Guardianship Proceedings – Death of Ward Rendered Petitions Infructuous – LPAs Challenging Interim Orders Not Maintainable – Held: Guardianship Petition became infructuous after demise of DMP – Orders passed therein including appointment of Sole Guardian were temporary and cease to operate upon final orders in probate proceedings [Paras 1-4, 13, 14, 20, 26]

Probate Proceedings – Testamentary Disputes – No Interference by Appellate Court – Held: Pending probate petition appropriate forum to determine validity of Will – Any direction for administration of estate must await adjudication of probate petition – Appellate Court refrains from commenting on merits [Paras 21-25]

Status Quo Orders – Management of Deceased’s Estate – Validity of Orders Post Demise – Continuity Affirmed – Held: Status quo directions passed by LSJ concerning movable and immovable properties and financial assets of DMP to continue until varied by orders in probate proceedings [Paras 14, 26]

Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Improper Application – Order Set Aside – Held: Plaintiff’s case not wholly barred – Suit discloses cause of action and alternative reliefs including partition – Probate pendency not ground to reject plaint – Rejection of plaint unsustainable in law [Paras 28-70]

Declaratory Suit – Consequential Relief – Not Always Mandatory – Plaintiff in Possession – Held: When plaintiff is in possession or properties are under Court’s custodia legis, suit for declaration without further relief is maintainable – Plaintiff’s failure to claim refund of Stridhan not fatal [Paras 35, 39-50]

Alternative Relief – Partition of Property – Acceptable Even Without Detailed Foundation – Held: Plaintiff entitled to seek partition in alternative to ownership – Absence of foundational facts not fatal at preliminary stage – Rejection on such grounds premature [Paras 42-44, 53-54]

Limitation – Cause of Action Commences Upon Death of Deceased – Held: Plaintiff’s right to sue arose upon death of DMP – Earlier allotment of shares to children or formation of companies not relevant to limitation – Rejection on limitation ground unjustified [Paras 45-46, 56]

Probate Petition – Suit for Ownership Not Barred – Scope of Civil Court Not Ousted – Held: Civil suit for ownership and partition of properties not barred merely due to pendency of probate – Challenge to Will can be stayed but not rejected outright [Paras 43, 54]

Rejection of Plaint – Only Entire Plaint Can Be Rejected – No Partial Rejection Permissible – Held: Order VII Rule 11 does not contemplate partial rejection – Rejection of only certain prayers improper in law [Paras 43, 60, 62]

Decision – Appeals Partly Allowed – Rejection of Plaint Set Aside – All LPAs and FAO(OS) 38/2024 Dismissed as Infructuous – Civil Suit Restored – Ordered to be Consolidated with Pending Probate Proceedings – Held: Impugned Order rejecting plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is set aside – Suit revived – Proceedings to be consolidated with Probate Petition TEST.CAS. 1/2022 before learned Single Judge on 23.09.2025 [Paras 70-71]

Civil Law - Execution of decree for injunction – Executing Court wrongly dismissed application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC – High Court held even prohibitory injunction enforceable in execution; demarcation can be directed – Order set aside, matter remanded [Paras 7–13].

Civil Procedure – Order 21 Rule 32 CPC – A decree for permanent injunction can be executed by attachment, detention, or restitution – Decree-holder need not file fresh suit for possession if judgment debtor violates decree by encroachment – Remedy lies in execution itself – Toran Singh v. Imrat Singh, 2012 (3) MPLJ 385 followed [Paras 7–9, 12].

Meaning of “wilful disobedience” – Requires proof of knowledge of decree, opportunity to obey, and deliberate defiance – Mere inadvertent act not enough – Burden lies on decree-holder – Karnataka rulings in Shivamurthy v. Dannammadevi Cycle Mart, AIR 1987 Kar 261 and Kariyappa v. Haladappa, AIR 1989 Kar 163 applied [Paras 7–9].

Prohibitory injunction – Enforceability – Explanation to Order 21 Rule 32(5) (added by 2002 CPC Amendment) makes clear that prohibitory injunctions too are enforceable in execution – Law Commission intent was to avoid multiplicity of suits – Court bound to give effect to decree, not drive decree-holder to new litigation [Paras 8–9, 12].

Error of Executing Court – Executing Court wrongly held that it could not go beyond decree and that possession relief was outside scope – High Court clarified that Executing Court has power to restore possession where decree violated – Impugned order unsustainable [Paras 12–13].

Demarcation – Where dispute arises as to location/identity of land, Executing Court can direct demarcation by revenue authorities before enforcing decree – Necessary for determining whether obstruction (“Muram”) lies on suit land or adjoining land [Paras 11, 13].

Inherent powers – Section 151 CPC – Even apart from express powers, Court has inherent duty to prevent frustration of decrees – Power to “put clock back” where decree violated – Surjit Pal v. Prabir Kumar Sun, AIR 1986 Cal 220; Hari Nandan Agrawal v. S.N. Pandita, AIR 1975 All 482 cited [Para 8].

Disposition – Revision allowed – Impugned order dated 05.01.2023 set aside – Matter remanded to Executing Court to get demarcation done through revenue authorities and then enforce decree under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC – Miscellaneous applications closed [Paras 12–14]

Civil Procedure – Permanent Injunction – Ownership and Possession Dispute – Regular Second Appeal against concurrent findings of fact – Plaintiffs claimed ownership of plots 57, 58, 59 through sale deeds and sought injunction against defendants’ alleged attempt to carve passage – Trial Court dismissed suit, First Appellate Court partly decreed only portion BCEX based on defendants’ admission – High Court upheld concurrent findings – Held: Plaintiffs failed to establish title and possession over entire claimed land – No interference warranted under Section 100 CPC [Paras 3–7, 13–20].

Evidence – Parchi Allotments and Site Plans – Plaintiffs relied on allotment parchis and private site plan (Ex.P-2) without demarcation – Court held parchis showed only area, no boundaries/dimensions – Failure to link claimed land to purchased plots weakened case – Local Commissioner’s site plan (Ex.D-7) prepared in presence of parties accepted as reliable – Plaintiffs’ plan rejected [Paras 9–14].

Admissions – Effect of Witness Statements – Plaintiffs’ own witnesses admitted existence of street and boundary walls between properties – Appellate Court relied on such admissions to hold defendants’ possession lawful – Such admissions corroborated Local Commissioner’s findings – Appeal dismissed [Paras 15–16].

Scope of Second Appeal – Concurrent Findings of Fact – High Court reiterated limited scope of interference under Section 100 CPC – Findings based on reliable evidence including Local Commissioner’s report and witness admissions – No perversity or substantial question of law arose – Appeal dismissed [Paras 18–20].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Judgment of First Appellate Court dated 16.11.1999 affirmed – Permanent injunction limited to portion BCEX – Plaintiffs’ claim over rest of land rejected – No order as to costs [Para 20].

Negotiable Instruments – Dishonour of Cheque – Secondary Evidence – Xerox copy of cheque permitted as secondary evidence when original was produced, verified, endorsed and later lost – Trial Court order refusing secondary evidence set aside.

Evidence Act – Secondary Evidence – Sections 63 & 65 – Principles reiterated – General rule requires primary evidence, but exceptions under Section 65(c) apply where the original is lost – Once Trial Court verified original cheque, retained xerox copy with endorsement and returned original, petitioner entitled to rely on xerox copy as secondary evidence – Failure of Trial Court to permit marking resulted in miscarriage of justice [Paras 10–22].

Cheque Dishonour – Section 138 NI Act – Petitioner had produced original cheque during sworn statement; Trial Court’s finding confirms verification and return of cheque – Loss of original thereafter qualifies under Section 65(c) – Xerox copy admissible as secondary evidence [Paras 20–22].

Precedent – Reliance placed on earlier coordinate Bench decision in Crl.RC(MD) No.161 of 2014 (16.10.2019), permitting secondary evidence of lost cheque and pronote where originals were verified and endorsed – Principle applied to present case [Para 23].

Decision – Criminal Revision allowed – Impugned order dated 15.04.2025 in Crl.MP.No.101 of 2025 set aside – Judicial Magistrate I, Pudukottai directed to receive xerox copy of original cheque as secondary evidence, expedite trial and conclude proceedings – No order as to costs [Para 25].

Loan Fraud – Discharge Petitions – Criminal Conspiracy and Abuse of Official Position – Discharge Rejected – Prima facie material supports framing of charges under IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act [Paras 5-7, 14-16, 21-22, 33-35].

Discharge Petition – Criminal Conspiracy – Bank Loan Fraud – Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act – Discharge Denied – The 2nd and 5th accused challenged dismissal of their discharge petitions in a case involving fraudulent loans sanctioned through conspiracy with bank officials to cheat State Bank of Travancore – The Court held that there was prima facie material including witness statements, cheques, and banking transactions indicating the accused’s role in the conspiracy – The discharge petitions were rightly dismissed [Paras 5-7, 14-16, 21-22].

Retrospective Application – Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 – Earlier Offences Under Section 13(1)(d) Continue – Held: The amended provisions do not apply retrospectively to offences committed before 26.07.2018 – Section 6 of the General Clauses Act applies – Prosecution of prior offences under unamended Act valid [Paras 18-24, 27-30].

Mens Rea – Criminal Misconduct Under Section 13(1)(d)(iii) – Not Always Required – Legislative History Indicates Amendment Aimed at Excluding Acts Without Public Interest – But Pre-Amendment Offences Remain Punishable – Court rejected contention that amended provision should apply to pending proceedings [Paras 28-32].

Circumstantial Evidence – Prima Facie Material Sufficient to Frame Charges – In Conspiracy and Economic Offences, Direct Evidence Often Absent – Reliance Placed on Bank Documents, Witness Statements, and Transaction Trails – Court held that sufficiency of material warrants trial [Paras 14, 16, 20, 22].

Decision:

The Court dismissed both criminal revision petitions, upheld the Special Court’s refusal to discharge the 2nd and 5th accused, and held that the amended provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, do not affect pending prosecutions for offences committed prior to 26.07.2018 – Proceedings to continue under the unamended provisions [Paras 33-35].

Consumer Law - Consumer Protection Act – Defective Car – Non-deployment of Airbags – Manufacturing Defect Established – Complainant purchased Toyota Innova in March 2011 – Vehicle suffered frontal collision in August 2011, airbags did not deploy – District Forum held inherent manufacturing defect, ordered replacement/refund with compensation – State Commission and NCDRC affirmed – High Court upheld findings, noting global recall of Innovas, FIR/photos, and expert evidence – No perversity shown [Paras 4-10, 20-22].

Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Interference Limited – High Court reiterated supervisory powers extend only to correcting jurisdictional errors or perversity – Consumer fora’s findings based on appreciation of evidence cannot be reappraised – Petition dismissed [Paras 11-14, 18-19].

NCDRC Coram Objection – Single-Member Decision – Validity Upheld – Petitioner argued NCDRC order invalid as decided by non-judicial member alone – Court rejected, holding NCDRC functions as Tribunal under statute and such orders are judicially reviewable – No illegality found [Paras 12-13].

Final Decision – Civil Revision Petition Dismissed – Orders of District Forum, State Commission, and NCDRC upheld – Toyota directed to comply with reliefs of replacement/refund and compensation [Paras 20-24].

Trademark Dispute – Passing Off Action – Interim Injunction Partly Upheld and Partly Set Aside – Plaintiff (IMPL/boAt) alleged deceptive similarity of defendant’s (EM/Boult) marks BOULT, logos, and tagline with its BOAT/boAt brand – Single Judge injuncted EM from using three logos and tagline “UNPLUG YOURSELF” – Division Bench held: (i) No injunction could be granted on tagline absent formal prayer, order to that extent quashed, (ii) injunction against use of marks/logos upheld as consistent with settled principles of passing off, (iii) EM free to use proposed new mark GOBOULT since not part of lis – Appeal disposed with partial relief [Paras 7, 42-47].

Injunction Beyond Pleadings – Tagline “UNPLUG YOURSELF” – Relief Not Prayed Cannot Be Granted – Court reiterated settled law that courts cannot grant relief beyond pleadings – Single Judge erred in injuncting tagline without prayer – That portion of order set aside [Paras 44.1–44.3].

Adoption of New Mark – GOBOULT – No Existing Injunction – As Single Judge did not restrain use of similar marks generally, EM free to adopt GOBOULT – Any objection by IMPL must be pursued separately as distinct cause of action [Paras 45.1–45.5, 47(iii)].

Passing Off – Phonetic and Visual Similarity – BOAT and BOULT held deceptively similar – Common triangular logos and similar tagline motifs (“PLUG INTO NIRVANA” vs. “UNPLUG YOURSELF”) enhanced likelihood of confusion – Consumer test based on imperfect recollection applied – Court declined to interfere with Single Judge’s discretion [Paras 46.4–46.17].

Principles of Appellate Interference – Appeal Against Interim Injunction – Limited Scope – Appellate court not to substitute its view unless lower court’s discretion arbitrary, perverse, or contrary to law – Reiterated principles from Wander Ltd. v. Antox India and subsequent SC rulings [Paras 46.3.1–46.3.5].

Infringement vs. Passing Off – EM’s registered mark insulated it from infringement claim – Case decided on passing off, requiring proof of goodwill, misrepresentation, and likelihood of damage – Goodwill of boAt brand established by turnover and advertising expenditure – Prima facie passing off found [Paras 46.6–46.13].

Final Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Injunction against marks/logos affirmed – Injunction on tagline set aside – Clarified no bar against use of GOBOULT – Each party to bear own costs [Para 47].

Criminal Law – Murder Trial Based on Circumstantial Evidence – Conviction Upheld with Modification – Appellants convicted under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 IPC for the murder of victim last seen with them on 30.10.2012 – Case rested on last-seen theory, extra-judicial confession, and recoveries under Section 27 Evidence Act – Defence challenged credibility of confession, reliability of witnesses, absence of motive, and lack of blood-group matching – High Court held that the chain of circumstances was complete and consistent with guilt, extra-judicial confession voluntary and corroborated, and recovery of weapons incriminating – Conviction sustained – Sentence modified granting set-off under Section 428 CrPC for period of detention undergone – Appeals dismissed [Paras 26-31, 32-47, 48-60, 68-89, 91].

Murder Trial – Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen Theory – Victim last seen in company of appellants by independent witnesses – Dead body recovered next morning – Medical and forensic evidence corroborated prosecution – Chain complete and consistent with guilt – Conviction affirmed [Paras 32-47, 83-89].

Extra-Judicial Confession – Voluntariness and Corroboration – Accused confessed before villagers to killing victim – Confession corroborated by recovery and witness testimony – Distinguished cases where confession was weak, retracted, or inconsistent – Held reliable [Paras 48-60].

Recovery under Section 27 Evidence Act – Offending Weapons and Motorcycles – Accused led police to recovery of blood-stained stone, broken glass, motorcycles – Forensic report confirmed human blood – Recovery held admissible and corroborative – Lack of blood-group testing not fatal [Paras 68-82].

Motive – Not Essential When Circumstantial Chain Complete – Prosecution failed to prove motive, but conviction valid – Motive unnecessary when guilt established beyond reasonable doubt [Para 85].

Principles – Circumstantial Evidence – Reiterated legal principles from Hanumant Govind Nargundkar, Sharad Birdhichand Sarda, and Padala Veera Reddy – Minor inconsistencies in witness statements immaterial when overall chain intact [Paras 26-31, 86-87].

Final Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Conviction under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 IPC sustained – Sentence modified to allow benefit of set-off under Section 428 CrPC – Connected applications also disposed of [Paras 89-91].

Civil Law – Order 8 Rule 1 CPC - Delay in Filing Written Statement – No Exceptional Circumstance Shown – Petition Dismissed – Petitioner served with summons on 19.12.2024 but failed to file written statement within 30 days or extended period of 90 days – Right to file written statement closed on 01.04.2025 – Application for recall and condonation dismissed by trial court – High Court held: obtaining certified copies of documents in another litigation not an exceptional circumstance – Petitioner could have inspected documents instead of delaying – Delay beyond 90 days unjustified – Revision dismissed [Paras 3-7].

Res Judicata – Interlocutory Orders – Review Not Maintainable – Petitioner attempted to reopen trial court’s order dated 01.04.2025 by way of recall plea – Court held: no error apparent on record or discovery of new facts despite diligence – Review jurisdiction cannot be invoked to circumvent finality of procedural orders [Para 8].

Strict Application of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC – Leniency Rejected – High Court rejected plea for liberal approach in condoning delay – Emphasized that post-2002 CPC amendment, strict timelines must be adhered to – Lenient view would render provision otiose and defeat purpose of expeditious trial [Para 9].

Final Decision – No infirmity in trial court’s order – Petition and connected applications dismissed – Closure of right to file written statement upheld [Paras 9-10].