Criminal Procedure – Dismissal of Complaint – Lack of Prima Facie Case – Trial court dismissed complaint under Section 203 CrPC for want of cogent evidence – Revisionist alleged assault and snatching of mangalsutra at gunpoint by opposite party No. 2 – However, other witnesses did not corroborate her statement – Medical report showed only simple injuries – Held: Complaint lacked sufficient corroborative material and was rightly dismissed [Paras 4–9].

Appreciation of Evidence – Inconsistencies – Statement of Complainant Not Supported – PW-1 (complainant) claimed assault and theft but PW-2 and PW-3 did not support her version – Court found lack of coherence and continuity in testimonies – Mere allegations not enough to summon accused without supporting evidence [Paras 7–8].

Judicial Conduct – Use of Abusive Language – Statement of PW-1 and judicial order recorded abusive language – Court deprecated such language in pleadings and orders – Directed all judicial officers to use decent, restrained language in judicial functions – Issued general instructions for compliance by district judiciary in U.P. [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Criminal revision dismissed – Complaint found devoid of merits – Directions issued to judicial officers to avoid abusive language in orders and witness statements.

Civil Law - Permanent Injunction - Personality/Publicity Rights – Unauthorized commercial exploitation and AI-generated misuse – Ex parte ad-interim injunction granted – Plaintiff alleged sale of merchandise and online content using his name, image, likeness, signature and other attributes, including AI/deepfake content and platform-facilitated listings – Held: Prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury established – Court restrained Defendants from exploiting Plaintiff’s persona and directed wide takedowns and disclosures under a structured set of directions [Paras 32-39].

Exemption from Pre-Institution Mediation – Section 12A CC Act – Urgent interim relief – Exemption granted – In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Krithi, urgent interim relief warranted exemption from mandatory pre-litigation mediation – Application allowed [Paras 1-3].

Court Fees – Section 149 CPC – Time extended – Considering submissions, two weeks’ time granted to deposit court fees – Application disposed of [Paras 6-8].

Additional Documents – Order XI Rule 1(4) CPC (Commercial Suits) – Leave granted – Plaintiff permitted to file additional documents in accordance with CC Act and Original Side Rules [Paras 9-11].

Electronic Evidence Certificate – Section 63(4)(c), Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – Time extended – Plaintiff directed to file requisite certificate within four weeks – Application allowed [Paras 12-14].

Notice to Government Authorities – Section 80(2) CPC – Exemption from prior notice – Exemption granted qua Ministry of Electronics & IT and Department of Telecommunications as pro forma parties to facilitate implementation of Court’s orders [Paras 15-17].

Institution, Summons and Pleadings – Registration of suit, issuance of summons/notice – Directions on filing Written Statements with affidavits of admission/denial and timelines for replications and inspection – Joint Registrar date fixed – Platform-defendant (D-15) to provide BSI for D-10 to D-14 and Plaintiff to amend memo accordingly [Paras 18-25].

Discovery Application – Order XI Rules 1, 3, 5 CPC – Notice issued – Timelines set for replies/rejoinders – Service directions reiterated [Paras 26-29].

Scope of Personality Rights & Privacy – Technology-enabled depictions – Court’s articulation – Unauthorized use of a celebrity’s persona including via AI/deepfakes dilutes goodwill, causes confusion as to endorsement, and intrudes upon privacy and dignity—judicial intervention warranted to prevent irreversible harm [Paras 35-38].

Interim Reliefs – Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC – Comprehensive injunctive and takedown regime – Defendants 1–14 & 18 restrained from using Plaintiff’s name “Abhishek Bachchan”/acronym “AB”, voice, image/likeness, performances or any persona attributes via any technology including AI/GenAI/deepfakes/face morphing – Specific takedown obligations imposed on website operators, platforms (including YouTube/Google LLC), marketplace entities, and directions to Government authorities to issue necessary blocking orders – Platforms directed to furnish BSI (names, emails, contact numbers, IP logs, registration details) in sealed cover/password-protected format within stipulated timelines – Liberty to Plaintiff to circulate order and Annexure-A to hosting entities for compliance – Compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC directed – Next date fixed [Paras 39(i)-(xiii), 40-42].

Decision (Interim): Ex parte ad-interim injunction granted restraining misuse of Plaintiff’s personality/publicity rights and directing extensive takedown/blocking and BSI disclosures—procedural exemptions and timelines granted as above [Paras 1-3, 12-17, 35-42].

Civil Law - Suit for Possession - Ownership of Property – Burden of Proof – Sale Deed without signatures – Appeal dismissed – Appellant claimed ownership of property based on Sale Deed dated 27.10.1995 executed by mother – Trial Court dismissed suit holding appellant failed to prove ownership – High Court upheld finding noting last page of Sale Deed lacked mother’s signatures/thumb impression and appellant failed to examine executant, attesting witnesses or produce credible evidence – Mere registration does not validate defective deed [Paras 8-14, 40-42].

Additional Evidence in Appeal – Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – Application rejected – Appellant sought to produce original Sale Deed belatedly during appeal, claiming it was earlier mortgaged – Held: No due diligence shown, unexplained delay of several years, and document produced under suspicious circumstances – Supreme Court precedents in Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin (2012) 8 SCC 148 and H.S. Goutham v. Rama Murthy (2021) 5 SCC 241 applied – Additional evidence cannot be admitted at leisure of party [Paras 15-23].

Suspicious Circumstances – Doubtful authenticity of Sale Deed – Signatures of appellant differed (Hindi in pleadings vs English on deed despite admission of inability to read English) – Discrepancies between copy produced before Trial Court and original later produced in appeal, including presence/absence of executant’s signatures and altered placement of photographs – These anomalies cast serious doubt on genuineness of document [Paras 28-35].

Licensee Claim – Failure to Prove – Appellant alleged respondent was licensee in property – No license agreement or evidence of payment of license fee produced – Claim rejected [Para 36].

Consideration for Sale – Lack of Proof – Alleged cash payment of Rs. 75,000/- for purchase from mother not supported by receipt, bank record or source of funds – Weakens appellant’s case [Para 37].

Decision – Appellant failed to prove ownership of property or validity of Sale Deed – Additional evidence not admissible – Appeal and pending applications dismissed – Trial Court judgment upheld [Paras 41-43].

Criminal Revision – Discharge – BNSS Ss. 438 & 442 – PC Act S. 13(1)(c), (d) r/w 13(2) – IPC Ss. 409, 420, 120B – Refusal to Discharge Upheld – Allegation that Board-level approval enabled supply of limestone at ₹689.87/MT against an earlier ₹621/MT with inferior quality/quantity, causing loss to Malabar Cements Ltd – Held: On materials placed, a prima facie case exists and issues raised by A6 & A7 (price parity with earlier supplier, royalty/diesel escalation, and purported profit) require trial – Special Court’s order disallowing discharge calls for no interference – Revision dismissed [Paras 1-3, 11, 14-16].

Public Servants – Board Decisions & Criminal Misconduct – Scope at Discharge Stage – Accused contended they merely participated in Board meetings and acted bona fide; prosecution pointed to creation of artificial demand, advance of ₹32 lakhs, and rate escalation with poorer quality/quantity – Principle reiterated that where materials disclose more than mere suspicion regarding abuse of position conferring pecuniary advantage, the matter must proceed to trial – Discharge declined [Paras 3-8, 11, 14-16].

Comparative Pricing – Contractual Clauses – Earlier purchase order’s “₹621/MT inclusive of levies/diesel” and provisions for revision relied upon by defence – Court noted the prosecution case that prior price did not rise to ₹689/MT and flagged contemporaneous mining/quantity constraints in Crescent Mines’ Modified Mining Plan – Whether escalations would equate to or justify ₹689/MT is a matter of evidence – Not a ground for discharge [Paras 12-15].

Discharge Threshold – Application of Supreme Court Precedents – Century Spinning (AIR 1972 SC 545), Muniswamy ((1977) 2 SCC 699) and Prafulla Kumar Samal (AIR 1979 SC 366) discussed – Court emphasized that at the stage of discharge, if materials raise a grave suspicion warranting trial, the Court should not weigh defence documents conclusively – Special Court recorded reasons and correctly refused discharge – High Court declined to interfere under revisional jurisdiction [Paras 9-11, 16].

Decision – Criminal Revision Petition dismissed – Interim stay vacated – Special Court directed to proceed – No interference with the refusal to discharge Accused Nos. 6 and 7 [Para 16].

Labour Law - Unfair Labour Practice – Pump Operators – Regularization – Workmen employed for decades in perennial duties of water supply through contractors – Corporation itself admitted essential and continuous nature of work – Failure to issue termination letters or contractor licences under CLRA Act – Held: Corporation guilty of unfair labour practice under Item 6 & 9 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act – Workers entitled to permanency with effect from 01.01.2004, wages and benefits at par with permanent employees [Paras 7-11, 14, 17].

Industrial Disputes Act – Section 9A – Change in Service Conditions – Corporation reverted to contractors reducing wages and benefits – Such change fell within Item 1 of Fourth Schedule (wages/mode of payment) – Failure to issue mandatory notice under Section 9A rendered change illegal – Invites penalty and amounts to unfair labour practice [Paras 12-13].

Standing Orders – Clause 4C of Bombay Industrial Employment Rules – Temporary employees completing 240 days in 12 months must be made permanent – Petitioners did not dispute applicability – Workers completed requisite service – Held: Entitled to permanency notwithstanding absence of sanctioned posts – Beneficial provisions prevail over municipal statute [Paras 11, 14-15].

Municipal Law – Duty to Create Posts – Section 51, Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act – Corporation must recommend creation of posts where perennial work exists – State’s failure to sanction posts cannot justify exploitation through ad hocism – Arbitrary inaction violative of Articles 14, 16, 21 of Constitution [Paras 14-15, 20].

Supreme Court Precedent – Dharam Singh v. State of UP (2025) – Reaffirmed distinction between irregular and illegal employment – Long-term ad hoc engagements in perennial duties cannot be perpetuated – Umadevi not a defence for denial of regularization – Applied to hold Corporation liable [Paras 19-20].

Decision – Industrial Court judgment upheld – Writ Petition dismissed – NMMC directed to reinstate 48 surviving workmen within one week, grant continuity of service, back wages/differential wages, and issue permanency letters – Judgment stayed for 4 weeks to enable appeal [Paras 21-25].

Civil Writ - Service & Labour – Seniority Fixation – CIL Mining Executives – First Class Mines Manager Certificate (FCMMCC) – Horizontal placement vs. DPC cut-off – Direction to Reconsider – Petitioners (2009 direct recruits) sought notional seniority in E-4 from 30/09/2014 at par with 2009 batchmates; respondents argued eligibility depends on timely submission of FCMMCC before 24/07/2014 DPC; Court noted 12/06/2006 CIL policy horizontally places executives who pass 1st Class MMCC in E3/E4/E5 “from the effective date of 1st Class,” and no subsequent notification altering this was produced – Held: Authorities to reconsider petitioners’ representations afresh strictly in law and pass a reasoned order after hearing all parties within two months – Writ disposed, no costs [Paras 14–15, 18–23, 25–27].

Administrative Law – Departmental Committee Recommendations – Normative Effect – Committee proposed methodology to address anomalies in horizontal movement and seniority, including examples, tracking FCMMCC applications, and future guidance – However, no published notification giving binding effect to recommendations placed before Court – Recommendations cannot eclipse express terms of extant 12/06/2006 policy absent due promulgation – Matter remitted for reconsideration accordingly [Paras 16, 18–22, 23, 25–27].

Equality Before Law – Article 14 – Parity in Notional Seniority among Similarly Situated Executives – Petitioners and certain private respondents passed the same FCMMCC examination and were in the same channel/grade; selective grant of notional E-4 seniority from 30/09/2014 to batchmates but not petitioners flagged as contrary to the 2006 policy – Court left all points open but required a speaking reconsideration order addressing parity and policy application [Paras 10–11, 23, 25–27].

Promotion Policy – Vertical vs. Horizontal Movement – Time-bound promotions contrasted with qualification-contingent horizontal placement – Respondents’ reliance on DPC cut-off and petitioners’ delay arguments noted; Court did not adjudicate merits on these disputes and confined relief to reconsideration under governing policy – Writ disposed without costs; interim orders vacated [Paras 5, 14–17, 25, 27, 29].

Employment Dispute – Maintainability of Civil Suit – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Specific Relief Act – Single Judge rejected plaint holding specific performance of employment contract barred under Section 14 SRA – Division Bench held rejection unsustainable since plaint also sought damages of ₹2 crores for arbitrary and mala fide termination and reputational harm – Cause of action disclosed, and rejection of part of plaint not permissible – Suit restored [Paras 2, 5-10].

Civil Procedure – Partial Rejection of Plaint – Not Permissible – Court reiterated that plaint must be read as a whole; partial rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC impermissible – Relief for damages independent and maintainable even if reinstatement barred – Hence, plaint could not be rejected in entirety [Paras 6, 10].

Employment Law – Termination – Allegations of Mala Fides and Procedural Impropriety – Plaintiff pleaded arbitrary suspension, sham enquiry, collusion of senior officials, and reputational harm by public removal from workstation – Such allegations constituted triable issues requiring adjudication – Rejection of plaint at threshold erroneous [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment of Single Judge set aside – Suit restored to file for trial – Parties directed to appear before Single Judge (Roster Bench) on 16.09.2025 [Paras 15-16].

Service Law – Absorption on Takeover – Special Officer (CAPE) vs. Senior Superintendent (DME) – Tribunal’s Order Set Aside – Petitioner appointed as Special Officer under CAPE, probation declared post-takeover; later downgraded to UDC by Govt. order – Tribunal dismissed challenge citing lack of proof of equivalence – High Court noted crucial documents (Exts.P9 & P10) recommending creation of Senior Superintendent post to accommodate petitioner were withheld – Held: Tribunal erred in ignoring these – Matter remanded for reconsideration [Paras 10–18].

Qualification Dispute – MBA as Postgraduate Degree – To Be Examined by Tribunal – Notification required Post Graduation + MBA – Govt. disputed MBA as PG – Court held issue of qualification and equivalence must be considered afresh along with absorption claim [Paras 7–13].

Parity Claim – Vanishing Category Posts – Engineers Retained, Officer Downgraded – Petitioner argued Engineers allowed to continue as vanishing category; same principle should apply – Court held Tribunal must examine parity argument in light of policy documents and Govt. practice [Paras 8–13].

Final Order – Tribunal’s judgment dated 04.03.2025 in O.A. No.79/2020 set aside – Case remanded to Tribunal for fresh consideration with Exts.P9 & P10 and observations of Court – OP allowed [Para 18].

Criminal Law – Dismissal for Non-Prosecution – Section 256 CrPC – Complaint under Section 138 NI Act – Acquittal Set Aside – The Magistrate had dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused for absence of complainant and counsel on two dates – The High Court held that such dismissal was harsh and in violation of principles of natural justice – Explained that complainant had been diligent for most hearings and absences were due to mistaken dates and Court officer's error – Held: Order of dismissal and acquittal is quashed – Complaint restored for decision on merits [Paras 4-11].

Natural Justice – Opportunity to be Heard – Compliance Mandated – The High Court reiterated that an opportunity must be given to both complainant and accused to contest the case on merits – Emphasized procedural fairness and the complainant’s right to present evidence – Held: Court below failed to ensure adherence to principles of natural justice by dismissing the complaint without considering bona fide reasons for absence [Paras 6, 9, 10, 11].

Restoration of Complaint – Costs Imposed – Appellant Directed to Proceed Without Adjournments – The Court restored the Summary Criminal Case No.1989/2019 to its original stage and remanded the matter back to the Trial Court – The appellant directed to deposit Rs.2,000/- as cost payable to the respondent and cooperate in speedy trial – Next hearing scheduled on 22/09/2025 [Para 12].