Civil Law - Dynamic Injunction - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 of the CPC - Copyright Infringement – Cinematographic Film – Prima Facie Case Established – Plaintiff, a film production house, alleged large-scale online piracy of its film “Kannappa” on platforms including Instagram, Facebook, and X (formerly Twitter) – Allegations supported by over 1776 infringing URLs, with only 191 removed – Held: Prima facie case made out; balance of convenience in Plaintiff’s favour – Unauthorized streaming and sharing of content cause irreparable harm to Plaintiff’s commercial and reputational interests – Ex parte ad-interim injunction granted [Paras 27–31].

Dynamic Injunction – Ex Parte Relief Against Infringing URLs – Court granted dynamic injunction directing Meta Platforms (Defendant No. 2) and X Corp. (Defendant No. 4) to take down specific infringing URLs detailed in the plaint – Directions issued under IT Rules, 2021 – Plaintiff directed to comply with procedural requirements under Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC for Defendant No. 4 [Paras 31–33].

Pre-Institution Mediation – Exemption Granted – In light of urgency and guidance in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi, (2024) 5 SCC 815 and Chandra Kishore Chaurasia v. RA Perfumery Works Pvt. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3529 – Plaintiff exempted from pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A of Commercial Courts Act [Para 2].

Court Fee and Service Exemptions – Extension of Time and Procedural Flexibility – Plaintiff allowed to file court fees within four weeks – Exemption also granted from advance service on unserved Defendants due to urgency of interim relief sought [Paras 5, 8].

Deletion of Party – Defendant No. 3 Removed – At Plaintiff’s request, Defendant No. 3 deleted from array of parties – Amended memo directed to be filed within two weeks [Paras 11–13].

Procedural Directions – Written Statements and Replications – Defendants directed to file written statements within 30 days with affidavits of admission/denial – Plaintiff may file replications within 30 days thereafter – Summons issued for unserved Defendants returnable before Joint Registrar on 26.09.2025 [Paras 14–20].

Decision – Suit Registered – Ex Parte Injunction Granted – Plaintiff’s suit registered; dynamic injunction granted for immediate take-down of infringing URLs – Further process directed against unserved parties [Paras 10, 31–33].

Service Law - Retrenched Employees – Absorption under Rules of 1991 – Denied Due to Repeal – Claims Dismissed – Petitioners, ex-employees of U.P. Cement Corporation, claimed right to absorption citing 1991 Rules and Supreme Court’s ruling in Sunil Kumar Verma – Held: The 1991 Rules were rescinded by 2003 Rules and deemed rescinded retrospectively by Act of 2009 from 09.05.1991; petitioners’ claim extinguished as they were neither absorbed before 08.04.2003 nor party in prior litigation – Petitions dismissed [Paras 1-24].

Applicability of Supreme Court Judgment – Sunil Kumar Verma Judgment Not in Rem – Petitioners Not Entitled to Parity – Held: Supreme Court’s ruling in Sunil Kumar Verma restricted to appellants therein; no direction for general application to all similarly situated retrenched employees; petitioners were fence-sitters and failed to avail remedies in time [Paras 5, 15-18].

Rescission Act, 2009 – Effect of Section 3 – Extinguishment of Absorption Rights – Court held Act of 2009 rescinded 1991 Rules ab initio with saving only for those absorbed before 08.04.2003 – Petitioners’ rights extinguished, no further claim survives, except age relaxation for direct recruitment on Group C & D posts [Paras 8, 19-22].

Distinction from Other Judgments – Shiv Jag Sharma Case Not Applicable – Held: Case of Shiv Jag Sharma pertained to absorbed employees claiming pension, not unabsorbed retrenched employees; not applicable to present petitioners [Para 20].

Binding Precedent – Applicability of Division Bench Judgment – Court followed binding Division Bench decision in State of U.P. v. Shambhu Nath Srivastava, 2019:AHC:98463-DB, which rejected similar claims of unabsorbed retrenched employees of U.P. Cement Corporation after considering Sunil Kumar Verma judgment [Paras 11, 19].

Final Decision – Petitions Dismissed – Court declined interference, citing long unexplained delay, non-participation in previous litigation, and statutory bar under Act of 2009 – All writ petitions dismissed without relief [Paras 23-24].

Civil Law - Interim Injunction – Co-sharer’s Possession – No Exclusive Possession Shown – Revision Petition Dismissed – The petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming possession over agricultural land and sought interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC to restrain defendants from raising construction – Both courts below dismissed the injunction application holding that petitioner was merely a co-sharer and did not prove exclusive possession – The High Court held that interim injunction cannot be granted to a co-sharer unless exclusive possession is shown – Mere sowing of crop is insufficient where another co-sharer shows documents of possession such as electricity and water bills – Held: No error found in the concurrent findings; revision dismissed [Paras 2-6].

Exclusive Possession – Burden of Proof on Plaintiff – Observations Reaffirmed – The Court reiterated that a co-sharer must establish exclusive possession for seeking injunction – Defendant had placed material documents indicating physical possession and construction; plaintiff failed to rebut or show any contrary proof – Held: Plaintiff’s possession claims were unsubstantiated, rightly rejected by courts below [Paras 5-6].

Limited Interference under Article 227 – Scope of Revisional Powers – The High Court emphasised that interference under Article 227 is warranted only where the orders suffer from perversity or legal infirmity – Since both courts properly appreciated facts and law, the interference was declined – Held: No jurisdictional error found, petition dismissed [Paras 5-6].

Decision– Revision petition dismissed – Orders of Trial Court dated 05.10.2023 and First Appellate Court dated 16.09.2024 upheld – Pending applications also disposed of – Clarification made that observations herein are confined to the interim stage and do not affect the merits of the main suit [Paras 6-7].

Dishonour of Cheque – Lack of Authorization – Conviction under Section 138 of NI Act Set Aside – The accused issued a cheque in settlement of a failed property transaction where consideration was paid jointly by the complainant and another individual – The accused challenged the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that the complainant alone could not prosecute without proper authorization – Held: As per established legal position, in cases where liability is jointly owed, a solitary payee must have authorization to prosecute under Section 138 – As the authorization was not marked in evidence, conviction not sustainable – Matter remanded to trial court with liberty to both parties to adduce additional evidence [Paras 5-7].

Joint Payee Complaint – Legal Requirement of Authorization – Remand Ordered – The Court held that a cheque can be issued in the name of a single person for discharge of joint liability provided there is authorization by other parties – Absence of valid proof of such authorization renders prosecution defective – Remand permitted to allow parties to produce relevant authorizations or evidence [Paras 6-7].

Interim Relief – Release from Custody – Considering Accused Undergoing Default Sentence – Pending Re-trial – The Court directed immediate release of the petitioner from custody as he was serving default imprisonment for non-payment of compensation – Accused ordered to be released unless required in any other case [Para 7].

Limited Scope of Remand – No De Novo Trial Required – Additional Evidence Permitted – The Court clarified that while remanding, the trial court need not conduct a full retrial but should confine proceedings to permitting both sides to adduce further evidence on authorization before concluding the matter afresh [Para 7].

Family Law - Custody of Minor – Section 6, 7 and 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act - Paramountcy of Welfare – Section 17 of Guardians and Wards Act – Custody Restored to Mother – In a dispute concerning custody of a 9-year-old minor, despite the personal law favouring custody to the father after seven years, the Court applied the welfare principle under Section 17 of the Act – Considered that the minor had deep emotional attachment with the mother and expressed refusal to reside with father – Held: The best interest of the child, including mental well-being and comfort, outweighed personal law entitlement – Custody granted to the mother with limited visitation rights to father [Paras 25-31].

Personal Law vs Welfare Principle – Muslim Law on Hizanat – Personal Law Not Conclusive – While acknowledging Muslim law provisions wherein the father gets custody after the age of seven, the Court clarified that in cases where the child’s welfare is at stake, personal law cannot supersede the paramount consideration of welfare under Section 17 – Interaction with the child and evidence indicated welfare lies with the mother – Custody continued with mother despite father's legal claim under personal law [Paras 19-21, 28].

Visitation Rights – Balanced Visitation Schedule to Safeguard Father’s Rights – The Court balanced the father’s rights by granting reasonable visitation – Father entitled to spend seven days with child during long vacations and monthly visits under supervision – This ensured continued parental contact without disrupting child’s comfort zone [Paras 29-30].

Adverse Conduct of Mother – Non-Compliance with Court Orders – Contempt Proceedings Maintained Separately – Despite the mother’s defiance of interim court orders, the Court held that custody must be determined on welfare considerations, not punitive grounds – Contempt petition directed to be considered independently [Paras 4, 14, 28].

Father’s Financial and Domestic Circumstances – Lack of Proof of Better Upbringing Environment – The father failed to establish superior financial capacity or supportive domestic arrangements – Absence of female family members noted as a crucial factor in denying custody – Welfare conditions were found to be more conducive with the mother [Paras 25, 31].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Custody with Mother – Limited Visitation to Father – The impugned judgment granting custody to father was set aside – Custody retained by mother with structured visitation rights to the father – Welfare of the minor took precedence over personal law mandates [Paras 31].

Taxation Law - Bunching of Show Cause Notices – Composite Notice for Multiple Financial Years – Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act – Composite Assessment Order Quashed – The petitioner challenged the legality of a single show cause notice issued for six financial years resulting in a consolidated demand order – Held: The GST law mandates issuance of notices based on each financial year or tax period independently – Issuing a single notice for multiple years defeats statutory limitation provisions and prejudices the assessee’s rights to present year-specific defenses – The bunching of notices and orders is impermissible under the GST Act and hence liable to be quashed [Paras 5-29].

Jurisdictional Error – Violation of Sections 73(10), 74(10), and 136 of the CGST Act – Orders Void for Lack of Jurisdiction – The Court held that bunching of multiple financial years into a single notice and assessment order is in violation of statutory time limits and procedural safeguards under Sections 73(10), 74(10), and 136 – Such orders are passed without jurisdiction and are therefore void ab initio [Paras 9-27].

Independent Adjudication Mandate – Separate Notices Required for Each Financial Year – Reliance on Judicial Precedents – The Court reiterated the principle laid down in Titan Company Ltd. and Tharayil Medicals cases that each financial year is a separate unit for assessment under GST – Clubbing years through composite notices is inconsistent with the legislative scheme and judicially unsustainable [Paras 10-26].

Hardship to Assessee – Impact on Amnesty Schemes and Compounding – Separate Adjudication Mandated – The Court highlighted that bunching notices causes hardship by preventing the assessee from availing year-wise remedies like compounding under Section 138 and settling disputes under amnesty schemes – Such practices unjustifiably constrain the assessee’s statutory rights [Paras 21-24].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Composite Order Set Aside – The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order on grounds of illegality arising from bunching of financial years, and directed that if necessary, fresh proceedings be initiated separately for each financial year in accordance with law [Paras 28-29].

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Complaint under Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Petitioner apprehending arrest in complaint for unauthorized sale of nicotine-based e-cigarettes without valid license – Prosecution opposed maintainability citing proclamation proceedings under Section 82 CrPC – Held: Petition maintainable under Section 482 BNSS as petitioner had challenged and quashed the proclamation order in separate petition – Anticipatory bail granted subject to compliance with BNSS conditions [Paras 1, 5-7].

Drugs and Cosmetics – Unauthorized Sale of Nicotine Products – During raid, petitioner found stocking and selling products labeled as containing nicotine without valid retail/wholesale license – Petitioner failed to produce valid drug license or reveal source of procurement – Offence prima facie under Sections 18(c) and 18-A of the Act made out – Bail granted without commenting on merits [Paras 4, 7].

Bail Conditions – Aadhaar-based Surety Verification – Court noted prevalent misuse and corruption in verifying sureties through local officials like Lambardars or Sarpanch – Directed Aadhaar verification via mAadhaar app as primary method – Identification through local bodies to be resorted only if Aadhaar is unavailable – Direction to Chief Secretaries and Registries to consider implementing Aadhaar-based verification in legal documents [Paras 9-12].

Decision: Petition allowed – Anticipatory bail granted – Proclamation order already quashed – Aadhaar-based verification of sureties to be followed – All pending applications disposed of.

Arbitration – Legal Heirs as Parties – Clause Permitting Continuation of Firm – Arbitration Agreement Extends – The partnership deed contained a clause (Clause 15) allowing continuation of business with legal heirs after a partner's death – Clause 16 permitted arbitration of disputes – Held: Legal heirs are entitled to invoke arbitration despite absence of reconstitution deed – Dispute maintainable under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act [Paras 3-5, 14, 33-35].

Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Rejection of Petition – No Grounds Made Out – Application Rightly Dismissed – Court found that none of the conditions under Order VII Rule 11 were satisfied – There was a valid cause of action and no legal bar to institution of proceedings – Allegations raised in arbitration petition were not inherently meritless – Commercial Court’s order upheld [Paras 6-7, 22-32].

Partnership Act – Dissolution Not Automatic on Death – Clause in Deed Overrides Section 42(c) – Partnership at Will – Deed explicitly stated that firm would not dissolve on a partner’s death and would continue with successors – Held: Such contractual stipulations prevail over Section 42(c) of the Indian Partnership Act [Paras 33-34].

Commercial Courts Act – Writ Petition Maintainable Despite Section 8 – Constitutional Jurisdiction Not Ousted – Section 8 bars revision/petition against interlocutory orders of Commercial Court – However, High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 227 is constitutional and not excluded by statutory bar – Court may interfere in rare and compelling circumstances [Paras 16-21].

Final Decision – No Interference Warranted – Writ Petition Dismissed – High Court declined to interfere with Commercial Court’s rejection of Order VII Rule 11 application – Matter directed to proceed under Section 9 of Arbitration Act [Paras 36-37].

Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail – Civil Dispute Escalated to Criminal Litigation – Supreme Court Orders Executed – Conditional Bail Granted – Petitioners involved in property dispute culminating before Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 27400 of 2023 sought pre-arrest bail in cross criminal cases registered under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita alleging mutual criminal trespass and violence after property possession was delivered pursuant to Supreme Court orders – Held: Pre-arrest bail granted to petitioners in Cr.P.Nos.5730/2025 and 5860/2025 as there was no prima facie evidence of direct involvement, but rejected for petitioner in Cr.P.No.5861/2025 (A1) in view of previous criminal antecedents, credible allegations of criminal conduct, and statements implicating him in engaging antisocial elements – Court considered the principles laid down in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (2020) 5 SCC 1 regarding grant of anticipatory bail and the nature of allegations – Custodial interrogation held necessary for certain accused, pre-arrest bail allowed/disallowed accordingly [Paras 16-34].