Copyright Infringement – Unauthorized distribution of Plaintiff’s educational course materials on various digital platforms – Prima facie case established – Balance of convenience favors Plaintiff – Irreparable harm if infringing activity continues – Injunction granted against Defendants [Para 42-44]

Digital Platforms – Challenge of widespread copyright infringement on digital platforms – Defendants using various techniques to disseminate Plaintiff’s courses – Channels and groups on Telegram, WhatsApp, YouTube, Google Drive, and other platforms involved – Copyright infringement in digital and electronic form [Para 41]

Injunction Orders – Defendants restrained from downloading, uploading, storing, sharing, transmitting, selling, or utilizing Plaintiff’s course material – Specific actions required by digital platform providers (e.g., Telegram, Google LLC, GoDaddy.com, WhatsApp) to block infringing content and disclose details of infringers [Para 44-51]

Compliance – Plaintiff directed to ensure compliance with the court’s orders through various digital communication channels (e-mail, WhatsApp, Telegram) [Para 55]

Next Court Date – Case scheduled to be listed before the Court on 22^nd March 2024 [Para 56]

Criminal Law - Framing of Charges - Petition seeking to set aside the order on charge - Charges framed against the Revisionist under various sections of the IPC - Allegation of beating leading to the death of the deceased - Disputed facts and varying statements by witnesses - Defense argument based on the lack of intent to cause severe bodily injury - Citing precedent cases to support the contention that a single injury, where the intent to cause that injury is in doubt, may not amount to murder under Section 302 IPC. [Para 1-13]

Criminal Case – Framing of Charges – Examination of evidence at the stage of framing charges – Scope of the Revision Court's inquiry – Prima facie view of the matter to be seen – Sifting and weighing of evidence without conducting a mini-trial – Charges framed against the Revisionist upheld. [Para 23-30

Witness Statements – Discrepancies in witness statements – Sole witness' statements consistent on essential elements – Minor discrepancies do not undermine prosecution's case at the stage of framing charges – Charges can be framed based on the statements. [Para 25-28]

Medical Assistance – Rendering medical aid to the victim – Not relevant at the stage of framing charges – Detailed examination of medical aid to be considered during trial – Prima facie opinion of doctors and witness statements sufficient for framing charges. [Para 31]

Nature of Injury – Single blow causing death – Vitality of the injury site – Sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature – Medical opinion supports framing of charges under Section 302 IPC. [Para 32-34]

Medical Opinion – Discrepancy between post-mortem report and AIIMS Medical Board Expert Opinion – Opportunity for cross-examination during trial – No grounds to deny framing charges. [Para 34]

Definition of Murder – Ingredients of Section 300 IPC – Presence of bodily injury, intention or knowledge of injury likely to cause death, and sufficient injury in the ordinary course of nature – Fulfilment of criteria for framing charges. [Para 38-41]

Official Duty – Revisionist's duty ended upon presentation of Identity Card – No sanction required for prosecution – Beyond official duties in the present case. [Para 42]

Decision – Special Judge correctly appreciated facts and law – No interference with the order on framing charges – Revision Petition dismissed. [Para 44-46]

SARFAESI Act – Validity of orders under Sections 13(2) and 14 – Borrowers challenging the validity of orders under Sections 13(2) and 14 of the Sarfaesi Act – Debtor challenging the legality of orders passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal and Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal – Principles of natural justice violated during the proceedings – Matter requires further examination – Special leave granted for review. [Para 3-8]

Leasehold Rights – Existence of tenancy rights over mortgaged property – Tenant claiming tenancy rights – Tenancy to be determined in accordance with Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act – Rights of a rightful tenant must be respected – Bonafides of the alleged tenant to be fully established – Alleged tenant not entitled to protection against dispossession after one year of possession. [Para 22-28]

Abuse of Process – Writ petition found to be misconceived and an abuse of the process of court and law – Dismissed – Impugned orders affirmed. [Para 29]

Writ of Habeas Corpus – Alleged illegal detention of petitioner's husband – Violation of procedural requirements and guidelines – Arrest made without following due procedure laid down under law – Lack of compliance with requirements set by the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu case – Detention declared illegal – Superintendent, District Jail, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh, impleaded as respondent No. 7 – Husband of petitioner ordered to be released forthwith – Liberty granted to respondents to strictly follow procedure laid down under law in conducting investigation in NIA Case No. RC-01/2021/NIA/RPR, dated 18.03.2021. [Para 18-23]

Quashing of Appointment of Lambardar -  petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the order appointing respondent No. 4 as Lambardar, alleging erroneous acceptance of the revision petition and reversal of earlier orders - petitioner was initially appointed as Lambardar, but respondent No. 4 was appointed through revision - challenge to the order is based on grounds of suitability and character - Court conducts a comparative evaluation of age, qualification, and land holdings between the petitioner and respondent No. 4, taking into consideration Rule 15 of Punjab Land Revenue Rules - importance of personal character, influence, and integrity in the appointment of Lambardar is emphasized - finding perversity in the Collector's appointment, the Court remands the case for a fresh decision by the Collector - petition is partially allowed.

Civil Service Promotion – Challenge to non-promotion based on below benchmark Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs) – Petitioner seeks promotion to Grade IV with Grade Pay Rs. 8700/- – Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) recommended promotion for some officers but deferred consideration for 11 officers including the petitioner due to below benchmark APARs – Petitioner’s APARs were mostly ‘Outstanding’ except for one year rated as ‘Good’ – Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dismissed the original application (OA) – Petitioner’s claim for promotion challenged before the High Court. [Para 1-10]

Validity of Below Benchmark Grading – The Supreme Court’s ruling in Dev Dutt case highlighted that non-communication of below benchmark grading in Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) or APARs is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution – Such entries not communicated should not be considered for promotion to a higher grade. The case of Saroj Kumar reinforced this principle. [Para 27-28]

Effect of Rejection of Representation – The validity of the grading in APARs when the representation against it is rejected depends on whether the rejection is accompanied by valid reasons – In G.R. Meghwal case, the Supreme Court emphasized the need for valid reasons when rejecting a representation against below benchmark grading – Saroj Kumar case held that when the representation is rejected with a speaking order, it doesn’t need reassessment. [Para 29-32]

Way Forward – The petitioner’s representation against below benchmark grading was rejected without any reasoning – Absence of reasoning renders the APAR grading invalid – It cannot be considered for promotion – The Department should reconsider the petitioner’s case following guidelines in Chapter 54 of the Manual on Establishment and Administration for Central Government Offices, considering the years with ‘Outstanding’ grading and ignoring the ‘Good’ grading – The petitioner should be granted promotion on a notional basis from the year of DPC consideration, and retiral benefits and arrears should be recalculated accordingly. [Para 33-36]

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition – Challenge to FIR under section 366 IPC – Petitioners in a torrid affair from different religions – Allegation of enticement and elopement – Informant claims danger to her daughter – Petitioners seek protection for a live-in relationship – Age of the victim disputed – Allegations of mistreatment and physical abuse – Court rejects superficial submissions for quashing FIR – Court expresses reservations about such relationships and emphasizes the need for seriousness and sincerity – Rejects the petition, declining protection during the investigation. [Para 6-22]

Family Law – Divorce Appeal – Husband appeals against the family court’s decision of dismissing his divorce petition – Wife’s refusal to reside separately and allegations of cruelty against the husband cited as reasons for appeal. [Para 1-2]

Marital Behavior – Allegations of mental and emotional distress inflicted by the wife on the husband – Wife denies allegations and argues willingness to return to matrimonial home. [Para 2-4]

Maintenance – Wife granted monthly maintenance of Rs. 5500 under Section 125 of the CrPC – Husband contests this as a ground for divorce. [Para 3]

Counseling – Contradictions in parties' statements during counseling sessions – Husband unwilling to reside with wife, despite her stated willingness. [Para 4, 12]

Evidence – Both parties produce witnesses to substantiate their claims – Family Court finds insufficient proof of cruelty or desertion against the wife. [Para 5-6]

Decision – Court observes husband’s unwillingness to accommodate wife and failure to make efforts for restitution of conjugal rights – Appeal dismissed, family court judgment upheld. [Para 13-14]

Criminal Proceedings - Quashing of FIR under Section 306 IPC based on compromise - Legal position regarding quashing of criminal proceedings explained - The inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to quash criminal proceedings relating to non-compoundable offences, particularly those of a civil and personal nature, upon compromise, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. [Para 6-13]

Offence under Section 306 IPC - Abetment to commit suicide - Specific criteria for establishing an offence under Section 306 IPC discussed - The mere mention of the accused in a suicide note without specific allegations or attribution may not be sufficient to invoke Section 306 IPC. [Para 18-25]

Quashing of Proceedings - High Court's discretion to quash proceedings based on compromise - When allegations in the FIR do not constitute the offence under Section 306 IPC, and a compromise has been reached between the parties, quashing the proceedings serves the purpose of preventing the abuse of the court's process. [Para 9, 10]

Decision - The petition is accepted, and FIR No.180 dated 14.04.2022 registered under Section 306 IPC is quashed along with all subsequent proceedings arising from it. [Para 11]