Export Law  - Export Incentives – Cash Compensatory Support (CCS) Scheme – Equivalence of Product Classification – Denial of CCS benefit quashed – Petitioners were denied CCS for exports made between 22 June 1989 to 8 May 1991 on the ground that ‘Castor Oil First Special’ was not the same as ‘Castor Oil Medicinal’ after the change in testing method to TLC test – Held: Change in testing methodology does not alter the nature of the goods – The Co-ordinate Bench’s earlier decision in W.P. No. 871 of 1994 on an identical issue relating to duty drawback is squarely applicable – Respondents cannot retrospectively deny the benefit – Rejection order dated 29 October 1993 quashed [Paras 9-13, 16].

Contracts Pre-dating Policy Changes – Benefit of Previous Scheme Applies – Where export contracts were entered into prior to 23 June 1989, subsequent changes in testing methods or classification cannot deprive exporters of benefits under the scheme applicable at the time of contract – Supported by precedent cases including Union of India v. Cosmique International and others – Respondents’ reliance on subsequent circulars misplaced – Benefit of CCS upheld for contracts executed before the change [Paras 14, 18].

Technical Equivalence – Product Remains Same Despite Test Change – Technical expert reports confirm that ‘Castor Oil Medicinal’ and ‘Castor Oil First Special’ are chemically the same despite the change in testing method from Carbon Disulphide to TLC – The Government’s own Circular dated 8 May 1991 equates both under the same entry for CCS benefits – Hence, denial of benefit prior to this date unjustified [Paras 17, 19].

Retrospective Withdrawal of Export Incentives – Not Permissible – Following settled law in Mazda International Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, retrospective withdrawal of export benefits is impermissible unless expressly empowered – Once rates are fixed, authorities cannot alter them retrospectively to deny accrued benefits – Respondents’ action in amending earlier approvals with retrospective effect is ultra vires [Paras 10-11].

Decision – Petition Allowed – The order dated 29 October 1993 rejecting the CCS claim is quashed – Respondents directed to refund Rs. 4,33,75,866/- within eight weeks, failing which the amount will carry interest at 6% per annum from 01/09/2025 until payment – No order as to costs [Para 20].

Injunction Upheld – The Respondent, engaged in the software business since 1992 under the "Newgen" mark, filed a suit against the Appellant, which adopted the name “Newgen IT Technologies Limited” in 2024 – The Court upheld the ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted by the District Judge – Held: The Respondent is the prior user and registered proprietor of the mark – Appellant’s use of a deceptively similar mark post-termination of a Partnership Agreement is likely to cause confusion – Prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm criteria satisfied – Injunction upheld [Paras 1-75].

Ex-Parte Injunction – No Violation of Natural Justice – Error in Caveat Filing by Appellant – Appellant contended that the ex-parte injunction was granted without notice – Held: The Appellant failed to serve the caveat properly, serving it upon itself instead of the Respondent – Urgency due to IPO justified the grant of ex-parte relief – No violation of natural justice – Right remedy was to approach the court under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC, which was duly exercised and rejected on merits [Paras 44-47].

Acquiescence – Prior Partnership Does Not Confer Right to Adopt Mark – Defence Rejected – Appellant’s plea that Respondent acquiesced by tolerating the use of “Newgen IT” during their partnership was rejected – Held: Mere prior cooperation under a partnership does not amount to acquiescence, especially when the Respondent had reserved its rights over its trademarks under Article 14 of the Partnership Agreement – Further, the Appellant’s post-termination adoption of the impugned name was not bona fide [Paras 59-62].

Suppression of Material Facts – No Ground to Vacate Injunction – Allegations of suppression by the Appellant regarding Respondent’s prior knowledge of Appellant’s domain “newgenit.com” and third-party use of “Newgen” were rejected – Held: Trademark protection is territorial – The use of the domain abroad did not confer rights in India – Further, the existence of third-party users does not dilute the Respondent’s rights, nor did it constitute suppression relevant to the lis [Paras 63-71].

Test of Similarity – Consumer Confusion Likely – Comparison of Marks – The Court noted that the dominant feature of both marks is “Newgen”, and the difference between “Software” and “IT” is insufficient to avert confusion in the minds of an average consumer – Particularly given that both parties operate in related domains of IT services and software – Injunction necessary to prevent passing off and protect reputation [Paras 53, 58].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Limited Interference – Wander Ltd. Principle Applied – The Court reiterated that appellate interference with discretionary interim orders is limited to cases of perversity, arbitrariness, or patent legal error – Held: No such infirmity found in the District Judge’s orders – Appeals dismissed [Paras 40-42, 74].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Injunction Confirmed – The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeals, upheld the interim injunction against the Appellant from using the marks “NEWGEN”, “NEWGEN IT”, or “NEWGEN IT TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED” – Clarified that the findings are prima facie and will not prejudice the outcome at trial – Appeals dismissed [Paras 74-76].

Criminal Law – Bail – Age Discrepancy of Victim – Petitioner accused of abducting and marrying minor girl under false documents – Conflicting DOBs: 01.01.2007 (from NIOS) and 19.04.2008 (school record) – Held: Discrepancy in age creates reasonable doubt – In view of Mahadeo v. State of Maharashtra and State of MP v. Anoop Singh, court must rely on school DOB unless unavailable – Since dispute exists and trial will take time, benefit of doubt to be granted at bail stage [Paras 4–6].

Consent and POCSO – Validity of Victim’s Consent – Victim gave statements under Sections 180 and 183 of BNSS asserting she went with petitioner voluntarily and became pregnant due to relationship – Held: Even if consensual, legal validity depends on whether she was a minor – As her age is in serious dispute, consent cannot be dismissed outright at this stage [Paras 3–5].

Evidentiary Conflict – Age Determination – Victim’s school certificates from Class I to VII show DOB as 26/04/2008; NIOS certificate records 01/01/2007 – Court applied Rule 12(3) of JJ Rules to prefer school certificates unless unavailable – Discrepancy of 1 year and 3 months found significant – Held: Inconsistency to be considered in favour of accused for bail purposes [Paras 5–6].

Bail – Custodial Period – Petitioner in custody since arrest – Trial to take long time – No likelihood of tampering with evidence – Held: Petitioner entitled to bail without comment on merits of case [Para 6].

Decision:

Bail application allowed – Petitioner Rafiq to be released on bail in FIR No. 93/2025 registered at P.S. Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Jodhpur City West – Bail granted on furnishing personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties of ₹25,000 each to satisfaction of trial court – Conditions imposed for attendance at hearings and non-interference with investigation [Para 7].

Nidhi Company – Rejection of NDH-4 Form – Violation of Natural Justice – Rejection Set Aside – The Petitioner, a registered Nidhi Company, challenged the rejection of Form NDH-4 on the grounds of delay in filing NDH-1 and non-filing of NDH-3 – Held: The first ground of delay does not survive as the filing was within the extended deadline granted due to the Covid-19 pandemic – The second ground of non-filing of NDH-3 for periods after the issuance of notice is irrelevant to the rejection – No show cause notice was issued specifically pointing out the deficiencies – The rejection violated the principles of natural justice and was contrary to Nidhi Rules – Order set aside [Paras 4-9, 13].

Rejection Without Notice – Unwarranted – Rule 23 of Nidhi Rules Mandates Opportunity of Being Heard – The rejection of NDH-4 without issuing a specific show cause notice deprived the Petitioner of a fair opportunity to rectify errors or provide explanations – The Court held that rejection of NDH-4 without following due process is impermissible, especially when the consequences are severe, including the inability of the company to raise deposits or function – Authorities are obligated to provide an opportunity for compliance before resorting to rejection [Paras 7, 10, 12-13].

Covid-19 Extension – Statutory Compliance Met – Filing Within Extended Period Valid – The Court noted that the MCA Circulars extended deadlines for filing statutory forms up to 31.12.2020 due to the Covid-19 pandemic – The Petitioner filed Form NDH-1 on 22.12.2020 within the permitted period – Held: The rejection based on alleged delay ignored valid extensions and is unsustainable [Paras 6, 8].

Decision – Rejection Order Quashed – NDH-4 to be Reconsidered – The Court quashed the communication dated 23.10.2023 rejecting Form NDH-4 – Held that ground Nos. 1 and 2 for rejection do not survive – With respect to ground No. 3 concerning the missing auditor’s certificate with Form AOC-4, the authority may reconsider the matter upon submission of the required document within four weeks – Writ Petition allowed [Paras 13-14].

Civil Law - Rejection of Plaint – Jurisdiction Bar under Competition Act – Not Attracted – Application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the subject matter falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) under Section 61 of the Competition Act – Held: The suit raises contractual claims including unconscionability, undue influence, waiver and novation, which are in personam disputes and not subject to the Competition Act’s jurisdiction – Civil court jurisdiction is not ousted for contractual disputes between the parties – Section 61 applies to proceedings related to abuse of dominance in the relevant market, not private contract disputes [Paras 19-36].

Rejection of Plaint – Payment and Settlement Systems Act – No Bar – Applicants contended that the suit is barred under the PSS Act as RBI has exclusive jurisdiction – Held: The PSS Act does not expressly or impliedly bar civil court jurisdiction – Neither the RBI nor the dispute settlement panel under the PSS Act can adjudicate the validity of contracts or determine tortious interference claims – Suit is maintainable [Paras 37-38].

Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause – Not a Ground for Rejection – The applicants argued the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the Developer Distribution Agreement bars the present suit – Held: A contractual jurisdiction clause does not amount to a statutory bar under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC – This cannot be a ground for rejection of the plaint – Proper remedy would be to seek reference to arbitration or apply jurisdictional objections at the appropriate stage [Para 39].

Cause of Action – Properly Disclosed – Applicants argued that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action – Held: The plaint contains clear pleadings on unconscionability, undue influence, economic duress, waiver, novation, and tortious interference – Whether the plaintiff succeeds on merits is not relevant at this stage – The plaint cannot be rejected for want of cause of action [Para 40].

Decision – Application for Rejection of Plaint Dismissed – Held that the plaint discloses a valid cause of action and is not barred under the Competition Act or the Payment and Settlement Systems Act – Application dismissed with no order as to costs [Para 41].

Civil Law – Injunction - Intellectual Property – Copyright – Assignment of Rights – Suit Dismissed – The plaintiff, daughter of late producer O.P. Ralhan, filed a suit seeking injunction and damages against the defendants for alleged copyright infringement of musical works from seven cinematographic films produced by her father – Plaintiff contended that the assignment agreements executed by her father only covered physical mediums (like gramophone records) and not modern digital platforms – Defendant No.2 contended that the agreements granted perpetual and absolute rights to exploit the works by “any and every means whatsoever,” including digital and non-physical mediums – Held: The assignment agreements clearly conferred perpetual rights without restriction to physical mediums – Use of the term “by any and every means whatsoever” granted comprehensive rights to the assignee – Plaintiff’s claims based on the Copyright Act amendments of 1994 and 2012 were rejected as the agreements must be interpreted as per the law at the time of their execution – No infringement established – Suit dismissed [Paras 1, 50-61, 68].

Copyright – Assignment of Musical Works – Perpetual Rights – Suit Dismissed – Plaintiff claimed that the copyright in songs from films produced by her late father was infringed by defendants – Dispute centered around whether the assignment agreements of 1962–1980 conferred only physical medium rights (like gramophone records) or included rights over future non-physical and digital mediums – Held: The assignment clauses expressly granted rights “by any and every means whatsoever,” covering exploitation beyond physical mediums – Defendant No.2 held to have perpetual rights to exploit the works, including granting licences – No infringement made out – Suit dismissed [Paras 50-61].

Copyright Act – Effect of Amendments – Retrospectivity Not Applicable – Plaintiff argued that amendments to the Copyright Act in 1994 and 2012 introduced the concept of sound recordings being medium-agnostic, and thus, prior agreements should not cover digital exploitation – Held: Agreements are to be interpreted based on the law at the time of execution – Subsequent amendments, including proviso to Section 18 introduced in 2012, do not alter vested rights – No retrospective effect [Paras 58-59].

Interpretation of Contracts – Wide Assignment Clauses – Rights in Future Mediums – Clause 10 of the 1967 agreement granted rights to the assignee for “use and performance... by any and every means whatsoever” – Held: Such wide terms indicate intention to assign rights beyond known physical mediums – Plaintiff’s argument limiting rights to gramophone records rejected – Parties’ conduct, including acceptance of royalty payments, further supported this interpretation [Paras 49-56].

Copyright – Non-production of Agreements – Adverse Inference – Held: While all agreements were not produced, three material agreements were on record, including the critical 1967 agreement – Plaintiff’s failure to produce remaining agreements did not materially affect outcome – No deliberate suppression established – Issue answered against plaintiff [Para 64].

Licensing – Defendant No.1’s Use of Work – No Wrongdoing – Held: Defendant No.1 had valid licence from Defendant No.2, who was found to have perpetual rights – No infringement by Defendant No.1 – Issue decided in favour of Defendant No.1 [Para 62].

Royalty – Payments Proven – Plaintiff Admitted Receipt – Held: Plaintiff’s own correspondence and admissions confirmed receipt of royalty payments till a certain point – Defendant No.2 discharged royalty obligations as per agreements – Issue answered in favour of Defendant No.2 [Para 65].

Damages – No Basis – Held: As no infringement was established, claim for damages and further accounts was rejected – Suit dismissed in entirety – Each party to bear own costs [Paras 66-68].

Decision – Suit Dismissed – Plaintiff failed to establish infringement or lapse of assignment rights – Defendant No.2 held to possess perpetual rights under the original agreements to exploit the works by all means, including digital mediums – Defendant No.1’s use of the work based on valid licence – Parties directed to bear own costs [Para 68].

Criminal Law - Section 138 and Section 141 of the N.I. Act - Dishonour of Cheque – Vicarious Liability – Company Under Liquidation – Acquittal Upheld – Respondent was a director of the company which went into liquidation on 29.07.2013 – Cheque in question dated 28.10.2013 issued post-liquidation – Held: Complainant failed to establish that respondent was in charge of or responsible for the business at the time offence was committed – Mere designation insufficient without proof of role – Vicarious liability not attracted [Paras 13-18].

Evidence – Lack of Proof of Demand Notice – Mandatory Requirement Not Met – Complainant failed to prove service of demand notice under Section 138(b) NI Act – No demand notice exhibited or served on respondent – Held: Statutory condition precedent not satisfied – Criminal liability cannot be fastened in absence of compliance with essential legal requirement [Para 21].

Presumption of Innocence – Acquittal Strengthens Presumption – Appeal Fails to Dislodge – Trial court acquitted accused after detailed assessment – Appellate court emphasized enhanced threshold to overturn acquittal – Held: No compelling grounds shown to reverse acquittal – Presumption of innocence reinforced post-acquittal as per Mallappa case – Appeal dismissed [Para 22].

Director’s Liability – Specific Role Must Be Alleged and Proved – Liquidator Took Charge – Complainant alleged director was in charge of day-to-day affairs but provided no specific role post-liquidation – Held: Legal fiction under Section 141 NI Act not invoked without pleading and proof of active responsibility – Presence as director before liquidation insufficient [Paras 16-20].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – No Grounds to Interfere with Acquittal – Acquittal of respondent/accused no.4 upheld – Appellate court found no misapplication of law or error in appreciation of facts by trial court – CRA (SB) 91 of 2024 dismissed [Paras 23-24].

Civil Writ – Constitutional Law - No Caste No Religion Certificate – Right under Article 25 – Rejection by Authorities – Set Aside – Appellant sought a certificate declaring that he and his family do not belong to any caste or religion – Writ Court rejected the plea citing lack of government authorization to Tahsildars – Held: Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practice, or not follow any religion – The absence of specific rules or government orders cannot override this constitutional mandate – Revenue authorities are duty-bound to recognize and issue such certificates when sought voluntarily [Paras 5-8].

Issuance of Similar Certificates – Precedent Exist – Appellant placed on record earlier instances where similar “No Caste No Religion” certificates were issued by Tahsildars in Tirupathur, Coimbatore, and Ambattur – Held: State cannot adopt inconsistent positions when the same relief has already been granted in prior cases – The objection of the authorities is untenable and arbitrary [Para 7].

Promotion of Casteless Identity – A Constitutional Goal – Right to be Identified Without Caste or Religion – Upheld – Court observed that the appellant’s request promotes the constitutional objective of eradicating caste-based discrimination and is in line with the spirit of equality and secularism – Such initiatives are laudable and set a progressive example for the society [Para 9].

Government Obligation – Direction Issued – Held: Government of Tamil Nadu is directed to issue necessary Government Orders instructing Revenue Authorities to entertain applications seeking a “No Caste No Religion” certificate and to act on them positively – Existing legal vacuum cannot be used to deny the constitutional right of the citizens [Para 10].

Decision – Writ Appeal Allowed – Order of the Writ Court dated 22.01.2024 set aside – Direction issued to the District Collector and Tahsildar, Thirupathur District, to consider the appellant’s representations dated 25.09.2023 and 15.12.2023 and issue the requested certificate within one month – No costs [Para 11].

Criminal Law – Quashing - Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B of the IPC - Forgery Allegations – Absence of Material Linking Accused to Document Creation – Quashing Allowed – Petitioner accused of forging landlord’s signature on settlement letter to regain possession of shop post-eviction – Held: No prima facie material showing petitioner authored or procured forged letter – No evidence of link between petitioner and preparation of document – Offence under Sections 467/468/471 IPC not made out – Proceeding quashed qua petitioner [Paras 20-21, 24-25].

Parallel Civil Proceedings – Adjudication of Disputed Document – Criminal Case Prejudicial – Civil Suit Pending Regarding Tenancy and Letter Authenticity – Held: When genuineness of document is under civil court's consideration, criminal prosecution on same issue improper – FIR continuation would prejudice civil adjudication – Criminal case quashed following ratio in Rajeshbhai Patel and Chandanpal Singh [Paras 21-22].

Forgery – Use of Photocopy Not Enough – Primary Evidence Not Seized – No Expert Verification – Held: Prosecution relied on secondary evidence without seizing original or conducting signature comparison – Criminal forgery charges require stringent proof – Standards in criminal trial higher than civil – Penal provision cannot be invoked without statutory compliance [Paras 21, 24].

Civil Dispute Masquerading as Criminal Offence – Allegation of Malafide – Held: Petitioner paid dues as per alleged settlement and filed civil suit before criminal case lodged – Complaint filed one and a half years after failed attempt to vacate injunction – Indicates mala fide initiation to pressure petitioner – Abuse of process [Paras 6, 10, 22].

Multiple Complaints – Bar on Second FIR Not Attracted – Distinct Cause of Action – Earlier complaint related to trespass, current one to forgery – Held: Prior complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC not treated as FIR – Instant FIR based on different factual foundation – Not barred [Para 14].

Decision – Criminal Proceedings Quashed – No Prima Facie Evidence Against Petitioner – Criminal proceeding in GR Case No. 830 of 2020 quashed qua petitioner Kamala Devi Goyal – CRR 2730 of 2022 allowed – Connected applications also disposed [Paras 25-26].