Trade Notice Challenge – Export of Broken Rice – Eligibility criteria for allocation of quota – Restriction based on past export history to specified countries – Violation of Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India alleged – Selective approval for certain exporters questioned. [Para 1-4]

Background on Broken Rice Export Policy – Prohibition on export of broken rice, with limited exceptions – Requests from foreign governments – DGFT permitting exports based on foreign government requests without verification. [Para 5-13]

Challenges Raised – Petitioners claim discrimination and unreasonable restriction on trade – Reference to Tata Cellular case and Radhakrishna Agarwal case – Assertion of mala fide actions favoring specific exporters. [Para 14-26]

Export Policy - Allocation of quota for export of broken rice to specific countries - Challenge to eligibility criteria - Violation of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India - Examination limited to eligibility criteria for securing allocation of quota - Classification of rice exporters based on past exports to specific countries - Judicial review not barred - The classification of rice exporters into separate classes for allocation of export quota subject to scrutiny under Article 14 - [Para 32-34]

Article 19(1)(g) - Restriction on the freedom to carry on the business of exporting broken rice - Exporters' freedom curtailed by prohibition on export of broken rice - Challenge to policy on grounds of Article 19(1)(g) violation - Restriction on the business of exporting broken rice - Examination of whether such restriction is unreasonable. [Para 35]

Classification of Rice Exporters - Criteria for allocation of export quota - Objective to ensure capacity and quality - Allocation based on past exports to specific countries - Lack of material or rational basis for assuming quality assurance based on past exports - Classification lacks nexus with the objective of ensuring capacity and quality. [Para 50-55]

Scope of Judicial Review - Classification not required to be scientifically perfect but must have a real and substantial intelligible differentia - Classification must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved - Exclusion of certain rice exporters requires a deeper scrutiny. [Para 60]

Comparison to Other Cases - Distinction from cases involving procurement and export of goods with different objectives and rationale - Application of rational nexus test to the given classification. [Para 61-62]

Setting Aside the Trade Notice - Impugned trade notice setting the allocation criteria for export of broken rice to be set aside - Respondents directed to re-evaluate the criteria for allocation of quota for export of broken rice. [Para 64]

Bail Application – Denial of bail by trial court – Petitioner seeks release as an undertrial – FIR registered under Sections 327, 323, 294, 506, 120-B, 384, and later Section 201 IPC added – Allegations of conspiracy and torture by police officials – Co-accused granted interim anticipatory bail – Petitioner seeks bail on grounds of parity – Cancellation report in an earlier case found allegations false – Retaliatory nature of present FIR alleged – Previous convictions of complainant and involvement in multiple cases – Court observes dubious conduct of complainant – Petitioner’s custody for over three months – No probability of tampering with evidence – No flight risk – Petition allowed, petitioner to be released on bail. [Para 1-16]

Civil Procedure – Stay of partition suit under Section 10 of the CPC – Petitioner seeking relief against stay order – Dispute regarding partition of properties belonging to the deceased – Respondent filing a partition suit in Bihar, petitioner filing a suit in Delhi – Application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and Section 10 of CPC – Mediation attempted but failed – Trial Court granted stay under Section 10 of CPC – Petitioner aggrieved by the stay order – Submissions on maintainability and jurisdiction – Interpretation of Section 10 of CPC and its applicability – Question of whether Delhi properties are part of the estate of the deceased – Dispute regarding female ownership under Hindu Succession Act – Jurisdiction of the Trial Court in Delhi – Prayer for relief. [Para 1-26]

Civil Procedure – Scope of revisional powers of the High Court under Section 115 of the CPC – Whether a party to a previous partition suit can file a subsequent suit for partition of the properties not included in the previous suit? If yes, can the said suit be adjudicated parallel to the pending suit, or the same needs to be stayed under Section 10 of the CPC – Revisional powers of the High Court limited to questions of jurisdiction – Interference by High Court only when subordinate Court assumes jurisdiction not vested in it by law. [Para 27-36]

Civil Procedure Code (CPC) - Partition Suit - Stay of subsequent suit under Section 10 of CPC - Applicability of Section 10 CPC - Essential ingredients for invoking Section 10 CPC - Non-inclusion of properties in the previous partition suit - Departure from the general rule against partial partition - Principles regarding partial partition - Right to file a subsequent suit for left-out properties - Whether a suit filed for partition of properties not included in the previous partition suit can be kept in abeyance under Section 10 of CPC - Decision allowing the continuation of the suit for partition of properties situated in Delhi without staying the same. [Para 37-65]

Habeas Corpus - Petitioner seeking the custody of her minor son - Background of the case involving abduction of the child - Court granting interim custody to the petitioner with conditions - Respondent seeking extension of visitation rights - Maintainability of the application for interim custody or visitation rights - Relief already granted, no further orders required - Apprehension of the petitioner fleeing the country - Liberty granted to respondents to approach the appropriate forum - Petitioner directed not to leave the country for three weeks. [Para 1-12]

Trademark Infringement - Counterfeit products bearing the mark 'PUMA' - Plaintiff, a German company, filed suit seeking injunction against the defendant's counterfeit products - Plaintiff's mark 'PUMA' and 'leaping cat device' well-known and registered in various countries including India - Defendant engaged in manufacturing and selling counterfeit 'PUMA' products - Local Commissioner's report confirms extensive manufacturing of counterfeit goods by the defendant. [Para 2-20]

Evidence - Report of the Local Commissioner - Report and evidence collected by the Commissioner admissible in the suit - Defendant did not challenge the report - Court relies on the report to assess damages. [Para 23]

Damages - Defendant deliberately engaged in manufacturing and selling counterfeit 'PUMA' products - Court awards damages to the plaintiff - Damages calculated based on the defendant's profits and the nature of infringement - Costs awarded to the plaintiff. [Para 31-38]

Injunction - Decree of injunction granted in favor of the plaintiff - Defendant restrained from manufacturing, selling, and marketing products with the 'PUMA' mark and logo. [Para 40-45]

Promotion - Dispute regarding promotion to the rank of Commandant in Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) - Petitioners holding the rank of Second-in-Command and Deputy Commandant challenge a Signal calling for nomination of officers from other Central Armed Police Forces for Commandant posts in SSB - Allegation of potential deprivation of promotional opportunities and non-functional selection grade for Deputy Commandants - Petitioners argue for preference to promotion over deputation as per Recruitment Rules and request relaxation of eligibility criteria - Director-General's power to grant local rank also raised as an issue - Concerns about morale and promotion stagnation within SSB due to deputation. [Para 1-8]

Deputation vs. Promotion - Court's view that Central Government should consider petitioners' grievances and the proposal for appointment by deputation - Direction to place the petitions before the competent authority for consideration - Request for relaxation and grant of local rank to be addressed by the competent authority - Orders of the Court and petitions to be presented to the competent authority for further action. [Para 11-13]

Decision – High Court disposes of the petitions, directing them to be placed before the Central Government as representations – The competent authority is tasked with considering the grievances and requests for relaxation and/or local rank made by petitioners. [Para 11-14]

Anticipatory Bail – FIR registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of IPC - Applicants sought anticipatory bail - Applicants claimed no direct or indirect allegations against them in the FIR - Contradictory and evasive stands taken by applicants - Custodial interrogation necessary to unearth transactions linked with the accused firm at the behest of the present applicants and entities under their control - Applications for anticipatory bail dismissed. [Para 1-18]

Custodial Interrogation - Importance of custodial interrogation in certain cases for eliciting information and materials - Protection of suspects through pre-arrest bail orders may reduce the effectiveness of interrogation - Responsible conduct of police officers presumed during custodial interrogation. [Para 14-15]

Quashing of FIR - Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. aimed at quashing FIR No. 182/2022 lodged under Sections 354/354A/376 IPC, alongside all resultant proceedings, inclusive of the chargesheet filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., concerning allegations of sexual harassment and assault by the petitioner towards the prosecutrix during her employment tenure. [Para 1]

Allegations of Harassment - Prosecution alleges petitioner’s recurrent harassment of the prosecutrix by inappropriate physical contact and demands for physical favours over a span of 7-8 years during her employment. Notable delay in FIR registration pointed out, with the petitioner asserting the vagueness and unverifiable nature of allegations due to lack of specific incident details. [Para 2-9]

Inconsistencies and Contradictions - Noteworthy inconsistencies observed between the FIR, the prosecutrix’s statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and representations made to the Delhi Commission for Women, coupled with contradictions in the family’s financial situation as cited by the prosecutrix to justify the delay in reporting. [Para 22-26]

Absence of Medical and Forensic Evidence - Lack of medical and forensic evidence to corroborate allegations, highlighted by the refusal of the prosecutrix for internal medical examination and non-submission of relevant clothing for forensic analysis. [Para 28]

Malicious Intent and Ulterior Motive - Evident malice and ulterior motive deduced from the prosecutrix’s pursuit of gratuity payment, not legally entitled to her, as the primary cause for the initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The Court deduces an attempt to arm-twist the petitioner into fulfilling financial demands by leveraging false allegations. [Para 30-31]

Quashing Justified - Observations lead to a justified quashing of the FIR and associated proceedings, given the glaring inconsistencies, lack of evidence, malicious intent, and the improbability of allegations. The advanced age of the petitioner (85 years) also considered in rendering the judgment. The Court underscores the malicious initiation of criminal proceedings for personal vendetta or to fulfill ulterior motives, drawing attention to the alarming trend of false cases. FIR Quashed. Allowed. [Para 32-35]

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of FIR – Settlement between parties – Petitioner sought quashing of FIR No.654/2021 dated 30.11.2021 under Sections 354D IPC, 1860, and Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 – Medical evidence indicating petitioner’s mental health issues – Settlement between parties – Father of the victim consenting to quash the FIR – Medical board’s report confirming petitioner’s condition – FIR and proceedings quashed in view of petitioner’s mental health and settlement between parties. [Para 1-17]