Prisoners' Rights - Unauthorized Possession of Mobile Phone - Parole Denial - The court examined whether the unauthorized possession of a mobile phone by a prisoner, without any accompanying conviction or evidence of misuse, justifies the denial of parole. The court emphasized that such denial, in the absence of a full trial or a conviction, infringes upon the presumption of innocence, a cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence. The decision of the District Magistrate to deny parole based solely on the recovery of a mobile phone was deemed oppressive, as it violated Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. [Paras 18-22].

Judicial Review - Fair Trial - Application of Criminal Jurisprudence in Prison Discipline - The court found that the procedural safeguards typically applied in criminal trials must extend to prison discipline cases involving severe consequences, such as the denial of parole. It held that the Superintendent of Jail cannot impose punishments without the procedural rigor required in a fair trial, including cross-examination and the opportunity for the prisoner to present a defense. [Paras 27-30].

Constitutional Law - Article 21 - Fair Trial Principles - The Full Bench overruled the decision in Kulwant @ Monu v. State of Haryana, which had upheld the denial of parole based on the mere possession of a mobile phone, declaring it inconsistent with the principles of a fair trial under Article 21. The court ruled that any denial of parole must be grounded in a full judicial process, respecting the prisoner’s right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. [Paras 25-36].

Decision: The Full Bench set aside the impugned order denying parole, holding that the denial was unjustified without a proper judicial process, and declared that mere possession of a mobile phone by a prisoner cannot lead to automatic denial of parole. The court remanded the matter for reconsideration in line with these findings. [Para 36].

Civil Procedure – Second Appeal – Scope of Interference – Court reiterated the limited scope of interference in second appellate jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC – Findings of fact by lower courts cannot be disturbed unless there is clear perversity – Appeal dismissed as no substantial question of law arose [Paras 16-22].

Specific Performance – Registered Agreement – Execution and Validity – Defendant's plea that the agreement was fraudulently executed was rejected due to lack of sufficient evidence – Registered agreement and payment endorsements made by the Sub-Registrar were presumed correct under law – Concurrent findings of lower courts upholding the specific performance decree were affirmed [Paras 8-14].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed at the stage of admission. The concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts were upheld, and no substantial question of law was found to warrant interference.

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Quashing of FIR – Petitioners accused of abetting the suicide of the complainant's brother by refusing to repay money owed for construction work – FIR quashed – Court held that the mere non-payment of dues, without any positive act of instigation, does not constitute abetment under Section 306 IPC – Emphasized that there must be a proximate and live link between the accused's conduct and the deceased's suicide – Petitioners' conduct did not amount to instigation or aiding the suicide – FIR and subsequent proceedings quashed [Paras 14-19].

Test for Quashing – Court applied the test of an ordinary person’s reaction to harassment – Concluded that a person of ordinary prudence would not be driven to suicide in similar circumstances – Suicide attributed to the deceased's hypersensitive nature rather than the petitioners' conduct [Paras 15-17].

Decision: FIR No. 357 dated 15.07.2023, registered under Sections 306 and 34 IPC, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, quashed.

Intellectual Property Law - Trademark Infringement - Film Titles - The plaintiff, co-owner of the film franchise "Aashiqui," sought to prevent the defendant from using the title "Tu Hi Aashiqui" for its proposed film. The court examined whether the title "Aashiqui" is generic or common to trade and found that the term, while suggestive of romance, has acquired distinctiveness and secondary meaning through its association with the Aashiqui Franchise. The court held that "Aashiqui" is not generic and deserves protection under trademark law. [Paras 19-24].

Deceptive Similarity - Likelihood of Confusion - The court applied the test of deceptive similarity and concluded that the defendant's proposed film title "Tu Hi Aashiqui" was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark "Aashiqui." The use of the word "Aashiqui" in the title was likely to cause confusion among the public, leading them to believe that the film was part of the Aashiqui Franchise. The court emphasized that slight variations in the title do not sufficiently differentiate it from the plaintiff's mark, especially given the identical nature of the goods (films). [Paras 25-30].

Jurisdiction and Contractual Obligations - Despite the defendant's challenge to the jurisdiction based on clauses in the agreements between the parties, the court held that it had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit since the claims of trademark infringement and passing off are tortious in nature and not purely contractual. The court also noted that the plaintiff's office and significant actions related to the alleged infringement were within its territorial jurisdiction. [Paras 16-18].

Injunction - Balance of Convenience - Irreparable Harm - The court found that the balance of convenience favored the plaintiff, as allowing the defendant to use the title "Tu Hi Aashiqui" would cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff's established brand. The court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the title "Tu Hi Aashiqui" or any other name containing the word "Aashiqui." [Paras 39-44].

Decision: An interim injunction was granted in favor of the plaintiff, restraining the defendant from using the title "Tu Hi Aashiqui" or any other title containing the word "Aashiqui" for their proposed film. [Paras 44-45].

Service Law – Pay Scale Parity – Appellants challenged the Single Judge’s order granting higher pay scales and benefits to the respondents, similar to those awarded to another set of petitioners in a prior case – Appellants argued the respondents were “fence sitters” and their claims were time-barred due to delay, waiver, and acquiescence – High Court set aside the impugned order, holding that the respondents failed to approach the court in a timely manner and were not entitled to claim benefits granted in previous proceedings involving different parties – Appeal allowed, writ petition dismissed [Paras 1-27].

Delay and Laches – Applicability of Arvind Kumar Srivastava Principle – Court held that although similarly situated employees should normally be treated alike, the respondents’ significant delay in approaching the court disqualified them from claiming benefits granted to others in earlier judgments – Cited Tarsem Singh and T.T. Murali Babu to emphasize the importance of promptness in seeking legal redress [Paras 20-27].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment and order set aside – Writ petition dismissed – No costs awarded [Paras 27-28].

Taxation Law – Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 – Dispute over classification of transactions as Inter-State Sales or Stock Transfers – Challenge to assessment by State of Haryana imposing tax on transactions treated as inter-State sales – High Court examines whether movement of goods from Haryana to Bihar under an agreement constituted a sale or stock transfer – Held: Supply of goods pursuant to a prior contract with the Government of Bihar constituted an inter-State sale under the CST Act – Petitioners already assessed for local sales tax in Bihar cannot claim exemption from inter-State tax in Haryana – Dismissal of writ petitions, affirming the validity of Haryana’s tax demand. [Paras 1-16]

Inter-State Sales vs. Stock Transfer – High Court relies on precedents to determine that movement of goods occasioned by a contract of sale constitutes an inter-State sale – Reliance on Supreme Court’s ruling in Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. vs. Commercial Tax Officer, and Bharat Electric Ltd. vs. Union of India – The issuance of Form F by Bihar for stock transfer did not absolve the petitioner from the obligation to pay inter-State sales tax in Haryana – Tax Tribunal’s findings upheld – Claims of double taxation refuted. [Paras 8-14]

Decision – Dismissal of Writ Petitions – Held: Petitioner’s arguments regarding double taxation and erroneous classification as inter-State sales rejected – Haryana entitled to impose Central Sales Tax on transactions – Refund claims to be pursued per Tata Motors Ltd. vs. CST Appellate Authority ruling – Interim orders vacated – Final judgment dismisses all petitions and pending applications. [Paras 15-19]

Civil Law - Public Premises – Eviction of Tenant – Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution – Petitioner challenged the eviction orders, claiming tenancy rights over land owned by the Municipal Committee, Mahendergarh, since 1963-64, and argued that eviction based on non-payment of rent was unjustified as he was willing to pay the arrears. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that no registered lease existed in favor of the petitioner, and his tenancy could be terminated without formal notice under the Public Premises Act – Petitioner’s long-standing possession at a meager rent of ₹150 per year, without payment of arrears, deemed insufficient to challenge the eviction. The Municipal Committee’s right to initiate eviction proceedings was upheld [Paras 1-11].

Termination of Tenancy – Public Premises Act Prevailing over Rent Act – The Court reaffirmed that under the Public Premises Act, tenancy could be terminated without prior notice, and mere filing of eviction proceedings sufficed as notice to quit. The petitioner's plea of being a lawful tenant was rejected, with the Court emphasizing that continued possession at such low rent for decades was prejudicial to the Municipal Committee’s right to recover prevalent market rent [Paras 6-10].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Eviction order upheld – No interference by the Court in the impugned orders, with the Municipal Committee entitled to recover possession and collect prevalent rent from the property.

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of a complaint filed by the Drug Inspector against the directors of Tidal Laboratories Private Ltd. for manufacturing drugs of substandard quality – Held that for criminal proceedings to continue against directors, the company must also be arraigned as an accused – Prosecution without impleading the company is unsustainable – Complaint quashed [Paras 1-50].

Directors' Liability – Drugs and Cosmetics Act – No allegations in the complaint that the petitioners, as directors, were in charge of the day-to-day affairs of the company – Impleadment of the company is mandatory for prosecution of its directors – Mere appointment as directors without specific involvement in the offence does not attract criminal liability under Section 18(a)(i) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act [Paras 35-40].

Inherent Powers of High Court – Exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC justified to prevent abuse of process where the complaint does not disclose any material connecting the accused to the offence – Continuation of trial against the directors without arraigning the company would be an abuse of process of law [Paras 20-30].

Decision: Petition allowed – Complaint and order issuing process quashed – Petitioners acquitted of all charges.

Criminal Law – Prevention of Corruption – Demand and Acceptance of Bribe – Appeal against conviction under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Appellant, a storekeeper in the ESI Department, was accused of demanding ₹1000 as a bribe for supplying a Botex injection prescribed by NIMHANS hospital to the complainant – Prosecution relied on evidence from the complainant, shadow witnesses, and trap proceedings – Court held that the demand and acceptance of the bribe were proved beyond reasonable doubt based on corroborative evidence, including the recovery of tainted money and the presumption under Section 20 of the Act – Conviction confirmed [Paras 1-78].

Evidence Law – Reliability of Witness Testimony – Cross-examination of Shadow Witnesses – The appellant claimed that the money was forcibly put into his pocket by the complainant – Court rejected this argument, noting that the shadow witnesses consistently corroborated the demand and receipt of bribe during the trap – Minor contradictions in witness testimony did not shake the prosecution’s case, and the evidence from the trap operation was found to be reliable [Paras 32-55].

Sentencing – Modification of Sentence Due to Passage of Time – The trial court sentenced the appellant to six months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 7 and one year under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act – Considering the appellant’s superannuation and the time elapsed since the incident in 2007, the Court reduced the sentence to three months under Section 7 and six months under Section 13(2), maintaining the fine imposed by the trial court – Set-off allowed for the time already spent in custody [Paras 60-78].

Decision:

Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act confirmed – Sentence reduced to three months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 7 and six months under Section 13(2) – Fine imposed by the trial court remains unaltered – Set-off granted under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. for the period of custody already undergone.