Trade Marks – Interim Injunction – Registered Word Mark “SIYARAM” – Use as Part of Corporate Name and Composite Label – Plaintiff registered proprietor since 1986 – Strong presumption of validity attaches to registered mark – Defendants neither challenged registration nor pleaded invalidity – Plaintiff entitled to statutory protection under Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Paras 57(A)].

Trade Marks – Prior User – Claim Through Predecessor – Alleged use by father of Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 since 1992 – No pleading or proof of assignment or transfer of mark with goodwill – Multi-brand retail store not exclusively identified with mark – Claim of prior use legally untenable – Defendants at best can claim use only from incorporation in 2006, long after Plaintiff’s adoption and registration [Paras 57(B)–(C)].

Trade Marks – Dishonest Adoption – Knowledge of Plaintiff’s Reputation and Goodwill – Defendant’s predecessor sold Plaintiff’s goods as authorised dealer – Entire Plaintiff’s mark subsumed in Defendant’s corporate name and label – Conscious and calculated adoption amounts to dishonesty – Once dishonesty established, injunction must follow [Paras 57(D)–(E)].

Passing Off – Goodwill and Reputation – Continuous and extensive use since 1977/1978 – Long-standing registrations – Substantial sales and advertising expenditure certified by Chartered Accountant – Judicial recognition in prior cases – Prima facie goodwill sufficiently established at interlocutory stage – Proof of actual confusion not mandatory [Paras 57(H), 49].

Trade Marks – Honest Adoption – Irrelevance – Even assuming honest adoption, infringement and passing off not legitimised – Defendant cannot use corporate or trading name identical or deceptively similar to registered trade mark – Likelihood of confusion presumed where identical mark used for similar goods [Paras 57(F)].

Trade Marks – Composite Mark Registration – Section 28(3) – No Defence to Passing Off – Registration of label “Apricott – a Product of Stanford Siyaram Fashions Pvt. Ltd.” does not confer exclusivity over word “SIYARAM” – Section 17 clarifies no exclusive rights in individual components – Defence rejected [Paras 57(G)].

Trade Marks – Names of Hindu Gods – Registrability and Enforceability – “Siyaram” not descriptive of textile goods – Acquired distinctiveness through long use – No statutory bar under Trade Marks Act, 1999 – Defendants estopped from pleading non-distinctiveness after seeking registration incorporating “Siyaram” [Paras 57(I)].

Delay and Acquiescence – Interim Relief – Mere passage of time not fatal – Acquiescence requires positive encouragement by Plaintiff – Dishonest adoption renders delay insignificant – Plaintiff not disentitled to injunction [Paras 57(J)].

Decision – Notice of Motion Allowed – Interim injunction granted restraining Defendants from using “Siyaram” as part of corporate name or trade mark – Prayer clauses (a) and (b) granted – Balance of convenience in favour of Plaintiff – Irreparable injury presumed [Paras 58–59].

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Acquittal – Rash and Negligent Driving – Essential Ingredients – Sections 279/304A IPC – Prosecution must establish not only involvement of the vehicle and driver but also that the vehicle was driven in a rash or negligent manner – Occurrence of an accident or death by itself does not raise a presumption of rashness or negligence [Paras 38–40].

Evidence – Eye-Witness Testimony – Appreciation – Testimony of PW-2 (mother of deceased) claiming to be an eye-witness found unreliable in view of site plan showing that from her stated position she could not have seen the accident – Her version held inconsistent with physical facts on record [Paras 26–30].

Child Witness – Credibility – Corroboration by Site Plan – Testimony of PW-9 (sister of deceased child) found reliable and corroborated by site plan to the extent of occurrence of accident and involvement of bus – However, her evidence insufficient to establish rash or negligent driving [Paras 31–32, 39].

Proof of Identity of Driver – Section 133 Motor Vehicles Act – Evidence of school transport caretaker and reply to notice under Section 133 MV Act proved that respondent was driving the bus at the relevant time – Identity of driver established beyond doubt [Paras 33–36].

Road Accident – Standard of Care – Assessment of Rashness – Bus had stopped to drop a passenger and had moved only 20–25 feet before the accident – In such circumstances, inference of high speed or rash driving could not be drawn – Child was playing on the road and accident occurred near a T-point – Prosecution failed to prove culpable negligence [Paras 39–40].

Benefit of Doubt – Application – Where prosecution evidence fails to conclusively establish rashness or negligence, accused entitled to benefit of doubt – Trial Court rightly acquitted the respondent [Paras 40–41].

Decision: Criminal Appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal dated 30.05.2017 upheld – Respondent acquitted of offences under Sections 279/304A IPC.

Service Law – Seniority – Foresters – Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme – Petitioners originally appointed as Village Forest Workers (VFWs) and later redesignated and merged into Forester cadre w.e.f. 10.02.2009 under 2009 Amendment Rules – Private opposite parties appointed as Foresters under Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 and sent for Foresters’ training from 16.06.2008 – Seniority lists prepared by counting training period of RA appointees – Held: Appointment under RA Rules precedes training and is not contingent upon completion of training – Date of joining training constitutes entry into service [Paras 9.6–9.17, 10].

Rehabilitation Assistance – Nature of appointment – RA Rules are a welfare and compassionate measure intended to provide immediate succour to family of deceased Government servant – Appointment under RA Rules is an exception to normal recruitment – Such appointees hold substantive posts subject to training and probation – Held: Training is not sine qua non for appointment as Forester under RA Rules [Paras 9.1–9.9].

Seniority – Rule 13 of RA Rules – Interpretation – Rule 13 mandates that persons appointed under RA Rules shall be placed below persons recruited and appointed in the same year – Private opposite parties treated as appointed in 2008 on joining training – Petitioners merged into cadre only in 2009 – Held: Petitioners cannot claim seniority over RA appointees of earlier year [Paras 8.1–8.2, 10.17].

Training Period – Whether counts for seniority – Evidence showed RA appointees were relieved from divisions, joined training school, and were paid salary and allowances during training – Appointment already made before training – No rule excluding training period from service – Held: Training period rightly counted for seniority [Paras 7.3, 9.14–9.17].

Executive Instructions – Supersession – Effect – Government Letter dated 13.04.2017 fixing seniority from date of joining training later superseded, but subsequently reaffirmed by Letter dated 27.05.2019 in conformity with Rule 13 of RA Rules – Actions taken bona fide on basis of extant instructions and promotions already granted – Held: No ground to unsettle settled seniority [Paras 10.1–10.14].

Delay and laches – Challenge to seniority list – Seniority list dated 08.11.2016 not challenged within reasonable time – Belated challenge after publication of revised list impermissible – Settled seniority should not be reopened after lapse of time – Held: Petitioners disentitled to relief on ground of delay [Paras 10.3–10.8, 12.2].

Judicial Review – Limits – Court will not interfere with fixation of seniority unless contrary to statutory rules or vitiated by arbitrariness – Seniority fixed in consonance with RA Rules having overriding effect under Rule 15 – Held: No illegality or arbitrariness established [Paras 10.16–10.18, 12].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Fixation of seniority of Foresters appointed under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme upheld – Seniority lists dated 08.11.2016 and 24.06.2017 sustained – No order as to costs – Pending applications disposed of.

Bail – Murder Case – Conspiracy – Accused Not Present at Scene of Crime – Petitioner (Accused No.11) alleged to have only intimated the movement of the deceased to principal accused – No overt act of assault attributed to him – Petitioner not present at the place of occurrence – Role limited to prior intimation – Held: Case distinguishable from main assailants and comparable to co-accused granted bail [Paras 7–9].

Bail – Parity with Co-Accused – Accused Nos.8 and 9, who were present at the spot but not armed and had not assaulted the deceased, already granted bail – Petitioner’s role held to be similar or lesser in gravity – Ground of parity applicable – Bail cannot be denied when similarly placed co-accused are enlarged on bail [Para 9].

Bail – Prolonged Custody – Delay in Trial – Petitioner in judicial custody since 28.07.2021 (over 4½ years) – Charge sheet cites 111 witnesses – Only some witnesses including major eye-witnesses examined – About 80 witnesses yet to be examined – Trial likely to take considerable time – Delay not attributable to petitioner – Continued incarceration held unjustified [Paras 10–12].

Bail – Suppression of Earlier Bail Petition – Effect – Though petitioner had earlier bail petitions dismissed, subsequent circumstances including long incarceration and delay in trial constitute change in circumstances – Suppression alone not sufficient to deny bail when liberty under Article 21 is implicated [Paras 4, 6, 13].

Article 21 – Right to Speedy Trial – Prosecution failing to secure witnesses on scheduled dates – Adjournments granted for want of witnesses – Prolonged trial infringes right to personal liberty – Bail granted without expressing opinion on merits [Paras 10–13].

Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent – Principles laid down in Praveen Rathore v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1268 applied – Long incarceration and delayed trial justify grant of bail [Para 11].

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – Petitioner granted bail subject to conditions including execution of bond, non-tampering of witnesses, regular appearance before trial court, and non-involvement in further offences.

Public Employment – Reservation – Married Women – Caste Certificate Issued by Another State – Candidature Cancellation – Quashing of Orders – Petitioners belonging to SC/ST/OBC categories originally residents of other States and holding valid caste certificates from such States – After marriage to permanent residents of Madhya Pradesh, petitioners acquired domicile of Madhya Pradesh – Candidatures cancelled at document verification stage solely for want of caste certificate issued by Madhya Pradesh – No show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing afforded – Held: Petitioners cannot be treated as migrants merely on account of marriage and are entitled to consideration as domiciled residents of Madhya Pradesh [Paras 3–7, 10].

Recruitment Rules – Interpretation – Absence of Express Bar – Eligibility Conditions – Madhya Pradesh School Education Service (Teaching Cadre) Recruitment Rules, 2018 do not contain any express clause mandating submission of caste certificate issued only by Madhya Pradesh – No provision declaring caste certificates issued by other States as invalid – Held: In absence of explicit ineligibility condition, respondents cannot reject candidature on such technical ground [Paras 11–14].

Reservation Law – Beneficial Interpretation – Recognition of Caste in Both States – If caste or community of candidate is notified as SC/ST/OBC in both the State of origin and the State of Madhya Pradesh – Mere issuance of caste certificate by another State cannot render candidate ineligible – Reservation being a beneficial provision must receive purposive and liberal interpretation – Rejection on technical grounds held arbitrary and unsustainable [Paras 14–15, 20].

Doctrine of “Rules of the Game” – Change of Eligibility Conditions – Impermissibility – Advertisement did not stipulate requirement of caste certificate issued only by Madhya Pradesh – Introduction of such requirement at document verification stage amounts to changing rules after commencement of selection process – Held: Recruitment authority cannot add new conditions mid-way – Action violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution [Paras 17–19].

Married Women – Caste Status – Not Migrants by Marriage – Reliance placed on Division Bench judgment in Dr. Alka Singh v. State of M.P. – Woman belonging to OBC category in both States cannot be treated as migrant after marriage – Entitled to caste recognition and reservation benefits in State of marriage [Para 16].

Relief – Remand with Directions – Appointment and Consequential Benefits – Impugned cancellation orders quashed – Respondents directed to verify whether caste/community of petitioners is recognized as reserved category in both States – If found so, appointments to be granted with notional seniority, pay fixation and all consequential benefits – Exercise to be completed within 60 days [Paras 21–22].

Decision: All writ petitions allowed – Impugned orders quashed – Directions issued for verification and consequential appointments – No order as to costs.

NDPS Act – Regular Bail – Second Bail Petition – Commercial Quantity – Delay in Trial – Article 21 of Constitution – Second petition filed under Section 483 BNSS seeking regular bail in FIR under Sections 22(C) and 29 NDPS Act involving alleged recovery of 576 capsules (354.96 grams) – Petitioner in custody since 12.07.2024 – Earlier bail petition dismissed as withdrawn – Maintainability of second bail petition upheld upon showing substantial change in circumstances – Challan presented but only 3 out of 18 prosecution witnesses examined – Trial likely to take considerable time – Held: Prolonged incarceration of more than 1 year 5 months without likelihood of early conclusion of trial constitutes substantial change in circumstances – Continued detention unjustified [Paras 3, 6, 6.3].

NDPS Act – Section 37 – Rigours – Dilution on Ground of Prolonged Incarceration – State opposed bail citing bar under Section 37 NDPS Act – Court reiterated that statutory embargo cannot override fundamental right to speedy trial under Article 21 – Where delay in trial is not attributable to accused, rigours of Section 37 stand diluted – Conditional liberty can be granted notwithstanding commercial quantity – Reliance placed on Supreme Court and High Court precedents – Held: Statutory restrictions cannot be used to justify indefinite pre-trial detention [Paras 6.2].

Bail – Criminal Antecedents – Relevance – Custody certificate indicated involvement of petitioner in other FIRs – Held: Mere involvement in other cases not sufficient ground to deny bail when facts of present FIR justify grant of bail – Bail to be considered FIR-wise on its own merits [Para 6.1].

Right to Speedy Trial – Pre-trial Detention – NDPS Cases – Right to speedy trial is integral to Article 21 – Begins from date of arrest and continues through trial – Overcrowded dockets and systemic delays cannot justify prolonged incarceration – Pre-trial detention turning punitive held impermissible – Courts duty-bound to balance societal interest with individual liberty [Paras 6.2].

Conditions of Bail – Safeguards Imposed – Bail granted subject to stringent conditions including non-tampering of evidence, regular appearance, non-commission of offence, deposit of passport, monthly affidavit of good conduct and liberty to State to seek cancellation on breach – Held: Conditions sufficient to safeguard prosecution interest [Para 7].

Decision – Petition allowed – Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail subject to conditions – Clarified that observations shall not be construed as expression on merits of the case [Paras 7–11].

Specific Performance – Execution of Decree – Deposit of Balance Sale Consideration – Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Decree directed execution and registration of sale deed within stipulated time and permitted deposit of balance consideration if required during execution – Decree-holder filed execution petition within stipulated period and undertook to deposit entire balance consideration with interest – Executing Court permitted deposit though order passed beyond prescribed period – Held: Since decree-holder applied within time, delay attributable to Court cannot prejudice decree-holder – No jurisdictional error or perversity warranting interference [Paras 1–3, 6–9].

Execution Proceedings – Powers of Executing Court – Bound by Decree – Executing Court cannot rewrite or travel beyond decree but is empowered to facilitate compliance with decree terms – Where decree-holder expresses readiness and willingness and seeks permission to deposit consideration within time, Executing Court acts within jurisdiction in allowing such deposit – No violation of decree conditions established [Paras 6–8].

Section 28, Specific Relief Act – Rescission of Contract – Scope – Judgment-debtor sought rescission of alleged unregistered sale deed and recall of order permitting deposit – Held: Section 28 aims to balance equities between parties – When decree-holder sought compliance within stipulated period and delay occurred due to Court process, rescission not warranted – Application rightly dismissed [Paras 6–9].

Delay Attributable to Court – Litigant Not to Suffer – Well-settled principle that party should not be prejudiced for delay caused by Court – Permission to deposit granted later does not defeat decree-holder’s rights when application was filed in time – No illegality in Executing Court’s approach [Para 9].

Precedents – Applicability – Judgments in V.S. Palanichamy Chettiar, P. Shyamala, and Chanda v. Rattni distinguished – In cited cases, decree-holders failed to seek extension or deposit within reasonable time – Present case stands on different footing as execution petition with readiness to deposit was filed within prescribed period [Paras 5–9].

Scope of Article 227 – Limited Interference – High Court to interfere only in cases of patent lack of jurisdiction, perversity, or grave injustice – Impugned orders reflect lawful exercise of discretion by Executing Court – No ground for supervisory interference made out [Paras 1, 9].

Decision: Civil revision dismissed – Orders dated 20.03.2025 and 19.08.2025 upheld – No interference under Article 227 warranted – Pending applications, if any, disposed of.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Injury Claim – Enhancement of Compensation – Just Compensation – Reassessment by High Court – Claimant aged 62 years suffered permanent disability of 20% to whole body due to motor vehicle accident – Tribunal awarded compensation on lower side – High Court reassessed income on basis of minimum wages in absence of proof of actual income – Monthly income fixed at ₹11,100 instead of guesswork – Held: Compensation must be fair, reasonable and in tune with settled law [Paras 9–11].

Permanent Disability – Loss of Future Earning Capacity – Multiplier Method – Disability certificate proved 20% permanent disability affecting earning capacity – Tribunal’s assessment found inadequate – Multiplier of 7 applied considering age of claimant – Loss of future earnings recalculated accordingly – Principles laid down in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar followed [Paras 6, 9, 17].

Non-Pecuniary Damages – Pain and Suffering – Enhancement – Claimant suffered multiple grievous injuries, underwent surgeries and prolonged hospitalization – Permanent disability resulted in loss of dignity and normal enjoyment of life – Tribunal awarded meagre amount – Held: ₹3,00,000 awarded towards pain and suffering in light of Supreme Court precedent recognising intangible and lifelong impact of injuries [Paras 11–13].

Attendant Charges – Dependence on Others – Reasonable Lump Sum Award – Evidence showed claimant required assistance in daily activities due to disability – Applying principles from Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and later High Court precedent – Held: Claimant entitled to attendant charges – Lump sum of ₹50,000 awarded [Paras 14–15].

Other Heads – Transportation, Special Diet, Loss of Amenities – Tribunal’s Award Inadequate – High Court enhanced amounts under transportation, special diet, loss of amenities and disability considering nature of injuries and prolonged treatment – Ensured holistic compensation covering pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses [Paras 16–17].

Interest – Rate of Interest on Enhanced Compensation – Interest @ 9% per annum awarded from date of filing of claim petition till realization – In consonance with Supreme Court decisions [Para 18].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Award dated 21.05.2024 modified – Total compensation enhanced from ₹2,29,248/- to ₹8,65,728/- – Enhanced amount of ₹6,63,480/- payable with interest @ 9% per annum – Insurance Company directed to deposit amount within two months.

Civil Law - Court Fees – Cancellation of Document – Declaratory Relief – Executant of Document – Plaintiff, who executed a deed of guarantee for ₹30 crores, sought declaration that the guarantee was void ab initio and impossible of performance – Though relief couched as declaration, substance of relief amounted to cancellation of the guarantee deed – Held: When executant seeks to avoid or nullify a document executed by him, suit falls under Section 40(1) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act and not under Section 25 [Paras 7–9, 15, 19].

Valuation of Suit – Substance Over Form – Pecuniary Jurisdiction – Suit valued at ₹25,01,000/- despite guarantee value being ₹30 crores – Court held that valuation must be based on value of subject document sought to be annulled – Incorrect valuation deprived Commercial Court of pecuniary jurisdiction – Plaint rightly returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for presentation before competent court [Paras 7–9, 14–15].

Distinction Between Declaration and Cancellation – Applicability of Section 25 and Section 40 – Section 25 applicable where declaratory relief sought without seeking cancellation and plaintiff is not party to document – Section 40 specifically governs suits for cancellation of documents creating rights in money or property – Held: Since appellant was executant of guarantee, Section 40 squarely attracted [Paras 14–17].

Guarantee Deed – Declaration of Voidness – Effect – Declaration that guarantee is impossible of performance under Section 56 of Contract Act necessarily results in nullifying the document – Such relief cannot be granted without cancelling the document in law – Court fee therefore payable on full value of guarantee [Paras 15, 19].

Precedents – Non-Executant vs Executant – Judgment in M/s. Siddha Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. M. Shanmugam distinguished – In that case plaintiff was not party to sale deed – Present case involved executant himself – Earlier decisions including A.P. Arulandum Perumal Pillai and Raju v. Venkataswami Naidu followed [Paras 16–20].

Decision: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed – Order returning plaint upheld – Appellant directed to re-present plaint before competent court after valuing suit at ₹30 crores and paying court fee under Section 40(1) of the Act.