Narcotic Drugs – Conviction under NDPS Act – Recovery of contraband ganja – Accused A1 and A2 apprehended while in possession of 1.5 kg ganja – Trial court convicted both under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act – Acquitted under Sections 25 and 29(1) – A3 absconded and later acquitted – On appeal, A1 reported dead, appeal abated against him – Conviction of A2 upheld based on presumption of conscious possession as he was found accompanying A1 at scene [Paras 2, 3, 26, 27, 31].

Search and Seizure – Validity of Search Procedure – Defence challenged absence of independent witnesses and presence of printed arrest memos at scene – Court held that refusal of witnesses did not vitiate search – Explanation given that laptop was used and arrest memos printed nearby – Seizure, arrest and recovery held in compliance with procedural safeguards under NDPS Act [Paras 14, 21-24].

Identification – Sufficiency of Informant Detail – Argument raised that Ex.P1 did not mention detailed description of accused – Court held that physical description was provided orally and PW1 identified the accused at the scene based on those details – Identification found reliable [Paras 13, 20].

Possession – Conscious Possession – A2 found accompanying A1 who was in possession of contraband – No recovery from A2 – However, trial court and appellate court held that A2 was in conscious possession by virtue of association and presence – Presumption under NDPS Act attracted [Paras 26, 27].

Sentence – Reduction on Mitigating Grounds – Appellate court considered A2’s young age (21 years), no prior criminal record, no direct recovery from him, 90 days custody already undergone, and death of A1 – Sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment reduced to period already undergone – Fine enhanced from Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 50,000 – In default of fine payment, three months’ simple imprisonment imposed [Paras 28-30].

Decision: Appeal dismissed as abated against A1 (Yasin) – Conviction of A2 (Mohamed Hussen) under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act upheld – Sentence reduced to period already undergone – Fine enhanced to Rs. 50,000 to be paid within four weeks, failing which A2 shall undergo 3 months simple imprisonment – Confiscation of vehicle confirmed.

Criminal Law – Default Bail – Interpretation of BNSS – Petitioners arrested on 10.05.2025 and remained in custody for 90 days – Application for default bail under Section 187(3) BNSS filed on 12.08.2025 – Charge-sheet not filed within statutory period – Trial court rejected application relying on Odisha amendment to CrPC providing 120-day period – Held: BNSS, 2023 repealed CrPC, 1973 by virtue of Section 531 – No express saving of Odisha amendment under BNSS – Period of 90 days under Section 187(3)(i) applies – Petitioners entitled to statutory bail [Paras 1, 3–5, 7, 9–12, 15].

Criminal Law – Repeal and Savings – Section 531 BNSS – State amendment to CrPC extending charge-sheet period not saved under new law – Notifications dated 16.07.2024 and 27.09.2024 do not alter substantive provision under BNSS – Odisha Rules framed under BNSS also specify 90-day limit – Trial court misdirected in applying repealed provision – Right to default bail accrued upon expiry of 90 days [Paras 6, 10–14].

Remand – Trial Court Order Quashed – Trial court directed to reconsider application for default bail under correct legal framework – Matter remanded for fresh hearing and disposal within two weeks from submission of certified copy of order [Paras 15–16].

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 11.08.2025 quashed – Matter remanded to trial court for fresh consideration of default bail under Section 187(3) of BNSS.

Civil Law – Partition Suit – Oral Partition – Preliminary Decree – Plaintiff and deceased brother entitled to equal half share in property – Defendants claimed oral partition and exclusive right over building – No date, witnesses, mutation, or documentation produced to prove oral partition – Mere construction of house on one side of property not sufficient proof – Held: No valid oral partition established – Plaintiff entitled to half share in land excluding building [Paras 2–9, 17].

Property Law – Ownership of Building on Joint Land – Defendants claimed exclusive ownership of building constructed on northern half of property – Plaintiff claimed joint investment of ₹7 lakhs supported by bank withdrawals – Court found no material linking withdrawals to actual construction cost – Permit and tax documents stood in names of defendants – Held: Building constructed solely by defendants, not partible – Allotment of building to defendants without valuation adjustment upheld [Paras 10–15, 17].

Appellate Review – Scope of Interference – Trial court overlooked key documentary evidence such as bank statements, permit and assessment records – High Court found trial court erred in factual findings – Judgment partially modified – Held: Appeal partly allowed; preliminary decree modified to exclude building from partition and allot it to defendants [Paras 16–17].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Preliminary decree modified – One-half share each of plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4 declared in land excluding building – Building held not partible and to be allotted to defendants in final decree – Trial court directed to proceed with final decree proceedings without waiting for application, in terms of Supreme Court ruling.

Tenancy Law – Period of Tenancy – Dispute over duration – Plaintiff claimed tenancy continued beyond 31.03.2017 – Defendants asserted surrender on that date – Court held that implied surrender was established under Section 111(f) of Transfer of Property Act – Finding based on tender of surrender letter, affixation of notice, and shifting of office to new premises – Tenancy held to subsist from 16.03.2015 to 31.03.2017 [Paras 10-13].

Rent Determination – Dispute over Monthly Rent – Plaintiff relied on PWD-assessed rent of Rs. 1,58,890 – Defendants relied on earlier letter (Ex. B1) offering premises at Rs. 1,00,000 and claimed government never sanctioned higher rate – Court accepted Ex. B1 and held agreed rent was Rs. 1,00,000 per month, especially since revised PWD recommendation matched this figure – Held: Rent payable fixed at Rs. 1,00,000 per month [Paras 14-16].

Arrears of Rent – Calculation of Dues – Court calculated total rent for 24.5 months at Rs. 1,00,000 per month = Rs. 24,50,000 – After deducting Rs. 4,00,000 paid, balance arrears stood at Rs. 20,50,000 – Plaintiff entitled to this amount with interest – Trial court’s calculation upheld [Paras 17-18].

Appeal – Scope of Interference with Trial Court’s Findings – Trial court had rightly appreciated evidence and applied law to determine both period of tenancy and quantum of rent – No perversity or legal error found – Appeal dismissed with costs [Paras 19-20].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Trial court’s decree awarding Rs. 20,50,000 as arrears of rent affirmed – No interference warranted.

Civil Procedure – Partition Suit – Lis Pendens – Second Appeal filed by the 12th defendant, a lis pendens purchaser of item No.6 of suit property – Trial court excluded purchased portion from partition – Lower appellate court reversed the finding, holding that lis pendens purchaser’s rights are subject to outcome of suit – Held: Lis pendens purchaser cannot insist on exclusion of purchased property – His equities, if any, can only be considered at the stage of final decree – Transfer during pendency of suit is not void but does not confer independent rights against non-consenting co-sharers – Appellate court's approach affirmed as correct in law [Paras 8–15].

Transfer of Property Act – Section 52 – Pendente Lite Sale – Sale by some co-sharers during pendency of suit falls under Section 52 TPA – Appellate court rightly held that sale is not void but subject to final decree – Purchaser bound by result of litigation and can only claim equitable consideration during partition proceedings – Observation in appellate judgment declaring sale “void” held to be a misstatement, but corrected later within the judgment [Paras 12–14].

Appellate Practice – No Substantial Question of Law – Appellant failed to demonstrate any perversity or legal error in appellate judgment – No substantial question of law arose – Second Appeal dismissed at admission stage [Paras 15–17].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – No substantial question of law arises – Rights of lis pendens purchaser to be considered at final decree stage only.

Trademark Law – Interim Injunction – 'TESLA' Mark – Plaintiff (Tesla Inc.) sought injunction against Defendants (Tesla Power India Private Limited & Ors.) for using 'TESLA POWER' / 'TESLA POWER USA' marks for batteries and EVs – Held: Plaintiff established prior user, overwhelming goodwill, trans-border reputation, and likelihood of confusion; Defendants' adoption was dishonest, and delay in filing suit was not a ground to deny injunction in cases of dishonest adoption [Paras 42-46].

Trademark Law – Infringement – Registered Proprietor Rights – Plaintiff, registered proprietor of 'TESLA' mark since 2013 for automobiles and structural parts (Class 12 & 37) and inverters (Class 09), sought injunction against Defendants using 'TESLA POWER' for lead acid batteries, inverters, UPS – Held: Plaintiff's registrations are prima facie evidence of validity; batteries are structural automobile parts for EVs (Class 12) and inverters are covered (Class 09), making Defendants' goods allied and cognate, thus constituting infringement [Paras 11-14].

Trademark Law – Well-Known Mark – Trans-Border Reputation – Plaintiff demonstrated significant global revenue ($98.6 billion in 2023), extensive website traffic from India, and media coverage – Held: Plaintiff's 'TESLA' mark has overwhelming goodwill and trans-border reputation extending to India, making it a well-known mark entitled to protection even if goods are not directly sold in India [Paras 15, 39-40].

Trademark Law – Dishonest Adoption – Awareness of Prior Mark – Defendants adopted 'TESLA POWER USA' despite knowing Plaintiff's 'TESLA' mark since February 2021 (from trademark registry citations) and having no client base in USA – Held: Defendants' adoption was prima facie dishonest, intended to mislead consumers into believing a connection with the US-based Plaintiff, and to ride on Plaintiff's goodwill and reputation [Paras 16-18, 28-29].

Trademark Law – Likelihood of Confusion – Identical Marks and Allied Goods – Defendants' use of 'TESLA POWER' for batteries and inverters, which are allied/cognate to Plaintiff's EVs and inverters, with 'TESLA' as the dominant feature – Held: High likelihood of confusion among average consumers with imperfect recollection, as 'TESLA' is identical and goods are allied; descriptive additions like 'POWER' or 'USA' do not sufficiently distinguish the marks [Paras 19-21, 36-37].

Trademark Law – Initial Interest Confusion – Test Application – Court applied the initial interest confusion test – Held: Even transient confusion at the preliminary stage, before actual purchase, is sufficient to establish deceptive similarity under Section 29 of the Act, as the infringer's objective may be served by diverting initial attention [Paras 22-23].

Trademark Law – Passing Off – Goodwill and Actual Confusion – Plaintiff demonstrated substantial goodwill and actual instances of confusion (media reports, consumer complaints, FIRs) where Defendants were mistaken for Plaintiff's subsidiary – Held: A prima facie case of passing off is established, as Plaintiff is likely to suffer loss of reputation due to Defendants' goods being passed off as Plaintiff's [Paras 20, 24, 7.17].

Trademark Law – Delay in Filing Suit – Dishonest Adoption – Plaintiff filed suit in 2024, aware of Defendants since 2022, particularly after Defendants entered EV space – Held: Delay in filing suit is not a ground to deny interim injunction when the adoption of the impugned mark is dishonest; injunction must follow in cases of trademark infringement [Paras 25-27, 7.11].

Trademark Law – Approbate and Reprobate – Estoppel – Defendants applied for registration of 'TESLA POWER' and 'TESLA USA' marks, but then argued 'TESLA' is common to trade and generic – Held: Defendants cannot approbate and reprobate by seeking registration for a mark and simultaneously claiming it is common to trade; this constitutes an abuse of process [Paras 30-31, 5.34, 7.5, 7.9].

Trademark Law – Third-Party Use – Defense – Defendants cited third-party registrations and use of 'TESLA' (e.g., NVIDIA Corporation for computer hardware) to argue a 'crowded market' – Held: Third-party use is not a valid defense against infringement, especially when such uses are not for identical or allied goods (automobiles/batteries) in India, or are subsequent to Plaintiff's adoption; Plaintiff is not expected to sue every small infringer [Paras 33-35, 5.35, 7.5, 7.8].

Decision – Interim Injunction Granted – Application for interim injunction allowed – Held: Defendants are restrained from using 'TESLA POWER' / 'TESLA POWER USA' or any deceptively similar marks/trade names/domain names for EVs, promotional advertisements for EVs, and from using registered device/logos of 'TESLA' – This injunction also extends to Lead Acid Batteries for all automobiles, Inverters, and UPS [Paras 45-47].

Service Law – Coast Guard Officers – Superannuation Age – Rule 20(1) and (2) of 1986 Rules Struck Down – Discrimination Unjustified – Petitioners challenged constitutionality of differential retirement ages: 57 years for officers of rank of Commandant and below, and 60 for senior ranks – Held: All officers are similarly situated within the same force – No rational nexus shown to justify the differentia – Rule violates Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution – Court found lack of empirical data or logical justification in Union's reasoning – Mere references to young age profile, operational command, or training structure were vague and unsubstantiated – Disparate age of retirement adversely affects morale and serves no legitimate purpose [Paras 35–39.9].

Armed Forces – Article 33 of Constitution – Judicial Review of Service Conditions – Limits on Invocation – Article 33 allows Parliament to modify or restrict fundamental rights of Armed Forces members – However, such restriction must relate to discharge of duty or discipline – Held: Rule 20(1)-(2) fails to meet this test – No evidence that disparity in retirement age furthers discipline or functional efficiency – Invocation of Article 33 to justify Rule is unconvincing and arbitrary – Court has power to review such measures if the justification is colourable or lacking in nexus [Paras 37–38.8].

Service Law – Paramilitary Forces – Parity with CAPFs – Dev Sharma Case Extended to Coast Guard – Though Dev Sharma judgment applied to CAPFs (CRPF, BSF, ITBP, SSB), Coast Guard also functions as a paramilitary force – Madras and Kerala High Courts previously recognised parity – Supreme Court dismissed SLPs against Dev Sharma – Held: Coast Guard not shown to be fundamentally different in operational structure or purpose – Parity in retirement age mandated to uphold constitutional equality [Paras 21, 23, 36].

Administrative Law – Reasonableness of Executive Policy – Failure to Provide Valid Justification – Judicial Scrutiny Warranted – MOD’s justifications such as age-related ailments, training infrastructure, command issues, or supersession found speculative and unsupported – Respondents failed to demonstrate any data-based or reasoned basis for fixing lower retirement age – Such vague assertions insufficient to meet constitutional muster – Held: Court cannot defer to executive if discrimination is shown to be irrational or unsupported [Paras 38.3–39.8.10].

Remedy – Relief Granted – Notional Continuity and Arrears of Benefits – Petitioners, though already superannuated at 57, held entitled to be deemed in service till age 60 – Notional benefits including pay, increments, and revised retiral dues to be granted – Direction to disburse benefits within 12 weeks [Paras 41–44].

Decision: Writ Petitions allowed – Rule 20(1) and 20(2) of the Coast Guard (General) Rules, 1986 declared unconstitutional to the extent they fix superannuation age at 57 for Commandant and below – All officers in Coast Guard entitled to retire at 60 – Respondents directed to recalculate and disburse revised benefits within 12 weeks.

Criminal Law – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Hostile Witnesses – Conviction Upheld – Appellant convicted for murdering his minor daughter by strangulation using cloth string – Though complainant-wife and other family members turned hostile, prosecution proved the case through reliable circumstantial evidence including written complaint, FIR, medical evidence, and recovery of cloth string at accused’s instance – Held: Despite hostile witnesses, chain of circumstances including conduct of appellant, recovery, and medical findings were sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction justified [Paras 19–26, 38–40].

Indian Evidence Act – Section 106 – Facts within Special Knowledge – Accused’s Failure to Explain – Adverse Inference Drawn – Appellant was present at home at time of incident and failed to offer any plausible explanation for his daughter’s death – Held: Once prosecution proved that death occurred inside house and accused was present, burden shifted on accused under Section 106 – Appellant’s vague denial and evasive response in Section 313 statement reinforced prosecution case – No explanation from accused leads to presumption of guilt [Paras 27–28, 38].

Indian Evidence Act – Section 27 – Discovery of Incriminating Material – Recovery of Weapon – Cloth string used for strangulation recovered at accused’s instance and proved by Investigating Officer – Held: Recovery admissible under Section 27 as fact discovered was directly linked to the crime – Site plan, recovery memo, and arrest memo corroborate prosecution version – Recovery not contradicted in cross-examination [Paras 26, 38].

Criminal Trial – Hostile Witnesses – Impact on Prosecution Case – Wife, son, and daughter-in-law of accused turned hostile and retracted earlier statements – Held: Hostility of witnesses does not automatically nullify prosecution case if other credible and corroborated evidence exists – Written complaint proved through independent scribe (PW-3) – Medical and forensic evidence corroborated version in FIR – Court can rely on proved documents even if author turns hostile [Paras 19–25, 38].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Circumstantial Evidence – Principles Reiterated – Court applied Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles – Held: Chain of circumstances consistent only with guilt of accused – No alternative hypothesis consistent with innocence – Prosecution not required to prove motive where other circumstantial links are strong and complete [Paras 31, 33, 36–37].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and life sentence under Section 302 IPC upheld – Appellant failed to discharge burden under Section 106 of Evidence Act – Recovery and post-mortem findings support guilt – Hostility of witnesses does not weaken prosecution case in light of clinching circumstantial evidence [Paras 38–40].

Prevention of Corruption Act – Demand and Acceptance – Trap Case – Acquittal Upheld – Accused government servant alleged to have demanded ₹2000 as bribe for effecting mutation entry – Complainant approached ACB, trap laid, and accused caught with tainted money – Trial court acquitted the accused on ground that demand was not proved – Held: Mere inquiry “whether the money is brought” does not constitute demand in law – Initial demand alleged by PW-1 not found in his police statement and proved to be a material omission by PW-5 (Investigating Officer) – Evidence of PW-2 (Panch) and PW-3 (complainant’s son) also suffered from contradictions and omissions – Presence of all three key witnesses at the spot found doubtful – Acquittal justified [Paras 11–14].

Sanction for Prosecution – Application of Mind – Valid Sanction Mandatory – Sanction order (Exh. 56) issued by PW-4 (Sanctioning Authority) found to be based on a pre-drafted proforma sent by ACB – No independent evaluation of documents or service records – Held: Sanction was granted without application of mind – Invalid sanction vitiates prosecution under Section 19 of PC Act – Acquittal cannot be interfered where foundational legal requirement not met [Paras 15–17].

Suppression of Material Evidence – Non-filing of Accused’s Post-Trap Explanation – Adverse Inference – Though accused’s statement was recorded immediately after trap, prosecution did not place it on record or include it in charge-sheet – Held: Suppression of post-trap statement violates fair trial principles – Court entitled to presume that withheld evidence was adverse to prosecution – Material defect fatal to case [Paras 18–19].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Appeal Against Acquittal – Limited Scope – Interference Only if Findings Perverse – Reaffirmation of principles from P. Somaraju v. State of A.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2291 – Appellate court must respect double presumption of innocence in acquittal cases – Reversal only warranted where trial court’s view is manifestly illegal or unjust – Held: Trial court’s view was a possible and plausible one based on evidence and omissions – No interference warranted [Paras 6, 20].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal confirmed – Accused exonerated of all charges under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.