Ad-interim injunction - Intellectual Property – Copyright Infringement – Cinematograph Film – Plaintiff claimed exclusive rights in film “Mee Shivajiraje Bhosale Boltoy” including script, dialogues, title, and promotional material – Defendant's film “Punha Shivajiraje Bhosale” alleged to be a derivative or substantial reproduction – Held: No facsimile copy made – No infringement under Section 14(d) of the Copyright Act as defendants’ film is independently shot – Mere resemblance or similarity does not amount to infringement [Paras 33–34].

Copyright Law – Literary Work – Infringement of Script and Dialogues – Plaintiff failed to produce original script – Similarities alleged through chart (Exhibit O3) were broad, generic, and not substantially similar – Dialogues claimed were common expressions in Marathi language and not original to plaintiff – No prima facie case made out for infringement of literary work [Paras 35–37].

Intellectual Property – Promotional Material and Posters – Use of Standard Font and Public Historical Figure – Plaintiff claimed infringement based on poster design and use of Shivaji Maharaj’s image – Held: Use of image of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj and standard Marathi font not original or exclusive – No copyright or passing off made out in promotional material [Para 38].

Trademark Law – Passing Off – Title of Film – Claim of goodwill in title “Mee Shivajiraje Bhosale Boltoy” – Court held that no exclusivity or goodwill can be claimed in names like “Shivajiraje Bhosale” or “Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj” – No deceptive similarity or likelihood of confusion found – Plaintiff failed to establish goodwill, confusion, or misrepresentation – No passing off made out [Paras 39–41].

Interim Relief – Delay and Laches – Plaintiff had knowledge of defendants’ film since April 2025 – Suit filed only on 10.10.2025 – No explanation for delay – Court cited precedents discouraging last-minute injunctions before film releases – Delay found to be deliberate and strategic – Ad-interim relief refused solely on grounds of delay [Paras 23–27].

Equity – Balance of Convenience – Courts should not entertain urgent injunctions without adequate justification – Defendant invested substantial resources – Plaintiff’s last-minute litigation found inequitable – Held: Plaintiff not entitled to equitable relief – Interim application to be heard finally after pleadings completed [Paras 42–44].

Decision: Ad-interim relief refused – Interim Application to be listed for final hearing from 17.11.2025 – Defendants to file replies within two weeks – Plaintiff permitted rejoinder within one week thereafter – Costs reserved [Paras 44–46].

Right to Life – Protection of Married Couple – Honour-Based Threat – Petitioners, a married couple, alleged threat to life from petitioner No. 1's father and brother after entering into marriage of their own free will – Authorities failed to act on representation dated 19.10.2025 seeking protection – State counsel's response was non-committal regarding protection, deferring decision to discretion of SHO – Held: In matters involving threat to life, protection must be granted immediately on receipt of application – Delay or discretion at initial stage not permissible – Denial of protection amounts to violation of Article 21 – Any denial must be supported by detailed speaking order – Nodal Officer must act on same day upon receipt of application [Paras 1–6]

State Accountability – Failure to Provide Protection – Court held that protection cannot be delayed under pretext of inquiry or administrative procedure – Authorities shall be held liable for inaction if harm results from such delay – Duty to act swiftly especially in cases of matrimonial alliance against family wishes – Socio-economic context of honour-based violence recognized – Authorities must not hide behind bureaucracy to deny protection [Paras 3–5]

Decision: Petition allowed – Respondent No. 2 directed to provide protection and decide representation on same day by passing a speaking order.

PIL - Wildlife Law – Possession of Ivory – Notification under Section 40(4) of Wild Life Protection Act – Gazette Publication Mandatory – State issued notifications permitting declaration of ivory articles by a film actor and granted ownership certificates – Notifications not published in the Official Gazette – Held: Power under Section 40(4) must be exercised strictly in the manner prescribed – Non-publication in the official gazette renders the notifications void ab initio – Subsequent ownership certificates issued are unenforceable in law [Paras 10-12, 14] –

Statutory Interpretation – Requirement of Gazette Notification – Cannot be waived – Court rejected State's contention that alternate publicity (press circulation and website posting) satisfies requirement – Held: In absence of official gazette publication, the notifications are non est – Relying on Nazir Ahmad v. King-Emperor, I.T.C. Bhadrachalam Paperboards v. Mandal Revenue Officer – Exercise of delegated power must strictly follow statutory prescription [Paras 11-12] –

Public Interest Litigation – Locus Standi – Maintainability upheld – Despite contentions of political or personal motive, Court held the writ petitions raised genuine questions about legality of executive action under the Wildlife Act – Petitioners had standing to question misuse of statutory powers [Para 13] –

Retrospective Regularisation – Not Permitted – Notifications held to be 'stillborn' and incapable of subsequent validation through belated gazette publication – De facto doctrine inapplicable to statutorily void acts [Paras 12, 14] –

Criminal Proceedings – No Interference – Though petitioners prayed for directions to expedite pending criminal proceedings against the actor, Court declined to interfere – Held: Criminal matters already pending and monitored; such relief not warranted in writ jurisdiction [Para 2] –

Decision: Writ Petitions allowed – Government Orders dated 16.12.2015 and 17.02.2016 and Ownership Certificates dated 16.01.2016 and 06.04.2016 quashed as void and unenforceable – State may issue fresh notification under Section 40(4) in accordance with law – No costs.

Criminal Law – Rape – Quashing on Settlement – Gang Rape and Abduction – Petitioners accused of abducting and repeatedly raping the de facto complainant under threat and confinement – Despite affidavit of compromise by victim, High Court refused to quash proceedings – Held: Offences of rape, especially gang rape, are crimes against society, not merely private wrongs – Settlements cannot override public interest in prosecuting such grave offences [Paras 1-8, 14-16]

Compromise – Non-Permissibility in Heinous Offences – Victim filed affidavit citing pressure from relatives and disinterest in prosecution – Court reiterated that compromise has no role in cases involving rape, abduction, and offences of mental depravity – Cited binding precedents from Supreme Court: Gian Singh, Parbatbhai Aahir, Madanlal, Ramji Lal Bairwa, and In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents – Held: Proceedings cannot be terminated under Section 482 CrPC in such serious cases [Paras 9-13]

Section 482 CrPC – Inherent Powers – Scope – High Court has limited discretion to quash criminal proceedings – Court emphasized that quashment cannot be resorted to when prosecution records prima facie indicate commission of grave offences – Compromise with victim, even if genuine, cannot justify interference in serious criminal matters involving dignity and bodily integrity [Paras 13-14]

Gender Justice – Offence Against Woman – Protection of Dignity – Court stressed that crimes like rape violate bodily autonomy and societal values – Attempt to settle such offences undermines rule of law and weakens criminal justice system – Dismissal of petition necessary to uphold constitutional and statutory protections for victims [Paras 11-13, 15]

Decision: Criminal miscellaneous case dismissed – Petitioners not entitled to quashment of proceedings under Section 482 CrPC despite victim’s affidavit – Trial to proceed before Sessions Court.

Writ of Habeas Corpus - Preventive Detention – Non-consideration of Representation – Violation of Article 22(5) – Detention confirmed under Section 9(f) of the PIT NDPS Act – Petitioner contended that representation dated 08.02.2025 was not considered independently by State Government – Court found no mention of such consideration in confirmation order (Annexure-B) or related files – Held: Representation must be considered independently of Advisory Board opinion – Failure to do so violates constitutional mandate under Article 22(5) – Detention vitiated [Paras 11–16, 19]

Detention – Right to Representation to Central Government – Detenue not informed of right to make representation to Central Government under Section 12(1)(b) of the PIT NDPS Act – Held: Obligation exists under Article 22(5) to inform detenue of such right – Failure to communicate this vitiates the order – Supported by SC ruling in Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel v. Union of India [(1995) 4 SCC 51] [Paras 20–22]

Preventive Detention – Independent Application of Mind – Confirmation order (Annexure-B) merely reproduced draft order based on Advisory Board report – No independent examination of detenue’s representation found in file – Held: Confirmation must reflect independent reasoning by competent authority – Mechanistic approval insufficient – Quashed [Paras 15–16]

NDPS Offences – Habitual Offender Allegation – Detenue had 12 prior NDPS cases, several pending trial – Alleged to be involved in organized trafficking from Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh – Court held such allegations, though serious, do not override procedural safeguards under Constitution – Preventive detention must satisfy strict compliance with statutory and constitutional mandates [Paras 2–5, 23]

Decision – Detention order dated 27.12.2024 and confirmation order dated 20.03.2025 quashed – Writ petition allowed – Operative portion to be communicated to prison authorities immediately [Para 23]

Service Law – Seniority – Inter-Commissionerate Transfer (ICT) – Deputation followed by absorption – Impact on Seniority – Held: An ICT transfer is to be treated as a deputation until formally absorbed – Seniority is to be reckoned only from date of absorption in the new Commissionerate, not from date of deputation/joining – High Court upheld the CAT’s direction that transferred Inspectors are junior to promotees in the transferee Commissionerate – Circular No. 8/2011 and Rule 5(2) apply – Earlier position treating such transferred officers as seniors was contrary to rules – [Paras 5, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 19, 20, 22]

Seniority – Direct Recruits vs Promotees vs Transferees – Rule Position – Inspectors who came on ICT and later absorbed cannot claim seniority over those promoted in the new cadre during the interim – High Court clarifies that ICT is not an open transfer but a deputation on request, governed by Rule 5(2) of the 2011 Circular – [Paras 12, 15, 18]

Absorption – Date of Absorption Crucial – Mere joining on ICT does not imply immediate absorption – Only formal absorption confers rights to seniority in the new unit – Seniority cannot be retrospectively counted from the date of initial joining – [Paras 10, 12, 18]

Final Decision: OPs Dismissed – Orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal affirmed – Petitioners not entitled to seniority over departmental promotees in the transferee Commissionerates – [Paras 20, 22]

Criminal Law – Murder Trial – Triple Homicide – Acquittal – Accused Nos. 1 to 4 charged with conspiracy and murder of a family of three, including a minor – Trial Court convicted all under Sections 120-B, 109, 449, 201, 302, and 380 read with 34 IPC – On appeal, High Court found entire prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence riddled with legal and procedural inconsistencies – Held: Prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction set aside – Accused acquitted [Paras 22.1 to 22.3, 27]

Circumstantial Evidence – Standards of Proof – Court reiterates five-fold test from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra – Each incriminating circumstance must be fully established – Circumstances must conclusively point only to guilt of accused and rule out any other hypothesis – Held: Prosecution failed to meet standard in proving any of the six circumstances relied upon – Acquittal warranted [Paras 22.1 to 22.3]

Witness Testimony – Hostile Witnesses – Key witnesses to recovery, last seen, seizure, and spot mahazars turned hostile – PWs.6, 14, 15, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29, 33, 34 and others did not support prosecution version – Many admitted to signing documents under police instruction – Court found testimonies unreliable – Recovery and seizure proceedings found doubtful [Paras 18.2 to 18.27, 19.1 to 19.3]

Recovery Evidence – Gold Articles, Mobile Phones, Cash – Recovery from accused Nos. 2 to 4 not properly proved – Panch witnesses turned hostile – Mahazars Exs.P17, P18, P19, P27, P30, P33, P34, P38 and P48 lacked credible corroboration – No test identification or sealing of articles – Seizure of incriminating objects not proved – Held: Recovery unreliable and inadmissible [Paras 18.1 to 18.27]

Last Seen Theory – Prosecution relied on PWs.6 and 27 – Both turned hostile – No proximity in time between last seen and discovery of bodies – Held: Last seen theory neither legally nor factually established – Cannot form basis for conviction [Paras 19.1 to 19.3]

Forensic Evidence – Fingerprint Analysis – Fingerprints lifted from whisky bottle and tumblers at scene – Expert PW.53 claimed match with accused – However, whisky bottle (MO.72) not recorded in spot report (Ex.P66) by FSL expert PW.48 – Panch witnesses PW.16 and PW.17 turned hostile – No mahazar drawn during lifting – Held: Fingerprint evidence not trustworthy – Cannot be relied upon [Paras 20.1 to 20.13]

DNA Evidence – Hair Samples Recovered from Scene – DNA report (Ex.P116) linked hair to accused Nos.3 and 4 – But collection, custody, preservation, and chain of custody of samples not proved – Sample hairs not subjected to DNA profiling – Serious inconsistencies in who collected the hair and how it was preserved – Held: DNA evidence unusable due to procedural lapses and lack of credibility [Paras 21.1 to 21.24]

Investigation – Lapses and Public Pressure – High Court criticized police for rushed and perfunctory investigation – Found investigation driven by public pressure, including media briefings and rewards to officers – Basic procedures under Sections 100 and 102 CrPC not followed – Investigation found to be biased and lacking integrity [Paras 24.1, 24.2]

Trial Court – Judgment Criticized – High Court condemned trial court judgment for being mechanical and devoid of proper appreciation of evidence – Extensive verbatim reproduction of depositions without analysis – Findings lacked clarity and legal reasoning – Held: Judgment unsustainable in law [Paras 26.1 to 26.5]

Constitutional Law – Right to Fair Trial – Article 21 – Accused incarcerated for years before acquittal – High Court echoed Supreme Court’s concern on wrongful prosecution and long pre-trial detention – Observed potential need for compensation mechanisms in cases of wrongful incarceration [Para 24.2]

Decision: Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Accused Nos.1 to 4 acquitted – State appeal dismissed – Accused Nos.2 to 4 to be released forthwith if not required in any other case – Registrar General directed to circulate judgment to all trial courts [Paras 27, Order]

Maintenance – Entitlement of Major Unmarried Daughter – Christian Personal Law – Respondent No.2, a major unmarried Christian daughter, awarded maintenance by Family Court – Held: Under Section 125(1)(c) Cr.P.C., only daughters unable to maintain themselves due to physical/mental infirmity can claim maintenance after majority – No such infirmity pleaded or proved – Daughter found to be a practicing lawyer – Further, unlike Hindu law (HAMA), Christian personal law does not impose obligation on father to maintain unmarried major daughter – Family Court order granting maintenance to daughter set aside [Paras 4-6].

Maintenance – Wife Living Separately – Valid Grounds – Husband argued wife deserted him without justification and hence disentitled under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. – Evidence showed wife was staying in Mumbai for care and education of their ailing son – Held: Wife’s decision to live separately was justified and not disentitling – Parental obligations may override marital ones in such context – Maintenance upheld [Paras 7-8].

Maintenance – Earning Wife – Quantum – Wife admitted to part-time employment without steady income – Held: Part-time or temporary employment not a bar to maintenance if income insufficient to maintain status enjoyed in matrimonial home – Cited Supreme Court rulings in Rajnesh v. Neha, Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha – Rs. 20,000 monthly maintenance upheld [Paras 9-10].

Maintenance – Educational Expenses of Major Child – Family Court awarded lump sum Rs. 30,000 towards educational expenses of major child – Held: Even if child is major, wife can claim expenses for dependent child – Section 125 Cr.P.C. does not bar such recovery – Educational expenses awarded justified [Para 11].

Decision: Revision petition partly allowed – Maintenance awarded to major daughter set aside – Maintenance of Rs. 20,000 per month and educational expenses of Rs. 30,000 to wife upheld – No interference warranted on those aspects.

Civil Writ - Service Law – Suspension – Rule 10 of KCS (CCA) Rules – Petitioner, a Panchayat Development Officer, suspended based on a video clip allegedly showing him accepting illegal gratification – Suspension order issued by Disciplinary Authority based on communication from CEO – Tribunal declined interim relief – High Court held that suspension under Rule 10 requires independent satisfaction of Disciplinary Authority – Mere reliance on third-party communication insufficient without due application of mind – Allegation based on viral video clip not substantiated by complaint or FIR – Political motive alleged [Paras 1–3]

Administrative Law – Role of Tribunal – Tribunal’s refusal to grant ex-parte stay – High Court declined to interfere at this stage – Directed Tribunal to decide interim relief application on merits during next hearing – Time-bound directions issued to dispose of application by 14.11.2025 – Held: Writ not maintainable during pendency of statutory remedy unless exceptional grounds shown [Paras 4–6]

Judicial Discipline – Limited Interference – High Court emphasized that petitioner’s grievance regarding suspension should first be addressed by Tribunal – No adjudication on merits at this stage – Observed that proper hearing with respondent’s submissions would enable fair consideration – Petition disposed with liberty to pursue remedy before Tribunal [Paras 5–6]

Decision – Writ petition disposed – Tribunal directed to decide interim relief on 30.10.2025 and final disposal by 14.11.2025 [Para 6]