Tender Law – Blacklisting / Debarment – Perpetual disqualification clause – Constitutionality – Clause in municipal tender barring participation of any bidder who had ever been blacklisted or debarred by any authority – Clause providing that revocation of blacklisting would not be recognised – Held: Use of expression “ever blacklisted or debarred” amounts to permanent and perpetual disqualification – Such clause creates a civil death for contractors and service providers – Violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India [Paras 8, 13–15].

Fundamental Rights – Article 19(1)(g) – Right to trade and business – Proportionality – Blacklisting affects the right to livelihood and to enter into contractual relations with the State – Perennial or indefinite debarment impermissible – Test of proportionality to be applied – Permanent exclusion from tender process held unconstitutional and arbitrary [Paras 9, 11, 12].

Blacklisting – Nature and scope – Limits on executive power – Blacklisting recognised as a legitimate tool to ensure discipline and eliminate defaulting contractors – However, it cannot be used as a punitive measure resulting in lifelong exclusion – Even a one-day blacklisting resulting in permanent ineligibility held unreasonable and excessive [Paras 14–15].

Judicial Review of Tender Conditions – Scope – Courts can interfere where tender conditions are arbitrary, discriminatory or infringe fundamental rights – Clause 15 of the impugned tender found to be contrary to settled law laid down by the Supreme Court and High Courts – Tender quashed on constitutional grounds [Paras 6, 15–16].

Precedent – Perpetual blacklisting – Disapproved – Reliance placed on State of Odisha v. Panda Infraproject Limited – Supreme Court held that indefinite blacklisting amounts to civil death and restricted debarment to a fixed period – Followed by Orissa High Court in Artatran Bhuyan v. State of Odisha – Same principle applied to tender eligibility clause [Paras 10–12].

Public Tender – Consequential directions – Entire tender set aside due to unconstitutional eligibility condition – Liberty granted to Balasore Municipality to issue a fresh tender consistent with constitutional principles – Direction to float fresh tender within 15 days [Para 16].

Academic Issues – Non-adjudication – Other challenges raised to the tender held to be academic in view of quashing of tender itself – No findings recorded on ancillary grounds [Paras 17–18].

Decision: All writ petitions disposed of – Impugned tender quashed and set aside – Balasore Municipality directed to issue a fresh tender within fifteen (15) days in accordance with law and constitutional principles.

Service Law – Regularization – Commission-Based Engagement – Petitioners engaged through Blind People’s Association to issue/maintain case papers at Civil Hospital – Paid Rs.1 per case paper as commission – No fixed wages from State – Held: No master-servant relationship between petitioners and State – Claim for declaration as civil servants and regularization not maintainable [Paras 7.1, 7.4, 11].

Master-Servant Relationship – Essential Requirement – Engagement pursuant to agreement between State and Blind People’s Association – Appointment, supervision and remuneration arrangement through Association – Petitioners not appointed through recruitment rules nor against sanctioned posts – Held: Absence of employer-employee relationship disentitles petitioners from claiming permanency or regular pay scale [Paras 7.1-7.3, 11].

Equal Pay for Equal Work – Commission Agents – Petitioners receiving commission per case paper and not daily wages or fixed remuneration – Not working against sanctioned posts – Held: Claim for minimum of regular pay scale and allowances beyond contractual terms – No parity with regular Government employees [Paras 7.5, 10].

Regularization – Scope of Article 226 – High Court cannot direct regularization unless appointment made through regular recruitment process against sanctioned posts – Sympathy cannot override constitutional scheme under Articles 14 and 16 – Reliance placed on Umadevi line of cases and Ilmo Devi – Held: No direction for absorption or permanent continuance can be issued [Paras 10-11].

Contractual/Outsourced Engagement – Control and Supervision – Mere requirement to follow instructions of Medical Superintendent does not establish direct administrative control amounting to employment – Functional supervision for hospital administration does not create service relationship [Paras 7.3].

Distinguishing Precedents – Decisions in Kanak Chandra Dutta, Chennai Port Trust and Dharam Singh not applicable – In cited cases, statutory control, sanctioned posts or daily wage engagement existed – In present case, petitioners are commission workers through third-party Association – Held: Facts materially different [Paras 8.1-8.3, 9].

Fundamental Rights – Articles 14, 16, 21 – Though petitioners physically challenged and vulnerable class, relief of regularization cannot be granted contrary to constitutional scheme governing public employment – Exploitation, if any, against Association to be agitated separately in accordance with law [Paras 11].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – No declaration as Government servants – No regularization, permanency, or regular pay scale granted – Rule discharged without costs.

Criminal Law – Quashing - Negotiable Instruments Act – Cheque Dishonour – Locus of Complainant – Cheques drawn in favour of “Hotel Paradise” – Complaint filed by M/s Krishna Hotels and Developers through its partner – Trial court initially questioned locus but later summoned accused holding Hotel Paradise to be a unit of complainant firm – Held: Complaint under Section 138 NI Act can be filed only by payee or holder in due course – Third party has no locus [Paras 3, 6, 8–9].

Cheque Dishonour – Section 142 NI Act – Cognizance – Mandatory Requirement – Statute mandates that cognizance can be taken only on complaint by payee or holder in due course – Any deviation strikes at the root of jurisdiction – Summoning order passed ignoring this statutory mandate is illegal [Paras 9, 13–14].

Payee and Holder in Due Course – Interpretation – Payee is person named in cheque – Holder in due course must derive lawful title for consideration – Authorized representative can file complaint only on behalf of payee/holder and not in own name – Complaint by stranger or third party not maintainable [Paras 10–13].

Distinguishing Precedent – M/s Naresh Potteries Case – Supreme Court decision relied upon by complainant held distinguishable – In that case, complaint filed by payee entity through authorized person – In present case, complainant entity itself not the payee – Ratio held inapplicable [Para 12].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Interference Justified – Trial court failed to consider earlier objection regarding locus while passing summoning order – Error apparent on face of record – Revisional Court justified in quashing proceedings at threshold [Paras 14–15].

Decision: Criminal Revision allowed – Order dated 26/07/2013 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 8, Kanpur Nagar in Complaint Case No. 1091 of 2012 quashed – Complaint under Section 138 NI Act held not maintainable for want of locus – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 15–17].

Civil Law – Title to Immovable Property – Exchange Deed – Res Judicata – Respondents claimed ownership on the basis of exchange/partition deed dated 22.07.1970 – Same exchange deed was relied upon and adjudicated in earlier suit for permanent injunction between same parties – Issue of ownership framed, evidence led and claim rejected by competent court – Judgment attained finality – Held: Subsequent suit for declaration on same basis barred by res judicata – Finding on title in injunction suit operates as res judicata when directly and substantially in issue [Paras 15–23].

Res Judicata – Injunction Suit – Finding on Title – Though earlier suit was for permanent injunction, specific issue as to ownership was framed and decided on merits – Parties led full evidence on exchange deed – Title adjudication was essential for deciding possession – Held: Principle of res judicata squarely attracted in subsequent declaratory suit [Paras 16–21].

Adverse Possession – Plea of Title and Adverse Possession – Mutually Inconsistent Claims – Respondents claimed possession under exchange deed and simultaneously pleaded adverse possession – Possession asserted through true owner till dismissal of earlier suit – No animus possidendi established – Held: Plea of adverse possession not maintainable and limitation did not commence till hostile assertion after 1983 – Mere long possession insufficient [Paras 12–14, 24].

Adverse Possession – Requirement of Hostility – Ajit Singh asserted ownership by sale deed dated 06.09.1979 – Appellants continued asserting title thereafter – Respondents filed injunction suit in 1980 claiming through exchange – Possession neither hostile nor uninterrupted for statutory period – Held: No acquisition of title by adverse possession [Paras 12–14].

Exchange Deed – Unregistered Document – Admissibility – Alleged exchange deed dated 22.07.1970 held to be compulsorily registrable and insufficiently stamped in earlier proceedings – Claim based on such deed barred by res judicata – Question of admissibility rendered academic in subsequent suit [Paras 19, 23].

Second Appeal – Substantial Questions of Law – Applicability of res judicata – Claim of adverse possession – Effect of unregistered exchange deed – All questions answered in favour of appellants – First Appellate Court erred in reversing well-reasoned trial court judgment [Paras 10, 24].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Judgment and decree of First Appellate Court dated 16.12.1993 set aside – Judgment and decree of Trial Court dated 16.05.1992 restored – Suit of respondents dismissed – Suit of appellants decreed.

Criminal Law – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Quashing of Proceedings – Second Complaint – Maintainability – Applicant sought quashing of summoning order and complaint proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No.188 of 2017 – Earlier FIR lodged on the same incident pursuant to Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. application – Police submitted Final Report – Protest petition filed by complainant rejected – Final Report accepted by Magistrate – Criminal Revision against acceptance of Final Report dismissed – Held: Filing of a criminal complaint on the same set of facts amounts to a second complaint and is not maintainable when the earlier proceedings culminated in acceptance of Final Report on merits [Paras 2–5, 14–21].

Second Complaint – Same Cause of Action – Bar under Judicial Discipline – Supreme Court in Subrata Choudhury @ Santosh Choudhury v. State of Assam reiterated that where the core allegations in both complaints are identical and the first complaint/final report was rejected on merits after considering protest petition, the second complaint is barred – Held: Present case squarely covered by the ratio of Subrata Choudhury and Magistrate could not have entertained the subsequent complaint [Paras 14–16, 20].

Final Report – Acceptance after Protest Petition – Effect – Magistrate accepted the Final Report holding that investigation did not suffer from infirmity – Revisional Court affirmed the order – Held: Acceptance of Final Report after hearing the complainant attains finality and bars re-agitation of identical allegations through a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. [Paras 3–5, 21–22].

Distinction between Exceptional Circumstances and Re-litigation – Reliance placed by opposite party on Mahesh Chand and Vishnu Kumar Tiwari distinguished – Held: Second complaint is permissible only in exceptional circumstances such as manifest error, miscarriage of justice, or new facts not earlier available – No such exceptional circumstances pleaded or established in the present case [Paras 17–20].

Abuse of Process of Court – Complaint filed after failure of FIR, protest petition, and revision – Held: Continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law warranting interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. [Paras 20–21].

Decision: Application allowed – Summoning order dated 10.01.2020, order issuing bailable warrant dated 01.04.2021, and entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.188 of 2017 quashed – Liberty reserved to complainant to seek appropriate remedy against revisional order dated 01.08.2023 in accordance with law.

Patent Infringement – Interim Injunction – Software / System Patent – Layered Interactive Content – Claim Construction – Doctrine of Equivalents – Appellate Interference – Appeal under Section 13(1) Commercial Courts Act challenging interim injunction restraining Defendant from using “Present and Record” feature – Patent relates to system and method for creating and sharing interactive content using background first media, foreground second media (PiP), and configurable interactive elements – Held: Scope of appellate interference against discretionary interim orders is limited – Interference permissible only if discretion exercised arbitrarily, perversely, or contrary to settled principles [Paras 99–101, 122–124].

Patent Law – Test for Infringement – Claim Construction and Comparison – Two-Stage Analysis – Infringement determination requires first, construction of claims as a matter of law, and second, comparison of construed claims with allegedly infringing product – Claims define monopoly; specification may guide but cannot rewrite or enlarge claims – Claim scope must remain consistent for validity and infringement – Learned Single Judge correctly applied claim-centric analysis consistent with F. Hoffmann-La Roche principles [Paras 103–111, 125–127].

Patent Infringement – “All Essential Elements” Test – Doctrine of Equivalents – Literal infringement established where all essential elements are present – Even where literal identity absent, minor or insubstantial variations do not avoid infringement – Doctrine of Equivalents applicable where core inventive concept appropriated – Functional variations or cosmetic changes insufficient to defeat infringement [Paras 114–120, 136–139].

Interactive Content Technology – Layered Media Architecture – Alleged Absence of ‘Third/Sandwiched Layer’ – Defendant contended non-infringement due to absence of independent third CTA layer – Expressions “third layer” or “sandwiched layer” not found in claims or specification – Claims require background first media and foreground second media with interactive configurability – Defendant’s own expert admitted patent does not mandate three layers – Held: Absence of so-called third layer not fatal to infringement at prima facie stage [Paras 148–153, 166–168].

Picture-in-Picture (PiP) – Movability as Essential Feature – Specification vs Claims – Defendant argued PiP must be movable through haptic interaction as defined in specification – Held: Movability not essential claim limitation; essential requirement is existence of foreground second media over background – Whether movability is browser-dependent or product-level is matter for trial – At interim stage, non-movability does not negate infringement [Paras 154–162].

Configuration Interface and CTA Features – Post-Creation Modifiability – Claims contemplate configuration interface enabling modification of interactive content including CTAs even after creation – Defendant’s product provides interface to add and modify CTA elements without re-recording – Labelling such interface as “formatting” immaterial – Function, way and result substantially identical – Prima facie satisfaction of Claims C6 and C7 established [Paras 163–173].

CTA Visibility – Authoring vs Playback Stage – Argument that CTA must be visible only during playback rejected – Claims do not mandate invisibility during authoring – Defendant’s own expert conceded absence of such limitation – Visibility during authoring not sufficient to take product outside claim scope at prima facie stage [Paras 170–175].

Validity Challenge – Prior Art – Novelty and Inventive Step – Defendant relied on Microsoft PowerPoint 2016, Loom, Auto-Auditorium – Learned Single Judge compared prior art with claimed architecture, not merely with Plaintiff’s product – Prior art lacked layered non-merged media, post-creation configurability, and integrated interactive architecture – Validity challenge arguable but not strong enough to defeat interim protection [Paras 176–182].

Patent Infringement Proceedings – Reliance on Defendant’s PCT Application – PCT disclosures relevant as corroborative material but not determinative of infringement – Observation regarding “abandonment” not decisive – Use of PCT justified only to test consistency of Defendant’s stand, not as substitute for claim-to-product analysis [Paras 183–190].

Interim Relief – Balance of Convenience – Irreparable Harm – Continued use of infringing feature risks market distortion, erosion of licensing potential, and unfair competitive advantage – Damages not adequate remedy – Balance of convenience favours patentee [Paras 45–48, 95–96].

Security Deposit – Foreign Defendant with No Assets in India – Direction to deposit ₹50 lakhs as security for past infringement upheld – Based on usage data, revenue figures, absence of attachable assets, and need to secure Plaintiff’s claim – Discretion exercised judiciously; no perversity shown [Para 196].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Interim injunction restraining Defendant from making available “Present and Record” feature in India upheld – Deposit of ₹50 lakhs sustained – Clarified that observations are prima facie and shall not influence final adjudication at trial [Paras 197–200].

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Section 306 IPC – Acquittal – Appellant (husband) convicted by Trial Court for abetment of suicide and cruelty – On appeal, High Court finds absence of evidence establishing instigation, intentional aid or conspiracy as required under Sections 107 and 306 IPC – Mere allegations of harassment and abusive conduct without proof of mens rea or proximate link to suicide insufficient – Held: Conviction unsustainable – Appellant entitled to acquittal [Paras 13–16, 33–34].

Cruelty to Wife – Section 498A IPC – Essential Ingredients – Failure of Proof – Prosecution alleged mental and physical cruelty and dowry harassment – Key witnesses including parents of deceased failed to depose specific acts of cruelty attributable to appellant – Evidence largely hearsay and inconsistent – No proof of willful conduct of such nature as likely to drive deceased to commit suicide or cause grave injury – Held: Ingredients of Section 498A not established beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 18–24, 31–34].

Dowry Demand – Acquittal under Dowry Prohibition Act – Effect – Trial Court acquitted appellant and other accused of offences under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 304B IPC – High Court held that once dowry demand itself not proved, conviction for cruelty and abetment based on same allegations cannot be sustained – Inconsistent findings by Trial Court corrected in appeal [Paras 9, 31–32].

Evidence – Appreciation – Interested and Hearsay Witnesses – Father, mother and relatives of deceased did not provide direct or cogent evidence of cruelty or dowry demand – Independent witnesses and panch witnesses did not support prosecution case – Hostile witnesses further weakened prosecution version – Held: Conviction cannot rest on vague, omnibus and uncorroborated allegations [Paras 19–25, 34].

Medical and Circumstantial Evidence – Injury on Deceased – Inquest noted injury on back of head of deceased – No evidence linking such injury to appellant – No investigation or charge for homicidal offence – Trial Court’s presumption that injury supported case of cruelty or suicide held to be speculative and impermissible [Paras 26–27, 33].

Benefit of Doubt – Criminal Jurisprudence – Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – When evidence is deficient and prosecution story improbable, accused entitled to benefit of doubt – Conviction based on conjectures cannot be sustained [Para 34].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 21.08.2014 set aside – Appellant acquitted of offences under Sections 498A and 306 IPC – Fine, if deposited, to be refunded – Bail bonds cancelled.

Motor Accident Compensation – Doctrine of Election – Section 167 Motor Vehicles Act – Bar against Dual Remedies – Claimants initially filed claim petitions before MACT under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and received compensation pursuant to awards passed by MACT – Thereafter, claimants again approached the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 for the same accidents – Held: Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act mandates an election of remedies – Claimant may opt either under the Motor Vehicles Act or the Workmen’s Compensation Act but not under both – Subsequent claims under the Workmen’s Compensation Act after availing remedy under the Motor Vehicles Act are not maintainable [Paras 9–11, 18].

Doctrine of Election – Estoppel by Conduct – Abuse of Process of Law – Once a claimant consciously chooses one statutory forum and receives compensation, he is estopped from invoking another forum for the same cause of action – Courts cannot be treated as bargaining forums for enhanced compensation – Successive claims amount to abuse of the process of law [Paras 11, 17, 19].

Employer Liability vs. Vehicle Liability – Distinction Rejected – Argument that MACT claim was against offending vehicle and WCC claim against employer rejected – Held: Nature of liability does not dilute statutory bar under Section 167 – Identity of accident and cause of action is determinative [Paras 5, 17].

Adjustment of Compensation – Impermissibility – Submission that compensation awarded by MACT could be adjusted against compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act rejected – Held: Law does not permit adjustment when the second claim itself is barred – Claimant cannot pursue parallel remedies sequentially [Paras 5, 17].

Precedents – Binding Effect of Supreme Court Judgments – Reliance placed on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mastan, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Bidami – Coordinate Bench judgment permitting dual compensation stood set aside by Supreme Court – Held: Law is settled that double compensation under both enactments is impermissible [Paras 11–16].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned awards dated 10.12.2012 and 29.08.2011 passed by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioners quashed and set aside – Claim petitions under the Workmen’s Compensation Act held not maintainable – Claimants directed to refund compensation amounts received with usual interest – All connected applications disposed of.

Labour Law - Employees’ Provident Fund – Scope of “Basic Wages” – Section 2(b) and Section 6 of the EPF Act – Principle of universality – Emoluments payable universally and ordinarily to all employees alone constitute basic wages – Allowances not earned by all employees or not paid by all establishments stand excluded unless specifically included by statute [Paras 12–17].

Special Allowance – Provident Fund Contribution – Special allowance paid at discretion of employer, not uniformly to all employees, varying by designation and not linked to cost of living – Tribunal failed to examine whether special allowance could be equated with dearness allowance – Held: Appellate Tribunal ignored binding principles laid down in Bridge & Roofs and Vivekananda Vidyamandir – Order suffers from patent illegality [Paras 18].

Tea/Canteen Allowance – Cash Value of Food Concession – Explanation 1 to Section 6 – Cash value of food concession deemed part of dearness allowance only if linked to rise in cost of living and satisfies test of universality – Allowance payable to a defined class of workmen and subject to withdrawal on provision of canteen facility – Not universally payable – Held: Tribunal erred in including tea/canteen allowance for PF contribution without proper legal analysis [Paras 19–22].

Overtime / Extra Wages – Section 2(b) EPF Act – Statutory exclusion – Overtime wages earned only by employees who work beyond scheduled hours and not by all employees – Respondent authority under Section 7A had excluded overtime wages – No appeal by Department against such finding – Held: Appellate Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to include overtime/extra wages in absence of departmental appeal [Paras 23].

Appellate Adjudication – Duty to Pass Reasoned Order – Appellate Tribunal passed cryptic order without considering settled law or contentions raised by petitioner – Failure to apply binding precedents of Supreme Court – Order set aside [Paras 18, 24].

Decision – Writ petition allowed – Orders dated 24.12.2007 and 01.09.2011 set aside – Matter remanded to EPF Appellate Tribunal for fresh decision in accordance with law – Mandamus issued to decide matter within four months considering prolonged pendency since 2011 [Paras 24–26].