Recovery Suit – Negligence of Employee – Corporation Alleged Loss of Stocks and Excess Gunny Bags – Departmental Enquiry Established Liability – Trial Court Partly Decreed Suit – Lower Appellate Court Reversed on Ground of Limitation – In Second Appeal, High Court confined to issue of limitation [Paras 1-7, 11-15, 19].

Limitation – Cause of Action – Commencement from Date of Knowledge – Corporation acquired knowledge of excess bags in 1988 and shortage of wheat on 09.01.1989 – Suit filed on 16.07.1992 – Held barred by three-year limitation under Article 58 of Limitation Act – Plea that limitation starts from date of final determination of loss rejected [Paras 20-22].

Case Law – Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent – Court applied ratio in Nikhila Divyang Mehta v. Hitesh P. Sanghvi, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 779, reiterating that limitation begins when cause of action first accrues or from date of knowledge – Distinction between “knowledge” and “full knowledge” rejected – Suit beyond time barred under Section 3 of Limitation Act [Paras 23].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Judgment of Lower Appellate Court upholding bar of limitation sustained – No infirmity or illegality found – Cross-objections and pending applications also disposed of [Paras 24-26].

Execution Proceedings – Obstruction by Judgment Debtor – Plea of Tenancy – Barred by Res Judicata/Estoppel – Appellant (4th defendant) claimed tenancy rights in execution proceedings under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC – Trial Court had earlier in O.S. No. 71/2012 held appellant was not a tenant – No appeal filed against that finding – Held: Appellant estopped from re-agitating plea – Executing court rightly dismissed obstruction petition [Paras 13-18, 26].

Second Appeal – Concurrent Findings – Scope under Section 100 CPC – High Court reiterated interference lies only if substantial question of law arises – Concurrent findings on facts that appellant was not a tenant, and decree-holders entitled to possession, do not warrant interference – No substantial question of law made out [Paras 9-12, 28-29].

Tenant vs. Owner – Legal Principle – Even assuming tenancy existed, tenant cannot claim ownership rights or resist landlord’s title – Tenant cannot dictate terms to owner – Doctrine well settled – Applied against appellant [Paras 16-18].

Final Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – No substantial question of law arises – Concurrent findings of courts below affirmed – Pending applications closed – Parties to bear own costs [Paras 29-30].

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].

Criminal Law – Attempt to Murder and Robbery – Conviction Modified and Sentence Reduced – Appellant convicted in 2002 for stabbing complainant Raj Kumar and robbing ₹9,200/- with accomplices – Trial court imposed 7 years RI under Sections 307/34 and 392/397/34 IPC – On appeal, High Court upheld conviction under Section 307 IPC, but altered conviction from 392/397 IPC to 379 IPC as prosecution failed to prove use of force “for the purpose of committing theft” – Sentence reduced to 5 years RI under Section 307/34 IPC and 6 months RI under Section 379/34 IPC, with both running concurrently and benefit of Section 428 CrPC granted [Paras 2-4, 11-17].

Attempt to Murder – Injured Witness Testimony – Conviction Upheld – Injured PW-3 Raj Kumar’s testimony consistent, corroborated by medical evidence (MLC showing multiple stab wounds) – Minor contradictions immaterial – Injured witness testimony carries special evidentiary weight – Conviction under Section 307/34 IPC affirmed [Paras 8-11].

Robbery vs. Theft – Distinction Applied – Assault Not for Purpose of Theft – Though complainant was attacked and money taken, evidence showed motive was personal enmity, not theft – Absence of proof that violence was caused “in order to commit theft” under Section 390 IPC – Conviction under Section 392/397 IPC modified to Section 379/34 IPC [Paras 12-14].

Sentence – Modification Based on Passage of Time and Mitigating Circumstances – Incident occurred in 2000, trial concluded in 2002, appeal decided after 23 years – Appellant now 51 years old with dependent family – Court reduced sentence from 7 years to 5 years under Section 307 IPC and 6 months under Section 379 IPC – Directed surrender within 3 days [Paras 16-18].

Final Decision – Conviction under Section 307 IPC upheld – Conviction under Sections 392/397 IPC modified to Section 379 IPC – Sentence reduced – Appeal disposed of with directions to surrender and serve modified term [Paras 15-20].

Civil Revision – Recording of Evidence at Residence – Appointment of Local Commissioner – Challenge Dismissed – Plaintiff, aged 84 years, sought recording of her evidence at home citing medical condition – Earlier similar application dismissed when health was stable – Fresh medical record showed supervised rest advised – Trial court allowed application under Order 10 CPC, appointed Local Commissioner – High Court held: Res judicata not rigidly applicable to interlocutory orders; change in circumstances justified order – Wrong provision cited immaterial when substantive power exists under CPC – Revision dismissed [Paras 1-3, 6-9, 11-12].

Res Judicata – Interlocutory Orders – Not Rigidly Applied – Earlier dismissal of application (31.05.2025) not bar to subsequent application where fresh medical record produced – Change of circumstances material for reconsideration [Para 6].

Wrong Citation of Provision – No Bar to Relief – Though application filed under Order 10 CPC, power to record evidence by commission flows from Order 18 Rules 16 & 19 and Order 26 Rule 1 CPC – Wrong mentioning of provision does not vitiate order if substantive power exists [Para 7].

Recording Evidence at Disputed Property – Not Improper – Plaintiff residing in disputed house – Mere pendency of dispute does not bar recording of evidence at that location – Local Commissioner as officer of court ensures decorum and impartiality [Para 8].

Affidavit in Chief – Already Filed – To be Tendered Before Commissioner – Plaintiff’s affidavit in examination-in-chief already on record; cross-examination to be conducted before Local Commissioner in presence of both parties – No prejudice caused to petitioner [Para 9].

Case Law – Cited Precedents Distinguished – Reliance on Kapil Corepacks Pvt. Ltd. v. Harbans Lal (2010) 8 SCC 452 and Laxmibai v. Bhagwantbuv (2013) 4 SCC 97 rejected as those cases dealt with immediate recording of evidence before trial commenced – Present case involved evidence stage after framing of issues [Para 10].

Final Decision – Civil Revision Petition Dismissed – Trial court’s order upheld – Pending applications also disposed of [Paras 12-13].

Land Acquisition – Agreement Holders’ Claim to Compensation – Rejection Upheld – Petitioners, claiming under agreements to sell and pending specific performance suits, challenged the LARR Authority’s order directing compensation exclusively to recorded tenure-holders and refund of earnest money – Held: Agreement to sell does not create any right, title, or interest in immovable property under Section 54 TPA – Agreement-holders are not “persons interested” under Section 76 of the U.P. RFCTLARR Act, 2013 – Relief of damages or alternate compensation must be sought in pending civil suits – Interim injunctions/status quo orders do not bind acquisition authorities – Prayer to freeze compensation refused – Writ Petition Dismissed [Paras 6–37].

Agreement to Sell – No Transfer of Interest – Section 54 TPA – “Person Interested” Claim Rejected – Petitioners (agreement-holders) asserted entitlement to compensation/apportionment due to pending specific performance suits and interim orders – Held: An agreement to sell does not create any right, title, interest, or charge in immovable property; it only creates an enforceable personal right – Agreement-holders are not “persons interested” in compensation vis-à-vis recorded tenure-holders – Authority’s rejection of claim sustained [Paras 7–20, 34, 36–37].

Scope of Section 76, U.P. RFCTLARR Act – Apportionment Based on Existing, Not Contingent, Rights – Reference Authority cannot decide hypothetical or future rights dependent on outcome of civil suits – Apportionment must mirror subsisting interests at acquisition; prospective rights under unadjudicated agreements are in personam and insufficient – Hence, agreement-holders’ claims cannot displace recorded tenure-holders at the disbursement stage [Paras 28–30, 34].

Specific Relief – Section 21, Specific Relief Act – Alternate Compensation (in lieu of Specific Performance) – Available Only in the Suit for Specific Performance – Petitioners relied on Jagdish Singh; Urmila Devi; Sukhbir to seek compensation tied to acquisition – Held: Such relief is moulded by the civil court upon findings of breach and readiness/willingness; it cannot be granted in Section 76 apportionment proceedings – Petitioners must pursue remedies in their pending suits; Reference Authority/certiorari court will not pre-empt civil findings [Paras 21–27, 28].

Interim Injunctions in Civil Suits – No Fetters on Statutory Acquisition/Disbursement – Pendency of suits or orders restraining alienation/status quo do not bind the State in compulsory acquisition nor convert agreement-holders into compensation claimants – Interim orders, therefore, do not assist petitioners’ apportionment claim [Para 6].

Prayer to Withhold/Freeze Compensation – Refused – Deposit in Fixed Deposit till conclusion of suits declined – If petitioners ultimately secure a money decree for damages, it will be executable; meanwhile, withholding prejudices recorded owners – No irreparable injury to petitioners shown [Para 35].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Order of LARR Authority upholding compensation to recorded tenure-holders and directing refund of earnest money (with interest) sustained [Paras 36–37].

Religious Rights – State-sponsored Hindu festival – Invitation to non-Hindu public figure upheld – No violation of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution – Writ Petitions dismissed.

Freedom of Religion – Participation of Non-Hindu in State-sponsored Dasara Festival – Petition challenging invitation to Muslim public figure to inaugurate Hindu festival dismissed – Held: No violation of Articles 25 and 26 as the event is organized by the State and not a religious denomination – Constitutional protections not offended [Paras 1, 5, 8–9, 15].

Constitutional Law – Articles 25 and 26 – No Fundamental Right Infringed – Petitioners failed to establish that they represented a religious denomination whose rights under Article 26(b) were infringed – Participation of respondent No.4 in inauguration does not impede any religious practice – State has right to invite any citizen irrespective of religion [Paras 5, 8–9, 11].

Religious Endowments – Applicability of Precedents – Cited Supreme Court rulings (Shirur Mutt, Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal, Venkataramana Devaru) found inapplicable – Petitioners lacked locus to claim religious injury or violation of agamic traditions – State function cannot be equated to temple administration or ritual exclusivity [Paras 10–14].

Secularism – Equality and Non-discrimination – State’s invitation to accomplished author and social activist upheld – Past precedence of non-Hindu invitees recognized – Invitation does not indicate participation in exclusive religious rites – Inclusive gesture by State does not breach constitutional or religious boundaries [Paras 4–6, 15].

Final Decision – No merit found in any of the writ petitions – No violation of constitutional or religious rights – Petitions dismissed [Para 16].

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 – Common Intention – Section 302/34 IPC – Seven eyewitnesses deposed that appellants 2, 3 & 4 restrained the deceased while appellant 1 stabbed his neck and chest – Medical evidence corroborated deep clean cut injuries – Court held appellants acted in concert with predetermined plan – Non-mention of Section 34 in trial court’s judgment held inadvertent error – Conviction sustained under Section 302/34 IPC [Paras 32–36, 47–51].

Evidence – Eyewitness Testimony and Minor Discrepancies – Minor contradictions regarding exact location (front/rear gate), number of persons present, or precise wound sites not fatal – Court reiterated principle that minor inconsistencies do not erode core prosecution case when multiple eyewitnesses inspire confidence – [Paras 37–42].

Dying Declaration – Reliability – Though trial court did not base conviction on dying declaration, evidence of PW-6, PW-8 and PW-13 indicated deceased named appellants – Court held ocular testimony of eyewitnesses sufficient; motive not essential where direct evidence exists – [Paras 32, 38, 44].

Alibi Defence – Rejected – Appellants claimed absence from scene; Court held burden of strict proof not discharged – Presence established by credible eyewitnesses – Plea of alibi disbelieved [Paras 43].

FIR and GD Entry – Delay Explained – GD Entry at 8 p.m. followed by FIR at 11 p.m. – Court held delay not fatal where evidence consistent; absence of accused names in GD entry not decisive – FIR with names and subsequent chargesheet valid [Paras 46].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction under Section 302/34 IPC upheld – Life sentence and fine confirmed – No interference warranted [Paras 51–52].