Family Law – Divorce – Cruelty and Desertion – Husband alleged wife was quarrelsome, threatened to poison his blind parents, took his ATM card and money, and deserted him – Evidence led by husband found to be uncorroborated and lacking documentary support – In contrast, wife produced uncontroverted oral and documentary evidence including cybercrime and police complaints against the husband for uploading semi-nude images, digital abuse, and dowry-related harassment – Held: Cruelty not established by husband – Instead, cruelty by husband proved based on wife’s credible evidence [Paras 20, 40-44]

Family Law – Divorce – Desertion – Allegation by husband that wife deserted him since 19.05.2020 – Wife demonstrated she left due to cruelty, threats, and unsafe environment – Evidence showed she was compelled to leave due to abuse – Held: No voluntary or unjustified desertion by wife – Desertion not proved – Section 23(1)(a) of Hindu Marriage Act applied – Husband cannot take benefit of his own wrongdoing [Paras 33-37, 45-49]

Family Law – Perversity of Judgment – Husband claimed judgment of Family Court was perverse – High Court held trial court considered evidence thoroughly including respondent's uncontroverted witnesses and criminal proceedings substantiating her case – Held: No perversity or legal error – Family Court’s findings well-supported – Appeal dismissed [Paras 21-22, 51-52]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Divorce denied – Judgment of Family Court upheld – No proof of cruelty or desertion by wife – Pending interlocutory applications also disposed of

Commercial Law – Rejection of Plaint – Compliance with Section 12-A of Commercial Courts Act – Suit filed on 31st July 2021, registered on 18th December 2021 – High Court had declared Section 12-A mandatory on 1st October 2021 in Deepak Raheja – Held: Since suit was filed prior to that date, plaint cannot be rejected for non-compliance with Section 12-A – Filing of suit is relevant date for determining compliance, not registration [Paras 8, 22(a)-(b), 31].

Civil Procedure – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – No Cause of Action – Plaint alleges plaintiffs were beneficiaries under Master Restructuring Agreement (MRA) and Trust and Retention Account (TRA) agreements – Defendant no. 1 (SBI) was account bank and allegedly withheld funds due to plaintiffs – Suit also based on representations made in Joint Lenders Forum meetings – Held: Cause of action adequately pleaded; whether it is illusory or defective is a matter for trial – Rejection under Order VII Rule 11(a) not warranted [Paras 23–29].

Limitation – Recovery Suit – Article 113 of Limitation Act – Plaintiffs claim right to sue accrued only upon discovery of facts on 21st May 2019 via NCLT proceedings – Suit filed on 31st July 2021 – Held: Cause of action within limitation as pleaded; limitation involves mixed question of fact and law to be determined at trial stage [Paras 30, 22(k), 29].

Mediation – Validity of Private Mediation – Section 12-A of Commercial Courts Act read with 2018 Rules – Pre-litigation mediation attempted privately and failed – Held: Although private mediation does not fulfil mandatory requirement under Section 12-A, since suit was filed before Section 12-A was declared mandatory, rejection not warranted on this ground [Paras 5(a)-(b), 22(c), 31].

Practice and Procedure – Abuse of Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Court discourages frivolous applications for rejection of plaint that delay commercial suits – Reiterates power to reject plaint must be used sparingly and only when clear grounds under Order VII Rule 11 CPC are satisfied [Para 32].

Decision: Application rejected – None of the grounds under Order VII Rule 11 CPC satisfied – Suit to proceed to trial [Para 33].

Rent Law – SCC Eviction Decree – Ex-Parte Proceeding – Substitution of Legal Representatives – No Fresh Summons Required – Under Order XXII Rule 4(4) CPC, where a suit is already proceeding ex-parte against the original defendant and the defendant dies, the court is not obliged to substitute the legal representatives and the decree may be passed against the original defendant notwithstanding death – In the present case, the original tenant Ram Bharose Verma did not appear despite service of summons and the suit was ordered to proceed ex-parte on 10.12.2012 – He died on 27.01.2013 – Notices on the substitution application were served by refusal and heirs were substituted – Held: Since the suit was already proceeding ex-parte, there was no necessity of issuing fresh summons to the substituted heirs after substitution – Ex-parte judgment and decree dated 16.09.2013 is not a nullity for non-issuance of fresh summons to substituted heirs [Paras 15–17].

Executing Court – Cannot Go Behind the Decree – Section 47 CPC – Objections Regarding Validity of Summons and Power of Attorney – Held: The executing court cannot go behind the decree and examine facts recorded or satisfaction recorded by the trial court in the ex-parte judgment or in orders passed during the suit – Whether summons were properly served on the original defendant was recorded in the order dated 10.12.2012 and the same was not challenged by way of revision – The plea regarding suit being filed through power of attorney holder and notice being given by the landlord personally are matters which go behind the decree and cannot be examined under Section 47 CPC [Paras 9, 25].

Tenancy – Death of Original Tenant – Heirs as Joint Tenants – Decree Binding on All – Section 3(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 – Upon death of tenant in respect of a residential building, only such heirs as normally resided with him at the time of death succeed as tenants – Held: There was no averment in the petition that petitioner No. 2 was normally residing with the deceased original tenant Ram Bharose Verma at the time of his death and, therefore, it is not made out that she became a tenant entitled to be separately substituted – Further, the heirs of a deceased tenant inherit as joint tenants and not as tenants-in-common and notice to one is sufficient notice to all – Any defect in service of notice on one of the joint tenants would not make a decree passed against all joint tenants a nullity when notices were served on the other joint tenants [Paras 19–24].

Typographical Error in Name – Section 152 CPC – Decree Not Rendered Nullity – The name of petitioner No. 2 was mentioned as "Heena Verma" in the substitution application whereas her name is "Hema Verma" – The trial court held this to be a typographical error and corrected the same under Section 152 CPC – Held: A mere error in spelling of the name does not affect the validity of the decree when notices were duly served on the heirs of the deceased tenant and they had full knowledge of the proceedings [Paras 18, 12].

Impleadment of Courts as Opposite Parties – Deprecated Practice – The petitioners had impleaded the Additional District Judge-XII and the Judge Small Causes Court as opposite parties – Held: The practice of impleading courts as opposite parties has been deprecated by the Supreme Court – Courts neither defend their orders before superior courts nor do they contest proceedings – Records can be called for without impleading the court or presiding officer as a party [Paras 4–5].

Decision: Petition dismissed at admission stage.

Criminal Law – Bail – Parity – Accused not named in FIR but arrested along with co-accused from whose possession 40 motorcycles were allegedly recovered – No videography of recovery conducted as required under Section 105 BNSS – Co-accused Shoeb and Owais granted bail on similar grounds – Held: Applicant entitled to bail on grounds of parity and lack of procedural compliance [Paras 3, 5-6]

Evidence – Search and Seizure – Non-Compliance with BNSS – Recovery of motorcycles not recorded via audio-video means as mandated under Section 105 BNSS and Rule 18 of UP BNSS Rules, 2024 – No independent witnesses or uploading on E-Sakshya portal – Held: Creates serious doubt on prosecution version – Non-compliance may benefit accused at bail and trial stages [Paras 12-13, 16, 18]

Police Conduct – Procedural Safeguards – Lack of SOP – Despite clear statutory mandate, no SOP issued by DGP under Rule 18(5) of UP Rules – Court directs DGP to issue detailed SOP for mandatory video recording during seizure – Non-compliance may lead to disciplinary action against erring officers [Paras 17, 19]

Judicial Directions – Systemic Compliance – Registrar (Compliance) directed to forward copy of judgment to DGP, U.P., for issuance of SOP and ensuring compliance with Section 105 BNSS and Rule 18 UP Rules – Objective is to prevent false implication and ensure fair investigation [Paras 19-20]

Decision: Bail granted – Applicant to be released on furnishing personal bond and two sureties – Conditions imposed to ensure cooperation in trial and prevent misuse of bail – Court emphasizes mandatory procedural compliance in future seizures.

Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Personal Search – Non-Compliance with Section 50 – Conviction Set Aside – Accused allegedly found in possession of 450 grams of charas during personal search on a bus – IO failed to inform accused of right to be searched before Magistrate or Gazetted Officer – Held: Violation of Section 50 vitiates conviction – Recovery rendered suspect and inadmissible – Conviction set aside [Paras 16–25].

Investigation – Anticipatory Mention of FIR Details – Recovery Memo Prepared Before FIR – FIR number and NDPS section mentioned in recovery and search memos even before registration of FIR – Casts serious doubt on authenticity and timing of documents – Documents appear to be prepared post-facto – Judicial scrutiny finds prosecution version doubtful [Paras 17–22].

NDPS Act – Evidentiary Standards – Higher Degree of Proof – Supreme Court decisions in Noor Aga and Ranjan Kumar Chadha reiterated – Strict procedural compliance required due to stringent nature of punishment – Courts must ensure individual liberty and fair trial rights not compromised [Paras 18, 23].

Trial – Fairness and Procedural Safeguards – Section 50 Compliance Mandatory – Constitutional mandate of fair trial requires strict adherence to statutory safeguards – Casual or defective investigation cannot form basis of conviction under NDPS Act – Recovery held unreliable [Paras 23–24].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court set aside – Accused acquitted of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act – Bail bonds discharged – Direction to furnish bond under Section 437-A CrPC for appearance before Supreme Court if required.

Criminal Law – Discharge – Scope at Preliminary Stage – Accused seeking discharge contending that he was neither Director nor shareholder of accused company – Magistrate relied on Registrar of Companies records showing petitioner as Director – At discharge stage, court required to see prima facie material and not conduct a roving enquiry – Held: Existence of documentary material showing petitioner as Director sufficient to proceed with trial [Paras 5–6].

Company Offences – Director’s Liability – Economic Offences – Collection of deposits without licence – CBCID final report alleging offences under IPC, RBI Act and Kerala Chitties Act – Directors responsible for management as per Articles of Association – Held: When records show accused as Director during relevant period, criminal liability cannot be ruled out at threshold [Paras 2, 5].

Effect of Writ Proceedings – Direction to Registrar of Companies – Enquiry into Directorship – Mere direction by High Court to conduct enquiry and rectify records, if mistake found – No material produced to show that enquiry concluded in favour of accused – Held: Pendency or existence of such direction does not automatically entitle accused to discharge [Para 6].

Criminal Revision – Interference with Order Refusing Discharge – Revisional court will not interfere unless order suffers from illegality or perversity – Magistrate’s order based on records and relevant considerations – Held: No ground made out for interference under revisional jurisdiction [Paras 5–6].

Liberty Reserved – Quashing Proceedings – Accused permitted to approach High Court for quashing if subsequent enquiry by Registrar of Companies establishes that his name was wrongly shown as Director during period of offence [Final Para].

Decision: Criminal Revision Petition dismissed – Order refusing discharge upheld – Liberty reserved to seek quashment on proof of favourable outcome of Registrar of Companies enquiry.

Patent Law – Standard Essential Patent (SEP) – Infringement of Claim 12 – DVDs as Record Carriers – Liability Affirmed – Respondent filed suits for infringement of Indian Patent IN 218255 claiming EFM+ encoding technology used in DVD manufacturing – Appellants contended they only replicated data using stampers supplied by Moser Baer and did not engage in encoding – Trial court found that Claim 12 covered any record carrier containing modulated signal created using EFM+ coding, regardless of who performed the encoding – DVDs containing such modulated signal infringed the patent, and appellants were liable, irrespective of whether encoding was outsourced – Held: Prima facie, findings on infringement are not egregiously perverse or patently illegal to warrant stay of decree [Paras 16.2.2(i)–(xii), 16.3.3]

Patent Law – Indirect Infringement – Outsourcing of Encoding Process – Appellants Liable – Appellants sourced stampers embedded with modulated signal from third-party Moser Baer – Court held appellants liable under indirect infringement principles and vicarious liability – Claim 12 interpreted to include record carriers made through such outsourced processes – DVDs sold by appellants held to embody infringing content [Paras 204–204.3, 205]

Civil Procedure – Stay of Money Decree – Order XLI Rule 5 CPC – Presumptive Damages Estimation Flawed – Partial Stay Granted – Trial court awarded damages based on presumed replication of 10,000 DVDs per stamper, absent evidentiary basis – No factual foundation for estimate of 65 lakh DVDs for one appellant – Held: Award of damages based on presumptions without supporting material renders decree vulnerable under Lifestyle Equities principle – While findings on infringement, patent validity, and FRAND royalty rate were sustained, execution stayed upon furnishing bank guarantee [Paras 19.3.2.6–19.3.2.14, 19.3.5, 20.4–20.8]

Patent Law – Validity of Patent – Section 64 Patents Act – No Prima Facie Case Made for Revocation – Appellants raised challenges under Sections 64(1)(m), 64(1)(e), and 64(1)(j) of the Patents Act on grounds of suppression, prior art (Sony Patent), and improper divisional application – Trial court held no material suppression or anticipation proved – No prima facie case warranting stay of decree established on this ground [Paras 17.3.4, 17.4.3, 17.5.5, 17.6]

Damages – Computation – FRAND Royalty Accepted – DVD Count Based on Unsupported Assumptions – Royalty rate of US$ 0.03 per DVD not disputed – Number of DVDs presumed based on number of stampers and arbitrary 10,000 DVDs per stamper rule – Court held damages estimate to be conjectural and lacking evidentiary basis – Ordered appellants to furnish bank guarantees instead of deposit [Paras 19.2.2, 19.3.2.6–19.3.2.14, 20.6–20.8]

Decision: Execution of money decree stayed subject to appellants furnishing unconditional, irrevocable bank guarantees covering the principal damages amount within eight weeks – Appeals to proceed on merits – Applications for stay disposed accordingly.

Banking Law – Freezing of Account – Dispute over Company Signatories – Axis Bank froze bank and demat accounts of appellant company citing conflicting communications and management dispute – Freeze based partly on letter from shareholder company (VTL) – Held: Axis Bank had no locus to rely on third-party communication – Bank duty-bound to act on customer’s own valid corporate resolutions – Freeze unjustified especially after ROC and MCA unmarked 'management dispute' status [Paras 31–38]

Company Law – Removal of Directors – Locus Standi – Respondents 5 to 7, erstwhile directors, not reappointed/removed validly by EGMs/AGMs – NCLT rejected their oppression and mismanagement claims under Sections 241 & 242 – Held: Absent any stay by NCLAT, respondents ceased to have locus in company affairs or writ proceedings – Cannot seek recall or impleadment post-disposal of writ petition [Paras 39–44]

Civil Procedure – Maintainability of Recall Application – Recall application and clarificatory application filed post-disposal of writ petition – Held: Such applications not maintainable when no review grounds pleaded under Order XLVII CPC – Addition of parties to disposed-of writ illegal – Order staying prior writ relief and impleading parties without deciding recall application unsustainable [Paras 45–48]

Banking Law – Bank’s Neutrality – Ombudsman and ROC Proceedings – Bank’s intervention in management dispute before NCLT and application for clarification of court’s order without locus – Letter of freeze addressed not to customer company but to M.P. Birla Group – Held: Bank failed in its duties, acted beyond its role, and supported third parties against customer’s instructions [Paras 33, 35–37, 42]

Judicial Discipline – Single Judge Order – Absence of Reasons – Impugned order stayed prior writ relief and kept contempt in abeyance without recording reasons or prima facie findings – Held: Such interim suspension without findings or re-opening writ not sustainable in law [Para 46]

Decision: Appeals allowed – Order dated 19/06/2025 in connection with CAN 1 and CAN 2 of 2025 arising out of WPA No. 6088 of 2025 and CPAN No. 933 of 2025 set aside – Learned Single Judge to first decide recall and clarification applications before hearing contempt – Stay applications also disposed – Observations tentative and not binding on pending writ applications [Paras 49–52]

Service Law – Seniority – Direct Recruitment – BSF – Petitioners were declared unfit in initial medical examination and appointed after being found fit in Review Medical Examination – Claimed seniority with batchmates who joined earlier pursuant to the same selection – Held: Rule 8(2) of the 2002 Rules governs seniority and mandates it to be based on date of continuous regular appointment – Rule 8(3) regarding merit applies only when date of appointment is same – Delay, even if not attributable to petitioners, does not override the statutory mandate – Petitioners cannot claim seniority along with earlier appointees [Paras 10-14, 26-27].

Statutory Interpretation – Rule 8 of BSF Recruitment Rules, 2002 – Rule 8(2) held to apply to all appointments including direct recruitment – Interpretation in Ram Pal Deswal limiting Rule 8(2) to promotions found erroneous – Proviso cannot restrict scope of main provision – Rule 8(3) is subordinate to Rule 8(2) – Seniority must follow date of regular appointment, not merit alone [Paras 18.7-18.13, 21.1-21.6].

Conflicting Precedents – Full Bench resolves conflict – Division Bench ruling in Ram Pal Deswal overruled – Shoorvir Singh Negi approved as correct exposition of law – Other decisions like Naveen Kumar Jha, Avinash Singh, Naresh Kumar and M.V. Sheshagiri held distinguishable or not binding due to absence of Rule-based analysis – Dinesh Kumar also distinguished as dealing with different issue [Paras 7, 20-25].

Decision: Petitions dismissed – Petitioners not entitled to seniority from date of selection process – Seniority to be reckoned from date of actual appointment – No costs [Paras 26-29].