Intellectual Property – Trademark Infringement – Device Mark – Word Mark – Invalid Registration – Concealment – Appeal Dismissed – Appellant had valid registration only for device mark containing the word QUANTUM and not for the standalone word mark – Registration certificate for the word mark obtained improperly without applying for it – Appellant failed to disclose this to the court – Held: Concealment of application and affidavit constituted wilful suppression disentitling interim relief under Order XXXIX CPC – Appellant cannot rely on invalid registration for claiming exclusivity [Paras 18.1–18.14, 19.1, 21.2].

Trademark Infringement – Device Mark – Dominant Part Doctrine – Appellant entitled to protection of device mark against similar use of dominant element “QUANTUM” by respondent – Respondents admitted user of marks QUANTUM and QUANTUM DISPLAY since 2015 through affidavit – Goods such as TVs and displays held similar to registered goods under Class 9 – Likelihood of confusion exists – Infringement made out in principle – However, relief denied due to lack of clean hands [Paras 19.2–19.14].

Trademark Law – Passing Off – Lack of Evidence – Though respondents admitted adoption of QUANTUM and QUANTUM DISPLAY marks in affidavit, no evidence of actual use or sale in market produced – Manner of use not established – Goodwill of appellant prior to 2015 not proven – No misrepresentation or deception established – Held: No prima facie case of passing off made out [Paras 20.1–20.6].

Civil Procedure – Interim Relief – Clean Hands Doctrine – Appellant concealed affidavit and registration details which revealed invalidity of word mark registration – Court reiterates that equitable relief like interim injunction not available to a party approaching with unclean hands – Appeal rightly dismissed on this ground [Paras 18.10–18.14, 21.2].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Appellant disentitled to interim relief due to deliberate concealment of material facts – Though prima facie case of infringement established on basis of device mark, Court declines to interfere due to lack of bona fides – No case of passing off made out – No order as to costs.

Civil Law – Commercial Recovery – Dismissal of Suit – Appeal – Plaintiff textile company filed suit for recovery of ₹7,86,101/- against event organiser alleging breach of booth fabrication contract for international exhibition in Frankfurt – Trial Court dismissed suit for lack of evidence and non-joinder of necessary party – Held: Plaintiff failed to prove claim due to lack of competent and knowledgeable witness – Testimony of SPA holder devoid of personal knowledge – Defendant had transferred money to third party (Anuj Gautam) with plaintiff’s consent – Non-joinder of third-party contractor fatal to suit – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1, 3–5, 10–21, 26–34, 39–40].

Evidence Act – Proof of Transaction – Burden of Proof – Plaintiff relied on testimony of SPA holder (PW-1) with no personal knowledge of transaction – PW-1 admitted he did not visit site, had no knowledge of business dealings, and had met director of plaintiff company only once – Held: SPA witness must have personal knowledge of transaction to testify – Plaintiff failed to discharge burden under Sections 101 to 106 of Evidence Act – Reliance on National Small Industries and A.C. Narayanan misplaced – Those cases require witness to have both authorization and personal knowledge [Paras 13–15, 26–29, 35].

Contract Law – Privity of Contract – Third Party Execution – Defendant referred work to third-party vendor (Anuj Gautam) allegedly with plaintiff’s consent – Plaintiff failed to implead said third party – Trial Court and Appellate Court held that without impleading executing party, suit for deficiency in service was not maintainable – Held: Non-joinder of necessary party fatal under Order I Rule 9 CPC – No effective adjudication possible without third party – Suit rightly dismissed [Paras 7–8, 19–20, 31–34].

Admissions – Section 58 Evidence Act – Applicability – Plaintiff claimed admitted facts (receipt of money and partial refund) should be accepted without proof – Held: Admission of receipt alone insufficient – Plaintiff must still prove that balance was unjustifiably retained and not paid to third party as instructed – No legal inference of liability can be drawn from partial refund alone – No admission by defendant acknowledging liability for ₹7.86 lakhs [Paras 22, 38].

Commercial Courts Act – Pre-Institution Mediation – Procedural Compliance – Plaintiff attempted pre-suit mediation under Section 12A – Defendant did not participate – Suit proceeded – Compliance with procedural requirement upheld – However, case failed on merits [Para 6].

Approbate and Reprobate – Allegation of Inconsistent Conduct – Plaintiff argued defendant could not deny liability after issuing recovery notice to third party – Held: No inconsistent conduct shown – Defendant's consistent stand was that it acted only as intermediary – Recovery notice to third party not inconsistent with denial of liability towards plaintiff – Reliance on Karunesh Kumar and Dhanjeet Singh misplaced – No application to facts of commercial recovery [Paras 25, 36–37].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Suit rightly dismissed by Trial Court – Plaintiff failed to prove claim or join necessary party – Pending application also dismissed as infructuous – No costs awarded [Paras 40–41].

Civil Writ – Quashing Show Cause Notice - Legislative Privileges – Newspaper Publication – Breach of Privilege – Petitioners (Editor and Chief Reporter of Sakshi Daily) challenged Privilege Committee’s notice dated 03.06.2025 for a news item “Kotlu Karchu … Shikshana Tussu” alleging wasteful expenditure in MLA training – Contended that publication was fair criticism, not touching legislative proceedings nor any member personally – Held: News item merely criticised administrative inefficiency, not legislative functioning; however, challenge to notice premature as matter yet at threshold before Privileges Committee [Paras 4–6, 15–16, 40–44].

Writ Jurisdiction – Show Cause Notice – Maintainability – Court held issuance of notice seeking explanation is preliminary – Constitutional Courts ordinarily not to interfere at this stage – Committee and Assembly must first consider replies and apply constitutional and judicially settled principles before any final action – Writ petitions held premature [Paras 26, 29–31, 44].

Legislative Privileges – Judicial Review – Constitutional Limits – Legislative privilege under Article 194 subject to constitutional discipline and judicial review – Decisions of legislature affecting citizens amenable to writ jurisdiction – Yet judicial review lies only after final decision, not at inception [Paras 33, 39–41].

Two-fold Test – Applicability – As per Sita Soren v. Union of India, (2024) 5 SCC 629, privilege claim must satisfy: (i) Tethered to collective functioning of House; (ii) Necessity must bear functional relationship to essential duties of legislator – Privilege Committee and Assembly expected to apply these tests before proceeding [Paras 25, 41].

Pending Constitutional Issue – Non-deferral – Pendency of N. Ravi v. Speaker, Legislative Assembly, Chennai (pending before SC on interplay of Articles 19(1)(a) & 194) not ground to stall proceedings – Courts cannot defer decisions awaiting apex court reference outcome (Union Territory of Ladakh v. J&K National Conference, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1140) [Paras 29, 43].

Freedom of Speech – Press Rights – Limits vis-à-vis Legislative Privilege – Citizens’ and journalists’ rights under Article 19(1)(a) coexist with legislative privileges; privileges not absolute, must align with necessity test and rule of law – Legislatures and Committees are not enclaves insulated from ordinary law (Sita Soren, supra) [Paras 41–42].

Decision: Writ Petitions dismissed as premature – Court declined interference at show-cause stage – Observed that Privilege Committee and Assembly must apply twin necessity tests and act within constitutional limits – No order as to costs – Interlocutory Applications closed [Paras 44–45].

Civil Law – Declaration Suit – Challenge to Consent Decree – Allegation of Fraud – Trial Court decree in favour of plaintiff declaring decree dated 29.04.1988 as fraudulent – Lower Appellate Court reversed the trial court’s decree – High Court upheld the appellate findings – Held: Plaintiff failed to plead and prove fraud as required under Order 6 Rule 4 CPC – Consent decree suffered by plaintiff himself cannot be annulled on vague allegations of fraud – Appeal dismissed [Paras 7, 9, 20-22].

Compromise Decree – Challenge under Order 23 Rule 3A CPC – Plaintiff sought to invalidate earlier decree claiming it was obtained by fraud – High Court held that bar under Order 23 Rule 3A CPC is mandatory – No separate suit lies to challenge compromise decree – Proper remedy was to approach the same court that recorded the compromise – Lower appellate court justified in applying statutory bar even if not pleaded in defence – Reliance placed on Pushpa Devi Bhagat v. Rajinder Singh, 2006 (3) RCR (Civil) 479 [Paras 24].

Registration of Decree – Requirement under Section 17 of Registration Act, 1908 – Whether compromise decree transferring immovable property required registration – Held: Decree merely records admission of pre-existing rights – Does not require registration – Reference made to Som Dev v. Rati Ram, 2006(4) RCR (Civil) 303 – Argument that the decree created new rights rejected [Paras 23].

Plea of Fraud – Requirement of Specific Pleading and Proof – Plaintiff alleged fraud by defendant’s father in obtaining thumb impressions under pretext of surety – Court held that such allegations were not supported by credible evidence – Plaintiff had voluntarily appeared and admitted the claim in earlier suit – No concealment or independent corroboration shown – Reliance on S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, AIR 1994 SC 853 and Badami v. Bhali, (2012) 11 SCC 574, held misplaced – Mere assertion of fraud insufficient without particulars and evidence [Paras 21-22].

Evidence – Possession – Plaintiff relied on electricity bills (Ex. P11–P40) to establish possession – High Court held that such documents, though exhibited, were not duly proved – No official witness examined – Revenue records showed possession with defendant – Oral testimony of plaintiff’s witnesses found unreliable and inconsistent [Para 25].

Estoppel – Voluntary Consent – Plaintiff’s argument that no compensation was received under alleged family settlement rejected – Once consent decree is admitted and acted upon, it operates as estoppel unless set aside by competent court on fraud – Plaintiff bound by his own admission and compromise in earlier suit [Paras 26].

Limitation – Suit filed nearly four years after decree – Appellant’s plea that cause of action arose only when threat of dispossession was made not accepted – High Court affirmed lower appellate court’s view that suit was barred by limitation [Para 11].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of lower appellate court dated 27.01.1999 affirmed – Consent decree dated 29.04.1988 held lawful and binding – No evidence of fraud found – Suit barred by Order 23 Rule 3A CPC and limitation – Pending applications also disposed of [Paras 27-29].

Service Law – Recovery from Pension – Rule 2.2(a) PCS Rules – Consent Mandatory – Petitioner retired as Executive Officer from Municipal Council, Kaithal – Recovery of ₹6,63,688/- made from pension account in 2021 without prior notice or consent – Held: Recovery without consent is impermissible under Rule 2.2(a) of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II and Rule 11 of Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016 – Only lawful method is through court suit if consent is not obtained – Impugned order quashed [Paras 10–13, 19].

Constitutional Law – Principles of Natural Justice – Recovery without Hearing – Recovery effected by Bank without notice or show-cause to pensioner – Held: Violative of natural justice and judicially unsustainable – Arbitrary exercise of power – Adverse order without hearing renders entire action illegal [Paras 6, 20, 23, 38].

Pension Law – Applicability of Service Rules – Rules at Time of Retirement Govern – Petitioner retired in 2016 under 1993 Pension Rules – Held: Subsequent Pension Rules, 2016 not applicable unless expressly provided – Pension governed by rules in force at time of retirement [Paras 14–15].

Recovery – Supreme Court Precedents – No Misrepresentation by Employee – Reliance placed on Rafiq Masih, Thomas Daniel, Jagdish Prasad Singh – Held: No recovery permissible post-retirement where payment was bona fide and without fraud/misrepresentation – Equity favours pensioner where State error caused overpayment [Paras 16–19].

Role of Bank – RBI Circular – No Authority to Recover Unilaterally – Punjab National Bank debited pensioner’s account at behest of Government without authority – RBI Circular mandates banks to act only after direction from government and not recover directly from pensioner – Held: Act of bank arbitrary and illegal [Paras 23–24].

Refixation of Pension – Scope and Limits – Rule 9.15 PCS Rules and Rule 78 HCS Pension Rules – Held: Pension once authorised cannot be revised to disadvantage of employee unless clerical error shown and notice served – Rule 9.15 is subject to Rule 2.2(a), requiring consent for recovery even after refixation – Five-year bar on revision under Rule 78 also noted [Paras 25–36].

Equity and Public Administration – Abrupt Recovery from Retiree – Court expresses concern over harshness and human cost of recovery without notice – Held: Governance must reflect procedural sensitivity and uphold retired employees’ dignity – Abrupt recovery undermines public trust and welfare administration ethos [Paras 37–38].

Relief – Impugned order dated 16.11.2022 quashed – Respondents directed to refund ₹6,63,688/- with 6% interest from date of petition – RBI directed to issue binding instructions prohibiting unauthorised recovery by agency banks from pensioners’ accounts [Paras 39–40].

Patent Law – Computer-Related Invention – Section 3(k) – Technical Contribution – Graphic Data Lineage Generation – Rejection on ground of being algorithmic and lacking technical effect – Held: System incorporating diagram generator, metadata querying interface, configuration information sets, and dynamic iterative lineage generation constitutes technical effect and technical contribution – Not excluded under Section 3(k) [Paras 17–54]

Patent Law – Database Management System – Technical Effect – Claim enabling ad-hoc upstream/downstream tracing of data transformations using metadata – Reduction of query response time, avoidance of manual multi-step tracing, and configuration-based autonomous retrieval amount to technical advancement – Invention not mere presentation of information nor simple execution of an algorithm – Technical effect established [Paras 49–54]

Patent Law – Novelty and Inventive Step – Section 2(1)(j) – Prior Art D1 distinguished – D1 disclosed entity-relationship visualisation but did not disclose tracing of data evolution, metadata configuration sets with distinct selection specifications, or iterative querying of metadata management systems – Claimed invention addresses a different technical problem and yields different technical results – Not obvious to PSITA even with common general knowledge – Novelty and inventive step satisfied [Paras 55–61]

Computer Programme Per Se – Technical Effect Test – Indian Position aligned with EPO rather than UK approach – Indian jurisprudence recognises patentability where software-enabled inventions use technical means to solve technical problems – CRI Guidelines 2025 emphasise technical contribution, consistent with precedents such as Lava International and Microsoft decisions – Held: Claimed invention not barred by Section 3(k) [Paras 19–48]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Rejection order dated 13/07/2020 set aside – Patent Application No. 4693/CHENP/2010 to proceed to grant based on last submitted claims – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Framing of Charges – Murder – Criminal Conspiracy – Charge Sustained – Accused allegedly conspired to dispossess the complainant from his land, leading to fatal assault on his son – Evidence of threats, long-standing land dispute, and coordinated movement of accused supported by CCTV footage, CDRs, and eyewitness accounts – Held: Trial court rightly framed charges under Sections 120-B, 302, 307, 447, 147, 201, and other IPC provisions – Material creates grave suspicion, sufficient to proceed to trial [Paras 40–55].

Criminal Law – Nature of Offence – Murder vs. Culpable Homicide – Prima Facie Case of Murder Established – Argument that single blow rules out murder rejected – Repeated blows with bricks and iron pipe on the deceased’s head with full force show intention to kill – Injury pattern and conduct reveal deliberate targeting – Held: No basis to convert charge to Section 304 IPC at this stage – Trial court justified in framing charge under Section 302 IPC [Paras 51–58].

Criminal Conspiracy – Inference from Circumstances – Land Dispute Escalation – Shared Intent – History of land transactions and threats point to common design among accused – Execution of illegal dispossession plan amounts to conspiracy – Even non-present accused implicated by pre-event meetings and CDR data – Held: Conspiracy can be inferred from conduct and surrounding facts – Presence at spot not essential for conspiracy charge [Paras 45–50].

Criminal Procedure – Discharge of Accused – High Court Revisional Power Limited – Discharge of Sharat Puri, Rajat Jandyal, and Raghunandan Singh upheld – Evidence against them not sufficient to infer intent or participation – No direct or reliable role assigned – Trial court applied correct legal test – Held: High Court will not interfere unless manifest illegality or perversity exists – Discharge justified [Paras 66–71].

Criminal Procedure – Bail – Serious Offences – Bail Rejected – Bail sought on merits and medical grounds – Accused charged with murder and conspiracy – Evidence indicates continuing threat to complainant – Trial at initial stage with material witnesses pending – Medical conditions found manageable in jail – Held: Gravity of offence, conspiracy angle, and threat to complainant warrant rejection of bail [Paras 74–78].

Criminal Law – Bail – MCOCA and UAPA - Prolonged Incarceration – Constitutional Rights – Terror Case – Appellant accused of providing shelter to co-accused in 13/7 Mumbai bomb blasts – In custody for over 13.5 years – Trial commenced in 2021, only 167 out of 400 witnesses examined in over 4.5 years – Court held that indefinite pre-trial detention violates Article 21 – Right to speedy trial is not merely statutory but a constitutional guarantee [Paras 11-16].

Special Statutes – MCOCA and UAPA – Statutory Restrictions on Bail – Constitutional Override – High Court relied on Supreme Court’s decision in K.A. Najeeb to hold that bail can be granted despite rigours of special laws where trial unlikely to conclude and incarceration excessive – Court held constitutional liberty must prevail over statutory bar in such cases [Paras 17-19].

Judicial Discretion – Bail Not on Merits – Role of Appellant Limited – Accused not directly involved in execution of blasts – Confessional statement under Section 18 MCOCA indicated role confined to harbouring co-accused – Bail granted not on merits but on constitutional considerations due to trial delay and age of accused (65 years) [Paras 14, 15, 19].

Delay in Trial – Systemic Delay – Court observed that delay was not mere procedural lapse but a denial of justice – Trial Court failed to conclude trial despite specific directions from High Court – Possibility of completing trial in near future held to be bleak [Paras 10, 14, 15].

Final Order – Bail granted with stringent conditions – PR bond of ₹1,00,000 with local sureties – Regular reporting to ATS – Surrender of passport – Restrictions on movement and communication with witnesses – Violation to lead to cancellation of bail [Para 20].

Civil Law - Adverse Possession – Ownership Claim – Revenue Records Prevail Over Oral Testimony – Plaintiffs claimed title to agricultural land through adverse possession since 1957 – Trial Court accepted oral evidence and decreed ownership – First Appellate Court reversed, relying on consistent revenue entries showing plaintiffs and their predecessors as cultivating tenants on 1/3rd batai – Held: Oral assertions unsupported by documents cannot override public revenue records – Claim of adverse possession contradicted by own documentary evidence – No open, hostile assertion against true owner proved – Finding of permissive possession upheld [Paras 8–12, 16].

Ceiling Law – Surplus Land Declaration – Validity of Allotment – Plaintiffs challenged surplus declaration and allotment orders on ground of non-service of notice – Held: Plaintiffs had no title or legal standing to challenge orders passed under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act – Balbir Kaur, recorded owner, was duly heard – Civil Court’s jurisdiction barred under Section 26 of the Act – Allotment upheld [Paras 18–19].

Civil Procedure – Non-Joinder of Necessary Party – Suit defective – 12 kanal portion of land owned by Smt. Kishan Kaur (non-surplus) adjudicated without impleading her as party – Held: Suit defective under Order I Rule 9 CPC – Decree cannot be sustained in her absence [Para 17].

Documentary vs. Oral Evidence – Revenue Entries – Jamabandis and khasra girdawaris from 1920 to 1982 showed plaintiffs' father and uncle as tenants, not owners – Held: Revenue records carry presumption of truth under Section 44 of Punjab Land Revenue Act – Oral evidence of plaintiffs’ witnesses unreliable, uncorroborated, and in some cases hearsay – Trial Court’s reliance on such evidence was misplaced [Paras 9–15].

Decision: Second appeals dismissed – No perversity or illegality in findings of First Appellate Court – Trial Court’s decree rightly reversed – Civil Court had no jurisdiction to set aside orders under Ceiling Act – Plaintiffs failed to prove title or adverse possession.