Civil Law - Arbitration - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Section 9 - Interim protection - Applicant sought injunction against release of Hindi film Drishyam 3 claiming infringement of copyright acquired via 2013 and 2014 agreements - Respondents contended that applicant had assigned relevant rights to third parties through subsequent settlement and assignment agreements - Court found that the subsistence of the applicant's alleged exclusive or joint copyright was seriously disputed by the production of subsequent contractual documents - Held - Applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of subsisting enforceable right requiring immediate interim protection - Application dismissed - [Paras 10-16].

Civil Law - Copyright - Copyright Act 1957 - Section 62 - Infringement - Claim of joint ownership of Hindi remake rights - Respondents proved that the right to produce the Hindi sequel was based on valid assignments and subsequent settlement agreements acknowledged by the parties - Court held that in the face of competing contractual claims and documentation casting doubt on the applicant's title, a sweeping injunction against the film's release cannot be granted at the interlocutory stage - Held - No clear material placed to justify restraint - Application dismissed - [Paras 12-15].

Decision: Original application dismissed for lack of prima facie case and failure to establish clear subsisting copyright ownership at the interlocutory stage.

IBC - Insolvency and Bankruptcy - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 - Section 31 - Extinguishment of claims - Petitioner underwent Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process and resolution plan was approved on 11 August 2023 - GST authorities issued demand notices in 2025 and 2026 for tax liabilities pertaining to Financial Year 2021-22 - No claim was lodged by authorities during insolvency process - Court held that statutory dues not forming part of approved resolution plan stand extinguished and authorities lack jurisdiction to initiate or continue any proceedings - Held - Impugned notices and orders quashed - [Paras 1-32].

Writ Law - Jurisdiction - Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 - Section 73 - Doctrine of fresh slate - Authorities contended that adjudication is distinct from recovery and permissible under CGST Act - Court held that once resolution plan is approved the successful applicant takes over business on a fresh slate - Any attempt to initiate adjudication proceedings for pre-approval claims acts as a roadblock to the implementation of the plan and is barred by Section 31 of the IBC - Held - Respondents lacked authority to initiate proceedings - [Paras 10-21].

Writ Law - Maintainability - Alternative remedy - Availability of appellate remedy under Section 107 of CGST Act - Court held that when an authority acts wholly without jurisdiction or in defiance of binding law and when facts are admitted the presence of an appellate remedy is not an absolute bar to exercising writ jurisdiction - Relied on Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks - Held - Writ petition maintainable - [Para 24].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Impugned Show Cause-cum-Demand Notice dated 26 September 2025, Order-in-Original dated 29 December 2025, and notice dated 13 January 2026 quashed and set aside.

Writ Law - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 - Section 107 - Petitioner challenged confiscation order passed under Section 130 of the CGST Act alleging violation of natural justice and Rule 138B of the CGST Rules - Court found that the adjudicating authority had followed remand directions, supplied necessary documents, and provided personal hearing opportunities - Held - No exceptional circumstances such as breach of fundamental rights or lack of jurisdiction exist to bypass the alternative efficacious statutory remedy provided under Section 107 - Writ petition dismissed - [Paras 7-9].

Civil Law - Alternative Statutory Remedy - Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 - Section 107 - Grievance regarding non-supply of Relied Upon Documents (RUDs) and dissatisfaction with the adjudicatory reasoning - Court held that such matters fall squarely within the appellate framework and do not justify invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Held - Petitioner relegated to pursue statutory appeal - [Paras 10-11].

Writ Law - Principles of Natural Justice - Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 - Rule 138B - Physical verification of conveyance - Petitioner alleged officer lacked jurisdiction and violated Rule 138B - Court upon examination of records found physical verification was carried out by a proper officer authorised by the Commissioner and that procedural due process was followed - Held - Contention of procedural illegality rejected - [Paras 7-7.1].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Petitioner relegated to the alternative statutory remedy of filing an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act.

Writ Law - Look Out Circular - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Right to travel - Petitioner bank sought review of order cancelling LOC issued against guarantor of a corporate entity - Bank argued that pending potential bankruptcy proceedings and guarantor status justified continued restriction - Court held that a loan default without allegations of fraud does not justify the infringement of the fundamental right to travel under Article 21 - LOCs cannot be issued by banks without statutory backing - No error apparent on the face of the record found - Review dismissed - [Paras 8-19].

Civil Law - Review Jurisdiction - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XLVII Rule 1 - Scope of review - Petitioner attempted to re-argue the case on merits by introducing facts available but not presented during original hearing - Court held that review is not an appeal in disguise and new arguments do not constitute discovery of new facts - Held - Review petition devoid of merit - [Paras 8-19].

Constitutional Law - Right to travel - Article 21 - Executive power - LOC issued by bank requisition - Court held that a letter from a bank manager to the Bureau of Immigration does not constitute law and cannot restrict the fundamental right to travel - Only a valid legislation can impose such restrictions - Held - The right to travel cannot be curtailed solely to compel the repayment of a civil debt - [Paras 17-18].

Decision: Review Petition dismissed – Original order directing revocation of the Look Out Circular upheld.

Criminal Law - Immoral Traffic - Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956 - Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 - Applicant-accused convicted for running a brothel - Contention raised that victim being an illegal immigrant rendered the prosecution unsustainable - Held - The status of a victim as an illegal immigrant does not mitigate the criminality of the perpetrator nor serve as a license for exploitation - The object of PITA is to punish perpetrators and not to shame victims - The immigration label does not extinguish the dignity or protection due to a victim of trafficking - [Paras 10-12].

Criminal Law - Procedural Law - Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956 - Sections 13 and 14 - Special Police Officer - Authorization of investigation - Applicant challenged conviction on grounds that the Investigating Officer (IO) was not a Special Police Officer and lacked proper authorization - Held - The authorization order at Exhibit-28 specifically empowered the IO to act under proviso (iii) of Section 14 of PITA due to urgency and risk of destruction of evidence - The statutory requirement for authorization by the Special Police Officer was fully satisfied - [Paras 15-16].

Evidence Law - Witness Credibility - Interested Witnesses - NGO volunteers - Prosecution relied upon witnesses associated with an NGO and a local panch - Contention that NGO workers are interested witnesses and independent witnesses were not examined - Held - In cases of raids on brothels, independent witnesses from the neighborhood are often unavailable - Testimony of volunteers and panch witnesses cannot be discarded merely on suspicion or their association with rescue operations - [Paras 13-14].

Criminal Law - Revisional Jurisdiction - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 397 and 401 - Concurrent findings of fact - Trial Court and Appellate Court recorded concurrent findings of guilt - Held - Re-appreciation of evidence is not permitted in revisional jurisdiction where courts below have not committed any perversity or miscarriage of justice - Revision application dismissed - [Paras 23-24].

Decision: Criminal Revision Application dismissed – Rule discharged – Bail bond and surety canceled – Applicant granted 4 weeks to surrender.

Criminal Law - NDPS - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Section 15 - Procedural Lapses - Investigation conducted in reverse order including registration of FIR prior to recovery and failure to comply with Section 42 requirements - Witnesses provided contradictory versions regarding the movement of police personnel and the timing of the search and seizure - Prosecution failed to link the accused with the contraband recovered - Held - Order of acquittal confirmed - [Paras 24-30, 39-40].

Criminal Law - Identification - Evidence Act 1872 - Section 9 - Identification of suspect - Prosecution witnesses claimed to have identified the respondent in moonlight at night while he was fleeing despite admitting they did not know him previously and that no such identification was recorded in statements under Section 161 CrPC - Held - Claim of identification is unbelievable and creates substantial doubt on the prosecution case - [Paras 32-35].

Criminal Law - Evidence - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Disclosure statement - Co-accused - Respondent cannot be convicted solely on the basis of a disclosure statement made by a co-accused - Held - Conviction cannot be sustained without independent corroborative evidence - [Para 36].

Criminal Law - Practice and Procedure - Trial - Prosecution split the trial into two separate challans for the same FIR and incident without justification - Failure to present a supplementary challan against the respondent resulted in procedural mess - Held - Prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt - [Paras 27, 37].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of the respondent upheld – Respondent directed to furnish bail bonds in the sum of ₹25,000/- with one surety under Section 481 of BNSS for a period of six months

Criminal Law - Quashing of Proceedings - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 323, 376, 504 and 506 - Information Technology Act 2000 - Section 67(A) - Applicant sought quashing of criminal case alleging rape on false promise of marriage - Prosecution alleged accused concealed prior marriage and exploited victim via non-consensual sexual acts and threats - Court found evidence established a long-standing consensual relationship rather than sexual assault - Evidence indicated victim was aware of applicant's marital status and voluntarily entered relationship - Absence of proof regarding initial mala fide intent to deceive or lack of intent to marry at inception - Held - Proceedings constituted abuse of process of court and were liable to be quashed - [Paras 19-47].

Criminal Law - Rape - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 376 - Consent - Section 90 - Misconception of fact - False promise of marriage - Distinction between rape and consensual sex - Mere breach of promise to marry without proof of initial mala fide intent to deceive for sexual gratification does not amount to rape - Held - Relationship must be evaluated based on duration, conduct of parties, and absence of protest - Where relationship is voluntary and based on mutual affection, subsequent souring of relations does not retrospectively criminalize prior sexual acts - [Paras 20-38].

Evidence Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Criminal Procedure Code 1973 - Section 161 and 164 - Admissibility - Reliability of prosecutrix statement - Court held that statement of victim of sexual assault is not to be treated as gospel truth and must be tested on the anvil of probability and corroborating material - Held - Evidence including WhatsApp chats and photographs established consent and negated allegations of coercion or ignorance of the accused's marital status - [Paras 27-40].

Decision: Application allowed – Charge-sheet dated 18/07/2020 and all proceedings of Criminal Case No. 11358 of 2020 pending before the 3rd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, are hereby quashed.

Civil Law - Temporary Injunction - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 - Principle of Balance of Convenience and Irreparable Injury - Plaintiff filed suit for partition of ancestral property claiming through lineage that was rejected by trial court - While appeal against dismissal was pending plaintiff obtained injunction against defendants constructing a new house on the site of an old demolished ancestral home - High Court observed that plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case regarding his lineage or entitlement - Held - Restraining the reconstruction of a residential dwelling by the defendants at the same location where they previously resided causes greater hardship to them than to the plaintiff whose potential interest is limited to a fractional share that can be compensated or adjusted upon final adjudication - Impugned injunction set aside - [Paras 1-9].

Civil Law - Injunction - Balance of Convenience - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XXXIX - Right to Reconstruct - Where a defendant seeks to reconstruct an existing residential building in his possession and the plaintiff claims only a partial interest in the property - Held - The court must weigh the irreparable injury to the defendant losing shelter against the speculative prejudice to the plaintiff - Since the plaintiff's share can be secured by future adjustment of property or monetary compensation the court will not grant an injunction preventing reasonable enjoyment of the property - [Paras 7-9].

Decision: Appeal allowed - Order of injunction passed in I.A.No.1/2025 in A.S.No.24/2025 of the Sub Court, Cherthala is set aside - Sub Court directed to expedite disposal of the appeal.

Civil Law - Pre-emption - West Bengal Land Reforms Act 1955 - Sections 8 and 9 - Joint application by adjacent land owners - Petitioner challenged a joint pre-emption application by multiple claimants and the granting of partial pre-emption regarding specific plots - Trial court and first appellate court allowed pre-emption in favour of the applicant with the longest common boundary - High Court held that a joint application by separate sets of claimants with a single deposit is maintainable and partial pre-emption is permissible for specific plots when contiguous to the pre-emptor's land - Concurrent findings of fact by courts below do not warrant interference under Article 227 - Held - Revision petition dismissed - [Paras 1-37].

Civil Law - Pre-emption - West Bengal Land Reforms Act 1955 - Section 8 - Partial pre-emption - Whether permissible when multiple plots are transferred by a single deed - High Court clarified that partial pre-emption is maintainable for plots contiguous to the pre-emptor's land to prevent vendors from defeating pre-emption rights by including stray properties in a single deed - Held - Claim of pre-emption on the ground of vicinage is valid for contiguous plots - [Paras 27-28].

Civil Law - Pre-emption - West Bengal Land Reforms Act 1955 - Section 8 - Pre-requisite of co-sharer - Whether pre-emption by an adjoining owner is maintainable in the absence of a co-sharer - Petitioner argued pre-emption requires a co-sharer - High Court rejected the contention noting that Section 8 provides a hierarchy of preference and a raiyat possessing land adjoining the holding is entitled to pre-empt even if no co-sharer exists - Held - Adjoining land owner status is sufficient for pre-emption claim - [Paras 19-20].

Civil Law - Supervisory Jurisdiction - Constitution of India - Article 227 - Limitation of High Court to interfere with concurrent findings of fact - Held - High Court cannot enter into disputed questions of fact unless findings are perverse or based on irrelevant factors - [Paras 31-32].

Decision: Civil Revision dismissed – Impugned judgment and order of the first appellate court affirmed.