Trademark Infringement and Passing Off - Dispute over use of the mark 'JINDAL' by the defendants. The plaintiff, Jindal Industries Pvt. Ltd., holds registered trademarks for the word 'JINDAL' and contends that the defendants' use of similar marks infringes on their registered trademarks and amounts to passing off [Paras 2, 5, 42, 43, 45].

Analysis of Section 35, Trade Marks Act – Held – The Court noted the absolute protection offered by Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act to the bona fide use of one's name, extending to its usage as a trade mark, and found that the defendants' use of 'JINDAL' in their mark did not infringe upon the plaintiff's registered trade marks. [Para 10-40]

Comparison of Marks – Held – The Court observed that the marks of the plaintiff and defendants were neither identical nor deceptively similar, considering the added features in the defendants' mark, which included the prominent 'RNJ' logo and the name 'R N JINDAL SS TUBES'. This made the defendants' mark a distinct source identifier, unrelated to the plaintiff's mark. [Para 42-45]

Passing Off – Held – The Court concluded that there was no prima facie likelihood of confusion or deception from the defendants' use of their mark, and hence, no passing off occurred. [Para 46]

Decision – Interim Injunction Denied – The application for interim injunction by Jindal Industries Pvt. Ltd. against Suncity Sheets Pvt. Ltd. and Rachna Jindal was dismissed, as the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of trade mark infringement or passing off. [Para 47-48]

Criminal Procedure Code – Quashing of Proceedings U/S 138 NI Act – Section 482 CrPC – The High Court of Delhi, in exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, quashed the summoning order against the petitioner in a case pertaining to a cheque bounce under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court scrutinized the involvement of the petitioner, a 65-year-old lady and a partner in the accused firm, in the transaction in question and the issuance of the cheque. [Para 1, 20-21]

Partnership Liability – Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act – Emphasizing the necessity of specific averments in the complaint to establish the role and responsibility of a partner in the partnership firm at the time of commission of offence, the court found insufficient evidence against the petitioner in the discharge of liabilities under the cheques issued by the firm. The Court noted the absence of the petitioner’s name in a previous complaint related to the same transaction, casting doubt on her involvement. [Para 13-14, 17, 19]

Vicarious Liability – Negotiable Instruments Act – The Court held that vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be assumed merely based on the partnership status in the firm. Specific involvement in the transaction or the business affairs of the firm must be demonstrated. In the present case, the court found a lack of evidence to establish the petitioner's active role in the issuance of the disputed cheques or in the management of the firm’s affairs relevant to the transaction. [Para 16-17, 19]

Decision – Quashing of Summoning Order – Based on the assessment of the specific role and involvement of the petitioner in the issuance of the cheques and the conduct of business of the accused firm, the High Court quashed the summoning order against the petitioner. The Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC to prevent abuse of process and in the interest of justice. [Para 20-21]

Divorce Petition Dismissal – Mental Cruelty and Mental Disorder Unproved – Appellant (husband) appealed against Family Court’s judgment dismissing his divorce petition under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 1(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on grounds of alleged cruelty and mental disorder by respondent (wife) – Family Court found no substantial proof of cruelty or mental disorder, noting respondent’s adequate communication and independence in child-rearing [Paras 1, 16-18, 31].

Allegations by Appellant – Wife’s Indifferent Behavior and Mental Health Issues – Appellant claimed respondent showed indifference, refused to perform household duties, threatened suicide, and suffered from mental illness, requiring hospital visits – Allegations included respondent’s frequent departures to her parental home and refusal to maintain physical relations [Paras 3-7].

Respondent’s Rebuttal – Denial of Ill-Treatment and False Mental Health Claims – Respondent denied all allegations, claiming she was mentally fit and accused the appellant of fabricating mental health issues – Respondent countered with allegations of dowry demands and physical discomfort due to pregnancy [Paras 12, 23, 25].

Medical Evidence – Insufficient Proof of Mental Disorder – Medical reports from IHBAS revealed no substantial evidence of respondent’s mental disorder, undermining appellant’s claims – Reports indicated respondent’s normal mental state during pregnancy [Paras 22, 24-25].

Court’s Analysis – Normal Marital Strains, No Proof of Cruelty – Court differentiated between normal marital conflicts and cruelty – Found allegations against respondent (like late rising, reluctance in household chores) typical of early pregnancy stage and not constituting cruelty – Lack of respondent’s complaint against appellant for dowry demand considered [Paras 26-31].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed, No Cruelty or Mental Disorder Established – High Court upheld Family Court’s judgment, dismissing the appeal due to insufficient evidence of mental cruelty or disorder by the respondent [Paras 32-33].

Urban Development and Slum Rehabilitation – Rights of Slum Dwellers vs. Right to Clean Drinking Water – The High Court addressed the conflict between the fundamental rights of slum dwellers to adequate housing and the right of citizens to clean drinking water. The slum dwellers of Akbar Nagar, residing on the banks of Kukrail water channel, challenged demolition orders by the Lucknow Development Authority and sought rehabilitation under the U.P. Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1962, and U.P. In-Situ Slum Redevelopment Policy, 2021. [Para 1, 4, 9]

Adjudication of Conflicting Fundamental Rights under Article 21 – held – the court balanced the rights of slum dwellers against the larger public interest of citizens of Lucknow. Recognizing both rights as aspects of the right to life under Article 21, the court held that the right to clean drinking water for the majority cannot be compromised by the unauthorized occupation of government land. [Para 13-14, 17-18]

Rehabilitation Policy for Slum Dwellers – directed – the court accepted the rehabilitation policy offered by the state, mandating that all Below Poverty Line (BPL) residents of Akbar Nagar slums be provided flats under 'Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana' at subsidized rates, with an initial deposit of Rs. 1,000 and the balance payable in easy installments. The benefit was extended to all residents seeking relocation, irrespective of their BPL status. [Para 20-21]

Eviction and Rehabilitation Timeline – ordered – residents of Akbar Nagar slums must vacate by March 31, 2024, post which authorities are permitted to clear the area. The applications for the rehabilitation scheme are to be filed within two weeks, and the state is to complete the rehabilitation process by the set deadline. [Para 22-23]

Decision – Balancing the conflicting rights under Article 21, the court upheld the eviction and ordered rehabilitation of the slum dwellers, emphasizing the fundamental right to clean drinking water for the citizens of Lucknow. The rehabilitation scheme provided a humane approach to eviction, safeguarding the interests of the affected slum dwellers. [Para 24-26]

Criminal Procedure Code – Section 311 and 482 – Summoning of Investigating Officer as Witness – Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed – The Allahabad High Court in the case of Sanjeev Kumar And 3 Others v. State Of U.P., addressed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the trial court's refusal to summon the investigating officer under Section 311 Cr.P.C. as a witness. [Para 1, 2]

Background – Rejection of Application for Summoning Investigating Officer – Incident dated back to 2006, with trial proceedings commencing post 2007. Application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed at the final argument stage of the trial to summon the investigating officer, rejected by the trial court as an attempt to delay the trial. [Para 3-7]

Applicant's Argument – Discretionary Powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C. – Reliance on Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the discretionary power of the court to summon or re-examine witnesses at any trial stage to ensure a just decision and prevent prejudice. [Para 8, 9]

Court's Analysis – Jurisprudence on Section 311 Cr.P.C. – Various Supreme Court decisions were cited, establishing the criteria for exercising discretion under Section 311. Emphasis on the judicial exercise of discretion to prevent failure of justice, with considerations of potential hardship to witnesses and trial delays. [Para 11-17]

Conclusion – Application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. not Essential for Just Decision – The Court found no necessity to examine the investigating officer at the final argument stage. The application was perceived as an attempt to delay trial conclusion and lacked merit, hence dismissed. [Para 18-20]

Criminal Procedure – Anticipatory Bail – Interpretation and Applicability of Section 438 Cr.P.C. – Court clarified the scope and application of Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) concerning anticipatory bail. The court elucidated that the provision for anticipatory bail is applicable even after the filing of a charge-sheet or cognizance by the court, emphasizing the importance of the liberty of the individual and the presumption of innocence. [Para 17-28, 34-35]

Maintainability of Anticipatory Bail Post Cognizance – Held – Anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is maintainable even when cognizance of the offence is taken by the court or a charge-sheet is filed. This interpretation upholds the legislative intent of Section 438 Cr.P.C., ensuring protection against undue pre-trial arrest and detention. [Para 19-24, 34]

Difference Between 'Arrest' and 'Custody' – Explained – The court distinguished between 'arrest' and 'custody', asserting that anticipatory bail is applicable to scenarios where an individual, despite being summoned, apprehends arrest or custody upon appearance before the trial court. This distinction does not restrict the applicability of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. [Para 24-26]

Conditions for Grant of Anticipatory Bail – Applied – The court considered the individual circumstances of the applicants, including their cooperation during the investigation without being arrested, and determined that they were entitled to anticipatory bail. The court imposed specific conditions on the applicants to ensure their availability for trial and to prevent tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. [Para 34-36]

Decision – Granting anticipatory bail to applicants in CC No. 272/2022. Applicants to be released on bail upon arrest, subject to specific conditions related to the ongoing trial and conduct towards witnesses, officials, and entities involved. [Paras 36-37]

Family Law – Family Law – Divorce – Cruelty – High Court granted divorce to the appellant, Major Shashi Chauhan, on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Court set aside the impugned judgment dated 21.12.2018, which had dismissed the appellant's divorce petition. [Para 71]

Evidence – Allegations of Cruelty – The Court noted that the respondent, Major Ritu Bhasin, did not substantiate her allegations of cruelty and dowry harassment, and instead filed multiple complaints against the appellant post the filing of the divorce petition, which were either dismissed or resulted in acquittal. This was seen as indicative of vindictiveness and mental cruelty towards the appellant. [Para 53, 55, 61]

Behaviour of Parties – Mental Cruelty – The Court observed that the respondent's conduct, including making unsubstantiated allegations, filing of false complaints, and long separation with no effort for reconciliation, amounted to mental cruelty. The Court referenced several cases to underscore the impact of such allegations on the reputation and mental well-being of the appellant. [Para 62, 63, 69]

Matrimonial Life – Failed Reconciliation – The Court concluded that the marriage suffered from irreconcilable differences, protracted litigations, and long separation without any attempt at reconciliation, making the continuation of the marriage an act of cruelty to both parties. [Para 70]

Judgment – Grant of Divorce – The Court granted the divorce to the appellant, Major Shashi Chauhan, on grounds of cruelty by the respondent, thereby dissolving the marriage. [Para 72]

Civil Law – Arbitration – Interim Measures – In the case of Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd. Versus Reliance Infrastructure Ltd., the Delhi High Court examined the issue of granting interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in the context of an international commercial arbitration. The Court considered the enforceability of a foreign arbitral award and the interim protection of assets for securing the award amount. [Para 1-87]

Interim Measures for Foreign Arbitral Awards – Upheld – The Court held that interim measures can be sought under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act even after the making of an arbitral award, until it is enforced in accordance with Section 36 for domestic awards and Sections 44 to 49 for foreign awards. This was to ensure that the assets against which the award is to be enforced are preserved. [Para 74-81]

Jurisdiction – Determination – The Court found that it had jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act based on the location of assets in Delhi. It was determined that the situs of the assets was a key factor for maintaining a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, even in cases of international commercial arbitration. [Para 24-37]

Financial Condition of Respondent – Consideration – The Court considered the financial condition of Reliance Infrastructure and the previous assurances given to the court regarding the preservation of assets. It was observed that the Respondent’s failure to provide a satisfactory assurance regarding the availability of assets to satisfy the arbitral award necessitated the grant of interim measures. [Para 67-70, 72-73]

Order – Restraint on Asset Alienation – The High Court ordered Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. To refrain from selling, alienating, transferring, or encumbering its assets amounting to US$ 135,320,728.42, ensuring the enforceability of the arbitral award. The restraint was subject to any existing charge on the assets created in favor of banks or financial institutions. [Para 85-86]

Decision – Dismissal of Cross Objections – The cross objections raised by Reliance Infrastructure concerning jurisdiction and the applicability of Section 9 of the Arbitration Act were dismissed by the Court. [Para 87]

Defamation and Damages Claim – Social Media Allegations – Suit filed by the plaintiff, a charitable trust, against defamatory statements made by the defendant on YouTube regarding alleged involvement in a murder – Plaintiff claims reputational harm and seeks monetary compensation. [Paras 1-2, 5-6]

Evidence and Testimonies – Plaintiff's evidence substantiated by witness testimonies and exhibits (Ex.P1 to Ex.P9) including a compact disc with 65B certificate – No denial or counter-argument by the defendant, who remained ex parte. [Paras 3, 5]

Monetary Compensation Granted – Court awards Rs.50,00,000/- as damages to the plaintiff for reputational harm caused by defendant's false allegations – Emphasis on the malicious and defamatory nature of statements against the plaintiff. [Para 6]

Permanent Injunction and Freedom of Expression – Court decrees permanent injunction against the defendant from making defamatory posts and comments on social media platforms – Remarks on misuse of freedom of expression and need to discourage blackmail via social media. [Paras 7-8]

Decision – Suit decreed in favor of the plaintiff with damages of Rs.50 lakhs and costs, interest at 7.5% if not paid within one month, and permanent injunction granted. [Para 8]