Criminal Law - Quashing of cognizance order - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 528 - Petitioners sought quashing of cognizance order passed by the trial Court for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 - Petitioners contended that cognizance was taken without recording prima facie satisfaction and against the accused instead of the offences - Prosecution opposed stating that petitioners approached the Court with unclean hands by suppressing the issuance of Non Bailable Warrants against them due to their non appearance - High Court perused the proceedings and found that NBWs were indeed issued - High Court held that petitioners suppressed material facts and approached the Court with unclean hands hence disentitling them to equitable relief - Held - Petitions dismissed with liberty to avail remedies for quashment after recalling the NBWs - [Paras 1-7].

Criminal Law - Suppression of material facts - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 528 - Equitable relief - Petitioners concealed the fact that Non Bailable Warrants were pending against them - Held - A party approaching the Court with unclean hands and suppressing material facts is not entitled to seek equitable relief - Petitioners must first seek recall of the NBWs before seeking quashment of the proceedings - [Paras 4-7].

Decision: Criminal petitions are dismissed – Petitioners are granted liberty to avail remedies for seeking quashment of the proceedings after recalling the Non-Bailable Warrants issued against them on 16.06.2026.

Criminal Law – Rape and Kidnapping – Acquittal – Appellant convicted by Trial Court under Sections 376 and 363 IPC for allegedly kidnapping a minor girl in a TSR and confining her for nine days during which he raped her five times – Sentenced to RI of 7 years under Section 376 IPC and RI of 2 years under Section 363 IPC – On appeal, High Court finds the testimony of the prosecutrix riddled with material inconsistencies, improbabilities, and unnatural conduct throughout the incident – Age of prosecutrix not proved in accordance with law – Prosecution failed to establish essential ingredients of the offences beyond reasonable doubt – Held: Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; Appellant acquitted [Paras 1–25].

Sole Testimony – Sterling Quality – Reliability – It is settled law that conviction in sexual offence cases can rest on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix provided it inspires confidence and is free from material contradictions – However, the said principle is not absolute – Where the testimony suffers from improbabilities and inconsistencies going to the root of the prosecution's case, corroboration becomes necessary – In the instant case, the prosecutrix made no attempt to raise alarm during TSR journey lasting 1½ hours, failed to seek help during confinement despite proximity of neighbours and PCO owner, returned home without police assistance, and expressed concern for the Appellant's arrest rather than her own safety – Testimony held not of sterling quality and unfit to sustain conviction without corroboration [Paras 1–7, 16, 24].

Proof of Age – Minor – Secondary Evidence – Documentary Evidence – Prosecution relied on photocopies of Birth Certificate and school records to establish that the prosecutrix was below 16 years of age – No original documents produced and no foundation laid for leading secondary evidence – Parents gave contradictory statements regarding year of birth – School register entry of date of birth has no evidentiary value unless the person making the entry or furnishing the information is examined – Age of prosecutrix held not proved in accordance with law – Charge under Section 363 IPC consequently unsubstantiated [Paras 18–21].

Medical Evidence – Corroborative Value – MLC – Two-Finger Test – Medical evidence in rape cases is corroborative in nature and not substantive – MLC of prosecutrix showed no injury on her person, ruling out forcible sexual act – The now-banned two-finger test result indicating admission of two fingers created an additional possibility inconsistent with the prosecution's version – Medical evidence did not conclusively establish guilt nor complete the chain of circumstances [Para 22].

Investigation – Lapses – Non-Examination of Witnesses – Multiple lapses in investigation noted including non-examination of TSR driver, landlord of confinement premises, neighbours, and PCO owner; non-recovery of knife; absence of site plan; and inordinate delay of two months in recording statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. – Held: While defective investigation alone cannot be a ground for acquittal where reliable ocular evidence exists, in the present case the cumulative lapses coupled with an unreliable sole testimony render the prosecution's case insufficient to sustain conviction [Para 17].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment dated 18.12.2008 and order on sentence dated 20.12.2008 set aside – Appellant acquitted – Bail bond cancelled and surety discharged.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Process – Bank Officials – Public Servant – Prior Sanction – Section 197 Cr.P.C. – Application of Mind by Magistrate – Petitioners, Branch Manager and Zonal Head of J&K Bank, were proceeded against on a complaint alleging that they took Rs. 2.50 lakhs from the complainant on promise of employment and subsequently subjected him to abuse and threats – Chief Judicial Magistrate recorded preliminary statements and issued process under Sections 420, 504 and 506 RPC without ordering investigation or inquiry – Petitioners sought quashing on grounds of absence of prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. and lack of application of mind – Held: (i) Section 197 Cr.P.C. protects only those public servants who are not removable from office except by or with the sanction of the Government; bank employees do not fall within this protection and cannot invoke Section 197 as a shield for IPC/RPC offences; (ii) the complaint was fatally vague — the exact date, time and venue of the alleged payment of Rs. 2.50 lakhs were not specified; the assertion implicating petitioner No. 2 was entirely unsubstantiated without any disclosed basis of knowledge; (iii) summoning an accused is a serious matter and the Magistrate must apply mind to the facts, scrutinize the evidence and test the veracity of the allegations before issuing process, particularly against public officials facing vague accusations; (iv) process was issued in a perfunctory and routine manner without requisite application of mind — impugned order set aside — matter remitted to trial court for fresh orders in accordance with law [Paras 1–16].

Intellectual Property – Trade Mark – Interim Injunction – Infringement and Passing Off – 'AL KAMDHENU GOLD' Mark – Two cross-suits filed between Ashiana Ispat Limited (AIL) and Kamdhenu Limited (KL) concerning the mark 'AL KAMDHENU GOLD' (Impugned Mark) – AIL claims ownership by virtue of 2002 Agreement and long user since 2002 and seeks injunction against KL for passing off – KL, registered proprietor of 'KAMDHENU', 'KAMDHENU GOLD' and 'KAMDHENU GOLD TMT', claims infringement and passing off by AIL – Court finds AIL has not established prima facie case of prior user or independent goodwill – KL establishes prima facie case for infringement and passing off – Held: Interim injunction granted in favour of KL; AIL's application for interim injunction dismissed [Paras 36–59].

Trade Mark – Assignment vs. Licence – 2002 Agreement – Nature and Effect – AIL claimed the 2002 Agreement constituted a trade mark assignment under which KL unequivocally relinquished rights over the Impugned Mark and recognised AIL as absolute owner – Held: Assignment is a permanent transfer of proprietary rights whereas a licence is a permitted use without transfer of ownership – A plain reading of Clauses 5, 22–26 of the 2002 Agreement indicates that the parties operated within a licensor-licensee framework – Clause 24 expressly made AIL's ownership contingent upon final registration of the Impugned Mark – No registration ever obtained by AIL – Pervasive control retained by KL including termination rights confirms the arrangement was in substance and effect a licence user arrangement and not an assignment [Paras 20–29].

Trade Mark – Permitted Use – Section 48(2) of Trade Marks Act – Goodwill – Use of a trade mark by a licensee is deemed to be use by the proprietor for all purposes under the Trade Marks Act – AIL's advertisements during subsistence of 2002 Agreement constituted permitted use and any goodwill generated thereby enured to the benefit of KL as licensor – AIL's invoices from 1997 to 2024 did not bear the Impugned Mark but bore marks of KL – AIL therefore failed to establish independent prior user and goodwill in the Impugned Mark [Paras 38–44].

Contract – Novation – Section 62 of Contract Act – 2021 Agreement – Novation of 2002 Agreement – Recital E of 2021 Agreement expressly took note of 2002 Agreement and recorded that the product CTD bars/Tor Steel covered by 2002 Agreement had become obsolete and that AIL wished to continue the arrangement for manufacture of next-generation TMT bars under the Mark 'KAMDHENU NXT' – Mutual intention of parties to substitute 2002 Agreement with a new arrangement discernible from the terms and commercial context of 2021 Agreement – Held: Prima facie 2021 Agreement constitutes a novation of the 2002 Agreement [Paras 30–35].

Maintainability – Specific Performance – Declaratory Relief – Termination of Agreement – AIL filed suit for specific performance of 2002 Agreement disputing both novation and applicability of termination letter dated 19.09.2024 to 2002 Agreement – Where a party disputes that a contract has been terminated, unilateral termination may constitute repudiatory breach entitling the aggrieved party to treat the contract as continuing and seek specific performance without first obtaining declaratory relief – Distinction drawn from I.S. Sikandar (supra) where termination was undisputed – Maintainability objection kept open for determination on merits [Paras 7–14].

Family Arrangement – Licensor-Licensee – Estoppel – AIL's claim of joint family management and joint development of 'KAMDHENU' Mark rejected – All three agreements between AIL and KL expressly stated the parties were unrelated, distinct and separate entities operating on a purely commercial and contractual basis – All rights in trade marks and goodwill vest in corporate entities and not individual directors or families – Claims based on family arrangement do not impact legal rights between unaffiliated commercial entities – AIL as licensee/ex-licensee estopped from challenging KL's proprietary rights in KAMDHENU Mark and its formatives [Paras 17–19, 44].

Interim Injunction – Balance of Convenience – Irreparable Harm – Products at issue are reinforcement steel bars used in transportation and infrastructure projects where safety and structural integrity are critical – Any defect in goods bearing the Impugned Mark likely to be associated with KL thereby damaging KL's reputation and goodwill – Such harm cannot be adequately compensated in monetary terms – Balance of convenience favours KL as registered proprietor of 'KAMDHENU', 'KAMDHENU GOLD' and 'KAMDHENU GOLD TMT' – Held: Defendants in KL Suit restrained from manufacturing, marketing, selling or dealing in products bearing the Impugned Mark or any deceptively similar mark incorporating 'KAMDHENU' as an essential feature [Paras 45–57].

Decision: I.A. No. 14115/2025 in CS(COMM) 569/2025 filed by Kamdhenu Limited allowed – Defendants in KL Suit jointly and severally restrained from using the Impugned Mark 'AL KAMDHENU GOLD' or any mark bearing 'KAMDHENU' as an essential feature in relation to steel products – I.A. No. 3990/2025 in CS(COMM) 130/2025 filed by Ashiana Ispat Limited dismissed.

Income Tax – Pre-Operative Period – Interest on Bank Deposits – Capital Receipt or Income from Other Sources – Inextricable Link Test – Appellant company incorporated in 1992 for manufacture of ecological brake-shoes – Raised loans from Directors and deposited unutilised funds in bank pending deployment for purchase of plant and machinery and payment of balance technical know-how fee – Earned interest of Rs. 1,33,151/- and Rs. 2,37,770/- for AYs 1993-94 and 1994-95 respectively – Interest adjusted against pre-operative expenses – AO on reassessment treated interest as income from other sources relying on Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals – ITAT upheld reassessment – Held: Funds were not surplus but earmarked for meeting committed project obligations and were inextricably linked to setting up of business – Ratio of Bokaro Steel Ltd. applicable and not Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals – Question of law (2) answered in favour of appellant – ITAT order set aside [Paras 48–57].

Reassessment – Section 147/148 – Change of Opinion – Assessment under Section 143(1) – Where original assessment is completed under Section 143(1) and no order under Section 143(3) is passed, the Assessing Officer cannot be said to have formed any opinion – Reassessment proceedings in such cases are not vitiated as change of opinion – Only requirement under new Section 147 (w.e.f. 01.04.1989) is that income has escaped assessment – Held: ITAT correctly upheld validity of reassessment – Question of law (1) answered in favour of Revenue [Paras 42–45].

ITAT Powers – Scope of Appellate Jurisdiction – Section 254 – ITAT has wide powers to pass such orders "as it thinks fit" on the subject matter of appeal – Powers not confined to grounds raised in memorandum of appeal – ITAT may decide any issue going to the root of the subject matter even if not specifically raised by either party, provided it falls within the confines of the subject matter of appeal – Revenue's failure to raise jurisdictional issue before ITAT did not preclude ITAT from deciding the same [Paras 46–47].

Tuticorin vs. Bokaro – Distinction – Interest on Surplus Funds vs. Inextricably Linked Funds – Where funds borrowed or raised are surplus and independently invested to generate interest, interest is taxable as income from other sources per Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals – Where funds are inextricably linked to setting up of project and temporarily deposited pending deployment, interest earned is a capital receipt liable to be set off against pre-operative expenses per Bokaro Steel Ltd. – Test is not whether there was compulsion to deposit funds but whether the funds bore an inextricable nexus with the project [Paras 54–56].

Decision: Question of law (1) answered in favour of Revenue – Question of law (2) answered in favour of Appellant – Order of ITAT set aside – Appeals allowed [Para 57].

Motor Vehicles Act – Section 163A – Personal Accident Cover – Owner-Insured – Jurisdiction of MACT – Deceased owner of motorcycle died in accident caused by unknown vehicle – Legal heirs filed claim petition under Section 163A before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – Tribunal awarded Rs. 15,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. relying on personal accident package policy – Held: Owner/insured, not being a third party, is not entitled to claim compensation under Section 163A before the MACT relying upon personal accident coverage – Award set aside – Appeal allowed [Paras 6, 9, 10].

Third Party Liability – Owner vs. Third Party – Section 147, Motor Vehicles Act – Scope of Compulsory Insurance – Risk to the owner/insured of the vehicle is not required to be covered under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act – Owner/insured or legal heirs of deceased owner cannot maintain a petition under Section 163A before the MACT for injuries/death relying upon personal accident cover – They may directly approach the insurer under the personal accident cover and in case of failure, approach the Consumer Forum or other appropriate forum [Paras 6, 9, 10].

Conflicting Decisions – Reference to Larger Bench – Supreme Court – Issue of whether legal heirs of vehicle owners who died in accidents can claim compensation under no-fault liability provisions of Section 163A, or whether such claims are limited to third party liability, referred by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Nos. 15447–48 of 2024 (Wakis Afrin (Minor) v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.) to a larger bench due to conflicting decisions of coordinate benches – High Court held the present case governed by its own earlier binding precedent [Para 9].

Plea of Limited Liability – Stage of Raising – Distinguishing Supreme Court Precedent – In Manjusha v. United India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2025 SCC Online SC 1512), the Supreme Court allowed the claimants' appeal since the plea of limited liability was neither raised before the Tribunal nor in the Memorandum of Appeal – Distinguished: In the present case, the Insurance Company raised the question of limited liability in the Memorandum of Appeal – Hence the said decision held inapplicable [Para 9].

Decision: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal allowed – No costs – Award dated 04.03.2024 in M.C.O.P. No. 688 of 2021 set aside – Respondents/petitioners at liberty to directly approach insurer under personal accident cover and if not compensated, to approach Consumer Forum or other appropriate forum – Connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Dishonour of Cheque – Acquittal Upheld – Complainant alleged payment of Rs. 35,00,000/- cash as advance for purchase of land to respondent, who issued two cheques towards discharge of liability — cheques dishonoured for insufficient funds — trial court convicted respondent; appellate court reversed and acquitted — complainant admitted in cross-examination that annual income was only Rs. 3,50,000/-, complaint did not specify date, place or mode of payment, no documentary evidence of cash payment produced, khasra number and details of land unknown — respondent denied receipt of amount and proved stop-payment instructions dated 29.08.2012 to bank — Held: Complainant failed to establish existence of legal liability or debt; respondent successfully rebutted presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 NI Act by raising a probable defence supported by documentary evidence — acquittal appeals dismissed [Paras 9–15].

Statutory Presumption – Rebuttal – Standard of Proof – Sections 118 and 139 NI Act raise rebuttable presumptions in favour of holder upon admission of signature and issuance of cheque — burden shifts to accused to raise a probable defence; standard of proof is preponderance of probability, not proof beyond reasonable doubt — inference can be drawn from materials on record as well as circumstances relied upon by accused — where complainant fails to prove basic foundational facts of legal liability, presumption stands rebutted [Paras 5, 11–12].

Appeal Against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Appellate court must be slow to reverse acquittal as it adds to the double presumption of innocence — reversal from acquittal to conviction requires demonstration of illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the trial court's decision — where the view of the acquitting court is plausible and possible, mere availability of a contrary view does not justify interference — selective appreciation of evidence is itself a ground of challenge [Paras 8, 14–15].

Service of Notice – Notice Sent to Correct Address – Even where statutory notice is not physically served and is returned with remark of locked premises, it is presumed duly served if sent to the correct address mentioned in the complaint — respondent failed to establish that address was incorrect or that he was not residing thereat — notice held to be validly served [Para 12].

Decision: Both acquittal appeals dismissed — Acquittal of respondent Mahendra Singh Thakur under Section 138 NI Act confirmed.

Land Acquisition – Reference Court – Power of Remand – Jurisdiction – Land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Collector awarded compensation of Rs. 1,14,39,264/- vide award dated 13.11.2019 – Reference Court set aside the award and remanded the matter to the Collector for fresh determination under the Act of 2013 – Held: Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not an appellate court but a court of original jurisdiction – Power of remand is an appellate power which the Reference Court does not possess – Reference Court can only affirm the award or enhance the compensation; it has no jurisdiction to set aside the award and remand the matter – Impugned judgment set aside – Matter restored to Reference Court for fresh decision on merits [Paras 8–14].

Reference under Section 18 – Nature of Proceedings – The reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not an appeal against the award of the Collector – It is in the nature of original proceedings wherein the claimant occupies the position of a plaintiff and must establish that the compensation offered is inadequate by producing material evidence – The Reference Court exercises original jurisdiction and not appellate jurisdiction – Power of remand must be expressly found within the statute and no such provision exists either in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or the Act of 2013 [Paras 8–9, 12].

Act of 2013 – Applicability – Reference Court held that compensation should have been determined under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which came into force on 01.01.2014 – Even if such view were correct, the Reference Court was bound to itself determine the compensation under the Act of 2013 and could not remand the matter to the Collector – Both respondent's counsel fairly conceded that the Reference Court exceeded its jurisdiction in remanding the matter [Paras 5, 7, 12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment and award dated 25.03.2023 set aside – LAR No. 1 of 2021 restored to its original number before the Reference Court – Reference Court directed to decide the reference on merits within six months from production of certified copy of this order [Paras 14–15].

Electricity Law – Unauthorized Use – Assessment – Remand Order – Writ Petition – Maintainability – Supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 227 – Petitioner electricity company assessed respondents for unauthorized use of electricity under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 – Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for fresh assessment limited to the actual period of unauthorized use – Petitioner challenged the remand order under Article 227 – Preliminary objection raised that the Appellate Authority's order is not amenable to writ jurisdiction – Held: The Appellate Authority, being a statutory quasi-judicial body constituted under Section 127 of the Electricity Act read with the Appeal to the Appellate Authority Rules, 2004, falls within the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India – Preliminary objection rejected – However, writ petition against remand order not maintainable as no prejudice is caused, both parties having equal opportunity before the Assessing Officer – Petitions disposed of with direction to decide within six months [Paras 4–13].

Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Quasi-Judicial Authority – Scope – Any authority constituted by statute and deciding disputes in accordance with rules made thereunder is a quasi-judicial authority amenable to supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 – High Court's power under Article 227 is wider than under Article 226 but must be exercised with great care, caution and circumspection – Jurisdiction cannot be exercised to correct all errors of judgment; interference warranted only in cases of grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice [Paras 10–11].

Remand Order – Writ Petition – Not Maintainable – It is trite law that a writ petition against an order of remand is not maintainable – Remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer causes no prejudice to either party, as both sides retain full opportunity to place their material on record – Order of Appellate Authority remanding matter for reassessment of tariff held to be in consonance with Section 126 of the Electricity Act [Para 12].

Section 126(5) – Electricity Act – Period of Unauthorized Use – Where the period of unauthorized use is not ascertainable, the Assessing Officer is entitled to assess usage for the entire preceding year – Remand for fresh assessment restricted to actual period of unauthorized use is consistent with the statutory scheme [Para 7].

Decision: Preliminary objection rejected – Writ petitions disposed of in terms of order dated 01.04.2026 in W.P. No. 16781/2014 – Parties at liberty to raise all questions before the Assessing Officer – Assessing Officer directed to decide within six months from production of certified copy of this order [Paras 12–14