Family Law – Divorce – Appellant seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion – Trial Court dismissed the petition – Appellant challenges the judgment – Clubbing of issues by Trial Court not erroneous – Evidence supports that the wife was left in her parental home when she was ill and efforts to bring her back were resisted by the appellant and his family – Marriage breakdown not a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act – Power to dissolve marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown vested in the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution – Appeal dismissed. [Para 2-36]

Trademark Infringement - Plaintiff, Red Bull AG, asserts ownership of the 'RED BULL' trademark for energy drinks - International recognition of the mark - Defendants use an identical silver and blue color combination for 'SEVEN HOURS' energy drinks - Plaintiff seeks protection - Court grants an ad-interim ex-parte injunction against Defendants' manufacturing with the similar color combination and on e-commerce platforms. [Para 2-10]

Seizure and Disposition - Filled cans permitted to be disposed of by the Defendants with conditions - Unfilled cans to be destroyed - Defendants agree to suffer a decree - Permission to fill unfilled cans and sell them, subject to payment of monetary damages to the Plaintiff. [Para 12-16]

Decree and Trademark Applications - Court decrees the suit in favor of Plaintiff for damages and costs - Withdrawal of Defendants' trademark applications - Plaintiff allows Defendants to use the 'SEVEN HOURS' mark - Refund of court fees. [Para 17-19]

Criminal Procedure – Invocation of Section 323 Cr.P.C – Necessity of a speaking order when invoking Section 323 Cr.P.C to transfer a case to the Sessions Court – Lack of a clear reason stated in the order for transferring the case – Order set aside – Magistrate directed to reconsider whether Section 323 Cr.P.C should be invoked in light of this order. [Para 5-6]

Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) - Bail Application - Accused seeking bail in a case under NDPS Act and other sections - Criminal history of the accused - Co-accused granted bail under similar circumstances - Bail granted with stringent conditions. [Para 1-12]

Conditions for Bail - Stringent conditions imposed to ensure accused's compliance with the law - Surrender of weapons and firearms - Limitations on mobile phone usage - Compliance with undertakings - Firearms to be returned upon acquittal - Possibility of cancellation of bail for subsequent offences. [Para 13-22]

Proportionality of Bail Conditions - Bail conditions must have a nexus to their purpose and be proportional - Balancing the accused's liberty and a fair trial - Conditions to be explained to the accused in a language they understand - Possibility of reduction or modification of bond amount and conditions. [Para 23-26]

Criminal Procedure - Regular Bail - Accused (petitioner) seeking regular bail in a case involving charges under Sections 384, 387, 504, 506, 507, 201, 109, 120B, 364A, 397 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4), and 3(5) of KCOCA - Petitioner has been in custody for over 4 1/2 years - Material witnesses have not linked the petitioner to the alleged offenses - Allegations against the petitioner limited to providing a SIM card to an accused in jail - Co-accused granted bail - Prolonged incarceration and unlikely early completion of trial considered - Petitioner's case for regular bail made out. [Para 1-20]

Criminal Appeal – Bail – Accused No.3 seeks bail in a case involving serious charges under Sections 376(2)(n), 376(DA), 376(3), 201, 202, 506 r/w 34 and 37 of IPC, Sections 17, 5(L), 6 of POCSO Act, 1989, Section 3(f) and Section 7 of Religious Institution Prevention of Misuse Act, 1988, and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (care and protection of Children) Act 2015 – Accused claims innocence and alleges conspiracy – Delay in lodging the complaint and alleged concealment of crucial facts questioned – Bail petition rejected by Special Court – Appeal filed challenging rejection – Accused granted bail as prosecution case lacks sufficient evidence and appellant's custody for over a year is unwarranted. [Para 1-10]

Allotment of Paddy – Dispute with MARKFED – Petitioner seeks to set aside an order declining allotment – Legal history of civil suits, appeals, and encashment of bank guarantee – Division Bench's declaration of bank guarantee encashment as illegal – Lack of a crystallized demand against the petitioner – Petitioner's history of paddy allotment from 1995-1996 to 2022-2023 – Impugned order seemingly contrary to court orders and law – No specific policy clause invoked by the respondent to deny allotment – Petition allowed, impugned order set aside, and directed respondents to consider petitioner for the allotment of free paddy for KMS 2023-2024. [Para 1-10]

Essential Pre-requisites under Section 138 of NI Act: Referring to a prior judgment, the Court reiterated the importance of certain dates to be clear in the complaint for making out an offence under Section 138, NI Act. Such dates include the date on the cheque, date of deposit, date of bank’s notice concerning bouncing, date of notice by the drawee/payee to the drawer, date of notice receipt by the drawer, and the date of complaint filing. [Para 7]

Receipt of Demand Notice – Inference from Records: The Court highlighted that while the date of receipt of the demand notice is crucial, it need not be explicitly mentioned in the complaint. It can be inferred from the documents/evidence on record. [Para 8]

Presumption of Service of Notice: Citing Supreme Court judgments, the Court elucidated the presumptions under Section 114 of the Evidence Act and Section 27 of the General Clauses Act concerning service of notice. It’s noted that the presumption of service is deemed effected if sent to the correct address by registered post, unless proved otherwise by the addressee. [Para 9-10]

Affirmation of Summoning Order: The Court found no infirmity, illegality or irregularity in the summoning order dated 19.07.2022 and the order dated 01.06.2023, thereby dismissing the petition. The trial court’s presumption regarding the service of demand notice was deemed justified even in the absence of a track consignment report, given the notice was sent via registered post to the correct address. [Para 10-11]

Bail – Grant of Bail – Conditions Imposed – Petitioner seeks bail under Section 439 CrPC in connection with FIR No. 932 dated 04.06.2023, alleging corruption and other offences – Petitioner agrees to maintain only one mobile number and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause irreversible injustice – State opposes bail – Court grants bail subject to several terms and conditions. [Para 1-2, 5]

Criminal Procedure – Bail Conditions – Court imposes conditions including furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000, providing a surety of Rs. 25,000, and not influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence – Petitioner directed to use only one prepaid mobile phone number till the conclusion of the trial – Conditions deemed necessary to ensure fair trial and compliance. [Para 10-15]

Judicial Precedents – Reference to Precedents – Court refers to precedents such as Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) to justify the grant of bail and imposition of conditions – Emphasizes balancing liberty of accused with necessity of fair trial. [Para 6-7, 15]

Decision – Grant of Bail – Court allows petition and grants bail to petitioner subject to specified terms and conditions – Observes that conditions are imposed to ensure desirable behavior from the accused and protection from incarceration. [Para 18-20]