Senior Citizens – Maintenance – Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Right of Appeal Exclusively Available to Senior Citizens and Parents – Petitioner, an 83-year-old widow, obtained maintenance order from Sub-Collector directing one son to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month and the other son to maintain her — aggrieved son (Opposite Party No.3, neither a senior citizen nor a parent) preferred appeal before the Collector under Section 16 of the Act — Collector set aside the maintenance order and remanded the matter for fresh inquiry — petitioner challenged the appellate order — Held: Section 16 of the Act confers the right of appeal exclusively upon a senior citizen or parent aggrieved by an order of the Tribunal — children and relatives have no right of appeal thereunder — appeal filed by the son was not entertainable — appellate order passed without jurisdiction [Paras 10–12].

Beneficial Legislation – Purposive Construction – Object of the Act – The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is a beneficial legislation enacted to provide social justice to parents and senior citizens — all beneficial legislations must receive liberal and purposive construction in consonance with their objects — the language of Section 16 is plain, clear and unambiguous in restricting the right of appeal to senior citizens and parents — extending the right to any other person would defeat the object of the legislation — Held: No room to import any other interpretation when statutory language is clear and unambiguous [Para 10].

Jurisdiction – Appellate Tribunal – Appeal by Children Not Maintainable – Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Balasore, entertained an appeal under Section 16 of the Act filed by the son of the petitioner and set aside the maintenance order — such entertainment of appeal was without jurisdiction as the son was neither a senior citizen nor a parent — order passed by the Appellate Tribunal without jurisdiction cannot be sustained in law — Held: Impugned appellate order quashed; maintenance order of Sub-Collector confirmed [Paras 12–15].

Decision: Writ petition allowed — Impugned order dated 07.11.2025 passed by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Balasore in Misc. Appeal No.12 of 2024 quashed — Order dated 29.02.2024 passed by the Sub-Collector, Balasore in Misc. Case No.49 of 2023 confirmed.

Maintenance – Ex-parte Order – Alternative Remedy – Maintainability of Revision – Husband challenged ex-parte order dated 20.08.2025 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi, directing him to pay Rs. 30,000/- per month as maintenance to wife under Section 144 BNSS (erstwhile Section 125 CrPC) – Order passed after due service of notice upon revisionist who failed to appear – Revisionist directly approached High Court by way of criminal revision without availing the statutory remedy – Held: Revision not maintainable; specific and efficacious alternative remedy available under Section 145(2) BNSS to move application before the trial court itself for recalling ex-parte order – Revision dismissed [Paras 7–13].

Procedure – Recall of Ex-parte Maintenance Order – Section 145(2) BNSS – Jurisdiction – Held: Against an ex-parte order passed under Section 144 BNSS, jurisdiction to recall such order vests in the Judicial Magistrate or Family Court under Section 145(2) BNSS – Revisionist ought to first exhaust this remedy, and only upon an adverse order thereon may a revision lie before the High Court under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 [Para 8].

Delay – Condonation – Revisionist given liberty to approach the concerned Family Court with an application under Section 145(2) BNSS for recall of the ex-parte order – In case of delay, application for condonation of delay along with affidavit may be moved, if permissible under law, which shall be considered by the court in accordance with law [Para 11].

Decision: Criminal revision dismissed – Revisionist directed to approach the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi, and move an application under Section 145(2) BNSS for recall of the ex-parte order dated 20.08.2025.

Civil Procedure – First Appeal – Order XLI Rule 31 CPC – Mandatory Requirements – Duty of First Appellate Court – Plaintiff's suit for recovery of compensation for land acquired for SEZ was dismissed by the trial Court after framing seven issues and deciding on merits – First Appellate Court, without framing points for determination, without independently assessing evidence, and without giving any reasons, allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the trial Court on account of interlocutory applications filed at the appellate stage – Held: The judgment of the First Appellate Court was cryptic and unsatisfactory; the Court failed to discharge its obligation as a final Court of facts; Order XLI Rule 31 CPC mandates that the appellate Court state points for determination, decisions thereon, and reasons therefor; non-compliance renders the judgment unsustainable [Paras 17–26].

Amendment of Plaint at Appellate Stage – Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Proviso – Application for amendment of plaint adding new properties to schedules filed before First Appellate Court vide I.A.No.573 of 2023 – First Appellate Court allowed the application without assigning reasons and without recording satisfaction that the amendment could not have been introduced before commencement of trial despite due diligence as required by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Held: Such allowance of amendment without reasons is unsustainable; the First Appellate Court was required to decide this application on merits [Paras 21, 26].

Additional Evidence – Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – Appellate Court's Power – Exception to General Principle – General principle is that an appellate Court should not travel outside the trial Court record and cannot take fresh evidence – Exception under Order XLI Rule 27 permits production of additional evidence only in exceptional circumstances – First Appellate Court allowed I.A.No.267 of 2023 permitting additional evidence without following the prescribed procedure and without assigning reasons – Held: Such allowance without reasons and without following the procedure under Order XLI Rule 27 is not proper; the application must be decided on merits [Paras 22, 26].

Second Appeal – Maintainability – Order of Remand – Respondent contended that since the impugned order was one of remand, only a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 read with Section 104 CPC was maintainable – Held: Since the First Appellate Court set aside the total judgment and decree of the trial Court by substituting its own judgment, and not merely remanded on a limited point, a second appeal is maintainable – Distinction between a mere order of remand and substitution of the trial Court's judgment recognised [Paras 15–16, 23].

Decision: Second appeal allowed – Judgment and decree dated 05.02.2024 in A.S.No.126 of 2023 of the XII Additional District Judge, Srikalahasthi, set aside – Matter remanded to the First Appellate Court with five specific points for determination framed by the High Court, including questions regarding the extent of land purchased by defendant No.5, his possession pursuant to statutory obligations with APIIC, the plaintiff's entitlement to recover the suit amount, entitlement to amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 at the appellate stage, and permission to produce additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 – First Appellate Court directed to decide on merits without being influenced by earlier findings – Exercise to be completed within three months – No order as to costs [Paras 29–30].

Income Tax – Reassessment – Special Audit – Search and Seizure – Petitioner (Huawei India) challenged notices under Section 148 and directions for special audit under Section 142(2A) for AY 2013-14 and AY 2015-16 issued post search and seizure dated 15.02.2022 – For AY 2013-14, reasons recorded did not allege escapement of income in the form of an "asset" nor referenced the Distribution Agreement or Transfer Pricing Study – For AY 2015-16, reasons recorded specifically identified receivables by way of warranty reimbursement as an asset – Held: Reassessment notice for AY 2013-14 set aside; reassessment and special audit for AY 2015-16 upheld [Paras 135, 165, 166, 179, 181].

Reassessment – Limitation – Fourth Proviso to Section 153A – Asset Test – For reopening assessment beyond three years but within ten years under Section 149(1)(b) read with the fourth proviso to Section 153A, a pre-condition is that income escaping assessment must be represented in the form of an "asset" exceeding Rs. 50 lakhs – Explanation 2 to Section 153A defines "asset" as inclusive and not exhaustive – Held: Receivables in the form of reimbursement of warranty and customer claim provisions, arising out of the Distribution Agreement and FAR Analysis in the Transfer Pricing Report, constitute "assets" within the inclusive definition [Paras 144–151].

Reassessment – AY 2013-14 – No Asset Disclosed in Reasons – Reasons recorded for AY 2013-14 confined to doubting allowability and genuineness of provision for customer claims – No reference to receivables, Distribution Agreement, or Transfer Pricing Study – Issue of disallowance of provision for customer claims was already decided in petitioner's favour by the ITAT and the order attained finality – Assessment cannot be reopened solely to re-verify or re-investigate an already settled issue – Held: Reassessment notice dated 31.03.2024 for AY 2013-14 set aside for failure to satisfy jurisdictional preconditions under fourth proviso to Section 153A [Paras 154–165].

Reassessment – Reasons for One Year Cannot Justify Reopening of Another Year – Revenue's argument that detailed reasons recorded for AY 2016-17 (separate writ petition) could be read in conjunction with AY 2013-14 since both emanated from same search material, rejected – Each assessment year requires independent recording of reasons correlating the incriminating material to that specific year – Notices for AY 2013-14 and AY 2016-17 were issued separately and neither was styled as a composite or common satisfaction note for the block period – Reliance on Indian National Congress v. DCIT distinguished on facts [Paras 161–164].

Reassessment – AY 2015-16 – Receivables as Assets – Warranty Provisions – Reasons recorded for AY 2015-16 specifically relied on the Distribution Agreement (indemnity and risk allocation clauses) and the FAR Analysis in the Transfer Pricing Study to establish that provisions for warranty created by the petitioner were reimbursable by the Associated Enterprise – Petitioner itself admitted recovery of Rs. 69,81,40,820/- from its Associated Enterprise on account of customer claims during draft assessment proceedings for AY 2015-16 – Held: Right to reimbursement arising in the year of provisioning constitutes an asset; reassessment notice for AY 2015-16 upheld as within limitation and jurisdictionally sound [Paras 139–152, 166].

Special Audit – Section 142(2A) – Scope – Reassessment Proceedings – Petitioner's contention that Section 142(2A) cannot be invoked during reassessment proceedings rejected – Section 2(8) of the Act defines "assessment" to include "reassessment" – Once a notice under Section 143(2) is issued, all powers available to the Assessing Officer in regular assessment, including power to direct special audit, are equally available during reassessment – Held: Special audit directions for AY 2015-16 upheld [Paras 172, 179].

Special Audit – AY 2013-14 – Consequential Fate – Special audit directed for AY 2013-14 for the purpose of the reassessment proceedings for that year – Since the reassessment notice for AY 2013-14 itself has been set aside for want of jurisdiction, the special audit direction and notices relatable to AY 2013-14 also do not survive – Held: Special audit direction dated 13.09.2024 and notices dated 10.06.2024 and 05.07.2024 for AY 2013-14 set aside [Para 170].

Special Audit – Voluminous and Complex Accounts – Scope of Section 142(2A) Post Finance Act 2013 Amendment – Finance Act, 2013 expanded the jurisdictional triggers for special audit beyond "nature and complexity" to include "volume of accounts, doubts about correctness, multiplicity of transactions and specialised nature of business activity" – ERP data dump comprising lakhs of line items unsegregated into ledgers, admitted duplication and missing entries for two financial years, failure to maintain backup of digital books in servers located in India, and non-provision of physical books of accounts during search – Held: Sufficient grounds existed for Assessing Officer to be satisfied and direct special audit for AY 2015-16 [Paras 173–178].

Decision: W.P.(C) 13553/2024 and W.P.(C) 13572/2024 allowed — Reassessment notice dated 31.03.2024 under Section 148, notice dated 24.05.2024 under Section 143(2), and satisfaction note dated 29.05.2024 for AY 2013-14 set aside — Special audit direction dated 13.09.2024 and notices dated 10.06.2024 and 05.07.2024 for AY 2013-14 also set aside — W.P.(C) 14898/2024 and W.P.(C) 15970/2023 dismissed — Reassessment notices for AY 2015-16 and special audit direction for AY 2015-16 sustained — Interim orders vacated.

Civil Law — Rejection of Plaint — Order VII Rule 11 CPC — Limitation — Partition Deed — Knowledge — In an application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court is confined only to the plaint averments, allegations and documents filed along with the plaint — Plaintiff herself admitted in the plaint that she received a reply notice dated 26.07.2002 wherein the existence and validity of the registered partition deed dated 13.12.1985 was specifically asserted — Plaintiff further sent notices in 2009 and 2014 alleging the partition deed to be forged, which presupposes knowledge of the document — Held: Clock of limitation started ticking from the moment the plaintiff came to know of the partition deed, i.e., at least from July 2002 — Suit filed in 2021, nearly 19 years after acquiring knowledge, is hopelessly barred under Article 59 of the Limitation Act — Trial Court rightly allowed the rejection application [Paras 15.1–15.5].

Limitation — Date of Knowledge — Fraud — Commencement of Limitation — Plaintiff contended that she obtained a copy of the partition deed only in 2018 in enquiry proceedings before the DRO and that the cause of action arose only then — Held: When the plaintiff had knowledge of the partition deed and was in a position to allege forgery thereof as early as 2002, it is not believable that she did not have a copy — Partition deed is a registered document and it was for the plaintiff to take diligent steps to obtain a certified copy and challenge it within the period of limitation — Approaching revenue authorities and writ courts for various directions does not enlarge the period of limitation — Contention that limitation runs from 2018 rejected [Paras 15.3, 15.5].

Civil Miscellaneous Petition — Additional Grounds — No Merit — All additional grounds raised in C.M.P. No. 5759 of 2026 had already been urged in the main appeal — No new grounds were raised warranting separate consideration — C.M.P. dismissed [Para 16].

Decision: Appeal suit dismissed with costs — Order dated 08.12.2025 rejecting plaint upheld — C.M.P. No. 5759 of 2026 dismissed.

Election Law – Election Petition – Maintainability – Concise Statement of Material Facts – Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act mandates that an Election Petition shall contain a concise statement of material facts constituting the cause of action — Petitioner challenged election of Respondent No. 1 from 129-Vikramgad (S.T.) Assembly Constituency on three grounds: (i) improper acceptance of Nomination Form; (ii) non-reproduction of disclaimer Note-1 to Note-5 below verification in Affidavit in Form-26; and (iii) ineligibility of returned candidate as Government servant — Held: Election Petition is replete with vague and generic allegations devoid of material particulars — Omission of even a single material fact leads to incomplete cause of action — Petition dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Paras 12, 13, 21, 22, 35].

Nomination Form – Form-26 – Non-reproduction of Disclaimer Notes – Corrupt Practice – Affidavit in Form-26 is a statutory printed form bearing a distinct identification number, disbursed by the Returning Officer to each candidate — Non-reproduction of disclaimer Note-1 to Note-5 below verification cannot be attributed to the returned candidate — Such omission does not amount to corrupt practice under Sections 100(1)(b), 100(1)(d)(i), (iv) or 123(4) of the RP Act — Alleged omission does not constitute a defect of substantial character under Section 36(4) of the RP Act — Held: This ground fails on the face of record [Paras 13, 22, 28].

Government Servant – Eligibility to Contest Election – Ashram Shala Sanhita – Returned candidate serving as Headmaster in Arvind Prathamik Ashramshala governed by Ashram Shala Sanhita 2019 published by Adivasi Vikas Vibhag — Provisions of Maharashtra Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1979 not applicable — Returned candidate applied for and obtained written permission from the Trust on 26.10.2024 under Clause 4.3.13 of Ashram Shala Sanhita before contesting the election — Permission uploaded on ECI website — Petitioner suppressed this fact in the Election Petition — Held: Ground of ineligibility not sustainable [Paras 15, 30, 32].

Election Petition – Material Effect on Result – Section 100(1)(d)(iv) – For invoking Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the RP Act, the Election Petitioner must specifically plead and prove that result of election was materially affected by non-compliance with provisions of the Constitution or RP Act — Mere violation or non-compliance per se does not render election void — No averment that result was materially affected was made with material particulars — Held: Non-pleading of material facts amounts to non-disclosure of cause of action warranting rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Paras 17, 18, 19, 27, 29].

Non-Disclosure in Form-26 – Section 125A – While disclosure in Form-26 is mandatory, non-disclosure or partial disclosure constitutes an irregularity attracting Section 125A of the RP Act and cannot independently be a ground for setting aside the election under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) — No material facts disclosed in Petition as to how the alleged omission had material bearing on the Election result — Held: Principal ground of challenge unsustainable [Para 28].

EVMs – Release of Ballot Units and Control Units – Application (L) No. 24590 of 2025 by Chief Electoral Officer — Held: 358 Ballot Units and 358 Control Units in custody of District Election Officer not necessary for adjudication — District Election Officer directed to release the same within two weeks from date of uploading of order [Para 39].

Decision: Application (L) No. 9497 of 2025 allowed — Election Petition No. 19 of 2025 rejected and dismissed — Application No. 6 of 2025 disposed of as infructuous — Application (L) No. 24590 of 2025 allowed — District Election Officer directed to release 358 Ballot Units and 358 Control Units within two weeks — No costs.

Maintenance – Ex-Parte Order – Section 144 BNSS (erstwhile Section 125 CrPC) – Alternative Remedy Under Section 145(2) BNSS – Criminal Revision Not Maintainable – Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi, by order dated 20.08.2025, directed the revisionist-husband, a retired Air Force personnel, to pay Rs. 30,000/- per month to the wife-opposite party, ex-parte, after due service of notice – Revisionist, instead of availing the statutory remedy under Section 145(2) BNSS for setting aside the ex-parte order before the trial court, directly filed a criminal revision before the High Court – Held: Against an ex-parte order passed under Section 144 BNSS, jurisdiction to recall the order vests in the Judicial Magistrate or Family Court under Section 145(2) BNSS – The revisionist must first avail the said remedy, and thereafter, if aggrieved, may prefer a revision before the High Court under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 – Revision dismissed as not maintainable – Revisionist directed to approach the concerned Family Court under Section 145(2) BNSS, with liberty to seek condonation of delay if required [Paras 7–13].

Decision: Criminal revision dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy – Revisionist directed to approach the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi, by filing an application under Section 145(2) BNSS for recalling the ex-parte order dated 20.08.2025 – Liberty granted to seek condonation of delay, if necessary.

Dowry Death — Section 304B IPC — Presumption under Section 113B Evidence Act — Foundational Facts — Prosecution failed to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death — Seven out of eighteen prosecution witnesses, including mahazar witnesses (PW5, PW6), confession and recovery witnesses (PW10, PW11) and independent eyewitnesses from the neighbourhood (PW7, PW8, PW9), turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case — RDO enquiry report (Ex.P11) specifically opined that there was no prima facie evidence of dowry or dowry-related harassment in the death of the deceased — Held: Unless prosecution proves the foundational facts, the statutory presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act cannot be raised and Section 304B IPC will not be attracted — Trial court erred in raising presumption without establishment of foundational facts [Paras 36–39].

Witness Testimony — Inconsistency — Unreliability — Evidence of PW1 (mother of deceased) before court was wholly inconsistent with her statement before RDO — PW1 deposed that deceased was in hospital for 3 days, whereas deceased actually died on the same day within an hour of admission — PW2 (sister of deceased) did not corroborate the specific charge of demand and harassment on 25.02.2016 and 26.02.2016 despite being alleged to be present — PW3 and PW4 were hearsay witnesses with no direct knowledge — Held: Evidence of PW1 and PW2 is inconsistent, unreliable and not corroborated by any independent evidence [Paras 27–30].

Medical Evidence — Discrepancies — Recovery — Postmortem certificate (Ex.P8) noted certain abrasions assessed as 2 days old, but no injuries were recorded in the Accident Register (Ex.P9) — Both doctors (PW12 and PW13) admitted that the abrasions could have been caused by fits — Postmortem report was prepared 2 days after the examination and did not contain seal or doctor details — Empty pesticide bottle (MO1) recovered bore a manufacture date of 07.11.2016, which is after the date of occurrence (26.02.2016), rendering the recovery completely doubtful — Inquest report prepared by PW17 was not marked in evidence — Held: Huge discrepancies between Ex.P8 and Ex.P9 and the prosecution has not established the case through reliable medical or forensic evidence [Paras 25, 31–35].

Section 498A IPC — Cruelty — Demand of Dowry — No specific instance of cruelty or harassment established — Appellant and deceased admittedly lived happily for over a year in the house of PW1 and there was no complaint in that period — No material to show any specific act of cruelty or harassment in the six months prior to the date of occurrence when they lived independently — Money paid by PW1 was for purchase of a house on interest and not proved to be dowry demand — Held: Offence under Section 498A IPC not proved [Paras 28, 30, 37].

Decision: Criminal appeal allowed — Conviction and sentence imposed vide judgment dated 24.02.2022 in S.C.No.264 of 2017 by the District Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Villupuram, set aside — Appellant acquitted of all charges — Bail bond, if any, cancelled — Fine amount, if any paid, directed to be refunded.

Contempt of Court – Terms of Settlement – Trademark – Use of "SUPERON" – Territorial Restriction – Geo-Blocking – SM and SDM, brothers and co-directors of Superon Schweisstechnik India Ltd., executed a Memorandum of Family Settlement (10.09.2021) dividing the domestic and export business – SM received exclusive rights to use "SUPERON" within India while SDM was conferred rights to use it outside India – Parties subsequently executed Terms of Settlement (TOS) dated 27.04.2023 before the Division Bench – Clause 4 of TOS imposed an unequivocal prohibition on SDM from using "SUPERON" in any manner within the territory of India – Only a limited carve-out under Clause 7 permitted SDM to use "SUPERON" on visiting cards, letters, emails, communications, packaging etc. within India strictly for export purposes and not for retail – Held: Use of a mark on a website or social media handle accessible from India constitutes use of the mark in India – Use of "SUPERON" on social media platforms accessible from India clearly violates Clause 4 – Limited exception under Clause 7 cannot be expanded to permit SDM to proclaim any association with "SUPERON" in the Indian market [Paras 49-58].

Contempt of Court – Geo-Blocking – Websites and Social Media – TOS – Before the Facilitator appointed by the Division Bench, parties agreed in principle to geo-block their respective websites containing "SUPERON" – SDM subsequently sought to resile from this position – Held: Geo-blocking is the only permissible means by which SDM may continue to maintain websites or social media handles incorporating "SUPERON" without violating Clause 4 of TOS – If SDM is not amenable to geo-blocking, it is altogether precluded from maintaining any website or social media platform accessible from India that uses the mark "SUPERON" – Disclaimers on websites do not entitle SDM to use "SUPERON" within India in contravention of Clause 4 [Paras 59-68].

Contempt of Court – Physical Hoardings – Interlinking of Marks – SDM using prominent physical hoardings displaying "SUPERON" at factory premises in Gurugram held in violation of Clause 4 of TOS – SM's contention that Clause 6 prohibiting interlinking applies only to electronic/digital interlinking rejected – Held: The expression "either directly or indirectly" in Clause 6 is wide enough to cover physical interlinking and cannot be curtailed to electronic modes alone – Use of the conjunction "OR" negates the plea that the restriction is confined only to social media interlinking – SM required to refrain from conjoint use of "SUPERON" with "STANVAC" in any manner including physical hoardings [Paras 69-82].

Contempt of Court – Use of "SCHWEISSTECHNIK" – Separate Divisions – Industrial Products under "Stanvac Prime" – Clause 4 of TOS and Clause 2 of Agreed Terms dated 12.05.2023 only prohibit SDM from using "SCHWEISSTECHNIK" in the name of the parent company or any new entity in India – No provision in TOS addresses exclusivity, transfer or ownership of "SCHWEISSTECHNIK" – Use of the term "SCHWEISSTECHNIK" by SDM cannot be construed as contemptuous – SDM directed to demarcate parent company operations into three separate divisions (A, B and C) as per Clause 5 of TOS with separate non-interlinked websites – SDM expressly prohibited from manufacturing or marketing industrial products under "Stanvac Prime" brand as per Clause 5(ii) of TOS [Paras 77-76].

Contempt Jurisdiction – Power to Issue Remedial Directions – Apart from punishing contemners, the court has power to issue directions to nullify any advantage secured through contemptuous conduct and to give parties an opportunity to purge contempt – Both parties found to be in wilful disobedience of the TOS – Directions issued to each party to file affidavits of compliance within four weeks – Non-compliance to invite appropriate action [Paras 88-95].

Decision: Both SM and SDM found to be in wilful disobedience of the Terms of Settlement – Directions issued to SDM: (i) to refrain from using "SUPERON" on websites/social media accessible from India unless geo-blocked; (ii) to remove hoardings displaying "SUPERON" from physical premises in India; (iii) to demarcate operations into three divisions per Clause 5; (iv) to ensure separate non-interlinked divisional websites; (v) to refrain from manufacturing/marketing industrial products under "Stanvac Prime" – Directions issued to SM: (i) to refrain from interlinking "SUPERON" with "STANVAC/STARBLAZE" in any manner; (ii) to remove physical hoardings interlinking these marks; (iii) to geo-block its website/social media handles outside India – Both parties to file affidavits of compliance within four weeks – Matter listed for 30.04.2026.