Co-operative Law – Review Jurisdiction – Reference to Larger Bench – Review petition filed against judgment restoring money decree passed by Co-operative Court – Review based on subsequent coordinate Bench decision holding that Co-operative Courts lack jurisdiction for recovery above ₹10 lakh – Court held that issue raises substantial questions of law requiring authoritative determination – Matter referred to larger Bench instead of deciding review on merits [Paras 1, 75–79].

Banking Law – Co-operative Banks – Applicability of RDB Act – Core issue whether State co-operative banks fall within definition of “bank” under Sections 2(d) and 2(e) of RDB Act – Petitioner relying on Pandurang Ganpati Chaugule contended that co-operative banks are banking companies and must approach DRT exclusively – Respondents contended that said judgment was confined to SARFAESI Act and did not extend RDB Act to State co-operative banks – Court held issue remains unresolved [Paras 2, 33–48].

Jurisdiction – Conflict between Central and State Laws – Section 91 MCS Act vs. Sections 17 & 18 RDB Act – Whether recovery proceedings by State co-operative banks before Co-operative Courts stand barred by RDB Act – Court noted absence of express inclusion of State co-operative banks under RDB Act, contrasted with express inclusion of multi-State co-operative banks – Held that jurisdictional exclusion cannot be conclusively determined without larger Bench ruling [Paras 49–71].

Constitutional Law – Legislative Competence – Entries 45 List I and 32 List II – Banking and recovery of bank dues fall under Entry 45 (Union List), while co-operative societies fall under Entry 32 (State List) – Pandurang Ganpati Chaugule weakened constitutional foundation of Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank but did not expressly overrule its conclusions on RDB Act – Striking down of Part IX-B in Rajendra N. Shah further complicates analysis – Issue held fit for reference [Paras 72–75].

Precedent – Overruling by Implication – Limits – Court reiterated that judgments cannot be treated as overruled by implication unless irreconcilable conflict exists on same issue – Held that Pandurang Ganpati Chaugule does not expressly overrule Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank on applicability of RDB Act – Coordinate Bench decision in Washim Urban raises debatable legal position [Paras 22–48].

Procedure – Reference under Appellate Side Rules – Exercising powers under Chapter I Rule 8 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, Court referred substantial question of law to Hon’ble Chief Justice for constitution of a larger Bench – Review petition to remain pending till reference is answered [Paras 76–79].

Decision: Question of law referred to larger Bench – Review Petition kept pending – Registry directed to place papers before Hon’ble Chief Justice for appropriate orders – Matter to be decided in accordance with law laid down by larger Bench [Paras 76–79].

Service Law – Regularization – Daily Wage / Casual Employees – Long Continuous Service – Forest Department, Haryana – Petitioners engaged as casual labour / daily wagers since around year 2000 – Services illegally terminated – Labour Court awards directed reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages – Awards upheld by High Court and attained finality – Petitioners sought regularization under Haryana Regularization Policies dated 01.10.2003 and 10.02.2004 – Claims rejected by Department citing lack of sanctioned posts, non-compliance with recruitment rules, alleged breaks in service and withdrawal of policy – Held: Petitioners entitled to consideration and regularization [Paras 2–3, 16–42].

Labour Court Award – Continuity of Service – Legal Effect – Restitutio ad Integrum – Award of reinstatement with continuity of service is not symbolic but restores employee to uninterrupted service for all consequential benefits – Employer estopped from disputing length or nature of service after judicial affirmation – Continuity obliterates illegal termination and condones breaks not attributable to employee – State cannot indirectly nullify binding judicial determinations [Paras 17–22].

Regularization Policy dated 01.10.2003 & 10.02.2004 – Accrued and Crystallised Rights – Policy prescribed eligibility of daily wage Group-D employees completing three years’ service as on 30.09.2003 with 240 days’ work per year – Petitioners fulfilled all substantive conditions while policy was in force – Withdrawal of policy in 2007 cannot retrospectively extinguish accrued rights – Right to consideration stood crystallised once eligibility conditions were fulfilled [Paras 23–38].

Uma Devi Doctrine – Scope and Limitations – Misapplication by State – Ratio in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi aimed at preventing illegal backdoor appointments – Not intended to deny regularization to employees with long uninterrupted service under State’s knowledge – Distinction between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments emphasized – Mechanical reliance on Uma Devi to defeat parity-based and policy-based claims deprecated [Paras 39–56].

Parity and Non-Discrimination – Articles 14 & 16 – Hostile Discrimination – Petitioners demonstrated that similarly situated and even junior employees were regularized by the Department – State failed to show intelligible differentia – Selective denial of benefit held arbitrary and discriminatory – Equality clause mandates similar treatment to similarly placed employees [Paras 43–49].

Legitimate Expectation – Welfare State Obligation – Model Employer Doctrine – Long continuation of service under State creates legitimate expectation of regularization – State as model employer cannot exploit vulnerable workforce by keeping them perpetually temporary – Withdrawal of beneficial schemes cannot defeat legitimate expectation where State’s inaction caused delay [Paras 33–34, 62].

Delay and Laches – Non-Communication of Rejection Order – Impugned order dated 13.11.2020 never communicated to petitioners – Petitioners gained knowledge only during contempt proceedings – Delay attributable to State – Doctrine of laches inapplicable where impugned action not disclosed to affected party [Paras 64–65].

Creation of Posts – Judicial Restraint – Direction Limited to Policy Consideration – Court reiterated it cannot direct creation or sanction of posts – However, State bound to act fairly within existing policy framework – Direction issued to regularize petitioners under 2003–2004 Policy without compelling creation of posts [Para 65].

Decision: Writ petitions allowed – Orders rejecting regularization set aside – Respondents directed to regularize petitioners under Regularization Policy dated 01.10.2003 as amended on 10.02.2004 – Regularization to be granted within one month – Petitioners entitled to all consequential benefits including arrears with interest @ 6% per annum – Pending applications disposed of.

Motor Vehicles Act – Injury Compensation – Enhancement – Permanent Partial Disability – Reassessment of Income – Application of Multiplier Method – Claimant aged 23 years, final year engineering student, sustained fracture of left scapula with brachial plexus injury resulting in 25% permanent partial disability – Tribunal awarded compensation based on minimum wages – High Court held that mechanical adoption of minimum wages is impermissible where claimant is academically qualified with clear future earning potential – Monthly income reassessed at ₹20,000 – Future prospects @ 40% added – Multiplier of 18 rightly applied considering age – Loss of future earning recalculated on basis of functional disability – Award enhanced substantially [Paras 9–16, 27].

Disability – Functional Impact – Loss of Earning Capacity – Disability percentage certified by doctor cannot automatically be equated with loss of earning capacity – Court must assess functional disability having regard to nature of injuries, profession, age and prospects – Claimant’s upper limb movement compromised permanently – Tribunal erred in undervaluing impact of disability on future earning – Functional loss assessed at 15% for computation of future income loss [Paras 6, 18, 27].

Non-Pecuniary Damages – Pain and Suffering – Loss of Amenities – Human Dignity – Permanent disability not only causes physical impairment but also lifelong pain, mental agony and loss of dignity – Claimant hospitalized and suffered permanent weakness of limb not likely to improve – Tribunal awarded meagre amount – Following Supreme Court jurisprudence, pain and suffering enhanced to ₹3,00,000 – Separate compensation awarded for loss of amenities of life [Paras 16–20, 26–27].

Attendant Charges – Requirement of Assistance – Reasonable Lump Sum – Claimant suffered grievous injuries requiring assistance in daily activities – Tribunal failed to grant adequate attendant charges – Though disability not 100%, claimant entitled to reasonable attendant expenses – Attendant charges awarded as lump sum ₹30,000 keeping in view age, disability and nature of injuries [Paras 21–22].

Loss of Marriage Prospects – Young Claimant – Non-Pecuniary Loss – Claimant was 23 years old at time of accident – Tribunal failed to consider impact of permanent disability on matrimonial prospects – Loss of marriage prospects recognized as distinct head of compensation in injury cases – Award of ₹2,00,000 granted under this head as just and reasonable [Paras 23–25, 27].

Transportation, Special Diet and Future Medical Expenses – Inadequate Award by Tribunal – Tribunal awarded meagre or no amounts under these heads – High Court enhanced compensation towards transportation, special diet and future medical expenses considering prolonged treatment and continuing disability [Paras 26–27].

Interest – Rate – Exclusion of Delay Period – Enhanced compensation directed to carry interest @ 9% per annum from date of filing of claim petition till realization – Period of delay of 388 days in filing appeal excluded from interest computation as undertaken by appellant – Insurance Company directed to deposit amount within two months [Paras 28–29].

Recovery Rights – Insurer’s Liberty – Insurance Company granted right to recover enhanced compensation from owner and driver of offending vehicle in accordance with Tribunal award [Para 29].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Award dated 30.04.2024 modified – Total compensation enhanced to ₹16,67,200 – Enhanced amount payable ₹11,16,200 with interest @ 9% per annum (excluding delay period) – Directions issued for deposit, disbursement and recovery.

Tenancy Law - Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Ownership Requirement under Section 14(1)(e) – Proof of Better Title Sufficient – Landlady sought eviction on ground of bona fide requirement – ARC dismissed petition on ground that ownership and landlord-tenant relationship were not proved – Held: Landlady produced registered sale deed and rent receipts proving better title than tenant – ARC exceeded jurisdiction by venturing into detailed title examination contrary to settled law – Eviction petition cannot be defeated merely because landlady is not absolute owner – Revision allowed and eviction ordered [Paras 1–6, 10–11].

Eviction – Bona Fide Requirement – Discretion of Landlady – ARC failed to consider landlady’s residential need – Landlady sought more space for herself and her growing family – Held: It is landlady who is best judge of her requirement – Tenant failed to rebut claim with any credible evidence – Bald denials not sufficient – No evidence of alternative suitable accommodation – ARC erred in not considering material on record [Paras 12–13].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Limited Interference – When Justified – Though revisional court cannot substitute its view as appellate court, it can interfere where trial court acts beyond jurisdiction or misapplies settled law – Held: ARC’s finding based on ownership was contrary to binding precedents – Interference warranted to correct miscarriage of justice [Paras 14–15].

Decision: Petition allowed – Judgment of ARC dated 31.01.2019 set aside – Eviction order passed – Tenant granted six months to vacate premises in terms of Section 14(7) DRC Act [Para 16].

Criminal Law – Bail – Mob Lynching – Serious Offences Punishable with Life Imprisonment/Death – Applicants sought bail in a triple-murder case arising out of a mob attack during COVID-19 lockdown – Allegations included brutal assault with sticks and stones, incitement of mob, conspiracy, attack on police personnel and destruction of evidence – Held: Nature and gravity of offence, coupled with specific overt acts, militates against grant of bail [Paras 6–10, 14–18].

Criminal Law – Bail on Ground of Parity – Distinction Based on Role – Applicants claimed parity with several co-accused already enlarged on bail – Court examined earlier bail orders and held that bail was granted only to those accused against whom no overt acts were attributed – Present Applicants specifically identified as active assailants through CCTV footage, forensic evidence and eyewitness statements – Parity principle held inapplicable [Paras 8–10, 15].

Criminal Law – Bail – Principle of Parity Not a Straightjacket Formula – Reliance placed on Sagar v. State of U.P. affirming that parity cannot be sole ground for bail – Role, degree of participation and gravity of acts decisive – Applicants stood on a different footing from co-accused released on bail [Paras 11–13].

Criminal Law – Long Incarceration – Not a Sole Ground in Heinous Crimes – Applicants in custody for over five and a half years – Court held that where offences are punishable with life imprisonment or death, such period does not amount to undue or disproportionate incarceration – Right to liberty must be balanced against societal interest and seriousness of crime [Paras 16–18].

Criminal Law – Evidentiary Material at Bail Stage – Prima Facie Satisfaction – Charge-sheet contained CCTV footage, forensic reports, recovery of weapons and clothes, test identification parade and statements of multiple eyewitnesses – Sufficient prima facie material demonstrating overt acts and conspiracy by Applicants – Bail declined [Paras 6–7, 10].

Criminal Law – Investigation Transferred to CBI – Direction for Expeditious Completion – Investigation transferred to CBI in August 2025 – While rejecting bail, Court directed CBI to conclude investigation expeditiously and left liberty to Applicants to renew bail prayer after completion of investigation [Paras 16, 20].

Decision: Bail Application dismissed – CBI directed to complete investigation expeditiously – Applicants granted liberty to apply for bail afresh after conclusion of investigation – Observations held to be prima facie and not binding on trial [Paras 19–21].

Trademark Law – Infringement – Interim Injunction – Registered Word Mark “HP” – Defendant’s use of “HP+” and “HP®+” – Deceptive similarity – Use of ® symbol without registration – Clear case of infringement under Sections 29(2)(b), 29(2)(c) read with Section 29(3) – Held: Use of identical dominant mark with addition of “+” does not obviate infringement – Injunction justified [Paras 15.1–15.5, 18].

Interlocutory Proceedings – Scope of Inquiry – Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC – Court required to undertake only prima facie analysis – Arguable and disputed questions relegated to trial – In cases of prima facie infringement, injunction must ordinarily follow – Reliance placed on Midas Hygiene Industries and Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate [Paras 14.1–14.4].

Registered Trademark – Presumption of Validity – Section 31(1), Trade Marks Act, 1999 – Registration itself constitutes prima facie evidence of validity – At interim stage, defendant must show overwhelming evidence of invalidity to rebut presumption – Held: Appellants failed to dislodge statutory presumption [Paras 16.2–16.3, 17].

Associated Trademarks – Territorial Restriction – Earlier Registration restricted to State of Uttar Pradesh – Subsequent Registration without territorial limitation – Disclaimer or restriction in one registration does not automatically extend to associated registrations – No statutory basis to import UP restriction into later pan-India registration – Held: Registration No. 2848372 enforceable pan-India [Paras 17.5–17.6].

Assignment of Trademark – Validity at Interim Stage – Challenge to assignment deeds and association of registrations – Matters requiring detailed evidence – Not amenable to final adjudication at Order XXXIX stage – Prima facie entitlement of assignee to enforce registered mark upheld [Paras 17.3–17.4, 19.1–19.5].

Dishonest Adoption – Packaging and Trade Dress – Replication of colour scheme, shikara device and “LE” acronym – Use of ® symbol to mislead consumers – Strong indicia of lack of bona fides – Likelihood of confusion presumed – Held: Conduct aggravates infringement and warrants injunction [Paras 15.2–15.4, 20].

Passing Off – Irrelevance Once Infringement Established – Even in absence of detailed finding on goodwill or reputation – Registered proprietor entitled to injunction upon prima facie infringement – Held: Interim order sustainable solely on infringement [Paras 8–9, 14.2].

Appellate Interference – Section 13, Commercial Courts Act – Limited scope – No perversity or illegality in grant of interim injunction – Appellate Court not to reappreciate merits where discretion exercised judiciously – Held: No ground for interference [Paras 21–22].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Interim injunction granted by Commercial Court upheld – Appellants restrained from using “HP”, “HP+”, “HP®+” or any deceptively similar mark – No order as to costs [Paras 21–23].

Taxation Law - Income-tax – Reassessment – Assessment Year 2015–2016 – Notices issued under Section 148 after 01.04.2021 invoking TOLA – Validity – Petitioner challenged notice issued under Section 148 pursuant to reassessment proceedings initiated after introduction of Section 148A – Assessing Officer relied on extension of limitation under TOLA and judgment in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal – Held: For A.Y. 2015–2016, reassessment notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 are barred by limitation in view of amended Section 149 – Revenue conceded before Supreme Court that such notices cannot survive – Notices issued during extended period under TOLA declared invalid [Paras 2–5, 9, 17].

Income-tax – Reassessment Procedure – Section 148A(b) and 148A(d) – Effect of Ashish Agarwal decision – Notices originally issued under old regime between 01.04.2021 and 30.06.2021 deemed to be notices under Section 148A(b) – Subsequent orders under Section 148A(d) and fresh notices under Section 148 issued in July 2022 – Held: Even after following procedure under Section 148A, reassessment is impermissible if limitation under Section 149 has expired – Procedural compliance cannot cure substantive bar of limitation [Paras 3, 5, 16].

Limitation – Section 149 – Interaction with TOLA – Assessment Year 2015–2016 – Three-year limitation expired on 31.03.2019 and six-year period expired on 31.03.2022 – TOLA cannot revive dead and time-barred proceedings – Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal conclusively held that reassessment for A.Y. 2015–2016 after 01.04.2021 is impermissible – Same principle reiterated in Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. – Applied and followed [Paras 8–10].

Judicial Precedent – Binding Nature of Supreme Court Concession – Revenue’s categorical concession before Supreme Court that all notices for A.Y. 2015–2016 issued on or after 01.04.2021 must be dropped – High Court bound to apply law declared and concession recorded by Apex Court – Impugned notice quashed accordingly [Paras 9–11, 17].

Decision – Petition allowed – Impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act for Assessment Year 2015–2016 quashed and set aside – Reassessment proceedings held to be invalid and time-barred – Petition disposed of.

Intellectual Property – Trade Mark Infringement – Interim Injunction – Plaintiff sought interim injunction against Defendants for alleged infringement of its registered trademark 'RACIRAFT' by use of 'EsiRaft' for identical medicinal product – Both products used for treatment of heartburn and indigestion and contain same active ingredients – Plaintiff relied on phonetic and visual similarity, prior adoption, and goodwill – Defendant opposed claim stating ‘RAFT’ is common to trade and 'ESI' has distinct meaning and origin – Held: On holistic comparison, marks not deceptively similar either visually or phonetically – Interim injunction refused [Paras 16–21, 30–36].

Trade Marks Act – Section 2(h) – Deceptive Similarity – Rival marks ‘RACIRAFT’ and ‘EsiRaft’ analyzed under the anti-dissection rule – Court held that ‘RAFT’ is generic and denotes foaming agent sodium alginate – Prefixes 'RACI' and 'ESI' structurally and phonetically distinct – First syllables are dominant and distinct – No likelihood of confusion or deception found – Held: Marks not deceptively similar within the meaning of Section 2(h) [Paras 20–21, 30].

Passing Off – Common Field of Activity – Claim of passing off based on visual and phonetic similarity and shared therapeutic use – Defendant’s product packaging, label, and trade dress found dissimilar – No attempt to misrepresent association with Plaintiff's product shown – Held: Plaintiff failed to establish prima facie case of passing off [Paras 34–35].

Trade Mark Law – Prior Use and Commonality in Trade – Plaintiff’s claim of exclusive rights in mark rejected as ‘RAFT’ held common in pharmaceutical trade for antacid products – Defendant produced physical evidence of third-party use of suffix ‘RAFT’ and two-color trade name formatting – Explanation for adoption of ‘ESI’ as Enhanced System Improvement or Esophageal Symptom Index accepted – Mere use of common manufacturer not indicative of dishonest adoption – Held: No prima facie mala fide adoption made out [Paras 19, 32–33].

Procedural Law – Order 39 Rule 4 CPC – Defendant’s oral prayer for vacation of ex parte ad-interim relief not independently considered as interim application was decided finally on merits – Ad-interim relief vacated on dismissal of interim application [Paras 15, 36].

Decision: Interim Application dismissed – Ad-interim relief vacated – However, continued for one week from date of order to enable Plaintiff to take appropriate steps [Paras 36, 39].

Criminal Law – Dowry Death – Appeal Against Acquittal – Deceased wife allegedly harassed for dowry and committed suicide by fire – Trial Court acquitted husband and in-laws under Section 304B IPC citing contradictions between witness statements and dying declaration – High Court held that dying declaration lacked any mention of dowry harassment – Close relatives and neighbours did not support prosecution – No perversity or illegality found in trial court’s reasoning – Appeal dismissed [Paras 3, 17, 24, 27-30, 34]

Dying Declaration – Evidentiary Value – Deceased suffered 95% burns but gave dying declaration recorded by Magistrate – Declaration lacked material allegation of dowry demand – Witnesses gave inconsistent versions – Court held that declaration cannot be sole basis for conviction when not corroborated – Suspicion cannot replace proof in criminal law – Trial Court justified in treating it as inconclusive [Paras 17-20, 25-27]

Criminal Procedure – Section 164 Cr.P.C. Statements – Statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. during investigation are not substantive evidence – Cannot be used as sole basis for conviction – Only usable for corroboration or contradiction – Court rightly held that reliance on such statements without oath-bound testimony in court was impermissible [Paras 21, 24]

Appeal Against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Principles reaffirmed that appellate court must not interfere with acquittal unless findings are perverse or unreasonable – Presumption of innocence strengthened by acquittal – No compelling evidence warranting reversal – Trial Court’s view found to be reasonable and based on full appreciation of record – Appeal dismissed [Paras 12-14, 29-34]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order of acquittal passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Srikakulam in Sessions Case No. 38 of 2006 confirmed.