Civil Law - Execution of decree for injunction – Executing Court wrongly dismissed application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC – High Court held even prohibitory injunction enforceable in execution; demarcation can be directed – Order set aside, matter remanded [Paras 7–13].

Civil Procedure – Order 21 Rule 32 CPC – A decree for permanent injunction can be executed by attachment, detention, or restitution – Decree-holder need not file fresh suit for possession if judgment debtor violates decree by encroachment – Remedy lies in execution itself – Toran Singh v. Imrat Singh, 2012 (3) MPLJ 385 followed [Paras 7–9, 12].

Meaning of “wilful disobedience” – Requires proof of knowledge of decree, opportunity to obey, and deliberate defiance – Mere inadvertent act not enough – Burden lies on decree-holder – Karnataka rulings in Shivamurthy v. Dannammadevi Cycle Mart, AIR 1987 Kar 261 and Kariyappa v. Haladappa, AIR 1989 Kar 163 applied [Paras 7–9].

Prohibitory injunction – Enforceability – Explanation to Order 21 Rule 32(5) (added by 2002 CPC Amendment) makes clear that prohibitory injunctions too are enforceable in execution – Law Commission intent was to avoid multiplicity of suits – Court bound to give effect to decree, not drive decree-holder to new litigation [Paras 8–9, 12].

Error of Executing Court – Executing Court wrongly held that it could not go beyond decree and that possession relief was outside scope – High Court clarified that Executing Court has power to restore possession where decree violated – Impugned order unsustainable [Paras 12–13].

Demarcation – Where dispute arises as to location/identity of land, Executing Court can direct demarcation by revenue authorities before enforcing decree – Necessary for determining whether obstruction (“Muram”) lies on suit land or adjoining land [Paras 11, 13].

Inherent powers – Section 151 CPC – Even apart from express powers, Court has inherent duty to prevent frustration of decrees – Power to “put clock back” where decree violated – Surjit Pal v. Prabir Kumar Sun, AIR 1986 Cal 220; Hari Nandan Agrawal v. S.N. Pandita, AIR 1975 All 482 cited [Para 8].

Disposition – Revision allowed – Impugned order dated 05.01.2023 set aside – Matter remanded to Executing Court to get demarcation done through revenue authorities and then enforce decree under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC – Miscellaneous applications closed [Paras 12–14]

Education Law - Foreign Medical Graduates – Internship Requirement – Covid-19 and Ukraine War – NMC Circulars Valid – Petitioners (FMGs from Bukovinian University) sought one-year CRMI citing physical classes and Ext. P1 NMC notice dated 19.06.2024 – Respondent Council insisted on two-year CRMI per later NMC notices dated 07.06.2024 and 09.05.2023 – Held: Petitioners admittedly had online classes during course period – NMC directed all such FMGs to undergo two/three-year CRMI – Council bound to follow – Writ dismissed [Paras 2-6, 10-15].

Certificates from Foreign Universities – Evidentiary Value – Rejected by NMC – NMC found certificates issued by medical universities abroad claiming “compensated offline classes” to be indiscriminate and unreliable – Directed that such certificates cannot be accepted – Petitioners’ reliance on compensation letters from Bukovinian University rejected [Paras 8-9, 13-14].

Internship Condition – Acceptance by Petitioners – Estoppel – Petitioners accepted provisional registration certificates issued by Kerala State Medical Council specifying two-year internship – Attempt to later challenge condition not sustainable – Petition dismissed [Para 15].

Public Interest – NMC Decision Binding – Extension of internship duration upheld as a measure to ensure competence of FMGs who missed full physical training due to Covid-19/Ukraine War – High Court cannot dilute national policy framed by statutory regulator in public interest [Paras 14-15].

Final Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Petitioners required to complete two-year CRMI as per NMC directives – No merit in challenge [Para 15].

Criminal Law – Murder Trial Based on Circumstantial Evidence – Conviction Upheld with Modification – Appellants convicted under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 IPC for the murder of victim last seen with them on 30.10.2012 – Case rested on last-seen theory, extra-judicial confession, and recoveries under Section 27 Evidence Act – Defence challenged credibility of confession, reliability of witnesses, absence of motive, and lack of blood-group matching – High Court held that the chain of circumstances was complete and consistent with guilt, extra-judicial confession voluntary and corroborated, and recovery of weapons incriminating – Conviction sustained – Sentence modified granting set-off under Section 428 CrPC for period of detention undergone – Appeals dismissed [Paras 26-31, 32-47, 48-60, 68-89, 91].

Murder Trial – Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen Theory – Victim last seen in company of appellants by independent witnesses – Dead body recovered next morning – Medical and forensic evidence corroborated prosecution – Chain complete and consistent with guilt – Conviction affirmed [Paras 32-47, 83-89].

Extra-Judicial Confession – Voluntariness and Corroboration – Accused confessed before villagers to killing victim – Confession corroborated by recovery and witness testimony – Distinguished cases where confession was weak, retracted, or inconsistent – Held reliable [Paras 48-60].

Recovery under Section 27 Evidence Act – Offending Weapons and Motorcycles – Accused led police to recovery of blood-stained stone, broken glass, motorcycles – Forensic report confirmed human blood – Recovery held admissible and corroborative – Lack of blood-group testing not fatal [Paras 68-82].

Motive – Not Essential When Circumstantial Chain Complete – Prosecution failed to prove motive, but conviction valid – Motive unnecessary when guilt established beyond reasonable doubt [Para 85].

Principles – Circumstantial Evidence – Reiterated legal principles from Hanumant Govind Nargundkar, Sharad Birdhichand Sarda, and Padala Veera Reddy – Minor inconsistencies in witness statements immaterial when overall chain intact [Paras 26-31, 86-87].

Final Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Conviction under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 IPC sustained – Sentence modified to allow benefit of set-off under Section 428 CrPC – Connected applications also disposed of [Paras 89-91].

Consumer Law - Consumer Protection Act – Defective Car – Non-deployment of Airbags – Manufacturing Defect Established – Complainant purchased Toyota Innova in March 2011 – Vehicle suffered frontal collision in August 2011, airbags did not deploy – District Forum held inherent manufacturing defect, ordered replacement/refund with compensation – State Commission and NCDRC affirmed – High Court upheld findings, noting global recall of Innovas, FIR/photos, and expert evidence – No perversity shown [Paras 4-10, 20-22].

Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Interference Limited – High Court reiterated supervisory powers extend only to correcting jurisdictional errors or perversity – Consumer fora’s findings based on appreciation of evidence cannot be reappraised – Petition dismissed [Paras 11-14, 18-19].

NCDRC Coram Objection – Single-Member Decision – Validity Upheld – Petitioner argued NCDRC order invalid as decided by non-judicial member alone – Court rejected, holding NCDRC functions as Tribunal under statute and such orders are judicially reviewable – No illegality found [Paras 12-13].

Final Decision – Civil Revision Petition Dismissed – Orders of District Forum, State Commission, and NCDRC upheld – Toyota directed to comply with reliefs of replacement/refund and compensation [Paras 20-24].

Criminal Law - Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act – Demand and Acceptance of Illegal Gratification – Proof Essential – Conviction Set Aside – Accused, then Secretary of Alagappanagar Grama Panchayat, was convicted for accepting ₹250 as bribe in trap proceedings – Complainant (PW2) turned hostile, denying demand and acceptance – Other witnesses (PW3, PW4, PW5) spoke only to trap formalities and recovery but not to demand – Held: Proof of demand is sine qua non for conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) – Mere recovery insufficient – Conviction unsustainable. Acquittal. [Paras 5-11, 15-17, 19].

Hostile Complainant – Evidentiary Impact – Circumstantial Evidence Insufficient – Though complainant turned hostile, Court reiterated that demand may be proved by circumstantial evidence or other testimony – In present case, circumstances did not establish demand – Prosecution failed to prove foundational fact – No presumption under Section 20 could be raised [Paras 16-18].

Case Law Applied – Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), AIR 2023 SC 330 – Demand and acceptance must be proved directly or circumstantially – Aman Bhatia v. State (GNCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1013 – Presumption under Section 20 limited to Section 7 offences – State v. C.B. Nagaraj, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1175 – Reinforced same ratio [Paras 14-18].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) PC Act set aside – Accused acquitted – Bail bond cancelled – Liberty restored [Para 19].

Recovery Suit – Negligence of Employee – Corporation Alleged Loss of Stocks and Excess Gunny Bags – Departmental Enquiry Established Liability – Trial Court Partly Decreed Suit – Lower Appellate Court Reversed on Ground of Limitation – In Second Appeal, High Court confined to issue of limitation [Paras 1-7, 11-15, 19].

Limitation – Cause of Action – Commencement from Date of Knowledge – Corporation acquired knowledge of excess bags in 1988 and shortage of wheat on 09.01.1989 – Suit filed on 16.07.1992 – Held barred by three-year limitation under Article 58 of Limitation Act – Plea that limitation starts from date of final determination of loss rejected [Paras 20-22].

Case Law – Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent – Court applied ratio in Nikhila Divyang Mehta v. Hitesh P. Sanghvi, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 779, reiterating that limitation begins when cause of action first accrues or from date of knowledge – Distinction between “knowledge” and “full knowledge” rejected – Suit beyond time barred under Section 3 of Limitation Act [Paras 23].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Judgment of Lower Appellate Court upholding bar of limitation sustained – No infirmity or illegality found – Cross-objections and pending applications also disposed of [Paras 24-26].

Trademark Dispute – Passing Off Action – Interim Injunction Partly Upheld and Partly Set Aside – Plaintiff (IMPL/boAt) alleged deceptive similarity of defendant’s (EM/Boult) marks BOULT, logos, and tagline with its BOAT/boAt brand – Single Judge injuncted EM from using three logos and tagline “UNPLUG YOURSELF” – Division Bench held: (i) No injunction could be granted on tagline absent formal prayer, order to that extent quashed, (ii) injunction against use of marks/logos upheld as consistent with settled principles of passing off, (iii) EM free to use proposed new mark GOBOULT since not part of lis – Appeal disposed with partial relief [Paras 7, 42-47].

Injunction Beyond Pleadings – Tagline “UNPLUG YOURSELF” – Relief Not Prayed Cannot Be Granted – Court reiterated settled law that courts cannot grant relief beyond pleadings – Single Judge erred in injuncting tagline without prayer – That portion of order set aside [Paras 44.1–44.3].

Adoption of New Mark – GOBOULT – No Existing Injunction – As Single Judge did not restrain use of similar marks generally, EM free to adopt GOBOULT – Any objection by IMPL must be pursued separately as distinct cause of action [Paras 45.1–45.5, 47(iii)].

Passing Off – Phonetic and Visual Similarity – BOAT and BOULT held deceptively similar – Common triangular logos and similar tagline motifs (“PLUG INTO NIRVANA” vs. “UNPLUG YOURSELF”) enhanced likelihood of confusion – Consumer test based on imperfect recollection applied – Court declined to interfere with Single Judge’s discretion [Paras 46.4–46.17].

Principles of Appellate Interference – Appeal Against Interim Injunction – Limited Scope – Appellate court not to substitute its view unless lower court’s discretion arbitrary, perverse, or contrary to law – Reiterated principles from Wander Ltd. v. Antox India and subsequent SC rulings [Paras 46.3.1–46.3.5].

Infringement vs. Passing Off – EM’s registered mark insulated it from infringement claim – Case decided on passing off, requiring proof of goodwill, misrepresentation, and likelihood of damage – Goodwill of boAt brand established by turnover and advertising expenditure – Prima facie passing off found [Paras 46.6–46.13].

Final Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Injunction against marks/logos affirmed – Injunction on tagline set aside – Clarified no bar against use of GOBOULT – Each party to bear own costs [Para 47].

Criminal Law – Attempt to Murder and Robbery – Conviction Modified and Sentence Reduced – Appellant convicted in 2002 for stabbing complainant Raj Kumar and robbing ₹9,200/- with accomplices – Trial court imposed 7 years RI under Sections 307/34 and 392/397/34 IPC – On appeal, High Court upheld conviction under Section 307 IPC, but altered conviction from 392/397 IPC to 379 IPC as prosecution failed to prove use of force “for the purpose of committing theft” – Sentence reduced to 5 years RI under Section 307/34 IPC and 6 months RI under Section 379/34 IPC, with both running concurrently and benefit of Section 428 CrPC granted [Paras 2-4, 11-17].

Attempt to Murder – Injured Witness Testimony – Conviction Upheld – Injured PW-3 Raj Kumar’s testimony consistent, corroborated by medical evidence (MLC showing multiple stab wounds) – Minor contradictions immaterial – Injured witness testimony carries special evidentiary weight – Conviction under Section 307/34 IPC affirmed [Paras 8-11].

Robbery vs. Theft – Distinction Applied – Assault Not for Purpose of Theft – Though complainant was attacked and money taken, evidence showed motive was personal enmity, not theft – Absence of proof that violence was caused “in order to commit theft” under Section 390 IPC – Conviction under Section 392/397 IPC modified to Section 379/34 IPC [Paras 12-14].

Sentence – Modification Based on Passage of Time and Mitigating Circumstances – Incident occurred in 2000, trial concluded in 2002, appeal decided after 23 years – Appellant now 51 years old with dependent family – Court reduced sentence from 7 years to 5 years under Section 307 IPC and 6 months under Section 379 IPC – Directed surrender within 3 days [Paras 16-18].

Final Decision – Conviction under Section 307 IPC upheld – Conviction under Sections 392/397 IPC modified to Section 379 IPC – Sentence reduced – Appeal disposed of with directions to surrender and serve modified term [Paras 15-20].

Civil Revision – Recording of Evidence at Residence – Appointment of Local Commissioner – Challenge Dismissed – Plaintiff, aged 84 years, sought recording of her evidence at home citing medical condition – Earlier similar application dismissed when health was stable – Fresh medical record showed supervised rest advised – Trial court allowed application under Order 10 CPC, appointed Local Commissioner – High Court held: Res judicata not rigidly applicable to interlocutory orders; change in circumstances justified order – Wrong provision cited immaterial when substantive power exists under CPC – Revision dismissed [Paras 1-3, 6-9, 11-12].

Res Judicata – Interlocutory Orders – Not Rigidly Applied – Earlier dismissal of application (31.05.2025) not bar to subsequent application where fresh medical record produced – Change of circumstances material for reconsideration [Para 6].

Wrong Citation of Provision – No Bar to Relief – Though application filed under Order 10 CPC, power to record evidence by commission flows from Order 18 Rules 16 & 19 and Order 26 Rule 1 CPC – Wrong mentioning of provision does not vitiate order if substantive power exists [Para 7].

Recording Evidence at Disputed Property – Not Improper – Plaintiff residing in disputed house – Mere pendency of dispute does not bar recording of evidence at that location – Local Commissioner as officer of court ensures decorum and impartiality [Para 8].

Affidavit in Chief – Already Filed – To be Tendered Before Commissioner – Plaintiff’s affidavit in examination-in-chief already on record; cross-examination to be conducted before Local Commissioner in presence of both parties – No prejudice caused to petitioner [Para 9].

Case Law – Cited Precedents Distinguished – Reliance on Kapil Corepacks Pvt. Ltd. v. Harbans Lal (2010) 8 SCC 452 and Laxmibai v. Bhagwantbuv (2013) 4 SCC 97 rejected as those cases dealt with immediate recording of evidence before trial commenced – Present case involved evidence stage after framing of issues [Para 10].

Final Decision – Civil Revision Petition Dismissed – Trial court’s order upheld – Pending applications also disposed of [Paras 12-13].