Criminal Law – Transit Anticipatory Bail – Sought for offences under Sections 498A, 323, and 504 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act – The petitioners filed for anticipatory bail in Karnataka while the case was registered in Uttar Pradesh – Held: Granted transit anticipatory bail for three weeks to enable petitioners to seek anticipatory bail from the jurisdictional court in Uttar Pradesh. Interim protection was necessary to allow the petitioners to apply for regular bail and to appear in the Habeas Corpus proceedings before the Allahabad High Court [Paras 5-8].

Decision: Petition allowed – Petitioners granted transit anticipatory bail for a period of three weeks – Directed to execute a personal bond for ₹100,000 each with one surety of the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer – Petitioners ordered not to tamper with the prosecution witnesses [Paras 9-11].

Patent Law – Section 59(1) of the Patents Act – Amendments to Patent Claims – Scope of Original Claims – The Controller refused the appellant's patent application, holding that the proposed amendments went beyond the scope of the original claims in violation of Section 59(1) of the Patents Act – Held: The amended claims were within the scope of the original PCT claims and supported by the detailed description in the complete specification. The High Court found that the amendments related to the composition as a product were permissible and could be allowed. Consequently, the rejection by the Controller under Section 59(1) could not sustain and had to be reversed​.

Patent Law – Amendment of Claims – Principles Governing Amendments – The Court referenced a coordinate bench decision in The Regents of The University of California v Controller General of Patents Designs & Trademarks & Anr. (2024), which laid down that amendments can be made only by way of disclaimer, correction, or explanation. Further, any amendment should not introduce matter not originally disclosed and should fall within the scope of the original claims – Applying these parameters, the Court inferred that the appellant's amended claims were permissible under Section 59(1)​.

Decision:

Appeal allowed – The impugned order dated 27th April 2020 by the Controller rejecting Patent Application No. 2427/DELNP/2011 is set aside – The matter is remanded back to the Controller for de novo consideration, and the Patent Application is restored to its original number. The Controller is directed to issue a fresh hearing notice and decide the matter afresh within four months from the date of the hearing​.

Criminal Law – Culpable Homicide – Section 304 Part II IPC – Defense of Private Defense – The appellant was convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC for pelting stones at the deceased, resulting in fatal injuries. The incident occurred during a scuffle over a monetary dispute where the deceased was under the influence of alcohol and attempted to snatch money from the appellant – Held: The appellant had the right to private defense as he was protecting himself and his property when the deceased, under the influence of alcohol, initiated an attack – The appellant did not exceed the right of private defense by pelting stones, as he had initially tried to avoid confrontation by running away from the scene – Consequently, the appellant's conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC was set aside, and he was acquitted of all charges [Paras 21-25]​.

Decision:

Appeal allowed – The judgment and sentence dated 20.01.2001 by the ASJ Kukshi District Dhar in S.T. No.89/2000 is set aside – The appellant is acquitted of all charges under Section 304 Part II IPC – His bail bonds are discharged, and he is no longer required in the present case [Paras 29-30]​.

Criminal Procedure – Approver – Bail Granted – The petitioner, an approver in a case involving offenses under Section 302 IPC, sought bail after testifying in both the trial of the co-accused and a Court Martial – The trial court rejected the bail application based on Section 306(4)(b) of Cr.P.C., which mandates the detention of an approver until the termination of the trial – Held: The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has the jurisdiction to grant bail to an approver even before the culmination of the trial in exceptional cases – The petitioner had complied with the conditions of pardon by making full and true disclosure, and exceptional circumstances existed, including the petitioner’s health condition and the nearing completion of the trial – [Paras 17-25].

Natural Justice – Right to Fair Treatment – Release of Approver – An approver who fulfills the conditions of pardon should not be kept in custody if it would result in a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution – The detention of the petitioner after making a complete disclosure was found to be unnecessary, especially given his health issues and the lack of any role beyond accompanying the main accused to the crime scene – Held: Detaining the petitioner further would be unjust, and therefore, he was granted bail – [Paras 21-25].

Decision: Petition allowed – The petitioner is admitted to bail on the condition of furnishing a bail bond with one surety in the amount of ₹1,00,000 – He must not leave the limits of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir without prior permission of the trial court and must not influence the prosecution witnesses – [Para 25].

Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Estoppel under Section 116 of Indian Evidence Act – The applicant was inducted as a tenant by the original landlord, Shri Ramakant B. Desai, and paid rent for several years – Held, a tenant cannot deny the title of the landlord during the tenancy – Applicants' claim that the property belongs to the housing society is not maintainable under the principles of estoppel – [Paras 13-26].

Co-operative Housing Society – Ownership and Membership – Impact on Landlord-Tenant Relationship – The applicants argued that since the society owns the property, they have the right to occupy the premises – Court held that membership in the housing society does not negate the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship with the original landlord – The applicant's arguments based on ownership under co-operative society laws were rejected – [Paras 7-29].

Res Judicata – Prior Proceedings in Co-operative Society – Applicants contended that prior rulings in society-related matters should bar the respondents' claim – Held, issues resolved in co-operative society proceedings do not affect the landlord's right to recover possession under rent control laws – [Paras 10-21].

Decision: Revision application dismissed – The Appellate Court's judgment ordering the applicants to hand over possession of the disputed premises to the respondents is upheld – The applicants are estopped from denying the respondents' title under the landlord-tenant relationship – Applicants directed to vacate the premises and pay arrears of rent with interest – [Paras 27-29].

Constitutional Law – Citizenship – Cessation of Citizenship – The appellant was disqualified from the post of Mukhiya on the ground of having voluntarily acquired the citizenship of Nepal, resulting in the cessation of his Indian citizenship under Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 – The appellant contended that the State Election Commission lacked jurisdiction to decide on the matter, which should have been referred to the Central Government under the Citizenship Rules, 2009 – Held: The Election Commission does not have the authority to adjudicate on the cessation of citizenship; such matters fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Central Government – The decision of the Election Commission was set aside, and the matter was directed to be referred to the Central Government [Paras 11-13, 15].

Election Law – Disqualification – Jurisdiction of State Election Commission – The State Election Commission disqualified the appellant for alleged foreign citizenship – Held: As per the Full Bench decision in Rajani Kumari v. State Election Commission, the State Election Commission can consider disqualification issues based on unimpeachable materials, provided it is not purely an election dispute – However, contentious issues, especially those concerning citizenship cessation, should be decided by a competent court or the Central Government, not the Election Commission [Paras 14-20].

Procedural Law – Referral to Central Government – The court directed the State Election Commission to refer the dispute to the Central Government to determine whether the appellant had acquired foreign citizenship voluntarily, which could lead to the cessation of Indian citizenship under Section 9(1) of the Act of 1955 [Para 15].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – The order of the State Election Commission and the judgment of the learned Single Judge were set aside – The State Election Commission was directed to refer the matter to the Central Government for determination – The appellant is entitled to continue in the post of Mukhiya until the Central Government's decision is made [Para 16].

Consumer Law – Writ Petitions under Article 227 – Jurisdiction – Challenge to NCDRC Orders – Multiple writ petitions were filed in the High Court of Delhi challenging the orders of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) – Petitioners contended that the High Court of Delhi had jurisdiction as NCDRC is located in Delhi – Respondents argued that jurisdiction lies with the High Court where the cause of action arose, relying on Siddhartha S. Mookerjee case – Held: Jurisdiction for petitions under Article 227 lies with the High Court where the original cause of action arose, not merely based on the location of the NCDRC in Delhi – Court followed Supreme Court’s ruling in Siddhartha S. Mookerjee and other similar cases, emphasizing that jurisdiction should align with where the matter originated – Appeal dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction [Paras 1-76].

Writ Jurisdiction – Cause of Action – Petitioners claimed that the NCDRC’s location in Delhi vested jurisdiction in the Delhi High Court – Court disagreed, holding that the cause of action determines jurisdiction, not the location of the appellate or revisional tribunal – The cause of action for each petition had arisen outside Delhi, and the petitions should have been filed in the respective jurisdictional High Courts – Situs of the tribunal not a decisive factor for jurisdiction [Paras 13-65].

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – Regional Benches and Jurisdiction – NCDRC, as a national-level tribunal, exercises jurisdiction across multiple states – Petitions challenging its orders must be filed in the High Court within the territorial jurisdiction of the original cause of action – Establishment of regional benches by the central government could further guide jurisdictional filings – [Paras 49-56].

Decision: All writ petitions dismissed for lack of jurisdiction – Petitioners directed to pursue remedies in the appropriate jurisdictional High Courts – Delhi High Court cannot entertain petitions solely based on the situs of the NCDRC [Paras 73-76].

Municipal Law – Eviction Proceedings – Quashed – Quasi-Judicial Nature – Petitioners occupying municipal premises challenged eviction orders issued by Nashik Municipal Corporation. The Corporation justified eviction on grounds of public interest, namely road widening and development infrastructure. Petitioners argued that the Corporation failed to provide substantial evidence for the necessity of the eviction in public interest and that no proper show-cause notice was issued after remand. Held: Eviction orders quashed for lack of proper reasoning and evidence. The Corporation must give reasons for its decision in quasi-judicial proceedings [Paras 9-13, 16].

Administrative Law – Requirement of Reasoning in Quasi-Judicial Orders – The Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 29th February 2020 was held to be a non-speaking order with no discussion on the explanation submitted by the petitioners. It was emphasized that quasi-judicial decisions require proper reasoning, and the requirement of public interest must be substantiated with evidence [Paras 17-19].

Legal Procedure – Scope of Show Cause Notice – The Court observed that the show-cause notice must specify the grounds for proposed eviction, and the Corporation is required to produce material evidence to dispute the cause shown by the noticee. In this case, the Corporation’s failure to do so rendered the eviction orders invalid [Paras 20-22].

Decision: Writ Petitions allowed – The eviction orders passed by the Nashik Municipal Corporation are set aside. The Corporation is directed to issue fresh proceedings in accordance with law, ensuring proper reasons and evidence are provided for any proposed eviction [Paras 23-25].

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Divorce Granted – Grounds of Cruelty and Desertion - The appellant alleged that the respondent-wife insisted on moving to her parental home and later deserted him without consent - The respondent claimed harassment and demand for dowry - The Court noted the absence of denial by the respondent that she left the matrimonial home and the omission to explain the circumstances of her departure - Held: The evidence pointed towards desertion and cruelty by the respondent – The marriage is dissolved on these grounds [Paras 7-10].

Evidence – Cross-Examination and Documentary Evidence - In cross-examination, the appellant confirmed his modest income, supported by a certificate of net salary - The respondent and her father’s claims of a higher income could not be substantiated, and they failed to explain the departure from the matrimonial home - Held: The appellant's contentions were supported by evidence, and the respondent's objections were not upheld [Paras 12-15].

Permanent Alimony – Consideration of Appellant's Income - Considering the appellant's current income and the respondent's age and education, the Court directed a permanent alimony of ₹5,00,000 to be deposited in the Family Court - Held: The alimony is justified in exercising the Court's discretion, given the dissolution of marriage [Para 16].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The impugned judgment of the Family Court dismissing the divorce petition is reversed – The marriage solemnized on 9th March 2015 is dissolved by a decree of divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion – Permanent alimony of ₹5,00,000 to be deposited in the Family Court within two months – The decree to be drawn up expeditiously [Para 17].