Civil Writ - Natural Justice – Opportunity of Hearing – Revision Dismissed for Non-Appearance – Impugned order passed by Additional Commissioner dismissing OSS Case without hearing the petitioner – Petitioner contended absence of notice and denial of opportunity – Held: Order passed without hearing violates principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained [Paras 3-4].

Judicial Duty – Disposal on Merits – Avoidance of Multiplicity of Proceedings – Court reiterated that a matter should ordinarily be decided on merits after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties – Emphasised that courts should not permit technicalities to defeat substantial justice [Paras 4-5].

Substantial Justice – Technicalities – Preference – When technical considerations are pitted against substantial justice, the latter must prevail – Dismissal of revision without hearing petitioner held contrary to settled principles of law [Para 5].

Remand – Fresh Adjudication – Time-bound Disposal – Impugned order dated 21.06.2024 quashed – OSS Case No.630 of 2022 remitted back to the Additional Commissioner, Additional Revision Court-IV, Bhubaneswar for fresh hearing after giving opportunity to both parties – Direction to dispose of the revision within three months from petitioner’s appearance [Paras 6-9].

Direction to Parties – Appearance Before Authority – Petitioner directed to appear before the Revisional Authority on 12.01.2026 and file certified copy of the judgment for further proceedings [Para 10].

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed – Impugned order set aside – Matter remanded for fresh consideration on merits.

Civil Writ - Religious Institution – Malabar Devaswom Board – Scheme of Administration – Temple governed by statutory scheme framed in 1948 – Petitioner claiming hereditary trusteeship and private temple status – Records disclosed existence of valid scheme under HR&CE Acts of 1926 and 1951 – Temple notified under Section 38 of the Act – Suppression of material facts by petitioner – Held: Administration governed by scheme and not by general provisions of Section 39(2) [Paras 46–47, 53–55].

Trustees – Hereditary Trustee vs Non-Hereditary Trustee – Appointment under Scheme – Where a scheme framed under Section 58 is in force – Appointment of non-hereditary trustees and Executive Officer governed by scheme provisions – Compliance with twin conditions under Section 39(2) not required – Reliance on K. Chathu Achan v. State of Kerala – Held: Appointment valid when made in accordance with scheme [Paras 52–54].

Executive Officer – Power of Appointment – Scheme clause empowering Board – Contention that only hereditary trustee can appoint Executive Officer rejected – Scheme having attained finality empowers Board to appoint Executive Officer to prevent maladministration – Held: Appointment within jurisdiction of Board and Commissioner [Paras 54–57].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Section 99 HR&CE Act – Order passed by Joint Secretary – Validity – Section 99 does not specify designation of officer – Government competent to act through authorised officers – Held: Revisional order not vitiated merely because passed by Joint Secretary [Para 49].

Judicial Review – Article 226 – Interference with administrative orders – Long-standing maladministration, absence of accounts, audit objections, prior enquiries – Sufficient material justifying appointment of Executive Officer – Held: No illegality, arbitrariness or procedural impropriety warranting interference [Paras 56–58].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Orders appointing non-hereditary trustees and Executive Officer upheld – Revisional order of State Government sustained.

Criminal Law – Dowry Death – Section 304-B IPC – Acquittal – Accused convicted by Sessions Court for dowry death and cruelty – Deceased died by falling under a train within seven years of marriage – Prosecution alleged cruelty and harassment for additional dowry – High Court examined requirement of “soon before death” – Held: Prosecution failed to establish proximate and live link between alleged dowry demand and death – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 15-23, 29].

Evidence – Interested Witnesses – Father, Brother and Uncle of Deceased – P.Ws.3, 4 and 10 – Their testimony regarding demand of additional dowry and harassment lacked particulars as to time, date and manner – No evidence of mediation or complaint despite alleged prolonged harassment – Held: Evidence falls in category of neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable and lacked corroboration – Improvements made over FIR – Cannot be sole basis for conviction [Paras 24-27].

Dowry Death – Presumption under Section 113-B Evidence Act – Scope – Presumption arises only when prosecution proves cruelty or harassment for dowry “soon before death” – Mere death within seven years of marriage insufficient – Held: Foundational facts not proved – Presumption not attracted [Paras 18-21, 29].

Criminal Trial – FIR and Improvements – Ex.P1 Report silent about alleged payment of Rs.50,000/- and demand of Rs.2,00,000/- – Material omissions regarding additional dowry demand – Subsequent embellishments during trial – Held: Prosecution version doubtful – Benefit of doubt must go to accused [Paras 27, 29].

Circumstances of Death – Railway Track – Evidence showed incident occurred at busy railway platform – No eyewitnesses – Possibility of suicide without proximate dowry-related cruelty not ruled out – Held: Prosecution failed to rule out alternative hypothesis [Paras 28-29].

Abatement of Appeal – Death of Accused – One of the appellants (A-3) died pending appeal – Appeal abated as against deceased accused – Remaining appeals considered on merits [Para 6, 31].

Decision: Criminal Appeal Nos.2301 and 2600 of 2018 allowed – Convictions and sentences under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC set aside – Accused Nos.1 and 2 acquitted – Fine amounts, if paid, to be refunded – Appeal already dismissed as abated against Accused No.3.

Specific Relief – Specific Performance – Readiness and Willingness – Plaintiffs seeking specific performance of agreement to sell ancestral land – Agreement silent on key requirement of Nazrana amount of ₹1.5 lakhs to obtain Collector’s permission for sale to non-agriculturists – Plaintiffs failed to assist in discharging encumbrances or paying dues to enable sale deed – Held: Plaintiffs failed to prove continuous readiness and willingness as per Section 13(1)(c) of Specific Relief Act – Concurrent findings upheld [Paras 6.2, 10–13].

Contract Law – Agreement to Sell – Frustration – Agreement for sale of ancestral land executed when defendant in financial distress – Land jointly held and encumbered with loans exceeding ₹4 lakhs – Defendant required to obtain subdivision and Collector’s permission, but consideration received was grossly inadequate to meet obligations – Held: Agreement frustrated due to impossibility of performance – Plaintiffs not entitled to decree [Paras 9, 12–13].

Land Laws – Agricultural Land – Permission for Sale to Non-Agriculturist – Agreement did not mention requirement of Collector's permission or Nazrana payment – Plaintiff being non-agriculturist could not complete purchase without such permission – Held: Absence of contractual clause addressing this statutory requirement rendered performance legally impossible [Paras 10–11, 14].

Evidence Act – Concurrent Findings – Credibility of Defendant’s Evidence – Original defendant died before trial – Legal heir (Defendant 1C) deposed with supporting bank documents – Evidence corroborated non-performance and financial incapacity – Trial Court’s reliance upheld – Appellate interference unwarranted [Paras 11–13].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Second Appeal – Concurrent Findings – No Substantial Question of Law – Both courts below correctly appreciated evidence and applied settled law – Second appeal dismissed in absence of any perversity or legal error [Paras 15–16].

Restitution – Return of Deposit – ₹1.51 lakh deposited by plaintiffs pursuant to trial court order – No objection from defendants – Held: Amount with accrued interest to be returned within two weeks based on server copy of judgment [Paras 17–18].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Decree of Trial Court and Appellate Court upheld – Plaintiffs not entitled to specific performance – Deposited amount of ₹1.51 lakhs to be refunded with interest.

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]

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].

Patent Law – Inventive Step – Section 2(1)(ja) Patents Act – Obviousness – Divisional Application – Appellant challenged refusal of patent for fiber reinforced thermoplastic composition of uPVC and ABS with wetted continuous fibers – Controller held claims obvious in light of prior art D1–D7 – Held, prior arts disclosed similar extrusion processes, uPVC–ABS blends and inherent wetting of fibers – No demonstrable technical advancement or economic significance established – Inventive step rightly denied [Paras 3–5, 11].

Patent Law – Obviousness Analysis – Person Skilled in the Art – Judicial Precedents – Appellant relied on Windsurfing–Pozzoli tests and anti-hindsight principles – Held, Controller applied correct test by comparing prior art, identifying differences and assessing obviousness without hindsight – Mere rearrangement or combination of known features insufficient to constitute inventive step [Paras 6–9, 11].

Patent Law – Amendment of Claims – Section 59(1) Patents Act – Scope and Permissibility – Appellant contended that incorporation of “wetted fibers” only narrowed claims – Held, amended claims already comprehended within parent application and disclosed no new inventive concept – Amendment cannot be used to overcome lack of inventive step when core subject matter remains obvious [Paras 5, 11].

Patent Law – Divisional Application – Section 16(2) Patents Act – Overlapping Subject Matter – Controller found amended claims fully covered by parent application which itself was not granted – Held, divisional application impermissible where no distinct invention emerges – Rejection justified [Paras 3, 11].

Patent Law – Role of High Court in Appeal under Section 117A – Interference with Controller’s Technical Findings – High Court will not substitute its view where Controller has undertaken detailed comparison of claims and prior art and applied settled legal principles – Impugned order found reasoned and free from legal infirmity [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed – Order dated 31.07.2024 passed by Joint Controller of Patents and Designs refusing grant of patent upheld – No order as to costs.

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.

Criminal Law – Section 311 CrPC – Re-examination of Witness – Petitioner accused in a cheque dishonour case sought recall of complainant for further cross-examination on the ground that previous counsel failed to put material questions – Trial Court and Revisional Court rejected the application citing prior extensive cross-examination on three occasions – Held: Change of counsel is not a valid ground to permit recall of a witness – Such power cannot be exercised merely due to alternate legal strategy of new counsel [Paras 5-8, 13-16, 18]

Section 311 CrPC – Scope and Discretion – Reaffirmed that the power to recall witnesses must be exercised judiciously and only when their further examination is essential to the just decision of the case – Cannot be allowed to fill lacunae or delay trial – Recall cannot be routine or based on mere change of strategy or counsel – Abuse of process of law if invoked without valid reason [Paras 11-12, 15-17]

Fair Trial – Article 21 of the Constitution – Rights of the Accused and Victim – Emphasis placed on the balance of interests between the accused, the victim, and societal interest – Repeated recall of witnesses would cause undue hardship and hamper the trial process – Fairness of trial cannot be interpreted to allow repeated cross-examinations without compelling justification [Paras 17, 19]

Delay – Belated Application – Application filed two years after original cross-examination concluded – No sufficient explanation offered – Held: Such delay shows lack of diligence and supports inference that the application was intended to delay proceedings [Paras 9, 14, 15]

Decision: Petition dismissed – Court found no merit in the request to recall the complainant under Section 311 CrPC – Prior opportunities for cross-examination had been adequately availed – Change of counsel or different trial strategy not sufficient ground for recall – No interference warranted with impugned order of Revisional Court [Paras 18-20]