Wills – Conflicting Wills – Validity and Proof – The appeal dealt with the validity of two wills executed by Bangaru Viswanadham. The plaintiffs supported the will dated March 17, 1994, which was registered, while the defendants supported an unregistered will dated April 25, 1994. The court held that the will dated March 17, 1994, was validly executed in accordance with the law. The defendants failed to prove the genuineness of the will dated April 25, 1994, due to suspicious circumstances, lack of corroboration, and non-compliance with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Additional Evidence – Admissibility – Appellate Stage – The appellants filed an application under Section 151 CPC to admit additional evidence at the appellate stage. The court dismissed the application, stating that the correct procedure under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC was not followed. The evidence sought was not newly discovered and could have been presented during the trial with due diligence. The court emphasized that inadmissible photocopies cannot be accepted as additional evidence.

Civil Procedure – Fraud and Undue Influence – Burden of Proof – The court reiterated that the burden of proving fraud and undue influence lies on the party alleging it. The defendants, who claimed that the plaintiffs obtained the will dated March 17, 1994, through fraud, failed to substantiate their allegations with concrete evidence. Mere allegations without proof do not invalidate a duly executed and registered will.

Decision:

Appeal dismissed. The court upheld the trial court’s decree and judgment, affirming the validity of the will dated March 17, 1994. The application for additional evidence was rejected due to procedural and substantive shortcomings.

Prisoners' Rights - Unauthorized Possession of Mobile Phone - Parole Denial - The court examined whether the unauthorized possession of a mobile phone by a prisoner, without any accompanying conviction or evidence of misuse, justifies the denial of parole. The court emphasized that such denial, in the absence of a full trial or a conviction, infringes upon the presumption of innocence, a cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence. The decision of the District Magistrate to deny parole based solely on the recovery of a mobile phone was deemed oppressive, as it violated Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. [Paras 18-22].

Judicial Review - Fair Trial - Application of Criminal Jurisprudence in Prison Discipline - The court found that the procedural safeguards typically applied in criminal trials must extend to prison discipline cases involving severe consequences, such as the denial of parole. It held that the Superintendent of Jail cannot impose punishments without the procedural rigor required in a fair trial, including cross-examination and the opportunity for the prisoner to present a defense. [Paras 27-30].

Constitutional Law - Article 21 - Fair Trial Principles - The Full Bench overruled the decision in Kulwant @ Monu v. State of Haryana, which had upheld the denial of parole based on the mere possession of a mobile phone, declaring it inconsistent with the principles of a fair trial under Article 21. The court ruled that any denial of parole must be grounded in a full judicial process, respecting the prisoner’s right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. [Paras 25-36].

Decision: The Full Bench set aside the impugned order denying parole, holding that the denial was unjustified without a proper judicial process, and declared that mere possession of a mobile phone by a prisoner cannot lead to automatic denial of parole. The court remanded the matter for reconsideration in line with these findings. [Para 36].

Taxation Law – Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 – Dispute over classification of transactions as Inter-State Sales or Stock Transfers – Challenge to assessment by State of Haryana imposing tax on transactions treated as inter-State sales – High Court examines whether movement of goods from Haryana to Bihar under an agreement constituted a sale or stock transfer – Held: Supply of goods pursuant to a prior contract with the Government of Bihar constituted an inter-State sale under the CST Act – Petitioners already assessed for local sales tax in Bihar cannot claim exemption from inter-State tax in Haryana – Dismissal of writ petitions, affirming the validity of Haryana’s tax demand. [Paras 1-16]

Inter-State Sales vs. Stock Transfer – High Court relies on precedents to determine that movement of goods occasioned by a contract of sale constitutes an inter-State sale – Reliance on Supreme Court’s ruling in Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. vs. Commercial Tax Officer, and Bharat Electric Ltd. vs. Union of India – The issuance of Form F by Bihar for stock transfer did not absolve the petitioner from the obligation to pay inter-State sales tax in Haryana – Tax Tribunal’s findings upheld – Claims of double taxation refuted. [Paras 8-14]

Decision – Dismissal of Writ Petitions – Held: Petitioner’s arguments regarding double taxation and erroneous classification as inter-State sales rejected – Haryana entitled to impose Central Sales Tax on transactions – Refund claims to be pursued per Tata Motors Ltd. vs. CST Appellate Authority ruling – Interim orders vacated – Final judgment dismisses all petitions and pending applications. [Paras 15-19]

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR under Sections 498A, 406, 420, 506(2), 114 IPC and Sections 3, 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act – High Court quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings against the accused (father-in-law and mother-in-law) under Section 482 CrPC – The complainant filed a case alleging harassment after marriage, but the Court found the allegations to be general and unsubstantiated – The Court held that the complainants had falsely implicated the applicants in order to pressure the family into a settlement – Court observed the applicants, aged 90 and 80, had no involvement in the alleged offences [Paras 1-7, 17].

Abuse of Process – Court found that the FIR was an abuse of the legal process, aimed at harassment rather than the pursuit of justice – Referring to multiple precedents, including Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand and Geeta Mehrotra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court emphasized caution in matrimonial disputes, especially when extended family members are implicated without specific evidence – It was noted that the marriage had dissolved via divorce, and there was no substantial proof of harassment against the in-laws [Paras 6-7, 13].

Decision – FIR Quashed – Held – The application under Section 482 CrPC was allowed – The Court quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings against the petitioners, ruling that their implication in the case was motivated by personal grievances rather than actual evidence of wrongdoing [Paras 15-17].

Criminal Law – Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of defamation charges – Accusations against the petitioners (including the Chief Minister of Delhi) for imputing that BJP had orchestrated deletion of voter names from specific communities – The High Court examined the validity of summoning orders issued by the Magistrate and upheld by the Sessions Court – Court found that the statements made by the petitioners were prima facie defamatory, targeting a determinable and identifiable group (BJP and its Delhi Pradesh unit) – Court emphasized that political parties are identifiable entities under law, capable of being defamed – Held that the allegations against BJP were made without factual basis, potentially swaying public opinion, and harming BJP's reputation – The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. [Paras 14-33].

Defamation Law – Evaluation of Evidence for Defamation – The Court held that even though the initial evidence was derived from newspaper reports and video clippings (generally considered hearsay), it was supported by certificates under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, making it admissible – Summoning orders were based on sufficient prima facie evidence, and the absence of witness testimony at the pre-summoning stage did not invalidate the summoning order – The scope of inquiry under Sections 202 and 204 Cr.P.C. was limited to determining if there was sufficient ground to proceed, not to ascertain the truth of the allegations conclusively – Reliance was placed on precedents that allowed the continuation of defamation proceedings even when initial evidence was not fully established at the pre-summoning stage – Petition dismissed. [Paras 23-26].

Decision – Dismissal of Petition – Held – The High Court dismissed the petition, confirming the maintainability of defamation charges against the petitioners – The Court found that the tweets and public statements made by the petitioners were defamatory, particularly as they accused BJP of engaging in unethical practices without factual support – The petitioners' defense that their statements were made in good faith and for public good was reserved for trial – The Court emphasized that reputation, particularly of political entities, is protected under law, and defamatory imputations without factual basis cannot be shielded under the guise of free speech – The Court directed the continuation of proceedings before the Trial Court. [Paras 32-42].

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Quashing of FIR – Petitioners accused of abetting the suicide of the complainant's brother by refusing to repay money owed for construction work – FIR quashed – Court held that the mere non-payment of dues, without any positive act of instigation, does not constitute abetment under Section 306 IPC – Emphasized that there must be a proximate and live link between the accused's conduct and the deceased's suicide – Petitioners' conduct did not amount to instigation or aiding the suicide – FIR and subsequent proceedings quashed [Paras 14-19].

Test for Quashing – Court applied the test of an ordinary person’s reaction to harassment – Concluded that a person of ordinary prudence would not be driven to suicide in similar circumstances – Suicide attributed to the deceased's hypersensitive nature rather than the petitioners' conduct [Paras 15-17].

Decision: FIR No. 357 dated 15.07.2023, registered under Sections 306 and 34 IPC, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, quashed.

Habeas Corpus – Child Custody – Jurisdiction of Writ Court – The Calcutta High Court dealt with a habeas corpus petition filed by the father seeking custody of his two minor children from the mother. The petition alleged that the mother had wrongfully removed the children from Kolkata to Bhopal and was unlawfully detaining them. The Court noted that the paramount consideration in such matters is the welfare of the children, and that habeas corpus is an extraordinary remedy only available in exceptional circumstances where the detention is illegal, and ordinary legal remedies are unavailable or ineffective. The Court declined to grant the relief sought, instead relegating the parties to the pending proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, which were transferred to the Principal Judge in Nagpur, Maharashtra by the Supreme Court. [Paras 1-23, 36-39]

Maintainability – Writ of Habeas Corpus in Custody Matters – The High Court held that a writ of habeas corpus in child custody cases is maintainable only if it is established that the child is unlawfully detained. The Court emphasized that it would not entertain a writ petition if detailed inquiry was required, which would be better suited for civil courts. In this case, no special circumstances were found that would justify intervention by the writ court. [Paras 18-22, 34-35]

Decision – Dismissal of Petition – Held – The writ petition was dismissed, and the parties were directed to continue the proceedings in the civil court. The Court vacated all interim orders and clarified that it had not decided on the merits of the custody dispute, leaving all issues open for determination by the civil court. [Paras 39-41]

Intellectual Property Law - Trademark Infringement - Film Titles - The plaintiff, co-owner of the film franchise "Aashiqui," sought to prevent the defendant from using the title "Tu Hi Aashiqui" for its proposed film. The court examined whether the title "Aashiqui" is generic or common to trade and found that the term, while suggestive of romance, has acquired distinctiveness and secondary meaning through its association with the Aashiqui Franchise. The court held that "Aashiqui" is not generic and deserves protection under trademark law. [Paras 19-24].

Deceptive Similarity - Likelihood of Confusion - The court applied the test of deceptive similarity and concluded that the defendant's proposed film title "Tu Hi Aashiqui" was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark "Aashiqui." The use of the word "Aashiqui" in the title was likely to cause confusion among the public, leading them to believe that the film was part of the Aashiqui Franchise. The court emphasized that slight variations in the title do not sufficiently differentiate it from the plaintiff's mark, especially given the identical nature of the goods (films). [Paras 25-30].

Jurisdiction and Contractual Obligations - Despite the defendant's challenge to the jurisdiction based on clauses in the agreements between the parties, the court held that it had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit since the claims of trademark infringement and passing off are tortious in nature and not purely contractual. The court also noted that the plaintiff's office and significant actions related to the alleged infringement were within its territorial jurisdiction. [Paras 16-18].

Injunction - Balance of Convenience - Irreparable Harm - The court found that the balance of convenience favored the plaintiff, as allowing the defendant to use the title "Tu Hi Aashiqui" would cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff's established brand. The court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the title "Tu Hi Aashiqui" or any other name containing the word "Aashiqui." [Paras 39-44].

Decision: An interim injunction was granted in favor of the plaintiff, restraining the defendant from using the title "Tu Hi Aashiqui" or any other title containing the word "Aashiqui" for their proposed film. [Paras 44-45].

Civil Procedure – Second Appeal – Scope of Interference – Court reiterated the limited scope of interference in second appellate jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC – Findings of fact by lower courts cannot be disturbed unless there is clear perversity – Appeal dismissed as no substantial question of law arose [Paras 16-22].

Specific Performance – Registered Agreement – Execution and Validity – Defendant's plea that the agreement was fraudulently executed was rejected due to lack of sufficient evidence – Registered agreement and payment endorsements made by the Sub-Registrar were presumed correct under law – Concurrent findings of lower courts upholding the specific performance decree were affirmed [Paras 8-14].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed at the stage of admission. The concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts were upheld, and no substantial question of law was found to warrant interference.