Bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. – Petition for grant of regular bail – Offences under Sections 21/61/85 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Petitioner found in possession of 950 intoxicating capsules – Allegation of Tramadol Hydrochloride weighing 608 grams – Petitioner contends discrepancies in signature language on notice under Section 50 NDPS Act and FIR – Respondent asserts typographical error – Court refrains from delving into veracity of notice but acknowledges signature mismatch – Petitioner's first-time offender status and concluded investigation considered – Bail granted with stringent conditions. [Paras 1-11]

Interpretation of Notice under Section 50 NDPS Act – Mismatch in language of petitioner's signature – Respondent explains typographical error by investigating officer – Court refrains from adjudicating on notice's authenticity but notes discrepancy – Signature language inconsistency observed. [Paras 4-7]

Grant of Bail – Considerations – Petitioner's incarceration period, first-time offender status, and concluded investigation weighed – Bail granted with stringent conditions to prevent misuse and ensure trial attendance – No expression of opinion on case merits. [Paras 8-11]

Quashing of FIR and Proceedings – FIR No. 46 Dated 11.05.2008 under Section 306/34 IPC – Suicide of Aruna Rani – FIR based on delayed statement of Paramjit Kaur citing harassment by 11 individuals – Suicide note in deceased’s handwriting but no direct evidence of abetment by named individuals – High Court finds no proximate link or clear mens rea for abetment – Held, continuation of proceedings constitutes abuse of legal process – FIR and subsequent proceedings quashed. [Paras 1-30]

Ingredients of Section 306/107 IPC – Abetment of Suicide – Analysis of legal requirements – Court finds absence of intentional instigation or aiding in the commission of suicide – Marriage disputes and subsequent events not leading to a direct conclusion of abetment by the petitioners – Suicide note insufficient to establish abetment under Section 306 IPC. [Paras 10-29]

Decision – Quashing of FIR and Related Proceedings – Considering the facts and absence of clear mens rea or instigation for suicide – FIR No. 46 dated 11.05.2008 under Section 306/34 IPC and all consequent proceedings against petitioners quashed – Petitions allowed. [Para 30]

Quashing of FIR and Charge-sheet – Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. – Applicant seeks to quash cognizance order and charge sheet for offenses under Sections 376, 313 IPC and Sections 3, 4 POCSO Act – Compromise entered between applicant and victim subsequent to lodging of FIR and summoning by trial court – Applicant contends for quashing based on compromise – Held, power under Section 482 is to be sparingly exercised; objective to secure ends of justice or prevent abuse of court process – Power not to be exercised in heinous and serious offenses or offenses under special statutes like POCSO Act – POCSO Act is a special statute and offenses under it cannot be quashed solely on the basis of compromise – Age of victim, consent immaterial in offenses under POCSO Act – Principles laid down by Supreme Court in Narinder Singh case followed – Compromise arrived after alleged commission of offense, investigation stage, or infancy of evidence may be considered for quashing – However, compromise cannot be a ground for quashing when prosecution evidence is complete or conviction already recorded – Sections charged against applicant not compoundable, hence application for quashing dismissed.

Jurisdiction of Civil Court – Regular Second Appeal – Analysis of Jurisdiction Issue – Held – Civil Court had jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. Evidence of jurisdiction not contested by the defendant-appellant at Trial Court, and not pressed at the First Appellate Court, thereby affirming Trial Court’s decision on jurisdiction. [Para 8]

Loan Waiver and Penal Interest – Bank’s Claim for Penal Interest – Findings – Held – Payment of Rs. 13,000/- by plaintiff-respondent considered full settlement as per Bank’s statements (Ex.D-2 and Ex.D-3) showing ‘nil’ balance. Penal interest claim by defendant-appellant Bank not substantiated with valid documentation or evidence. [Para 9]

Decision – Dismissal of Regular Second Appeal – Conclusion – Court finds no merit in the appeal, and no substantial question of law arises. Regular second appeal dismissed, and any pending applications, if any, are also disposed off. [Para 10]

LBan on Cross-Gender Massages in Spas/Massage Centers - Public Interest Petition - Direction sought to ban cross-gender massages in spas/massage centers and share recordings with Delhi Commission for Women - Alleged violation of guidelines issued by GNCTD - Petitioner contends that such massages lead to illegal prostitution - No response received to complaints/representations to authorities - Validity of guidelines challenged in pending matter before learned Single Judge - Stay granted on operation of certain clauses of guidelines - Directions issued for inspections and necessary steps by concerned authorities - Petition dismissed in view of pending matter before learned Single Judge. [Paras 1-5]

Dismissal of the Petition – The Court declines to entertain the public interest litigation as the matter is already under consideration by a learned Single Judge [Para 5].

Matrimonial Discord & Divorce – Marriage solemnized on 25.01.2011, parties separated since 06.09.2011 – Appellant's plea for divorce on grounds of mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, previously dismissed by Family Court along with respondent's plea for Restitution of Conjugal Rights under Section 9 of the same Act – High Court revisits facts, evidence, and accusations of cruelty from both parties, including alleged neglect, harassment for dowry, extramarital affairs, and threats. [Paras 1-17].

Evidence & Counter Allegations – Inability of Appellant to provide concrete evidence for various allegations including threats with a knife, and vulgar messages – Family Court's skepticism regarding appellant's claims, and absence of concrete evidence or witnesses to support them – Respondent refuting cruelty claims, making counter-allegations against appellant including harassment for dowry and extramarital affairs. [Paras 18-33].

Mental Cruelty & Impact of Litigation – High Court recognizes respondent's derogatory language towards appellant’s father, complaints to appellant’s employer, and involvement in multiple litigations as mental cruelty – Acknowledgment of appellant's mental suffering due to prolonged legal disputes and defamatory allegations – Extended legal battles over 10 years between the parties viewed as adding to the cruelty [Paras 34-43, 46].

Decision – Granting of Divorce – High Court allows appellant's appeal – Divorce granted to appellant under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 based on mental cruelty by respondent [Paras 50-51].

Patent Refusal - Managing Instant Messaging Sessions - Refusal by Controller on grounds of lack of novelty, inventive step, and non-patentability under Section 3(k) - Key features: Concurrent Sign-on and Session Transfer, User Preference for Non-Mirroring, Selective Transfer and Visibility of Sessions, Ceasing Message Visibility Based on Preference [Paras 25-27, 44-45, 51-52].

Prior Art D1 (US2003101343) - Detailed analysis comparing the patent application and prior art - Found significant overlap in functionalities, especially regarding session data transfer and user preferences - Court held that additional features in the subject patent were obvious extensions and lacked inventive step [Paras 28-34, 36-38, 40-41, 47-49].

Inventive Step Analysis - Application of established tests and considerations - Concluded that the subject patent application's features were obvious to a person skilled in the art [Paras 42-43, 51-52].

Misrepresentation by Appellant - Incorrect submission regarding status of corresponding European patent application - Rejection of both parent and divisional applications by EPO for lack of inventive step - Imposition of costs for presenting incorrect facts [Paras 53-55, 56-57].

Decision - Patent application by Google LLC for managing instant messaging sessions found lacking in inventive step and novelty - Claims considered obvious extensions of prior art D1: US2003101343 - High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision of the Controller of Patents to refuse the patent application.

Promotion and Seniority Issue - Challenge against HQ DG BSF order dated February 12, 2015, for non-restoration of seniority - Petitioner's ACRs for 2005-06 & 2007-08 initially marked below benchmark, leading to his non-inclusion in promotion list - ACRs later upgraded on representation - Petitioner contends supersession due to non-communication of below benchmark ACRs and seeks promotion with retrospective seniority [Paras 1-5, 14, 31].

Legal Framework - Application of DoP&T's OM dated April 13, 2010 - OM applied for future DPCs only - Petitioner's case relates to DPC held prior to the OM, leading to rejection of retrospective promotion claim by respondents [Paras 12, 13, 19, 28-30].

Supreme Court Precedents - Reliance on Dev Dutt v. UOI (2008) 8 SCC 725 - Principles of upgraded ACRs and retrospective consideration for promotion - Comparative analysis with similarly situated officer, Lala Krishan Kumar Lal, who received retrospective seniority - Claim of discriminatory treatment under Article 14 of the Constitution [Paras 6-7, 34].

Decision - Court held that upgraded ACRs merit review by DPC - Petitioner entitled to consideration for promotion from date junior was promoted, subject to fitment - Impugned order quashed - Respondents directed to undertake promotional exercise within eight weeks [Paras 31-37].

Trade Mark Infringement – Permanent Injunction – Well-known Mark Declaration – Suit against Unauthorized Use of Trademark 'HALDIRAM' and 'HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA' – Plaintiffs, Haldiram India Pvt. Ltd., seek permanent injunction against Defendants for infringing upon their registered trademarks and for passing off their products as those of Plaintiffs – Plaintiffs also seek declaration of their marks as well-known – Evidence shows extensive unauthorized use of Plaintiffs’ marks by Defendants – Held, Defendants' conduct constitutes infringement and passing off – Permanent injunction granted against Defendants from using the marks ‘HALDIRAM’, ‘HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA’, or any deceptively similar mark – Marks ‘HALDIRAM’ and ‘HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA’ declared as well-known trademarks. Damages of Rs. 50 lakhs awarded to Plaintiffs along with Rs. 2 lakhs as costs. [Paras 35-68]

Infringement of Trademarks – Analysis – Plaintiffs' trademarks ‘HALDIRAM’ and ‘HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA’ found to be used by Defendants without authorization – Unauthorized use on a variety of food products and related materials – Infringement established due to Defendants' unauthorized use of Plaintiffs’ marks for identical services, satisfying the triple identity test – Defendants’ conduct found to be in violation of the Plaintiffs’ trademark rights. [Paras 40-41]

Well-known Trademark – Criteria and Declaration – 'HALDIRAM' and 'HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA' declared as well-known trademarks – Court considered factors such as duration, extent, geographical area of use, promotion, advertising, distinctiveness, and recognition in the public – Plaintiffs’ marks found to enjoy substantial recognition and goodwill, meriting the status of well-known trademarks – Declaration to aid in broader protection of Plaintiffs’ marks against misuse and infringement. [Paras 55-66]

Damages – Assessment and Award – Plaintiffs awarded damages of Rs. 50 lakhs for infringement by Defendants – Exemplary damages granted considering the extent of unauthorized use and impact on Plaintiffs’ reputation – Defendants' failure to appear or present evidence weighed in the decision – Damages aimed at compensating Plaintiffs and deterring future infringements. [Paras 43-52]

Costs – Award – Plaintiffs awarded Rs. 2 lakhs as costs – Consideration given to Plaintiffs' legal expenses and efforts to protect their trademarks – Award in line with principles of fair compensation and discouraging frivolous litigation. [Para 53]