Patent Infringement – Interim Injunction – Scope of Appellate Interference – Discretionary Relief – Appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC read with Section 13 Commercial Courts Act against order granting temporary injunction restraining defendant from manufacturing and selling mobile brick-making machines – Held: Division Bench will interfere only if order is ex-facie perverse or a view which could not reasonably be taken – Learned Single Judge’s view found to be a plausible and reasonable view – No interference warranted at interim stage [Paras 50–51, 58].

Territorial Jurisdiction – Patent Infringement – Offer for Sale – Injunction Suits – Objection that Delhi High Court lacked jurisdiction as defendant had no business in Delhi and no concluded sale – Quotation issued to Delhi-based party alleged to be trap sale – Held: For purposes of an injunction suit, preparedness, probability or offer for sale within territorial jurisdiction is sufficient – Actual concluded sale not mandatory where relief sought is prohibitory – Territorial jurisdiction upheld [Paras 46–49].

Patent Law – Pith and Marrow Doctrine – All Elements Rule – Applicability at Interim Stage – Contention that learned Single Judge wrongly applied pith and marrow doctrine instead of all-elements rule – Court held that determination of correct infringement test involves mixed questions of law and fact requiring evidence – Such issues not to be conclusively decided at stage of appeal against interim injunction – To be examined at trial [Paras 52–53].

Patent Infringement – Mobile Brick-Making Machines – Essence of Invention – Plaintiff’s patents relate to integrated mobile brick-making machine eliminating manual labour by mechanically moulding and laying bricks on ground while moving – Mobility held to be the core and essence of the invention – Defendant’s machine, though moved by attachment to tractor and not self-propelled, still achieved same functional mobility through similar integrated assembly of hopper, roller and dies – Differences in mode of mobility held prima facie inconsequential at interim stage [Paras 54–56].

Differences in Design – Whether Sufficient to Avoid Infringement – Interim Assessment – Defendant relied on absence of cabin, steering mechanism, front wheels and motor-driven rear wheels – Court held that these differences all relate to the single aspect of mobility – Learned Single Judge correctly assessed that they do not detract from the fundamental inventive concept – Prima facie infringement made out [Paras 57–58].

Balance of Convenience and Irreparable Injury – Patent Rights – Court held that refusal of injunction would seriously prejudice patentee’s statutory monopoly and goodwill, injury whereof cannot be adequately compensated in money – Defendant, if ultimately successful, can be compensated monetarily – Balance of convenience favoured grant of injunction [Para 59].

Doctrine of Equivalence – Prima Facie View – Use of different means (tractor-driven kinetic movement instead of self-propelled motor) to achieve substantially same function and result does not, at interim stage, take defendant outside scope of patent protection – Substantial similarity sufficient for interim relief [Paras 54–56].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Interim injunction granted by learned Single Judge upheld – Observations confined to interim stage and not to prejudice final adjudication – Parties left to bear their own costs.

Anticipatory Bail – Sections 318(4) & 319(2) BNS - Impersonation in Public Examination – Extraordinary Nature of Relief – Petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in FIR alleging that another person appeared in a recruitment examination on his behalf using his roll number and documents – CCTV footage and seizure of documents indicated impersonation – Held: Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy to be granted only in exceptional circumstances and not as a matter of rule [Paras 8–12].

Cheating and Impersonation – Prima Facie Involvement – Roll number allotted to petitioner and admit card used by co-accused to appear in examination – Court held that such impersonation could not have occurred without petitioner’s complicity – Prima facie case of abetment made out against petitioner [Paras 13–14].

Public Examinations – Sanctity of Recruitment Process – Impersonation in employment examination undermines public confidence and fairness – Reliance placed on Supreme Court precedent holding that persons involved in cheating in public examinations are not entitled to bail – Public interest outweighs individual liberty at anticipatory bail stage [Paras 14–15, 17].

Parity – Distinction between Anticipatory Bail and Regular Bail – Co-accused granted regular bail – Held: Principle of parity not applicable as parameters for pre-arrest bail and regular bail are materially different [Para 16].

Investigation – Interference by Grant of Pre-Arrest Bail – Investigation at a continuing stage – Grant of anticipatory bail would hamper fair investigation – Petition dismissed [Paras 18–20].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Anticipatory bail declined.

Writ Jurisdiction – Maintainability – Bar Association – Bar Association registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 – Body of private lawyers formed for welfare of its members – Does not discharge public functions – Not ‘State’ or instrumentality under Article 12 of Constitution – Held: Writ petition under Article 226 seeking mandamus against Bar Association not maintainable [Paras 15–17].

Mandamus – Preconditions – For issuance of mandamus, existence of statutory duty and failure to discharge such duty essential – Bar Association under no statutory obligation to initiate criminal or disciplinary proceedings against its members – No mandamus can be issued to compel a private body to act in a particular manner [Paras 17–18].

Advocate Chamber – Permissive Possession – No Enforceable Right – Appellant advocate not allottee of chamber – Occupation based on permissive possession granted by allottee – No independent legal or enforceable right over chamber – Held: Absence of legal right disentitles petitioner from invoking writ jurisdiction [Paras 10–11].

Alleged Criminal Trespass – Alternative Remedies – Allegations of trespass, threats and dispossession amount to criminal offences – Remedy lies under Code of Criminal Procedure – High Court will not issue directions for registration of criminal case when statutory remedies available – Reliance placed on Sakiri Vasu and Priyanka Srivastava [Paras 11, 18].

Bar Council of Delhi – Disciplinary Jurisdiction – Bar Council is statutory body empowered to take disciplinary action against advocates – Appellant neither approached Bar Council nor impleaded it as a party – Held: Mandamus cannot be sought without first invoking jurisdiction of competent statutory authority [Paras 19–21].

Prayer Partly Not Pressed – Effect – Even though prayer for restoration of possession was not pressed subsequently, remaining prayer seeking action against advocates still not maintainable – Lack of public law element fatal to writ petition [Paras 13–15].

Decision – Intra-court appeal dismissed – Order of Single Judge dismissing writ petition as not maintainable affirmed – Liberty reserved to appellant to pursue appropriate civil, criminal or disciplinary remedies in accordance with law – No order as to costs [Paras 22–24].

Criminal Law – Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder – Section 304 IPC – Group Assault with Lathis and Dandas – Conviction Sustained – Deceased sustained multiple grievous injuries in a concerted assault by appellants armed with lathis and dandas – Death occurred as a direct consequence of injuries – Held: Nature, number and gravity of injuries coupled with manner of assault clearly establish knowledge that such acts were likely to cause death – Conviction under Section 304 read with Section 34 IPC justified [Paras 41–45, 62–64, 71].

Common Intention – Section 34 IPC – Pre-meditated Assault – Appellants were lying in wait near Mattan Nala armed with weapons and launched coordinated attack on deceased and injured witnesses – Conduct before, during and after incident shows acting in furtherance of common intention – Held: Section 34 IPC rightly invoked [Paras 44–45].

Evidence – Injured Eye-Witnesses – Non-Examination of Independent Witnesses – Prosecution relied on testimonies of injured witnesses PW-2 and PW-3 – Villagers who arrived later not examined – Held: Testimony of injured witnesses stands on higher pedestal – Non-examination of independent witnesses not fatal when ocular evidence is consistent, natural and corroborated by medical evidence [Paras 36–40].

Medical Evidence vis-à-vis Ocular Testimony – Alleged Contradictions – Defence alleged inconsistency between medical and ocular evidence, particularly regarding stab-like injuries – Medical experts opined possibility of injuries caused by fall on hard surface – Held: No irreconcilable contradiction – Ocular evidence duly corroborated by medical evidence – Ocular version prevails [Paras 46–55].

Night Occurrence – Identification of Accused – Moonlight and Prior Acquaintance – Incident occurred at night – Defence alleged absence of light and false implication – Held: Occurrence took place on a bright moonlit night (Ekadashi) – Accused and witnesses were co-villagers with prior acquaintance – Identification reliable and trustworthy [Paras 56–61].

Section 304 IPC vs Section 325 IPC – Knowledge of Likely Death – Argument that offence would not travel beyond Section 325 IPC rejected – Held: Brutal group assault on a 46-year-old man causing multiple fractures establishes knowledge of likelihood of death – Offence rightly falls under Section 304 IPC [Paras 62–64].

Intentional Insult – Section 504 IPC – Ingredients Not Made Out – General allegation of abuses without specification of words or provocation – Held: Mere allegation of abuse insufficient – Essential ingredients of Section 504 IPC not proved – Conviction under Section 504 IPC set aside [Paras 65–70, 72].

Sentence – Modification on Grounds of Lapse of Time and Age of Accused – Original sentence of life imprisonment modified – Considering incident of 1993, pendency of appeal for over two decades and age of appellants – Sentence reduced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 IPC – Fine enhanced and compensation directed to be paid to legal heirs of deceased [Paras 74–76].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Sections 304/34, 325/34, 323/34 and 506(2) IPC affirmed – Conviction under Section 504 IPC set aside – Sentence modified to 10 years rigorous imprisonment with enhanced fine and compensation – Appellants directed to surrender.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – Power to be used sparingly – Prima Facie Case Absent – No Role Attributed – Names Not in FIR – Petitioners (except those named in FIR) not identified by witnesses and not linked to offences by any direct or circumstantial evidence – Held: Continuation of proceedings against such petitioners amounts to abuse of process – Cognizance order and criminal proceedings quashed qua unnamed petitioners – Trial to continue only against Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 9, 11, and 16 [Paras 1, 4–6, 12–13, 22–26]

Criminal Law – Protest Turning Violent – FIR Alleging Vandalism, Assault, and Outraging Modesty – Allegations Found Largely Omnibus – Prosecution Unable to Link Vandalism to Specific Accused – Recovery of Broken Furniture and ABVP Flags not Sufficient to Sustain Charges – Simple Injuries Alleged without Medical Proof – Acquittal of Juvenile Co-Accused on Same Evidence Considered Relevant – Petitioners entitled to relief under Bhajan Lal Guidelines [Paras 22–24]

Public Employment – Adverse Impact of Prosecution – Consideration of Career Stakes – Petitioner in CRLMC No. 1017/2024 selected for multiple public posts – Criminal case preventing joining – No prior criminal antecedents – Held: In absence of concrete evidence, continuation of proceedings would unfairly jeopardize future – Court considers such facts while applying discretion under Section 482 CrPC [Para 24]

Inherent Powers – Guiding Principles – Reiterated Principles from R.P. Kapur, Madhu Limaye, Bhajan Lal and Neeharika Infrastructure – Inherent power under Section 482 CrPC not to be exercised arbitrarily – Meant to prevent miscarriage of justice – Must not result in a mini-trial – High Court must avoid appreciation of evidence unless case falls into recognised exceptions [Paras 14–21]

Decision: CRLMC applications allowed in part – Criminal proceedings and cognizance order dated 14.11.2018 quashed only in respect of petitioners not named in FIR – Proceedings to continue against Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 9, 11 and 16 in CRLMC No. 2832/2024 – Trial court directed to expedite and conclude trial within six months [Paras 26–28]

Criminal Law – Murder and Rape – Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence – Acquittal – Appellant convicted under Sections 302 and 376 IPC for alleged rape and murder of a young woman inside a house – Prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence and alleged “last seen” circumstance – No direct eyewitness to the occurrence – Held: Chain of circumstances not complete and prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Benefit of doubt granted – Conviction set aside [Paras 26–34, 53–55].

Circumstantial Evidence – Golden Principles – Failure to Establish Complete Chain – Prosecution relied on recovery of articles, alleged presence of accused at spot and medical evidence – Circumstances neither conclusively proved nor inconsistent with innocence of accused – Possibility of alternative hypothesis not ruled out – Held: Conviction cannot be sustained when circumstances fall short of the standard laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda case [Paras 26–33].

Last Seen Theory – Limited Applicability – Accused allegedly seen leaving the house where deceased was found dead – Appellant not last seen together with deceased – Mere sighting of accused coming out of the house insufficient to complete chain of circumstances – Held: “Last seen” theory by itself cannot form basis of conviction without other clinching links [Paras 33–35].

Evidence – Chance Witnesses – Credibility and Cautious Scrutiny – Prosecution relied mainly on testimony of chance witnesses who were neither natural nor convincing in their presence at spot – Conduct of witnesses found unnatural – Failure to explain presence satisfactorily – Held: Testimony of chance witnesses unreliable and unsafe to base conviction upon [Paras 35–45].

Medical Evidence – Nature of Injury – Weapon Not Established – Deceased sustained a deep, wide incised wound on neck severing vital structures – Alleged weapon was knife – Held: Injury of such magnitude could not be caused by ordinary knife – Prosecution failed to explain inconsistency between medical evidence and alleged weapon – Serious doubt created about prosecution story [Paras 47–49].

Investigation – Serious Lapses – Ante-timing and Doubtful Recoveries – Delay in recording statements, unexplained overwriting in Panchayatnama, late dispatch of FIR, doubtful recovery of book and postcard without witness signatures – Held: Though lapses alone may not be fatal, in a case resting on circumstantial evidence such defects assume significance and weaken prosecution case [Paras 46, 50–52].

Benefit of Doubt – Two Views Possible – Evidence on record gave rise to more than one plausible hypothesis – Possibility of involvement of persons other than appellant not ruled out – Held: Where two views are possible, one favouring accused must be adopted [Paras 52–54].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 376 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted by giving benefit of doubt – Bail bonds cancelled and sureties discharged.

Cooperative Societies – Recovery of Maintenance Dues – Non-Member Flat Occupants – Petitioners received possession of flats from developer under unregistered agreement and were never admitted as society members – Society initiated recovery proceedings under Section 154B-29 of MCS Act for unpaid maintenance since 2005 – Held: Petitioners, though not members, were in occupation, using common services, and liable under Section 154B-29 [Paras 2, 3, 4, 26, 27].

Limitation – Applicability to Recovery Proceedings under MCS Act – Petitioners argued that demand raised in 2023 for arrears since 2005 was barred under Article 137, Limitation Act – Held: Section 154B-29 is a special mechanism with overriding clause and no prescribed limitation period – Limitation Act not attracted – Dues are recurring in nature and cannot be barred merely by passage of time [Paras 7, 19, 21].

Continuing Wrong – Monthly Maintenance Dues – Maintenance and service charges are recurring and arise from continuous occupation – Each month’s default constitutes fresh cause of action – Held: Non-payment is a continuing breach and cannot be defeated on the ground of delay – Concepts of stale claim and reasonable time inapplicable [Paras 22, 23, 24, 25].

Promoter's Duty under MOFA – Flat Ownership and Liability for Dues – Petitioners, having received flats in consideration and treated them as owned units, fell within meaning of “promoters” under MOFA – Held: Duty to form society and be part of it exists regardless of registration of agreement – Conduct establishes ownership and liability [Paras 26, 27].

Interest on Arrears – Validity of 21% Interest Charge – Society levied 21% interest on unpaid dues as per its bye-laws – Petitioners failed to demonstrate any statutory violation or ceiling breached – Held: Interest charge valid and enforceable [Para 28].

Registrar’s Power and Finality of Recovery – Registrar’s power under Section 154B-29 is independent and overrides other provisions – Recovery certificates once issued are final and enforceable as arrears of land revenue – Held: Statute ensures efficient, litigation-free recovery of dues essential for cooperative housing society’s functioning [Paras 18, 20, 21].

Decision: Writ Petitions dismissed – Recovery certificates upheld – No interference warranted – Request for stay of judgment also rejected [Paras 29–31].

Money Laundering – Bail – Prolonged Incarceration – Article 21 Rights – Trial Not Likely to Conclude Soon – Petitioner alleged to be involved in laundering proceeds of cyber fraud committed against foreign national by providing bank accounts and documents for shell companies – Co-accused allegedly impersonated petitioner and used his documents – Petitioner in custody since 20.12.2023 – 31 witnesses and over 6000 pages of documents – Held: Continued incarceration without early trial violates right to personal liberty under Article 21 – Bail granted in line with V. Senthil Balaji v. ED and Manish Sisodia v. ED [Paras 16, 20–26].

PMLA – Section 45 – Twin Conditions – Harmonization with Article 21 – Not an Absolute Bar – Bail provisions under Section 45 PMLA impose twin conditions but must be balanced with the fundamental right to liberty – Where trial is unlikely to conclude and accused has clean antecedents, Constitutional Courts can grant bail despite statutory bar – Stringent bail provisions not meant to perpetuate pre-trial punishment [Paras 18, 19, 22–24].

Parity – Co-Accused Granted Bail – Petitioner Similarly Placed – Co-accused granted bail by coordinate Bench – Petitioner entitled to bail on grounds of parity, prolonged custody and absence of recovery from his possession [Paras 10, 26].

Cyber Crime – Alleged Identity Misuse – Fake Companies – Bank Account Laundering – Allegations include use of petitioner’s ID to float shell companies and open bank accounts used for layering of foreign funds – Petitioner claimed he was unaware and documents were misused – Held: All such contentions to be evaluated during trial – Bail not to be withheld merely due to seriousness of offence [Paras 4–7, 25].

Decision: Bail application allowed – Petitioner to be released on bail in connection with Special Trial (P.M.L.A.) Case No. 12 of 2023 on furnishing bail bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties – Strict conditions imposed including no travel abroad, no interference with witnesses, and keeping mobile phone active – Court clarifies no opinion on merits of the case [Paras 27–29].

Accident Claim - Motor Accident Compensation – Income of Deceased – Salary plus Pension – Inclusion for Loss of Dependency – Deceased was a retired armed forces veteran drawing pension and also employed as Principal of a Government school – Tribunal excluded pension income while computing loss of dependency – Held: Pension being a recurring and assured source of income forms part of pecuniary benefit and must be included while assessing loss of income – Family pension received by widow is her independent right and cannot be deducted from income of deceased [Paras 8–10].

Motor Vehicles Act – Deduction towards Personal Expenses – Number of Dependents – Legal Representatives – Insurance company contended that major sons could not be treated as dependents – Court held that while computing compensation, all legal representatives are to be considered irrespective of marital status or actual dependency – With four claimants, deduction of 1/4th towards personal expenses held appropriate instead of 1/3rd [Paras 12].

Future Prospects – Addition of 15% – Deceased Aged 56 Years – Tribunal granted 15% towards future prospects – Held: In consonance with Pranay Sethi, addition of 15% justified for deceased aged between 50–60 years and in permanent employment [Para 11].

Conventional Heads – Consortium – Reassessment – Tribunal awarded limited amounts under conventional heads – Held: In light of Sarla Verma, Pranay Sethi and Satinder Kaur, claimants entitled to enhanced amounts – Loss of consortium payable to all four claimants at ₹48,000 each – Funeral expenses and loss of estate enhanced to ₹18,000 each – No separate compensation for loss of love and affection permissible [Paras 13–14].

Interest on Compensation – Rate of Interest – Award of interest at 9% per annum from date of filing of claim petition upheld – Direction issued that in case of default beyond three months, enhanced amount shall carry interest at 12% per annum thereafter [Para 15].

Cross Objections by Insurer – Reduction of Compensation – Rejected – Insurer challenged grant of future prospects, multiplier and rate of interest – Court found no merit in objections – Compensation reassessed leading to enhancement rather than reduction – Cross objections disposed of accordingly [Paras 6, 16].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Compensation enhanced from ₹67,04,800/- to ₹78,24,382.50/- – Enhanced amount of ₹11,19,582.50/- payable with interest – Cross objections dismissed – Award modified to aforesaid extent.