Criminal Law – Default Bail – Interpretation of BNSS – Petitioners arrested on 10.05.2025 and remained in custody for 90 days – Application for default bail under Section 187(3) BNSS filed on 12.08.2025 – Charge-sheet not filed within statutory period – Trial court rejected application relying on Odisha amendment to CrPC providing 120-day period – Held: BNSS, 2023 repealed CrPC, 1973 by virtue of Section 531 – No express saving of Odisha amendment under BNSS – Period of 90 days under Section 187(3)(i) applies – Petitioners entitled to statutory bail [Paras 1, 3–5, 7, 9–12, 15].

Criminal Law – Repeal and Savings – Section 531 BNSS – State amendment to CrPC extending charge-sheet period not saved under new law – Notifications dated 16.07.2024 and 27.09.2024 do not alter substantive provision under BNSS – Odisha Rules framed under BNSS also specify 90-day limit – Trial court misdirected in applying repealed provision – Right to default bail accrued upon expiry of 90 days [Paras 6, 10–14].

Remand – Trial Court Order Quashed – Trial court directed to reconsider application for default bail under correct legal framework – Matter remanded for fresh hearing and disposal within two weeks from submission of certified copy of order [Paras 15–16].

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 11.08.2025 quashed – Matter remanded to trial court for fresh consideration of default bail under Section 187(3) of BNSS.

Civil Procedure – Partition Suit – Lis Pendens – Second Appeal filed by the 12th defendant, a lis pendens purchaser of item No.6 of suit property – Trial court excluded purchased portion from partition – Lower appellate court reversed the finding, holding that lis pendens purchaser’s rights are subject to outcome of suit – Held: Lis pendens purchaser cannot insist on exclusion of purchased property – His equities, if any, can only be considered at the stage of final decree – Transfer during pendency of suit is not void but does not confer independent rights against non-consenting co-sharers – Appellate court's approach affirmed as correct in law [Paras 8–15].

Transfer of Property Act – Section 52 – Pendente Lite Sale – Sale by some co-sharers during pendency of suit falls under Section 52 TPA – Appellate court rightly held that sale is not void but subject to final decree – Purchaser bound by result of litigation and can only claim equitable consideration during partition proceedings – Observation in appellate judgment declaring sale “void” held to be a misstatement, but corrected later within the judgment [Paras 12–14].

Appellate Practice – No Substantial Question of Law – Appellant failed to demonstrate any perversity or legal error in appellate judgment – No substantial question of law arose – Second Appeal dismissed at admission stage [Paras 15–17].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – No substantial question of law arises – Rights of lis pendens purchaser to be considered at final decree stage only.

Criminal Law – Discharge - Prevention of Corruption Act – Disproportionate Assets – Wife of public servant – Petitioner (A2), wife of Assistant Manager (Finance), BEL, arraigned for abetment – Prosecution alleges petitioner abetted accumulation and concealment of disproportionate assets in her name – Held: Several immovable properties and high-value transactions traced to petitioner – Prima facie materials exist requiring trial – Discharge rightly refused by Trial Court – No merit in revision petition [Paras 2, 6, 8]

Criminal Procedure – Discharge – Stage of Charge – At the stage of framing of charge or considering discharge, court not to conduct a roving enquiry into veracity of prosecution materials – Only prima facie case needs to be established – Petitioner’s explanations including income tax filings, gifts, salary, and investments are disputed facts to be tested during trial – Trial Court rightly held that such explanations cannot be evaluated at discharge stage [Paras 3, 6, 8]

Criminal Law – Abetment – Requirements – Mere ownership of property by spouse of public servant not sufficient – Must show active participation, instigation, or concealment – In present case, ownership of multiple properties and financial transactions in petitioner’s name create prima facie inference of abetment warranting trial [Paras 2, 6, 8]

Evidence – Income Tax Returns – Relevance – Filing of income tax returns does not ipso facto exonerate accused – Source of funds and actual flow of money must be explained – In this case, petitioner did not produce income tax documents before Court – Prosecution entitled to probe financial documents during trial [Para 8]

Decision: Criminal Revision Petition dismissed – Order of IX Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai dated 10.07.2025 in Crl.M.P. No. 1261 of 2024 upheld – Trial Court to proceed independently without being influenced by observations in this order – Connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

Trademark Law – Interim Injunction – 'TESLA' Mark – Plaintiff (Tesla Inc.) sought injunction against Defendants (Tesla Power India Private Limited & Ors.) for using 'TESLA POWER' / 'TESLA POWER USA' marks for batteries and EVs – Held: Plaintiff established prior user, overwhelming goodwill, trans-border reputation, and likelihood of confusion; Defendants' adoption was dishonest, and delay in filing suit was not a ground to deny injunction in cases of dishonest adoption [Paras 42-46].

Trademark Law – Infringement – Registered Proprietor Rights – Plaintiff, registered proprietor of 'TESLA' mark since 2013 for automobiles and structural parts (Class 12 & 37) and inverters (Class 09), sought injunction against Defendants using 'TESLA POWER' for lead acid batteries, inverters, UPS – Held: Plaintiff's registrations are prima facie evidence of validity; batteries are structural automobile parts for EVs (Class 12) and inverters are covered (Class 09), making Defendants' goods allied and cognate, thus constituting infringement [Paras 11-14].

Trademark Law – Well-Known Mark – Trans-Border Reputation – Plaintiff demonstrated significant global revenue ($98.6 billion in 2023), extensive website traffic from India, and media coverage – Held: Plaintiff's 'TESLA' mark has overwhelming goodwill and trans-border reputation extending to India, making it a well-known mark entitled to protection even if goods are not directly sold in India [Paras 15, 39-40].

Trademark Law – Dishonest Adoption – Awareness of Prior Mark – Defendants adopted 'TESLA POWER USA' despite knowing Plaintiff's 'TESLA' mark since February 2021 (from trademark registry citations) and having no client base in USA – Held: Defendants' adoption was prima facie dishonest, intended to mislead consumers into believing a connection with the US-based Plaintiff, and to ride on Plaintiff's goodwill and reputation [Paras 16-18, 28-29].

Trademark Law – Likelihood of Confusion – Identical Marks and Allied Goods – Defendants' use of 'TESLA POWER' for batteries and inverters, which are allied/cognate to Plaintiff's EVs and inverters, with 'TESLA' as the dominant feature – Held: High likelihood of confusion among average consumers with imperfect recollection, as 'TESLA' is identical and goods are allied; descriptive additions like 'POWER' or 'USA' do not sufficiently distinguish the marks [Paras 19-21, 36-37].

Trademark Law – Initial Interest Confusion – Test Application – Court applied the initial interest confusion test – Held: Even transient confusion at the preliminary stage, before actual purchase, is sufficient to establish deceptive similarity under Section 29 of the Act, as the infringer's objective may be served by diverting initial attention [Paras 22-23].

Trademark Law – Passing Off – Goodwill and Actual Confusion – Plaintiff demonstrated substantial goodwill and actual instances of confusion (media reports, consumer complaints, FIRs) where Defendants were mistaken for Plaintiff's subsidiary – Held: A prima facie case of passing off is established, as Plaintiff is likely to suffer loss of reputation due to Defendants' goods being passed off as Plaintiff's [Paras 20, 24, 7.17].

Trademark Law – Delay in Filing Suit – Dishonest Adoption – Plaintiff filed suit in 2024, aware of Defendants since 2022, particularly after Defendants entered EV space – Held: Delay in filing suit is not a ground to deny interim injunction when the adoption of the impugned mark is dishonest; injunction must follow in cases of trademark infringement [Paras 25-27, 7.11].

Trademark Law – Approbate and Reprobate – Estoppel – Defendants applied for registration of 'TESLA POWER' and 'TESLA USA' marks, but then argued 'TESLA' is common to trade and generic – Held: Defendants cannot approbate and reprobate by seeking registration for a mark and simultaneously claiming it is common to trade; this constitutes an abuse of process [Paras 30-31, 5.34, 7.5, 7.9].

Trademark Law – Third-Party Use – Defense – Defendants cited third-party registrations and use of 'TESLA' (e.g., NVIDIA Corporation for computer hardware) to argue a 'crowded market' – Held: Third-party use is not a valid defense against infringement, especially when such uses are not for identical or allied goods (automobiles/batteries) in India, or are subsequent to Plaintiff's adoption; Plaintiff is not expected to sue every small infringer [Paras 33-35, 5.35, 7.5, 7.8].

Decision – Interim Injunction Granted – Application for interim injunction allowed – Held: Defendants are restrained from using 'TESLA POWER' / 'TESLA POWER USA' or any deceptively similar marks/trade names/domain names for EVs, promotional advertisements for EVs, and from using registered device/logos of 'TESLA' – This injunction also extends to Lead Acid Batteries for all automobiles, Inverters, and UPS [Paras 45-47].

Criminal Procedure – Successive Anticipatory Bail Application – Maintainability – Petition under Section 482 BNSS filed for grant of pre-arrest bail by accused previously denied same relief – Held: Successive applications for anticipatory bail are maintainable in law if there is a material change in circumstances – However, they must be placed before the same Judge to maintain judicial propriety and avoid forum shopping – Cited principles from Shahzad Hasan Khan and G.R. Ananda Babu cases [Paras 11-15].

Change in Circumstances – Grant of Bail to Co-accused – Held: Arrest and subsequent bail of other co-accused, and partial progress in investigation, do not by themselves constitute a substantial change in circumstances – Petitioner still absconding and custodial interrogation necessary – Petitioner failed to demonstrate fresh grounds warranting grant of pre-arrest bail [Paras 16-22].

Judicial Discipline – Forum Shopping – Reiterated that successive bail applications should be heard by the same Judge who decided earlier application, if available – This practice upholds judicial decorum and prevents inconsistent orders – Cited Supreme Court rulings discouraging forum shopping and emphasizing procedural consistency [Paras 11-13].

Case Law – Applicability – Supreme Court’s ruling in G.R. Ananda Babu v. State of Tamil Nadu applied – Held: Mere passage of time, partial investigation, or grant of bail to other accused is insufficient for granting pre-arrest bail when serious allegations remain unresolved – No factual distinction shown from earlier rejection [Paras 23-24].

Decision: Petition dismissed – No substantial change in circumstances since previous rejection – Petitioner remains absconding – Serious allegations and custodial interrogation still required – Relief under Section 482 BNSS not justified.

Narcotic Drugs – Conviction under NDPS Act – Recovery of contraband ganja – Accused A1 and A2 apprehended while in possession of 1.5 kg ganja – Trial court convicted both under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act – Acquitted under Sections 25 and 29(1) – A3 absconded and later acquitted – On appeal, A1 reported dead, appeal abated against him – Conviction of A2 upheld based on presumption of conscious possession as he was found accompanying A1 at scene [Paras 2, 3, 26, 27, 31].

Search and Seizure – Validity of Search Procedure – Defence challenged absence of independent witnesses and presence of printed arrest memos at scene – Court held that refusal of witnesses did not vitiate search – Explanation given that laptop was used and arrest memos printed nearby – Seizure, arrest and recovery held in compliance with procedural safeguards under NDPS Act [Paras 14, 21-24].

Identification – Sufficiency of Informant Detail – Argument raised that Ex.P1 did not mention detailed description of accused – Court held that physical description was provided orally and PW1 identified the accused at the scene based on those details – Identification found reliable [Paras 13, 20].

Possession – Conscious Possession – A2 found accompanying A1 who was in possession of contraband – No recovery from A2 – However, trial court and appellate court held that A2 was in conscious possession by virtue of association and presence – Presumption under NDPS Act attracted [Paras 26, 27].

Sentence – Reduction on Mitigating Grounds – Appellate court considered A2’s young age (21 years), no prior criminal record, no direct recovery from him, 90 days custody already undergone, and death of A1 – Sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment reduced to period already undergone – Fine enhanced from Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 50,000 – In default of fine payment, three months’ simple imprisonment imposed [Paras 28-30].

Decision: Appeal dismissed as abated against A1 (Yasin) – Conviction of A2 (Mohamed Hussen) under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act upheld – Sentence reduced to period already undergone – Fine enhanced to Rs. 50,000 to be paid within four weeks, failing which A2 shall undergo 3 months simple imprisonment – Confiscation of vehicle confirmed.

Criminal Law – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Hostile Witnesses – Conviction Upheld – Appellant convicted for murdering his minor daughter by strangulation using cloth string – Though complainant-wife and other family members turned hostile, prosecution proved the case through reliable circumstantial evidence including written complaint, FIR, medical evidence, and recovery of cloth string at accused’s instance – Held: Despite hostile witnesses, chain of circumstances including conduct of appellant, recovery, and medical findings were sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction justified [Paras 19–26, 38–40].

Indian Evidence Act – Section 106 – Facts within Special Knowledge – Accused’s Failure to Explain – Adverse Inference Drawn – Appellant was present at home at time of incident and failed to offer any plausible explanation for his daughter’s death – Held: Once prosecution proved that death occurred inside house and accused was present, burden shifted on accused under Section 106 – Appellant’s vague denial and evasive response in Section 313 statement reinforced prosecution case – No explanation from accused leads to presumption of guilt [Paras 27–28, 38].

Indian Evidence Act – Section 27 – Discovery of Incriminating Material – Recovery of Weapon – Cloth string used for strangulation recovered at accused’s instance and proved by Investigating Officer – Held: Recovery admissible under Section 27 as fact discovered was directly linked to the crime – Site plan, recovery memo, and arrest memo corroborate prosecution version – Recovery not contradicted in cross-examination [Paras 26, 38].

Criminal Trial – Hostile Witnesses – Impact on Prosecution Case – Wife, son, and daughter-in-law of accused turned hostile and retracted earlier statements – Held: Hostility of witnesses does not automatically nullify prosecution case if other credible and corroborated evidence exists – Written complaint proved through independent scribe (PW-3) – Medical and forensic evidence corroborated version in FIR – Court can rely on proved documents even if author turns hostile [Paras 19–25, 38].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Circumstantial Evidence – Principles Reiterated – Court applied Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles – Held: Chain of circumstances consistent only with guilt of accused – No alternative hypothesis consistent with innocence – Prosecution not required to prove motive where other circumstantial links are strong and complete [Paras 31, 33, 36–37].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and life sentence under Section 302 IPC upheld – Appellant failed to discharge burden under Section 106 of Evidence Act – Recovery and post-mortem findings support guilt – Hostility of witnesses does not weaken prosecution case in light of clinching circumstantial evidence [Paras 38–40].

Service Law - Family Pension – Son's entitlement – Condition of marriage – M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 – Held: Marriage of a son does not render him ineligible for family pension; entitlement continues until age 25 or earning livelihood, as per Rule 47(6) which is the substantive provision, overriding any ambiguity in the definition clause Rule 47(14)(b)(ii) [Paras 19-20].

Preliminary Objection – Misrepresentation – Affidavit – Petitioner's marital status – Respondents alleged petitioner furnished incorrect information about his marital status in an affidavit – Held: Furnishing incorrect information in an affidavit regarding marital status is not a relevant factor for determining the petitioner's statutory right to family pension if the rules themselves do not make marriage a disqualification for a son [Para 7].

Pension Law – Family Pension – Son's Entitlement – M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 – Petitioner, son of deceased employee, sought family pension – Rule 47(6)(ii) states a son is entitled to family pension until he attains 25 years – Rule 47 Explanation (b) explicitly applies marriage criteria only to daughters – Held: Rule 47(6)(ii) is clear and unambiguous; a son's entitlement to family pension is not contingent on his marital status, only on attaining 25 years or starting to earn livelihood [Paras 9-11, 19].

Statutory Interpretation – Harmonious Construction – Definition Clause vs. Substantive Provision – Rule 47(14)(b)(ii) defines 'family' and uses the term 'his/her marriage/remarriage' which creates ambiguity regarding a son's entitlement upon marriage – Rule 47(6) is the substantive provision governing the period of family pension – Held: A definition clause must be construed harmoniously with the main enactment; where the substantive provision (Rule 47(6)) is clear and unambiguous, the definition clause (Rule 47(14)(b)(ii)) cannot be interpreted to restrict the scope of the main provision, especially when the opening words of Rule 47(14)(b)(ii) also support the interpretation that the marriage condition applies to daughters only [Paras 13, 15-16, 18].

Statutory Interpretation – Proviso/Definition Clause – Scope and Function – Court referred to principles from CIT v. Ajax Products Ltd. and DMRC v. Tarun Pal Singh regarding the function of a proviso or a definition clause – Held: A proviso or definition clause qualifies the generality of the main enactment or clarifies terms but cannot be read to make the main provision nugatory or inconsistent; it must be construed harmoniously with the main enactment and cannot introduce a restriction not present in the substantive provision [Paras 15, 17].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Family Pension – Petitioner's father was a Line Helper, drawing pension until his death – Petitioner applied for family pension, which was sanctioned with a condition of marriage as an ineligibility factor – Held: The condition of marriage inserted in the sanction order dated 09.08.2023 is invalid and de-hors Rule 47(6) of the Pension Rules – Petitioner is entitled to family pension until he attains 25 years or starts earning or death, whichever is earlier – Respondents directed to disburse arrears of family pension from 16.05.2021 with 6% interest per annum within 90 days [Paras 19-20].

Service Law – Transfer – Incident of Service – Judicial Review – Though transfer is an incident of service and ordinarily courts should not interfere – Held, interference justified where transfer is arbitrary, causes undue hardship and violates principles of good governance – Mass transfer of teachers in mid-academic session deprecated [Paras 30–32].

Transfer of Teachers – Mid-Academic Session – Educational Impact – Petitioner transferred within five months from one school to another at a distance of about 500 km – Transfer effected in September during running academic session – Held, such transfers disrupt teaching, examinations and students’ academic continuity – Action contrary to administrative prudence [Paras 18–21, 24–26].

Service Tribunal – Inconsistent Orders – Discrimination – Tribunal dismissed stay application of petitioner relying on Shilpi Bose while granting stays in identical matters on same dates – Different benches and even same bench adopting pick-and-choose approach – Held, such inconsistency reflects arbitrariness and judicial impropriety [Paras 14–17, 29, 32].

Service Tribunal – Reliance on Precedent – Shilpi Bose Case – Tribunal selectively relied on Shilpi Bose to deny relief while ignoring same precedent in other similar cases – Held, Tribunal must maintain uniformity and adhere to binding precedents – Selective application of law disapproved [Paras 15–17, 29].

Good Governance – Education Administration – National Education Policy, 2020 – Court emphasized duty of State to align administrative actions with educational calendar and NEP-2020 objectives – Mass transfers during academic session undermine quality of education and student welfare [Paras 19–23, 26–28].

Writ Jurisdiction – Interference with Tribunal Orders – Where Tribunal failed to consider petitioner’s case on merits and acted arbitrarily, High Court justified in setting aside Tribunal’s order and granting interim protection [Paras 32–33].

Decision: Writ Petition partly allowed – Order dated 04.11.2025 passed by Rajasthan State Civil Services Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 4387/2025 set aside – Transfer order dated 22.09.2025 and consequential relieving order stayed till final disposal of appeal – Tribunal directed to decide appeal on merits preferably within two months – Copy of order directed to be sent to Department of Personnel and Chairman of Tribunal for compliance