Justice Mukul Mudgal

Curriculum Vitae of Justice Mukul Mudgal

Schooling at Modern School, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. B.Sc. (Hons) from Hindu College, Delhi University and LL.B from Law Faculty, Delhi University. Was a member of the Modern School swimming team and represented the school in various swimming competitions. Represented Hindu College & Delhi University in Aquatics and Water polo in 1968-69. Captained the Law Faculty Aquatics team.

Enrolled as an Advocate in 1973 at Delhi and practised in Supreme Court and Delhi High Court since 1973. Was Advocate on Record in Supreme Court from 1978 to February 1998. Was Member Secretary/Treasurer of the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee from 1986 to 1995. Conducted cases in Civil Law, Constitutional Law, Labour Law and Public Interest Litigation.

Successfully represented 8 banned cricketers along with the former Attorney General for India, Shri Soli J. Sorabjee in the Supreme Court of India as a counsel in 1989. Appeared as an Amicus Curiae in several cases in the Supreme Court including cases of prison reforms (Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Administration), assisting his senior Dr. Y.S. Chitale. Appeared as an amicus in Environment Law cases such as the CNG case and as counsel in gender justice case (Vishakha vs. State of Rajasthan).

Member National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), Geneva and Governing Council of Indian Law Institute.

Appointed as a Judge of High Court of Delhi on 2^nd March 1998. Delivered judgments in following important cases:-

·         Ajay Jadeja vs. BCCI 95 (2002) DLT 14 holding that the Board of Cricket Control of India (BCCI) in so far as its functions affect public interest is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Analyzed the judgments of several countries in respect of sports litigation in the said judgment.

·         Association of Uphaar Victims and others Vs. Union of India and others, 104 (2003) DLT 234, along with Justice S.K. Mahajan awarding compensation to the families of the Uphaar victims.

·         M/s Bennett Coleman & Co. Vs. Prasar Bharti and Others CW 1066 of 1998 held that open tendering in favour of the highest bidder is in public interest on the ground that there is no substitute for competitive bidding in open auction and all are free to make a bid in the public auction.

·         Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. Vs. Bathla Cassettes Industries Private Limited 2003 (27) PTC 280 (Del) analyzed the position of Copyright in other countries in respect of version/statutory recording and licensing and held that a colourable imitation of an original musical work is not entitled to protection under Section 52(1)(j) of the Copyright Act 1957.

·         Aggarwal and Modi Enterprises (Cinema Project) Private Limited and Anr. Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council 2003 VI AD (Delhi)1 held that since the licence granted to petitioner was from time to time it cannot operate in perpetuity. The terms of licence indicated it was for specific period of 10 years and the petitioner failed to prove right of renewal inherent or beyond year 2000. Therefore in absence of mutual agreement between parties claim of renewal beyond year 2000 was rejected.

·         IRCON International Limited Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. 108 (2003) DLT 656 held that any false statement made for claim under Section 17-B on oath attract Sections 191, 192, IPC and Section 304 Cr.PC.

·         Gaurav Sondhi Vs. Diya Sondhi 120 (2005) DLT 426 inter alia held that whenever maintenance/interim maintenance is ordered, the Court will direct that it will be paid on or before 10th day of every month unless the Court finds that the nature of the employment of the husband and his manner of income makes such monthly payments impractical.

·         Smt. Rachna Jain Vs. Shri Neeraj Jain 120 (2005) DLT 365 Held that the period of 6 months prescribed under Section 13 B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 is directory and not mandatory.

·         Colgate vs. Mr.Patel 2005 (31) PTC 583 (Del) held that red & white are basic colours and red and white colour combination is common to toothpaste trade and no monopoly in such colours with respect to trade mark can be claimed.

·         Hotel Association of India vs. UOI, W.P. (C ) 4692/1999 dated 12^th January 2006 where the plea of gender justice for lady employees of the hospitality industry was upheld.

·         D.B. Masih Vs. Registrar Cooperative Society W.P.(C) 10934/2005 dated 5^th March 2007 holding therein that when a member resigns from a Group Housing Society, interest has to be paid by the society on the amount deposited by the member at the rate of 7 per cent after deduction of administrative expenditure incurred by society.

·         Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs. Union of India. 138 (2007) DLT 615 . It is not open for a landowner to challenge legality of acquisition notification after a gap of long period and after having acquiesced acquisition proceedings by accepting compensation for land acquired.”

·         Vishwa Vibhuti Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors W.P.(C) 2941/2005 dated 1^st February 2007 held that the Tribunal is indeed required to deal with the issues raised in the O.A. by passing a reasoned order having applied its mind to the averments raised in O.A. The review petitions are required to be disposed of by giving reasons.

·         Kangaro Industries (Retd.) and Ors.Vs. Jaininder Jain and Anr 2007 (34) PTC 321 (Del) held that no technicality can prevent Court from doing justice in exercise of its inherent power and that Article 129 of Constitution, i.e., power of Court to punish for its contempt is a Constitutional Power and when exercised in tandem with Article 142 of Constitution all objections should give way and Court must ensure full justice between parties. Also held that Section 41(b) of Specific Relief Act, an injunction cannot be granted to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in a Court not subordinate to that from which injunction is sought.

·         Global Energy Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission WP(C) 13822-23/2006 dated 15^th December 2006 Upheld the validity of Clause (b) & (f) of the Regulation 6A of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Procedure, Terms and Conditions for grant of Trading License and other related matters) (Amendment) Regulations 2006.

·         N.K.Aggarwal Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors LPA No. 291/2002 dated 3^rd October 2006 Held that Krishak Bharti Cooperative Limited (KRIBHCO) held that in order to determine the exact jurisdiction of Article 226 and the authorities/persons to which it may apply, it is not necessary to establish that the entity concerned is a State or an instrumentality under Article 12. It is sufficient for the body to be discharging a public function or a public duty. Therefore, KRIBHCO was amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 since it was discharging a public duty.

·         Jagdish & Others Vs. Delhi Development Authority W.P. (C ) 5007/2002 dated 21^st January 2004 held that the Delhi Master Plan had a statutory force and, therefore, the DDA was under a statutory obligation to provide housing for the economically weaker sections of the society who provide indispensable services to the middle and upper class and ordered re-settlement of 200 slum dwellers who were forcibly evicted by DDA.

·         Shri Iklash Hussain Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation LPA No. 1902/2006 18^th October 2006 held that the court is required to decide the application under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act prior to the hearing of the writ petition as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court .

·         Late Bawa Harbans Singh through his L.Rs. Vs. Lt. Governor and Ors. 132 (2006) DLT 535 Held that there is no provision in the CPC or the Rules of the Delhi High Court that permit an application for recall of the writ petition to be filed and that it is nothing but a disguised form of a review petition.

·         Vikram Aditya Singh and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.W.P.(C) Nos. 15079, 15080 and 15081/2006 dated 11^th October 2006 upheld the constitutional validity of the Section 8 of the Hindu Marriage Act but held that the amendment clause requiring one of the parties or his/her parent is residing within the jurisdiction of the Registrar, for more than thirty days" to the Delhi Hindu Marriage Registration Rules, 1956 Form A, cannot be so interpreted so as to deny the registration of the marriage of parties whose marriage is solemnized in Delhi whether or not the parties to the marriage or their parents are residents of Delhi.

·         Builders Association of India and Ors. etc. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. etc. etc. W.P. (C) 3620/2003 dated 6^th July 2007 Upheld the constitutional validity of The Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996, The Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Cess Act, 1996 , The Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Central Rules, 1998, The Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Cess Rules, 1998, The Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers' (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2002.

·         Dr. Homeshwar Tongbram v. Union of India WP (C) 11866/2004 dated 11^th May 2007 Ordered for the reinstatement to service and all arrears of pay of the petitioner who belonged to a Scheduled Tribe, whose services were terminated on the ground that he did not belong to the Scheduled Tribe and the mandamus issued by the CAT to conduct the DNA test of the petitioner which was not done for 3 years.

·         Jugesh Kumar v. State Crl. Appeal No. 255/2004 dated 3^rd May 2007 Held that in order to convict the accused on the basis of dying declaration the Court should be satisfied about the truthfulness and the genuineness of the dying declaration and set aside the conviction based on the 4 dying declarations which were contradictory to each other and inconsistent in material aspects.

·         Siemens v. HSCC (India) Ltd. WP (C) 6730/2006 dated 6^th March 2007 and Ors. And Jindal Stainless Steel W.P. (C) 10274/2006 dated 17^th April 2007 Held that the modern State is a welfare State and is under an obligation to fulfill a plethora of functions and to protect a variety of interests including its financial interests and in protecting its financial interest, the State has has a right to refuse even the lowest tender. Such an action on part of the State cannot be struck down by the courts unless it is perverse, unreasonable, arbitrary, smacks of mala fide or if the exercise of power is for a collateral purpose.

·         Dr. B. Mishra v. Director General ICAR WP (C) 14438-39/2005 dated 22^nd May 2007 Held that the fact that one of the member of the selection committee constituted for the selection of the post of Director General Crop Science was the referee of one of the candidates who was a participant in the selection process and had also co-authored more than 100 papers with him shows clear and intimate linkage between the two and raises a presumption of bias and thus, vitiated the selection process.

·         Shoaib Iqbal v. Union of India W.P(C ) 15729/2006 dated 9^th July 2007 Dismissed the petition challenging the delimitation exercise carried out by the Delimitation Commission in the NCT of Delhi on the ground that such power vested with the Election Commission and held that both the Delimitation Commission and the Election Commission were empowered to carry out the exercise of delimitation on the ground that the Delimitation Commission undertakes the exercise of re adjusting the constituencies from time to time as a result of the change in the demographic pattern, whereas the Election Commission under the NCT Act is required to perform only a single time exercise for distributing the seats assigned to the legislative assembly by maintaining the delimitation orders up to date . Therefore, there was no conflict between the powers of the Delimitation Commission and the Election Commission with respect to the Delimitation exercise in the NCT of Delhi.

·         Rajib Mukhopadhyaya and Ors. Vs. Registrar Cooperative Societies W.P.(C) 4130 and 4143/1997 and 1403-14 and 2267/2006 dated 2^nd July 2007 Upheld the constitutional validity and operation of Rule 24 (2) of the Delhi Cooperative Society Rules requiring a draw of lots in the presence of the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies and held that the said rule shall only apply to new prospective entrants who apply pursuant to the notification issued under Rule 24(2).

·         In Jai Shankar @Pappu Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi directed the trial court concerned to supply the the accused who is being represented by the counsel nominated by the State Legal Services Authority with the copy of the charge, exhibited documents of prosecution as well as defence, copies of statement of witnesses of prosecution as well as defence and statement of accused u/s 313 Cr. P.C apart from the impugned judgment, so that the mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution providing free legal aid to the indigent is fulfilled along with Section 363 of the Cr. P.C.

·         Maninder Pal Singh Kohli v. Union of India W.P (Crl) 821/ 2007 dated 6^th July 2007 Upheld the Extradition Enquiry Report of the Extradition Magistrate on the ground that the findings recorded by the Extradition Magistrate under the Extradition Act shall be treated as prima-facie in nature.

Authored Articles on various topics like

·         'Legal Aid – Reasonable Recompense', published in Vol.I Issue No.1 July 2002 of Nyaya Kiran – The official journal of DLSA;

·         'Benefits of Community Service', published in Vol.No.II Issue No.1 January 2003 of Nyaya Kiran;

·         'Conciliation : An Indian Perspective', published in Vol.No.II Issue No.2 April 2003 of Nyaya Kiran;

·         'Awareness of Rights' published in Nyayadeep – The official journal of NALSA;

·         'National Legal Literacy Mission – Implementation Strategies', published in issue of Nyayadeep;

·         'The Problem of Undertrials-II : Kadra Pahariya & Juvenile Justice', published in the “Punishment and the Prison : Indian and International Perspectives”;

·         'Prison & Custody: Application of International Human Rights Norms by Supreme Court of India';Judicial Colloquium in Bangalore held by Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, 1999.

·         Law & Culture;Published in CCERT publication.

·         International Refugees submitted in a seminar organized by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees and the International Law Association, Delhi.

·         The Right Based Approach to Disability & Development/Equality & Social Justice for the Disabled, published in January 2006 issue of Nyayadeep – The official journal of NALSA;

·         Drug Abuse, delivered in National Seminar & Workshop-cum-training Programme on Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic substance – The Law & Society held on 25^th and 26^th March 2006; and

·         Cultural Heritage and Intellectual Property Rights submitted at The 72^nd Biennial Conference of International Law Association at Toronto, Canada from 4^th June to 8^th June 2006.

·         Lecture on Judicial Activism and Public Interest, in a seminar organized by the University of Delhi held on 4^th November 2006.

·         Compensation for human rights violation: Dynamic approach of the Indian Judiciary, published in Volume XXXIV of The Indian Advocate, Journal of the Bar Association of India.

·         Constitutional Guarantees on access to justice, submitted in the ILI Seminar on “Delay in Administration of Criminal Justice System” at Vigyan Bhawan.

·         Legal Aid as instrument to facilitate Access to Justice, published in Nyaya Kiran, Volume 1, Issue-1, April-June 2007.

Elevated as Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court w.e.f. 05.12.2009.

Back