Public Interest Litigation – Post-Poll Violence – Allegations of post-election violence following the 2024 West Bengal state elections – Petitioners raised concerns over the safety and security of citizens, citing incidents of violence and the State Police’s alleged failure to act – High Court directed the continued deployment of Central Forces until 21^st June 2024 to ensure safety and security [Paras 1-14].

Jurisdiction – Locus Standi in PILs – Court addressed the issue of locus standi for petitioners with political affiliations, referencing Supreme Court precedents – Emphasized that political affiliations do not automatically disqualify petitioners from filing PILs, provided the petition serves a public interest without settling political scores [Paras 15-20].

Central Forces Deployment – Law and Order – Court considered the necessity of retaining Central Forces in West Bengal post-elections to maintain law and order – Directed State to file a comprehensive report detailing actions taken on lodged complaints of violence [Paras 21-28].

Decision: Interim order – Central Forces to remain deployed until 21^st June 2024 – State directed to submit a report on actions taken concerning complaints of post-poll violence by 14^th June 2024 – Matter listed for further hearing on 18^th June 2024 [Para 29].

Consumer Protection Law – Setting Aside Ex-parte Orders – Petitioner, NTC Nidhi Ltd, was set ex-parte by the DCDRC for filing the version beyond the statutory period – Petitioner contended active participation in proceedings despite late filing – Supreme Court precedent supports participation rights even if declared ex-parte [Paras 2-6].

Right to Participate in Proceedings – Emphasis on participation despite procedural lapses – High Court set aside DCDRC’s orders, allowing petitioner to take part in proceedings, adduce evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and present arguments – Version filed out of time not accepted on record [Paras 5-6].

Supreme Court Precedent – Cited ARN Infrastructure India Limited v. Hara Prasad Ghosh and Saint Gobian India Pvt. Ltd v. Deepak Achuthan, confirming participation rights in the interest of justice [Paras 5-6].

Decision:Original petitions allowed – DCDRC’s orders set aside – Petitioner permitted to participate in further proceedings, excluding the late version filing [Para 6].

Pre-Institution Mediation – Compliance Requirement – Defendant sought rejection of the plaint for non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Held, whether urgent interim relief is contemplated must be assessed based on the plaint’s pleadings – Plaintiff’s contemplation of urgent interim relief justified due to alleged trademark infringement – Application dismissed [Paras 1-40].

Trademark Infringement and Passing Off – Plaintiff alleged infringement of its registered trademark “CHEMCO” and sought permanent and mandatory injunction against defendant – Plaintiff demonstrated long-term use and goodwill associated with the trademark – Delay in filing suit after initial cause of action addressed – Court acknowledged the plaintiff’s right to seek urgent interim relief given the nature of intellectual property rights and potential consumer confusion [Paras 20-33].

Judicial Precedents – Supreme Court’s interpretation in Patil Automation Private Limited vs. Rakheja Engineers Private Limited and Yamini Manohar vs. T.K.D. Keerthi emphasized the mandatory nature of pre-institution mediation – Court concluded that the plaintiff had not engaged in clever drafting or falsehood to create an illusion of urgent interim relief [Paras 14-39].

Decision: Application for rejection of plaint dismissed – Interim Application for Lodging No. 23077 of 2023 to be taken up for consideration [Para 40-41].

Service Law – Appointment and Approval – Appellant school functionaries challenged the order directing approval of Mihir’s service – Contention on procedural lapses, lack of requisite qualifications, and alleged interpolations in records – High Court found Mihir was appointed against a sanctioned post and the procedural lapses were not substantiated by evidence – The Court emphasized the importance of adherence to established appointment procedures but noted the specifics of this case justified Mihir’s appointment [Paras 1-24].

Regularization and Compensation – Prolonged litigation from 1987 to 2024 – Mihir forcibly removed from service despite interim protections – Court found procedural non-compliance by school authorities and continuous deprivation of Mihir’s employment rights – Ordered compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs, balancing Mihir’s inability to serve and the State’s financial obligations – Recognized need for equitable relief given the circumstances [Paras 21-23].

Evidence in Writ Proceedings – Adjudication based on affidavits – State’s contradictory affidavits over decades undermined their position – High Court stressed the need for consistent and fair administrative actions – Highlighted jurisprudence on affidavit evidence and procedural justice [Paras 16-20].

Procedural Fairness – Inspection reports and evidence gaps questioned – Court dismissed claims of record tampering and lack of vacancy – Validated Mihir’s appointment based on continuous service, previous approvals, and absence of contrary proof – Criticized appellants’ delay tactics and lack of credible counter-evidence [Paras 17-19].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Direction for compensation to Mihir – Recognition of procedural adherence and equitable relief – Emphasized justice for long-pending employment disputes [Para 24].

Criminal Law – Stoppage of Proceedings – Section 258 Cr.P.C. – Revision against order of acquittal – Jurisdiction exercised without sufficient grounds – Proceedings stopped under Section 258 Cr.P.C. without compliance of mandated requirements – High Court finds that the Magistrate’s order to stop proceedings was not in accordance with legal standards – Requirement for recording reasons and satisfaction not met – Stoppage of proceedings by Magistrate set aside. [Paras 1-6]

Power to Stop Proceedings – Analysis – Held – Under Section 258 Cr.P.C., Magistrate must record reasons for stopping proceedings – Permissible only when presence of accused cannot be procured or cost of procuring exceeds maximum fine – Division Bench's guidance in Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Another (2023 KHC OnLine 821) emphasized – Proper steps to ensure presence of accused not taken – Failure to satisfy statutory conditions. [Para 3-5]

Decision – Revision Allowed – Order of acquittal under Section 258 Cr.P.C. set aside – Case remanded to the Magistrate for fresh consideration in compliance with Section 258 Cr.P.C. – Directions issued for proper exercise of jurisdiction under Section 258 Cr.P.C. with required scrutiny and compliance. [Para 6]

Criminal Law – Appeal for Anticipatory Bail under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Kerala High Court dismissed appeal for anticipatory bail filed under Section 14-A of the Act – Appellant accused of humiliating respondent (a Scheduled Caste member) publicly through derogatory remarks made during a YouTube interview – Prima facie evidence supported allegations of intentional insult based on caste – Judicial scrutiny confirmed the applicability of Sections 18 and 18-A of the Act, leading to dismissal of bail application [Paras 1-27].

Public View Requirement – Interpretation – Kerala High Court clarified that public view requirement under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act is met if the offensive content is accessible to the public online – Uploaded YouTube interview containing derogatory remarks considered within public view, as it could be viewed by the public at any time [Paras 19].

Misuse of SC/ST Act – Legal Position – Kerala High Court observed that misuse of SC/ST Act provisions cannot be presumed as inherent to any specific community – False reports, if any, are due to human failings and not attributable to caste – Emphasis on strict enforcement of the Act to achieve a caste-free society [Paras 21-23].

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal for Anticipatory Bail – Held – The appeal is dismissed based on the substantial evidence indicating the appellant's intent to insult and humiliate the respondent on account of his caste, within public view. Appellant directed to surrender before the jurisdictional court within a week, with instructions for prompt bail consideration by the lower court upon surrender [Paras 24-27].

Commercial Dispute – Nature and Scope – Application filed by State Bank of India under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection/return of the plaint on the ground that the suit involving allegations of fraud and misappropriation of funds by the bank manager does not constitute a commercial dispute under Section 2(1)© of the Commercial Courts Act – High Court observed that the dispute arose from the failure to repay fixed deposits, which constitutes a commercial transaction between a banker and customer – Held, despite the fraud allegations, the nature of the transaction remains commercial – Application dismissed [Paras 1-37].
Fixed Deposits – Commercial Transaction – Plaintiff (Bombay Iron and Steel Labour Board) had placed fixed deposits with the Defendant (State Bank of India) – Allegations of fraud and misappropriation by the bank manager – High Court held that the dispute involves enforcement of fixed deposit receipts, which are mercantile documents, and thus falls under the definition of commercial dispute under Section 2(1)©(i) of the Commercial Courts Act [Paras 27-35].
Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Rejection of Plaint – Defendant’s application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the suit does not constitute a commercial dispute – High Court found that the transaction of placing fixed deposits is a commercial transaction – Application for rejection of plaint dismissed [Paras 36-37].
Decision: Interim Application dismissed – Suit categorized as a commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act – Commercial summary suit to proceed.
 

Professional Misconduct – Complaint Locus – Petitioner challenges the complaint filed by the judgment debtor alleging professional misconduct – The Court held that the complainant, being the judgment debtor and not the petitioner’s client, lacked the locus to file the complaint – Section 35 of the Advocates Act mandates that complaints of professional misconduct must come from those with a legal right or interest in the matter – Complaint quashed on grounds of lack of locus and absence of engagement by the complainant [Paras 1-14].

Section 35 of the Advocates Act – Reason to Believe – Statutory requirement for the Bar Council to have reasons to believe professional misconduct based on relevant materials – The Court emphasized that the State Bar Council must apply its mind to determine the existence of such reasons, avoiding arbitrary or irrational actions – The complainant did not meet the criteria for initiating proceedings under Section 35, rendering the Bar Council’s actions invalid [Paras 10-14].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Notice dated 22-07-2023 issued by the Karnataka State Bar Council quashed – Complaint found to lack maintainability as the complainant did not have locus to file against the petitioner – Proceedings invalid due to non-compliance with statutory requirements for establishing misconduct [Para 15].
 

Civil Procedure – Setting Aside Ex-Parte Decree – Improper Service of Summons – Petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC claiming he was never served properly, citing incorrect address in plaint – Trial court and appellate court dismissed application and appeal, respectively – High Court examined the records and found petitioner was duly served at the same address during execution proceedings – No explanation provided for delay in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 even after admitted date of knowledge [Paras 1-7].

Date of Knowledge – Delay and Limitation – High Court noted that even if the date of knowledge is accepted as 14.05.2012, application for setting aside ex-parte decree was filed after more than a year without any explanation or request for condonation of delay – Emphasized importance of timely action and proper procedural compliance [Paras 5-7].

Decision: Revision petition dismissed – Court found no merit in the petition due to lack of explanation for delay and proper service of summons during execution proceedings – No illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders [Paras 6-7].