisdiction – DV Act Applicability to Acts of Domestic Violence Committed Abroad – Addressed – The Court held that domestic violence occurring on foreign soil could be considered under the DV Act, interpreting Sections 1(2) and 27 harmoniously. The decision established that the consequences of trauma and distress in India due to domestic violence abroad fall within the jurisdiction of the DV Act. [Para 64-65]

Maintenance and Compensation – Awarded – The Court upheld the award of maintenance and compensation to the aggrieved party, considering the income disparity between the parties, the continuous nature of domestic violence, and the emotional distress caused. The Court emphasized the relevance of standard of living and economic deprivation while determining maintenance. [Para 75, 77, 79]

Maintenance and Compensation – Award of ₹1,50,000 per month maintenance and ₹3,00,00,000 compensation to the respondent – Consideration of income disparity, prolonged abuse, and emotional distress – Court upheld compensation considering applicant’s undisclosed higher income and respondent's right to a similar standard of living. [Paras 75-79]

Return of Stridhan – Directed – Found that the aggrieved party’s stridhan was in possession of the respondent’s family, and directed its return. The decision underscored the consideration of economic abuse under the DV Act. [Para 82, 84]

Decision – Dismissal of Revision Application – The Court dismissed the revision application, upholding the trial court’s judgment in granting reliefs under the DV Act. The Court recognized the sustained domestic violence from 1994 to 2017. [Para 86]

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]

Criminal Procedure – Allegations of Perjury and False Evidence  - Application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. – The petitioners challenged the order remitting the matter to the trial court for further inquiry into allegations of perjury under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. The contention revolves around the false implication of respondents No. 2 and 3 in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, by the petitioners. [Para 1, 3, 5-6]

Scope of Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. – Discussed – Emphasized that the invocation of Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. requires a deliberate and conscious act of perjury with reasonable probability of conviction. It is not meant for vindication of private grievances but to uphold the administration of justice. [Para 17, 19]

Judicial Prudence in Perjury Prosecution – Observed – Courts should sanction prosecution for perjury in cases where false evidence appears deliberate and with a likelihood of conviction. Mere inaccuracy in statements, which may be innocent or immaterial, should not attract prosecution under Section 340. [Para 17, 18, 21]

Findings on the Application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. – Held – On the basis of available records and arguments, found no deliberate perjury or intention to commit forgery by the petitioners. The alleged inaccuracies did not demonstrate a deliberate attempt to mislead the court or affect the administration of justice. Thus, initiation of prosecution under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. not expedient in the interest of justice. [Para 19-21]

Decision – Set Aside Order for Further Inquiry under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. – The impugned order remitting the matter to the trial court for further inquiry under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. set aside, finding it lacking in legality and failing to establish the expediency or necessity in the interest of justice. The court directed to expedite the conclusion of the complaint pending for 12 years. [Para 23-24]