Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheque – Section 138 – Pre-cognizance Stage – Section 223 BNSS – Magistrate directed issuance of notice to accused before taking cognizance – Held impermissible in complaints under Section 138 N.I. Act, which is a special enactment – No requirement of issuing notice or summons to accused prior to taking cognizance [Paras 5–10].

Criminal Procedure – BNSS, 2023 – Section 223 – Interpretation of First Proviso – Opportunity of Hearing to Accused – Supreme Court clarified that proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS does not mandate pre-cognizance notice in cheque dishonour cases – Trial Court erred in applying proviso mechanically at pre-cognizance stage [Paras 6–10].

Precedent – Binding Nature – Supreme Court Decision – Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar – Law declared that issuance of notice to accused prior to cognizance is not required in N.I. Act cases – Held: Trial Court order contrary to binding precedent suffers from legal infirmity [Paras 8–10].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Motion Stage Disposal – Pure Question of Law – In view of settled legal position, criminal revision taken up and decided at motion stage – Issuance of notice to private respondents dispensed with [Paras 11].

Remand – Cognizance and Issuance of Process – Trial Court directed to reconsider matter afresh in accordance with law and Supreme Court ruling – Impugned order quashed to the extent of issuing pre-cognizance notice [Paras 10, 12–14].

Decision: Criminal revision allowed – Impugned order dated 25.09.2025 quashed to the extent it directed issuance of notice to accused at pre-cognizance stage – Trial Court directed to take fresh decision on cognizance and issuance of process in accordance with law.

Land Acquisition – Negotiated Compensation – Section 29(2) KIAD Act – Finality of Settlement – Petitioner accepted compensation through negotiation and executed agreement and indemnity bond under Section 29(2) KIAD Act – Compensation included market value, solatium, additional market value and interest – Held: Once compensation accepted in full and final settlement, claimant estopped from seeking further compensation or alternative reliefs such as allotment of sites [Paras 45–47].

Suppression of Material Facts – Acceptance of Compensation – Writ Jurisdiction – Petitioner failed to disclose receipt of ₹51,36,250/- towards compensation – Suppression of material facts disentitles petitioner from discretionary relief under Articles 226 and 227 – Writ petition liable to be dismissed on this ground alone [Paras 45–46].

Bangalore–Mysuru Infrastructure Corridor Project – Framework Agreement (FWA) – Binding Nature – FWA dated 03.04.1997 read with Project Technical Report (PTR) governs entire project – Project proponents entitled to develop only five demarcated self-sustaining townships – Any deviation impermissible without prior approval of State Government – Land acquired can be used only in conformity with FWA and PTR [Paras 56–62, 71–74].

Allotment of Sites to Land Losers – Contrary to FWA – Not Permissible – Claim for allotment of residential sites as compensation outside notified townships rejected – Such allotment would defeat integrated nature of infrastructure corridor and violate binding contractual framework – No enforceable promise shown for allotment of sites [Paras 68–74].

Effect of Supreme Court Judgment – BMICAP v. NICE (2021) 18 SCC 401 – Supreme Court authoritatively held that project proponents cannot develop land or layouts beyond five townships specified in FWA – Planning authorities lack jurisdiction to permit deviations without prior State approval – High Court bound by said declaration of law – Claims inconsistent with FWA/PTR not maintainable [Paras 56–62, 68–74].

Delay and Laches – Long Silence After Acquisition – Acquisition notifications issued in 1998 and 2003 – Compensation paid in 2007 – Writ petition pursued belatedly for additional benefits without explanation – Relief rightly declined on ground of delay and acquiescence [Paras 45–47].

Public Infrastructure Projects – Courts Not to Rewrite Contracts – Courts cannot compel State or project proponents to grant benefits not contemplated under statutory framework or binding agreements – Equity cannot override express contractual and statutory limitations governing large infrastructure projects [Paras 71–74].

Observations on BMIC Project – Public Interest – Court recorded serious concern over failure of BMIC Project to achieve objectives of decongestion and township development – Directed State Government to re-examine viability and future of project – However, such observations do not confer individual rights contrary to law [Paras 75–78].

Decision – Writ petition dismissed – Claim for allotment of sites and further compensation rejected – No relief granted – Pending applications disposed of [Para 79].

Employees’ Compensation – Insurer’s Liability – Interest on Compensation – Policy Exclusion Clause – Appeal by Insurance Company – Workman sustained permanent total disability due to fall from height during employment – Commissioner awarded compensation with 12% interest and imposed liability jointly on employer and insurer – Insurance policy produced at appellate stage showing specific exclusion of liability for interest and penalty – Held: Liability of insurer under Employees’ Compensation Act is purely contractual and governed by terms of insurance policy – In absence of statutory compulsion akin to Motor Vehicles Act, insurer cannot be fastened with liability beyond contract – Exclusion clause valid and enforceable – Insurer liable only to pay compensation amount – Employer liable to pay statutory interest [Paras 11–20].

Additional Evidence – Insurance Policy – Acceptance at Appellate Stage – Certified copy of full insurance policy not produced before Commissioner due to inadvertent omission – Policy certificate and premium receipts already on record – Additional document relevant for adjudication of substantial question of law – No dispute as to genuineness of document – Held: In the interest of justice, additional evidence permitted and relied upon [Paras 11–12].

Wages and Coverage – Employees’ Compensation Insurance – Insurer contended policy covered only seven welders drawing wages up to ₹4,000 per month whereas claimant alleged wages of ₹15,000 – Commissioner assessed wages at ₹4,000 per month – Held: Once Commissioner fixed wages within policy limit, insurer cannot deny coverage solely based on higher wage claim by workman [Para 10].

Substantial Question of Law – Direction to Pay Interest Contrary to Policy Terms – Whether Commissioner was justified in directing insurer to pay interest despite express exclusion in policy – Held: Issue involves interpretation of insurance contract and statutory scheme – Constitutes substantial question of law – Answered in favour of insurer [Paras 18–20].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Award modified – Insurer directed to pay only compensation amount – Employer directed to pay interest as awarded by Commissioner – No liability on insurer for interest or penalty.

Trade Marks – Section 11 – Relative Grounds of Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion – Registrar refused registration of mark “PETKIND” citing prior pending application for identical mark in Class 31 – Held: Likelihood of confusion is not to be presumed mechanically – Nature of goods, purchasing public, prior use and surrounding circumstances must be examined – Mere existence of a prior application does not automatically mandate refusal [Paras 10–13].

Family of Marks – ‘KIND’ Suffix – Prior User Advantage – Appellant established extensive prior use and registration of “KIND” family of marks across multiple classes including Class 31 – Appellant held to be prior user of “KIND” since 1986 – Continuous and extensive use resulted in public association of “KIND” with appellant – Entitled to higher degree of protection [Paras 14–16].

Well-Known Trade Mark – Effect – Mark “MANKIND” declared well-known under Rule 124 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 – Recognition as well-known mark strengthens appellant’s claim over “KIND” formative marks – Registrar failed to accord due weight to well-known status while refusing registration [Paras 14–15].

Prior Pending Application – ‘Proposed to be Used’ Basis – Limited Evidentiary Value – Cited mark relied upon by Registrar was on “proposed to be used” basis with no evidence of actual commercial use – In contrast, appellant demonstrated overwhelming registrations and goodwill in “KIND” family – Held: A mere proposed-use application cannot defeat established proprietary rights of a prior and extensive user [Paras 15–16].

Registrar’s Duty – Holistic Examination of Record – Registrar failed to consider appellant’s existing registrations in Class 31 with “KIND” suffix – Non-consideration of material evidence renders refusal arbitrary and legally unsustainable – Examination under Section 11 must be comparative and contextual [Paras 15–16].

Distinctiveness – Arbitrary Mark – “PETKIND” held to be inherently distinctive as applied to Class 31 goods – Use of suffix “KIND” operates as source identifier of appellant – Subject mark not descriptive of goods and capable of distinguishing appellant’s products [Paras 8.3–8.5, 14].

Opposition Proceedings – Clarification – Allowing appeal does not preclude third parties from opposing registration – Any opposition to be decided independently on merits without influence of appellate findings [Para 18].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Impugned order dated 06.11.2024 set aside – Registrar directed to proceed with advertisement of trade mark “PETKIND” under Application No. 5157443 within two months – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 17–21].

Criminal Law - Rape of Minor – Conviction – Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix – Sufficiency of Evidence – Appellant convicted under Section 376(2)(f)(i) IPC, Section 6 POCSO Act and Section 451 IPC – Victim aged about 9 years at time of incident – Victim categorically stated in cross-examination that appellant made full penetration – Held: Conviction can be sustained on sole testimony of prosecutrix if it inspires confidence – No rule of law requiring corroboration in every case [Paras 3.1–3.4, 4.2].

Medical Evidence – Absence of Injuries – Not Fatal to Prosecution – Doctor found no recent clinical signs of sexual intercourse and no injuries on victim – Held: Absence of medical corroboration does not discredit reliable ocular testimony of victim – Medical evidence is corroborative and not substantive – Where testimony of prosecutrix is trustworthy, conviction can be based thereon [Paras 2.5–2.7, 4.2].

Child Witness – Credibility – Statement under Section 164 CrPC – Victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC consistent with FIR and deposition before Court – Victim stood firm during cross-examination – No material contradictions or infirmities found – Evidence inspires confidence [Paras 3, 4.2].

Rape Jurisprudence – Corroboration – Rule of Prudence Not of Law – Reiterated that corroboration of prosecutrix’s testimony is not a sine qua non – Minor discrepancies or absence of physical injuries do not negate prosecution case – Reliance placed on recent Supreme Court decisions affirming settled principles [Paras 3.2–3.3, 4.2].

Defence Plea – Prior Enmity – Not Substantiated – Suggestion of prior quarrel between families insufficient to discard victim’s evidence – No evidence of false implication established – Mere existence of past dispute does not demolish prosecution case [Paras 2.4, 4.2].

POCSO Act – Strict Liability – Protection of Child Victims – Victim being a minor, statutory presumption operates in favour of prosecution – Sexual assault on child proved beyond reasonable doubt through victim’s testimony – Conviction under Section 6 POCSO Act justified [Paras 3.4, 4.2].

Sentence – No Interference – Sentence of 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment under IPC and POCSO Act directed to run concurrently – Trial court judgment found to be legal and proper – No ground made out for appellate interference [Paras 1, 4.3].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence dated 30.11.2018 passed by Special Judge, Nuapada affirmed – Appellant to undergo sentence as awarded – No interference warranted [Para 4.3].

Motor Vehicles Act – Section 163A – Maintainability of Claim – Income Limit under Second Schedule – Tribunal dismissed claim holding annual income of deceased exceeded ₹40,000/- by including daily fooding allowance – High Court held that allowance paid exclusively for personal benefit of employee cannot be treated as contribution to family – Fooding allowance of ₹150 per day excluded from income computation – Annual income restricted to ₹39,600/- – Claim under Section 163A held maintainable [Paras 11, 15–17].

Compensation – Meaning of Income – Allowances – Distinction between Personal Benefit and Family Contribution – Reliance placed on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indira Srivastava – Only those components of remuneration which would have formed part of family contribution can be included – Allowances meant exclusively for individual use cannot be added – Tribunal’s contrary view set aside [Paras 14–17].

Precedent – Deepal Girishbhai Soni – Applicability Explained – Earlier judgments relied upon by Tribunal distinguishable on facts – Issue of exclusion of allowances not examined in those cases – Income computation requires nuanced analysis based on nature of allowance [Paras 11, 16].

Insurance Policy – Employee Coverage – Comprehensive Package Policy – Policy produced before High Court showed coverage of employees of owner up to specified number – Deceased was helper of insured vehicle – Insurer liable to indemnify owner and pay compensation – Tribunal’s finding to contrary rejected [Paras 20–21].

Beneficial Legislation – Appellate Court Powers – Tribunal did not adjudicate other issues after rejecting claim on maintainability – High Court proceeded to determine liability and quantum to avoid multiplicity of proceedings – Motor Vehicles Act being beneficial legislation, prolonged litigation avoided [Para 19].

Quantum of Compensation – Assessment by High Court – Monthly income assessed at ₹3,300/- – Annual income ₹39,600/- – One-third deducted towards personal expenses – Compensation computed at ₹4,75,200/- plus general damages of ₹9,500/- – Total compensation ₹4,84,700/- with 6% interest from date of application [Para 22].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Award of Tribunal set aside – Claim under Section 163A held maintainable – Compensation of ₹4,84,700/- with interest awarded – Insurance Company directed to pay amount within three months – Tribunal to apportion compensation among claimants – No costs [Paras 22–23].

Civil Law  – Order 9 Rule 7 CPC – Nature of Relief – Discretionary and Equitable – Application for setting aside ex parte proceedings is not a matter of right – Applicant must establish “good cause” for non-appearance on date when proceeded ex parte – Unlike Order IX Rule 13, Rule 7 does not confer vested right to reopen proceedings – Discretion must be exercised on conduct of party and surrounding circumstances [Paras 10, 16].

Limitation – Article 137 Limitation Act – Applicability to Order IX Rule 7 CPC – Though CPC does not prescribe specific limitation, residuary Article 137 applies to all applications before civil courts unless expressly excluded – Period of three years cannot be rendered meaningless by prolonged inaction – Application filed after more than five years held barred by limitation and laches [Paras 11–14].

Service of Summons – Order V Rule 15 CPC – Validity of Service on Family Member – Summons served on petitioner’s father at correct address – Minor discrepancy in petitioner’s name not material where identity established – Process server reported prior conversation with petitioner and acceptance of summons by father at petitioner’s responsibility – Service held valid and in compliance with procedural requirements [Paras 7, 9].

Knowledge of Proceedings – Conduct of Party – Estoppel – Material on record showed petitioner’s prior knowledge of pendency of suit – Compromise entered before police authorities bearing petitioner’s signature acknowledging civil dispute and next date of hearing – Plea of lack of knowledge rejected as afterthought and attempt to mislead Court [Paras 8–9].

Delay and Laches – Equitable Relief Denied – Ex parte order passed on 10.01.2020 – Application under Order IX Rule 7 filed on 02.09.2025 without satisfactory explanation – Gross and unexplained delay destructive of equitable relief – Courts cannot reward deliberate inaction [Paras 14–15].

Stage of Proceedings – Prejudice to Opposite Party – Suit had progressed to stage of defendants’ evidence – Allowing belated application would unsettle concluded proceedings – Procedural discipline must be maintained to ensure certainty in civil trials [Para 15].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope – No Interference with Discretionary Orders – High Court’s revisional power limited to correcting jurisdictional error, perversity or material illegality – Trial Court exercised discretion on cogent material and settled principles – Mere possibility of different view no ground for interference [Paras 16–17].

Balancing Natural Justice – Limited Participation Permitted – Though revision dismissed, petitioner permitted to participate in further proceedings – Such participation not to reopen concluded stages – Petitioner barred from filing written statement or leading evidence [Para 18].

Decision – Civil revision dismissed – Order rejecting application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC upheld – No perversity or illegality found – Limited participation allowed in interest of natural justice without reopening proceedings [Paras 17–18].

Taxation Law - Income Tax – Penalty – Immunity under Section 270AA – Mandatory Nature – Assessee applied for immunity from penalty under Section 270AA after issuance of notice under Section 270A – Rectification under Section 154 allowed subsequently resulting in nil tax demand – Held: Section 270AA(3) is couched in mandatory terms – Once statutory conditions are satisfied, Assessing Officer is bound to grant immunity – Discretion does not survive where conditions stand fulfilled [Paras 14, 17–19].

Section 270AA – Conditions for Immunity – Compliance by Assessee – Application filed in prescribed Form 68 within statutory time – No appeal filed against assessment order – Penalty proceedings not initiated under Section 270A(9) – Rectification leading to nil demand satisfies condition of payment of tax and interest – Application could not be rejected mechanically without examining compliance with statutory requirements [Paras 15–17].

Administrative Law – Requirement of Reasons – Speaking Order – Order rejecting immunity merely stated that conditions were not fulfilled without specifying which condition was violated – Absence of reasons amounts to non-application of mind – Reasons are live links between material on record and conclusion – Non-speaking order held unsustainable in law [Paras 20–21].

Natural Justice – Opportunity of Hearing – Proviso to Section 270AA(4) – Though notice of hearing issued, final order did not deal with submissions made in immunity application – Mere grant of opportunity insufficient without meaningful consideration – Rejection without addressing contentions violates principles of natural justice [Paras 20–21].

Rectification of Assessment – Effect on Penalty Proceedings – Scrutiny assessment originally resulted in substantial demand – Rectification under Section 154 reduced demand to nil – Subsequent dropping of penalty proceedings reinforces assessee’s claim for immunity – Penalty proceedings lose substratum once assessed income itself stands rectified [Paras 10, 14].

Jurisdictional Error – Passing of Order by Transferred Officer – Contention raised that Assessing Officer had been transferred prior to passing of impugned order – Though not finally adjudicated, issue highlights procedural infirmity surrounding decision-making process [Para 9].

Precedent – Requirement of Reasoned Rejection of Immunity – Reliance placed on Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) Pte. Ltd. v. ACIT – Orders declining immunity must disclose reasons and application of mind – Principle affirmed [Paras 11, 22].

Decision – Writ petition allowed – Order dated 27.05.2025 rejecting application under Section 270AA set aside – Assessing Officer directed to reconsider application afresh in accordance with law after granting opportunity of hearing – No costs [Paras 23–24].

Land Acquisition – Bangalore Development Authority Act – Lapse of Scheme under Section 27 – Substantial Implementation – Preliminary Notification issued for 1532 acres – Final Notification restricted to 750 acres – BDA took possession of 580 acres 18 guntas and formed layout carving out thousands of sites – Majority of sites allotted – Held, scheme substantially implemented – No lapse under Section 27 of BDA Act [Paras 6, 10, 13–14].

Land Acquisition – Taking Possession – Mahazar and Section 16(2) Notification – Award passed, compensation deposited in Court, possession taken by drawing mahazar and notification under Section 16(2) published – Mutation effected in favour of BDA – Held, acquisition proceedings showed seamless and lawful flow of events – Mode of taking possession not illegal or irregular [Paras 11].

Writ Jurisdiction – Delay and Laches – Final Notification published in 2003 – Five years expired in 2008 – Writ petition filed only in 2013 without satisfactory explanation – Alleged fresh cause of action based on entry by BDA officials rejected – Held, petition barred by delay and laches [Paras 11].

Locus Standi – Subsisting Interest – Challenge by Subsequent Claimants – Original khatedars did not challenge acquisition – Gift deeds executed prior to preliminary notification – Held, petitioners lacked locus in respect of certain survey numbers – However, legal heirs of Ammayamma held to have locus regarding Sy.No.36/1 [Paras 8].

Res Judicata – Constructive Res Judicata – Earlier writ petitions challenged acquisition notifications but did not raise plea of lapsing under Section 27 of BDA Act – Held, subsequent petition on ground of lapse not barred by res judicata or constructive res judicata [Paras 9].

Discrimination – Betterment Charges – Denotification – BDA permitted certain landowners to retain lands on payment of betterment charges – Petitioners’ claim of discrimination rejected – Held, deletion based on rational considerations and public interest – No right to claim parity [Paras 6, 13].

Precedent – Coordinate Bench – Binding Effect – Earlier Division Bench judgment upheld acquisition for same layout and specifically negatived plea of lapse – Supreme Court dismissed civil appeals arising therefrom – Held, consistency required – No ground for interference with Single Judge’s order [Paras 12–14].

Public Interest – Urban Development – Acquisition for planned development – Courts should not interfere once substantial development has taken place – Individual interests must yield to larger public purpose [Paras 13–14].

Decision: Writ Appeal No. 944 of 2024 and Writ Appeal No. 926 of 2024 dismissed – Judgment and order dated 08.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.10331 of 2013 upheld – Land acquisition proceedings sustained – No order as to costs.