Domestic Violence – Interim Custody of Minor Child – Tender Age – Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Section 23(1) – Respondent-wife filed application under Section 12 of the DV Act alleging cruelty, taunting for dowry, and threats to separate her from her minor son aged 8-10 months – Trial Court granted interim custody of minor child to respondent-mother and directed petitioner No. 1 to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 3,500/- (Rs. 2,000/- to wife and Rs. 1,500/- to child) with visitation rights to father on Sundays – First appellate court affirmed – Held: Minor child of tender age of 8-10 months rightly placed in custody of mother; no error or infirmity in the orders of the Courts below; interim maintenance of Rs. 3,500/- is reasonable and sustainable at this stage; merits of the case to be determined by the trial court upon evidence [Paras 11–13].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 of the Constitution of India – Scope and Limits – High Court under Article 227 does not act as a court of first appeal and cannot reappreciate or reweigh evidence – Power is exercisable sparingly only in cases of grave injustice, flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law, assumption or non-exercise of jurisdiction, or where the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person could arrive at the same – High Court cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the subordinate court merely to correct an error not apparent on the face of the record – Held: No occasion to exercise supervisory jurisdiction as the orders passed by the Courts below are legal, valid and sustainable [Paras 14–16].

Interim Maintenance – Mental Incapacity Plea – Husband's Contention – Petitioner No. 1 contended that his mental state was not sound and, therefore, interim maintenance ought not to have been fastened upon him – Held: Petitioner No. 1 himself preferred appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge and signed the present petition before the High Court; plea of mental incapacity is therefore not sustainable; the merits of the case shall be decided by the trial court upon the parties adducing evidence [Para 13].

Decision: Petition dismissed — Orders of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kullu dated 28.04.2023 and Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu dated 16.10.2024 affirmed — Parties to bear their own costs — Observations not to be treated as expression of opinion on merits of the main case.

Public Charitable Trust – Charity Commissioner – Interim Management – Asiatic Society of Mumbai – Writ Petitions dismissed – Petitioners challenged impugned orders dated 13.03.2026 by which the Charity Commissioner constituted an interim committee comprising a fit person and 5 Managing Committee members, and a sub-committee to prepare a fresh voters' list, directing elections to be conducted within one month of finalisation of the list – Held: Charity Commissioner had full authority under Sections 36A, 47, 69 and 3 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act to intervene and pass the impugned orders – No case of patent illegality or manifest arbitrariness made out – Both writ petitions dismissed [Paras 3, 14, 17, 18].

Natural Justice – Adequate Hearing – Challenge Rejected – Petitioners alleged impugned orders were passed without notice or hearing – Held: Charity Commissioner gave adequate advance notice to the office bearers of the Asiatic Society – Hearings were held on 5th, 9th, 11th and 12th March 2026 – The hearing on 9th March 2026 was adjourned at their request – Office bearers were personally present and represented by counsel – Statements/affidavits were filed and considered – No breach of natural justice established [Para 13].

Managing Committee – Continuance Beyond Tenure – Impermissible – Change Report in respect of September 2023 elections was rejected on 6th August 2025 – Tenure of elected office bearers ended September 2025 – Held: Managing Committee had no legal right or authority to continue in management thereafter – Notwithstanding this, it continued to function and took decisions beyond day-to-day administration, including admission of members – Entirely impermissible [Para 14].

Scrutinising Committee – Excess of Jurisdiction – Inflated Voters' List – Scrutinising Committee's tenure ended 27th September 2025 – Despite this, it suo motu continued working and recommended approximately 1467 membership applications (as against only 349 during its entire one-year tenure) – Names included in voters' list for Elections – 2025 without proper approval by Managing Committee – Held: Such continuation and recommendations were irregular and vitiated the voters' list [Paras 10, 14].

Charity Commissioner – Powers Under MPT Act – Sections 36A, 47, 69 – Inspector Report – The Charity Commissioner correctly instituted Inquiry No. 3 of 2026 pursuant to Legislative Assembly Questions regarding discrepancies in voters' list, missing books, and postponement of elections – Inspector Report confirmed approximately 2050 books were missing from the Asiatic Society – Held: Charity Commissioner had sufficient power under the said provisions to issue directions for effective interim management and to stay the resolution dated 20th February 2026 for holding Elections – 2025 on 14th March 2026 [Paras 15, 16, 17].

Decision: Both Writ Petitions dismissed – Impugned orders dated 13th March 2026 upheld – All pending Interim Applications disposed of – All interim orders vacated – Application for stay of order rejected – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Section 324 IPC – Acquittal – Appeal by Injured Witness – Medical Evidence – Discrepancy between PW2's version of a stab wound and MLC recording a lacerated wound, which is ordinarily caused by a blunt object rather than a sharp weapon — independent corroborative witnesses present at the scene, including cousin brothers and aunt, not examined by prosecution — weapon not recovered and no attempt made to recover it despite disclosure by accused — Held: Evidence on record insufficient to find accused guilty under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC — acquittal upheld [Paras 20, 24, 26, 32].

Evidence Act – Section 32(2) – Admissibility of MLC in Absence of Examining Doctor – MLC prepared by Dr. Suman Karmakar, who had left hospital services and whose attendance could not be procured without undue delay or expense — PW4 and PW5 deposed being familiar with the handwriting and signature of the doctor and identified his signature — Held: MLC proved under Section 32(2) read with Sections 47 and 67 of the Evidence Act — non-examination of the treating doctor per se does not vitiate the evidentiary value of the MLC so proved [Paras 22–23].

Section 222 CrPC – Minor Offence – Section 307 IPC Not a Minor Offence vis-à-vis Section 324 IPC – Appellant contended that appellate court could convict for Section 307 IPC by invoking Section 222(1) CrPC even though charge was framed only under Section 324 IPC — Held: Sections 307 and 324 IPC are not cognate offences with common main ingredients — Section 307 is not a minor offence in relation to Section 324 IPC — Section 222(1) CrPC cannot be invoked to convict for a graver offence when accused was charged with a lesser one [Paras 28–31].

Appellate Interference in Acquittal – Limited Scope – Appellate court ought not to interfere with acquittal unless findings are perverse, manifestly erroneous, or based on misappreciation of material evidence — if the view of the trial court is plausible and reasonable, interference is not warranted merely because another view is possible [Para 32].

Recovery of Weapon – Not Sine Qua Non – Non-recovery of the weapon used in the crime is not a sine qua non for establishing guilt of the accused if other credible evidence is available — however, in the present case, the remaining evidence was also found insufficient [Para 20].

Decision: Appeal dismissed — acquittal of A1 and A2 under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC upheld — pending applications closed.

NDPS Act – Bail – Parity – Section 20(b)(ii)(B) – Cannabis – Accused No.2 alleged to have supplied cannabis to Accused No.1 and to have been found in possession of 1.590 kg of cannabis recovered pursuant to disclosure by Accused No.1 – Accused No.2 in custody since 15.06.2025 – Accused No.1, found with higher quantity of 4.725 kg, already enlarged on bail by Special Court – Chargesheet filed and investigation complete – 21 witnesses yet to be examined and trial likely to take time – Held: Accused No.2 entitled to bail on parity with Accused No.1 subject to conditions [Paras 2, 5].

Bail Conditions – Personal Bond – Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties – Regular appearance before trial court – No tampering with prosecution witnesses – No commission of future offences – No departure from jurisdiction without court permission [Para 2, Order].

Decision: Petition allowed – Petitioner/Accused No.2 directed to be enlarged on bail in Special Case No.193/2025 pending before Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagara, subject to conditions.

Revenue Law – Mutation – Principles of Natural Justice – Order Passed Without Notice – Set Aside – Petitioner Neelam Kumar Swain purchased the case land by registered sale deed and mutation was allowed in her favour by the Tahasildar – On appeal by M/s. Thriveni Earthmovers, the Sub-Collector remitted the matter to the Tahasildar for fresh hearing – Order on remand was passed by the Tahasildar without issuing any notice to the parties – Held: Non-issuance of notice constitutes a clear violation of principles of natural justice rendering the order unsustainable – Order set aside and Tahasildar directed to re-hear the mutation case after affording opportunity to all necessary parties within two months [Paras 10, 12].

Mutation Appeal – Order of Remand – Challenge to Validity – No Fruitful Purpose at This Stage – Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 7001 of 2026 challenged the Sub-Collector's order of remand on the ground that the appellate authority ought to have adjudicated the lis on merits rather than remitting the matter – Held: Since the order passed on remand has itself been set aside and the matter is being remitted again for fresh hearing with proper notice, no fruitful purpose would be served by interfering with the order of the appellate authority at this stage [Para 11].

Appearance Before Appellate Authority – Knowledge of Proceedings – Petitioner Neelam Kumar Swain had entered appearance before the Sub-Collector in the mutation appeal and had submitted an affidavit which was taken on record – Held: She cannot contend that she had no knowledge of the appellate proceedings – The infirmity arises only in the subsequent remand proceedings before the Tahasildar where no notice was issued [Para 10].

Decision: W.P.(C) No. 34733 of 2025 allowed – Order of the Tahasildar in Mutation Case No. 12024 of 2025 dated 28.07.2025 set aside – Tahasildar directed to re-hear and dispose of the mutation case after affording opportunity to all parties within two months – W.P.(C) No. 7001 of 2026 disposed of accordingly.

Agreement to Sell – Recovery of Earnest Money – NOC Obligation – Breach by Seller – Appeal Dismissed – Plaintiff paid Rs. 80,75,000/- as advance consideration for purchase of 15 Bighas 4 Biswas of agricultural land – Agreement to Sell dated 18.07.2007 required the seller to obtain NOC from Revenue Authorities and Land Acquisition Collector – Defendants failed to apply for or obtain the NOC despite repeated reminders and duly filled NOC forms being supplied by the Plaintiff on the date of Agreement – Held: Breach of Agreement to Sell was on the part of the Defendants; Plaintiff was justified in seeking refund of earnest money – Trial Court decree upheld – Appeal dismissed [Paras 44, 52, 55, 56, 61, 62, 67].

Limitation – Cause of Action – Accrual from Date of Repudiation, Not Date of Contract – Appellants contended the suit filed on 19.07.2010 was barred by limitation as the Agreement to Sell was dated 18.07.2007 – Held: Under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation is reckoned from when the facts entitling the Plaintiff to have the contract rescinded first became known to him – In a contract of sale, right to sue for refund accrues when the contract is repudiated or the promisor refuses to perform, not from the date of the contract – Legal Notice dated 06.06.2008 constituted the earliest point of repudiation; suit filed on 19.07.2010 was within limitation [Paras 37, 39, 40, 41].

Section 33, Delhi Land Reforms Act – NOC Obligation on Seller – Bar Operates at Stage of Actual Transfer – No Bhumidar can sell land where the result of transfer would leave him with less than 08 standard acres in Delhi – Section 33(2) permits transfer of entire holding if less than 08 acres – Held: It was the Defendants/Appellants as owners and sellers who bore the obligation to obtain NOC and overcome restrictions of Section 33 DLR Act – The bar under Section 33 operates at the stage of actual transfer of Bhumidhari rights and does not render an Agreement to Sell per se void or incapable of enforcement between the parties [Paras 49, 50, 51].

Partnership Act – Section 69 – Bar Inapplicable – No Formal Partnership – Appellants argued that an unregistered partnership between the Plaintiff and M/s Raisina Villas Pvt. Ltd. attracted the bar of Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act – Held: There was no formal partnership as understood under the Partnership Act; parties had merely pooled funds for a single purchase transaction – The Plaintiff, having returned Rs. 45,00,000/- to M/s Raisina Villas Pvt. Ltd., became solely entitled to recover the entire amount – Bar of Section 69 not attracted [Paras 63, 64, 65].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 24.09.2022 of the learned Additional District Judge upheld – Pending applications disposed of.

Education Law – NEET (UG) 2026 – Delayed Fee Payment – Portal Buffering Claim – Petitioner uploaded registration form and documents on 09.02.2026 but did not submit the fee for over a month – On the last extended date of 11.03.2026, successful logins were made but no payment completed – Server logs furnished by NTA showed repeated successful logins; claimed inability to make payment not demonstrated – Oral submissions by Senior Counsel that form was uploaded only on 11.03.2026 found contrary to portal records and not even averred in the petition – Petitioner approached Court nearly one month after the alleged failure – Held: No interference warranted; petition dismissed [Paras 5-6, 8-10, 15-16].

"Portal Cannot Be Opened for One Candidate" – Consistent Judicial Position – Coordinate Bench judgments of this Court and the Supreme Court in Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India affirm that the NEET portal cannot be reopened for a single candidate – Supreme Court orders granting indulgence in isolated cases were based on peculiar facts, including demonstrated earnest and repeated attempts to log in, as in Atul Kumar v. Chairman (2024 SCC Online SC 2684) – Facts of present case do not meet that threshold [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No interference called for [Para 16].

Land Acquisition – National Highways Act, 1956 – Interest on Enhanced Compensation – Applicability of Section 72 of the 2013 Act – Petitioners' land measuring 284.98 Marlas acquired for Delhi-Amritsar-Katra National Highway vide Notifications under Sections 3-A and 3-D of the 1956 Act – CALA Award at Rs. 5,363/- per Marla – Arbitrator enhanced market value to Rs. 15,00,000/- per acre with 100% solatium and 12% additional interest from date of Section 3-A notification to first Award – However, Arbitrator awarded interest at flat 9% on enhanced amount from date of filing of application till deposit under Section 3-H(5) of 1956 Act, instead of 9% for the first year and 15% per annum thereafter from date of possession as mandated by Section 72 of the 2013 Act – Held: Arbitrator manifestly erred in law – Petitioners entitled to interest in terms of Section 72 of the 2013 Act [Paras 1–5, 8, 18].

Applicability of 2013 Act to Acquisitions under the National Highways Act, 1956 – Section 105 of the 2013 Act – Ministry of Rural Development Gazette Notification dated 28.08.2015 – Schedules I, II and III of the 2013 Act made expressly applicable to acquisitions under enactments in the Fourth Schedule including the 1956 Act – Interest being an integral component of just compensation, the beneficial provisions of the 2013 Act including higher interest rates prevail over Section 3-H(5) of the 1956 Act – Restriction of interest to Section 3-H(5) would result in impermissible discrimination between similarly situated landowners in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution – Held: Interest at 9% and 15% under Section 72 of the 2013 Act applies to acquisitions under the 1956 Act [Paras 9, 9.1, 9.2, 9.4].

Interest on Original Compensation – Section 80 of the 2013 Act – Section 3-H(5) of the 1956 Act provides for interest only on excess amount determined by the Arbitrator and contains no provision for interest where compensation is not paid or deposited before taking possession – Section 80 of the 2013 Act, being a more beneficial provision and forming part of compensation, applicable to acquisitions under the 1956 Act – Held: Petitioners entitled to interest on compensation originally determined by CALA also in terms of Section 80 of the 2013 Act [Para 9.3].

Parity Among Similarly Situated Landowners – Article 14 – Arbitrator relied upon earlier awards of the same village Tibber (dated 07.12.2023 and 28.08.2024) which had granted interest at 9% and 15% and had been acted upon by NHAI – Despite taking parity in market value from these awards, Arbitrator denied parity in interest without cogent justification – Such differential treatment of identically situated landowners is arbitrary and strikes at the mandate of Article 14 – Held: Arbitrator's failure to extend identical treatment constitutes a manifest error [Para 10].

Writ Jurisdiction – Maintainability – Alternative Remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Remedy under Section 34 limited to setting aside the award; no power of modification – Relegation to Section 34 would be wholly inefficacious when the controversy is narrow and identically placed landowners have already obtained the same relief – Statutory arbitration under the 1956 Act involves arbitrators appointed by the Central Government, unlike consensual arbitration, warranting broader supervisory scrutiny – Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 being plenary, exercise thereof justified to remedy manifest arbitrariness and ensure just compensation – Rule of exhaustion of alternative remedies is one of convenience and discretion, not of law, and does not oust the Court's jurisdiction – Held: Writ petition maintainable [Paras 11–17].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of – Award dated 27.10.2025 modified to the extent that petitioners are entitled to interest at 9% per annum for the first year and 15% per annum thereafter on the enhanced amount from the date of possession in terms of Section 72 of the 2013 Act – Petitioners also entitled to interest on the amount originally determined by CALA in terms of Section 80 of the 2013 Act [Para 18].

Trade Mark Infringement – House Mark vs. Trade Mark – Sections 28 and 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 – "No Distinction Between House Mark and Trade Mark Under the Act" – Plaintiff registered proprietor of device mark 'SUN' since 1983 and word marks 'SUN PHARMA'/'SUNPHARMA' since 2007, with user claim from 1978 and 1993 respectively, in Class 5 for medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations – Defendant used house marks/trade names 'ABSUN'/'ABSUN PHARMA' on its pharmaceutical products from 2007 – Defendant contended that its marks were mere house marks and not trade marks, and that Sections 29(1), (2) and (4) did not apply – Held: The Trade Marks Act makes no distinction between a trade mark and a house mark; a mark qualifies as a trade mark the moment it is capable of distinguishing one person's goods from another's – Defendant's own witness admitted claiming monopoly over 'ABSUN PHARMA' and using it as a logo – Section 29(5) squarely attracted as the plaintiff's registered marks 'SUN'/'SUN PHARMA' are subsumed within the defendant's marks, with mere prefixing of alphabets 'AB' – Sections 29(6) and (7) also attracted as defendant affixed marks on packaging and exported goods thereunder – Issue No. 1 decided in favour of plaintiff [Paras 14–38].

Deceptive Similarity – Pharmaceutical Preparations – Stricter Test Applied – "Mere Prefixing of 'AB' Cannot Distinguish the Marks" – Court applied the test of a person of average intelligence and imperfect recollection – Marks 'ABSUN'/'ABSUN PHARMA' found visually, phonetically and structurally close to 'SUN'/'SUN PHARMA', the registered marks being entirely subsumed in the defendant's marks – Held: Stricter approach warranted in cases involving medicinal and pharmaceutical products given the risk of confusion adversely affecting consumers/patients – Honest adoption held irrelevant once infringement is established – Defendant's failure to conduct any search of the trade marks register prior to adoption of its marks, despite admittedly knowing of the plaintiff since 1995, indicative of dishonest adoption [Paras 30–35].

Export of Goods – Section 56, Trade Marks Act, 1999 – "Applying a Mark in India to Goods for Export Constitutes Use Under the Act" – Defendant claimed no liability as all its products were exported to African countries and not sold in India – Held: Section 56 deems application of a trade mark in India to goods intended for export as use of the mark for all purposes under the Act, including infringement and passing off – Defence of export-only sales rejected [Paras 36–37].

Late-Stage Change of Trading Name – Rejected as Tactic – "Honest Men Do Not Attempt to Sail Near the Wind" – Defendant sought to tender an affidavit at final hearing claiming change of trading name from 'ABSUN PHARMA' to 'ABSUN REMEDIES' w.e.f. October 2025 – Affidavit not taken on record – Held: After completion of pleadings, evidence and arguments, a party cannot be permitted to file such an affidavit to defeat the trial; such attempt fortifies the finding of dishonest adoption [Para 38].

Passing Off – Goodwill – Proof in Commercial Suits – "Failure to Deny Documents in Commercial Suit Amounts to Admission" – Plaintiff relied on Chartered Accountant certificates of sales and promotional expenses to prove goodwill – Defendant challenged admissibility on ground that authors of certificates were not examined – Held: In commercial suits under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, Order VIII Rules 3 and 5 and Order XI Rule 4 of CPC require specific admission/denial of documents including their contents; defendant neither denied the certificates in the written statement nor cross-examined plaintiff's witness on them, nor filed a statement of admission and denial despite opportunity; all documents stood admitted as to existence and contents – Goodwill proved [Paras 39–42].

Passing Off – Misrepresentation and Damages – Decree for Rendition of Accounts Refused – Plaintiff proved misrepresentation through similarity of marks and overlap of goods – Specific damages of Rs. 10 lakhs not proved; plaintiff's witness stated figure was approximate and no supporting documents were produced – Held: Plaintiff made out case of passing off; however, no issue of rendition of accounts was framed and no specific evidence led in that regard, hence prayer for rendition of accounts declined – Issue No. 2 decided in favour of plaintiff [Paras 43–46].

"SUN" Not Common to Trade – Issue No. 5 – Burden on defendant to prove that the mark 'SUN' had become generic through substantial and extensive use by third parties – Defendant placed no evidence of sales figures or usage data of third parties on record; mere oral claim at final hearing insufficient – Issue decided against defendant [Paras 48–49].

Acquiescence – Issue No. 6 – Defendant's sole witness, when cross-examined, admitted there was no document showing plaintiff's awareness of the defendant prior to December 2012 and further stated he did not know the meaning of the term 'acquiescence' – Issue decided against defendant [Para 50].

Costs – First-Time Knowing Infringer – Partial Costs Awarded – Court applying the principle that a first-time knowing infringer may be awarded injunction with partial costs – Defendant's witness admitted awareness of plaintiff's company since 1995 – Plaintiff's marks in public domain since 1983 – Held: Defendant is a first-time knowing infringer; costs of Rs. 10 lakhs awarded to plaintiff [Paras 51–55].

Decision: Suit decreed – Defendant permanently restrained from using marks 'ABSUN'/'ABSUN PHARMA' and 'E-MIST' or any deceptively similar marks – Decree passed in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (e) – Defendant directed to pay costs of Rs. 10 lakhs to the plaintiff [Paras 54–55].